User talk:Esculenta

Nuts

What a ridiculous brouhaha! Take the month to do something more rewarding than dealing with this nuthouse. ;) I heard back from Paul Kirk at Kew (i.e. Index/Species Fungorum), and it appears COL was supposedly using LIAS data for lichen taxonomy rather than Kew (per a decision made between 2000 and 2010). This has apparently gone by the wayside (since the COL reference is clearly Kew), but nobody had notified Paul, so he's not been keeping up with any updates. And doesn't have the ability to do so, since he's now single-handedly maintaining the entire plant database. Sigh. Perhaps we can contact someone at COL to see where the problem lies? MeegsC (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

MeegsC, the editor can be unblocked quickly if they respond in detail to the reasonable concerns that have been expressed about their editing methods. Cullen328 (talk) 18:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Hm, well sure, they were not cooperatives also with me (I was encouraging Esculenta to apply at BRFA per WP:MEATBOT, which they apparently didn't). But Esculenta was open about using AI and I believe used it good. Articles seem fairly expanded and informative. Admin David Eppstein seemed rather pleased with the double checked article and maybe Esculenta thought the issue was settled. But of course, with over 30'000 edits and 10 years on Wikipedia, Esculenta is an experienced editor and could know what's expected if one raises concerns. Removing several talk page messages (by an Admin) and not replying to them is not really cooperative. I hope Esculenta makes an unblock request.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

God, this was such a mess. Very disappointed in how WP:ANI has chosen to handle this. It appears strongly like an "Assume guilt before innocence", I'm not surprised they didn't want to engage with it. I get that WP:COMMUNICATE is a legitimate criticism, but the amount of assumption surrounding their use of AI and misuse of WP:MASSCREATE is just inappropriate. Either produce evidence or drop it. There's a reason we say 'Wikipedia only retains the editors it deserves', and, once again, the ANI dog-pile has reared it's ugly head to prove that adage true. Mountains out of Molehills.

Esculenta, I am genuinely sorry for this whole mess. I hope to see you around in the future but don't blame you if you choose to leave. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 19:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Etriusus - I encountered an editor who was open about their use of AI, who had created five articles in nine minutes, and who talked of having written 82 articles in a single day, an achievement they intended to “crush in the future”.[1] I asked them about their editing methods. My query was blanked with an edit summary that read, “mama says it’s not a good idea to talk to strangers who ask too many questions.”[2] On asking again, I was again blanked with the message, “Please fuck off”.[3] Just so we’re clear about my rushing to an assumption of guilt. KJP1 (talk) 21:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

And yet there's no evidence. There's nothing wrong with the articles made. No one has produced anything showing even the hint that the articles were AI-made. Since, if they were, then Esculenta has solved every single problem that has happened with other people's use of LLMs, since their articles are perfect, use proper paraphrasing, and have accurate references used that reflects the content. This is all indeed just a witch hunt based on an accusation and no presentation of any evidence whatsoever. Silverseren^C 21:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Silverseren - Thanks for that. Bluntly, I’d be more interested in Esculenta’s account. KJP1 (talk) 21:34, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

@KJP1 I do not dispute that WP:COMMUNICATE is an issue, although I don't agree with a month long block. All of these claims are circumstantial evidence at best for WP:MASSCREATE via AI, please read the WP:ANI thread because this has already been discussed at length. Also, you did come out of the gate a bit aggressive with an accusation that very much assumed guilt. I was somewhat involved with Esculenta's AI reviews at GA, namely I let them practice on Ionia Volcano and Hanhart syndrome, and everything was done above board and with consent.

I did not call you out, I'm just making my dislike of how the discussion was handled known. This does tell me, however, that you may be too emotionally involved in this discussion since you're coming after people who disagree with the outcome. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 21:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Etriusus - I’ve not commented on the thread at all, since an apology six days ago. So I think “coming after people” is too strong. What I’ve seen this evening is “assume guilt before innocence” / “ANI dog pile reared its ugly head” / “whole mess” / “witch hunt”. I therefore explained the background to my original flagging. I shall now resume radio silence myself. KJP1 (talk) 21:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I remain incredibly disturbed by Cullen328's block. KJP1's initial comment at the Help desk read (in part) "I'm not competent to assess whether or not they are making use of AI, whether it would be a good/bad/right/wrong thing if they are, or whether their actions are in fact completely appropriate" (with KJP1 using similar wording at ANI after being directed there from the help desk). Cullen328 issued the block based on the help desk thread. KJP1 tentatively expressed a concern, but no attempt was made to investigate whether are concern that was expressed tentatively was true. Some of the mess/dog pile/witch hunt involves other editors commenting in the ANI who are assuming that Esculenta was using AI, without making any effort to verify that. Tools for detecting AI generated text don't flag Esculenta's articles. Esculenta was making similar articles before ChatGPT was released. Even with AI, creating 5 articles in 9 minutes, that are (per Silver seren) "are perfect, use proper paraphrasing, and have accurate references used that reflects the content" (not to mention have properly formatted references, templates and categories) would be a miracle, and Esculenta's rate of article creation is much more likely to be explained by offline drafts uploaded rapidly. If I raise a concern at ANI about an editor blanking and redirecting 1000 articles, an admin should at least investigate that 1000 articles were blanked and redirected before blocking rather than just taking my word for it. But now there are several editors who are convinced (without looking into the situation in any detail) that Esculenta was using AI, based on an ANI thread that started out with a tentatively expressed concern. If KPJ1's concern as raised at the help desk/ANI had mentioned Esculenta's refusing to answer questions about their methods of article creation, COMMUNICATE might have been grounds for a rapid block (again, blocking admin should confirm that there was a refusal to answer questions). Blocking on suspicision of AI creation (with no investigation) and post-facto justifying the block on grounds of COMMUNICATE (unconvered by investigation) is inappropriate.

I really hope Esculenta decides to return to editing. Plantdrew (talk) 04:09, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Right there with you Plantdrew. And I have to say that the initial "badgering of the witness" approach taken by KJP1 (without explaining why s/he was involved and what the potential issues might be) would have probably put my back up too. There was no good faith assumed by anybody involved here. Yes, Esculenta should have responded more civilly. I have to say that I have found them completely approachable in every communication I have ever had with them. But then again, I never went in with all guns blazing, so to speak. :P MeegsC (talk) 08:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Use of AI

I am bringing this discussion here, I am not giving up on my hope that you'll be able to help us. Do you know anything about this or have a better solution for us? Paradise Chronicle (talk) 03:36, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

To who ever sees through the page history and sees someone wanted me to stop already and then removed the comment. This is meant as a good faith request for advice from a potentially helpful editor.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:42, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

In reality, Paradise Chronicle, you might have had better luck with getting a response if you hadn't accused Esculenta multiple times of being "not cooperative". And your heading this section "Use of AI" when Esculenta was blocked for "possibly using AI in article creation" certainly smacked of rubbing it in! I removed my initial comment when I realized you were asking for help. MeegsC (talk) 23:18, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Paradise Chronicle, you seem to have convinced yourself that Esculenta was using AI (despite nobody having presented any firm evidence for this), and therefore would be able to help Wikipedia figure out how to use AI properly. Esculenta can not help Wikipedia figure out how to employ AI because all the actual evidence suggests that Esculenta was not using AI. Plantdrew (talk) 02:08, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Plantdrew, Esculenta freely admitted to using AI for a couple of GA reviews. I think that's why Paradise Chronicle was hoping for help with the other issue they're trying to solve. MeegsC (talk) 07:47, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

May 2023 lichen task force newsletter

The May edition of the lichen task force newsletter is now available. MeegsC (talk) 09:31, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I hope to see you back again

I hope to see you return again once the block ends, Esculenta. Please don't let admin abuse by Cullen328 on your practice of making articles offline and creating them all at once, a practice you had been doing long before these LLMs were even a thing (thus making the accusation baseless on its face), make you leave the project. And I don't think they deserve any response to you regarding even your minimal use of AI for GA reviews. I hope you never respond to such harassment. You do great work here. And I hope to see much more of it in the future. Silverseren^C 21:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind sentiment! I used my "break" to write many new articles, which should appear in the near future. Esculenta (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Welcome back! With the very best wishes to success. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:38, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Use of AI in Reviews

Good day! Thanks for taking the time to look at the article I requested a peer review on. I appreciate you taking the time to do it, however I would humbly recommend you reconsider your use of ChatGPT to conduct these reviews. There are a couple of good leads in there, however it is mostly generic feedback or suggestions to use sources of questionable utility. I at one point attempted to use a variety of AI platforms to assist in researching a few articles I was working on, however I quickly discovered that the technology is just not quite there yet. They would, for instance, generate fake citations and fabricate completely inaccurate histories. You yourself noted in your feedback that you do not have an opinion on the validity or worth of the suggestions, which kind of defeats the purpose of the peer review. I will be re-submitting this article for peer review, and I would kindly ask you refrain from generating a review through ChatGPT and then closing it. nf utvol (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Nfutvol, just FYI, Esculenta did not close/archive that peer review. MeegsC (talk) 17:48, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

MeegsC, ah, yes, I see now that it looks like the bot closed the peer review. Whoops! nf utvol (talk) 19:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

:)

It's great to see you back! I was worried I was going to have to carry on with the lichen project by myself. ;) I've got a crazy few months of RL work ahead of me, but hope to get stuck back in sometime in September. MeegsC (talk) 21:44, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi! I have a stack of new articles and article expansions, written during my exile, that are more or less ready to go. I plan to publish them (hopefully uneventfully) and then I'll also be away until late August. Keep an eye on the task force assessment page ... Esculenta (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

@Esculenta I'm a bit late to the party but I think I speak for most when I say Welcome Back!! 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 03:06, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Same, glad you haven't been deterred from your prolific and productive lichen contributions. Choess (talk) 14:55, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

August 2023 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive: On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Category:Lichens of Central Europe has been nominated for renaming

Category:Lichens of Central Europe has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Heterosporium

Hi Esculenta, I'm glad to see that you are back adding to fungi articles again. As Heterosporium luci has been mentioned on the TOL talk page, I had a look and note that Heterosporium is now considered as a junior synonym for the genus Cladosporium in both the Index Fungorum and MycoBank. Perhaps these pages should be moved to reflect this as neither GBIF or CoL are the most up to date sources. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 23:24, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I had checked these sites prior to creating the article, and have checked them again now. Contrary to what you note, both of them seem to indicate that Heterosporium luci is indeed the current name (e.g., Index Fungorum, Species Fungorum, and MycoBank. Could you please link to pages suggesting otherwise? Esculenta (talk) 03:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Thinking about this some more, I suspect that the several Heterosporium species accepted by Index/Species Fungorum (including Heterosporium luci) are "orphaned species" (i.e., those named and formally described, but not updated/reassessed following a revision of their parent genus, often due to lack of fresh material for DNA analysis). I'll try to source this and mention this both in the genera articles (Cladosporium and Heterosporium). You're correct that the latter genus should ultimately be merged into the former (but how to treat the neglected orphans?). Esculenta (talk) 23:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

The cited paper by Bensch et al. says "According to David (1997), probably not belonging to Cladosporium s. str., but rather cercosporoid (Passalora, incl. Phaeoramularia)" Apparently no combination in any other genus has been published. Plantdrew (talk) 16:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks; I've added a few details to that effect in the species article. Now waiting for science to progress... Esculenta (talk) 17:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Teloschistaceae

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Teloschistaceae you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:40, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Teloschistaceae

The article Teloschistaceae you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Teloschistaceae for comments about the article, and Talk:Teloschistaceae/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:21, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Carbonea

Hi Esculenta: Quick question – should Carbonea be in the category "lichenicolous fungi" rather than "lichen genera"? It doesn't appear to contain any of the latter. MeegsC (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

It should have both cats (I just added the former); according to this paper, there's at least 1 lichen species in the genus. Esculenta (talk) 17:39, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Contest?

Hello, I noticed you've been working a lot on Tree of Life related articles in the past month; maybe you'd like to note your contributions at the Tree of Life Contest? AryKun (talk) 14:26, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Elke Mackenzie

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Elke Mackenzie you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Moriwen -- Moriwen (talk) 18:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Elke Mackenzie

The article Elke Mackenzie you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Elke Mackenzie and Talk:Elke Mackenzie/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Moriwen -- Moriwen (talk) 20:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Help!

Any chance you have access to the following article? It's not something I can get through the WP:Library, and the version that used to be available online no longer is! I'm trying to find which page number says there may be another 8,000 or so as yet unidentified lichens. Any help appreciated!

Lücking, Robert; Rivas-Plata, E; Chavez, JL; Umaña, L; Sipman, HJM (2009). "How many tropical lichens are there… really?". Bibliotheca Lichenologica. 100: 399–418.

I happen to own this volume! On page 408, they suggest that there may be a total of 28,000 lichen species globally; page 410 estimate 19,000 accepted taxa, on the same page, estimate of undiscovered species = 7000. Lots of discussion about how to "count" taxonomic orphans (old taxa not seen for a long time), species pairs, photosymbiodemes, cryptic species, and chemotypes. Happy to email if you desire more info. Esculenta (talk) 21:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Esculenta! You're a star... And yes, it would be great to get a copy of the article, thanks! MeegsC (talk) 08:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Article has been emailed! Esculenta (talk) 16:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Esculenta. Got it! The pix are tiny though. So tiny that I can't read them. :/ No worries. At the moment, I've got other things to work on. MeegsC (talk) 20:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Ah sorry, when I sent the pics I picked small resolution, thinking there might be a problem with 10 images that were ~4MB each. I could try again with "medium" resolution, if you think your email server can handle it (or else split up the images into multiple emails). Esculenta (talk) 20:15, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Google accepts incoming emails of up to 50 MB. So unless all the files add up to more than that, we should be okay. MeegsC (talk) 20:25, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok I tried again, medium sized. Esculenta (talk) 20:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Looks perfect. MeegsC (talk) 09:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Tarbertia

Hi Esculenta: Lücking et al show Tarbertia to be monotypic, containing a single lichen species in their 2016 listing. Is this no longer considered to be correct? I notice you removed the lichen genera cat. MeegsC (talk) 12:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I expanded the article a bit to be sure, but yes, there doesn't seem to be any sign of lichenisation. I think that Lücking et al. simply made a compilation error. Esculenta (talk) 15:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay. I'll remove it from our outline. MeegsC (talk) 17:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Elke Mackenzie

The article Elke Mackenzie you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Elke Mackenzie for comments about the article, and Talk:Elke Mackenzie/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Moriwen -- Moriwen (talk) 14:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Elixjohnia

Hiya Esculenta! When you get the chance, can you please check the last section of Elixjohnia? It keeps refering to "Jackelixia", which I'm assuming isn't correct. Also, did you not add the other new genera (other than Ikaeria) from the same paper for a reason? Or did you just not get to them yet? MeegsC (talk) 17:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi! You can understand my confusion, when there's the same-family genera Elixjohnia and Jackelixia, and the type species of the former is Elixjohnia jackelixia – Sheesh! All of the Teloschistaceae generic redlinks are on my one of my to-do lists; some of them I have waiting in browser tabs, in various states of completion. Esculenta (talk) 17:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

LOL. I feel your pain; my head was swimming just reading it! XD MeegsC (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Hemiamyloid

One for the glossary. It's in our Rockefellera article, and was a red link. I've modified it to point to the glossary, figuring we could add the description there – but I don't know what it means! MeegsC (talk) 09:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Added! Esculenta (talk) 14:17, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Arthopyreniaceae

Hi Esculenta: Any suggestions what to do about the genera currently listed in our article about the family Arthopyreniaceae? Species Fungorum shows all but Arthopyrenia to be synonyms (see here), but who knows if that's up to date. Wijayawardene et al don't show anything other than Arthopyrenia, but says "5 + ca. 100 orphaned", whatever that means! MeegsC (talk) 12:45, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

• I see that it was synonymised with Trypetheliaceae in 2021, see doi:10.5943/mycosphere/12/1/10. I'll read the paper and make the changes to our article(s) sometime this weekend. BTW, "orphaned species" are those that have been named and formally described, but have not been updated and reassessed following a revision of the genus they are in. Esculenta (talk) 15:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

• Done updating. Esculenta (talk) 17:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Great! Thanks... MeegsC (talk) 20:56, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Ostropomyces

Is this one a lichen genus or not? I read the article and I'm still not sure what the authors think! ;) MeegsC (talk) 17:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Definitely not lichenised; my bad with the incorrect category. Esculenta (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

November lichen task force newsletter...

...is available here. MeegsC (talk) 09:33, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Placidium arboreum

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Placidium arboreum you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of SilverTiger12 -- SilverTiger12 (talk) 21:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Teloschistin

Can you please have a second look at the chemical structure? The image I added matches all the chemical data in the infobox. Both Pubchem and Chemical Abstracts indicate that fallacinol and teloschistin are synonyms. Is there maybe something I'm missing? Innerstream (talk) 17:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

• Looks like I'm missing something. I did see the claim of synonymy, but thought it was an error. For example, this thesis describes isolating fallacinol (translated from German): "Furthermore, the chemical characterization of the isolated pure substance was conducted by comparing the UV-VIS spectrum with literature [34], in which absorption maxima for Fallacinol are stated as λmax (EtOH) = 221, 261, 289, and 421 nm. These can also be confirmed for the isolated substance (see Figure 27). Additionally, a ^1H-NMR spectrum of the compound was recorded (see Figure 28) and could be compared with the literature data [34]. The recorded IR spectrum of Fallacinol can be found in the appendix under 6.2. Finally, a melting point of 236°C for Fallacinol was determined, which is within the melting range of 236-237°C reported in the literature [12]." The m.p and spectral #'s are different than that of teloschistin. Then they give a chemical structure identical to that of teloschistin. I need more time to figure it out. Esculenta (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it. It does seem like there might be some confusion in the literature. I'll leave it to you to figure out how to proceed, but if there is anything I can do to help from the chemistry side, please let me know. Innerstream (talk) 18:12, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah it seems that fallacinol and teloschistin were discovered and characterised independently, each acquired a small body of literature, and then it was later figured out that they're same compound. I'll recreate the page later at fallacinol when I've got the dual historical part figured out enough to make a proper account of it. Thanks for the heads-up! Esculenta (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Placidium arboreum

The article Placidium arboreum you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Placidium arboreum for comments about the article, and Talk:Placidium arboreum/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of SilverTiger12 -- SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:22, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Buellia frigida

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Buellia frigida you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 18:03, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Femoral gland

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Femoral gland you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Femoral gland

The article Femoral gland you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Femoral gland for comments about the article, and Talk:Femoral gland/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pulchrocladia retipora

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Pulchrocladia retipora you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Etriusus -- Etriusus (talk) 04:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pulchrocladia retipora

The article Pulchrocladia retipora you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Pulchrocladia retipora and Talk:Pulchrocladia retipora/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Etriusus -- Etriusus (talk) 04:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Naetrocymbe and Naetrocymbaceae

Hey Esculenta! Wondering about these two. I'm assuming they should be added to the outline of lichens (family and genus lists) but they're not in Lücking's list of lichen-forming taxa, even though they were described before 2016. Resurrected? Or something else? I need to know which reference to include since they're added. MeegsC (talk) 08:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

• For Naetrocymbaceae, you could use the 2016 Syllabus of Plant Families source (p.71; see Teloschistaceae article for full citation)), which says that Naetrocymbaceae is "rarely (weakly) lichenized or lichenicolous", or the Fungal Families of the World (p. 236; see Caliciaceae for biblio details), which says that the family is "saprobic ... or lichenized with green algae."

As for the genus Naetrocymbe, I've been sensing a reluctance by lichenologists to include the genus as lichen-forming. It seems that some think/thought some lichenized species that have been transferred to the genus should have instead been accomodated in Arthonia, which contains both lichenized and non-lichenized species. Lücking explicitly discusses this genus in his "Corrections and amendments to the 2016 classification..." update, mentioning a species that was proposed for transfer in 2009 (Naetrocymbe herrei), concluding "In lieu of molecular data and the fact that systematic placement of a taxon in this morphodeme is almost impossible to predict with phenotype features alone, we refrain from formal generic redisposition of this species, but it should not be used as an argument to include Naetrocymbe among the genera containing lichenized species." However, since then, Naetrocymbe saxicola and Naetrocymbe mori-albae (both lichenized) have been added to the genus, so it's impossible to ignore. In this 2022 article, Vondrak et al. refer to the genus as "semilichens" (pretty much the same idea as the idea of borderline lichen that's on our to-do list), with species that "do not form distinctly lichenized thalli, but perhaps have a loose association with algae". I'm of the opinion that we should include these borderline lichens in the task force remit (there's not a lot of them known anyway). Maybe a solution (for the Outline of lichens page) is to write up the borderline lichen page, and mention these explicitly? Esculenta (talk) 14:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

p.s., Andina should be updated to Wilketalia. Esculenta (talk) 14:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Anaptychia ciliaris

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Anaptychia ciliaris you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Maxim Masiutin -- Maxim Masiutin (talk) 04:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Anaptychia ciliaris

The article Anaptychia ciliaris you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Anaptychia ciliaris for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Maxim Masiutin -- Maxim Masiutin (talk) 04:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pulchrocladia retipora

The article Pulchrocladia retipora you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Pulchrocladia retipora for comments about the article, and Talk:Pulchrocladia retipora/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Etriusus -- Etriusus (talk) 06:42, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Anaptychia ciliaris

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Anaptychia ciliaris you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Anaptychia ciliaris

The article Anaptychia ciliaris you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Anaptychia ciliaris for comments about the article, and Talk:Anaptychia ciliaris/GA2 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Histamine N-methyltransferase Review

A few years ago you reviewed the article on Histamine N-methyltransferase that I submitted as a GA nomination. I resolved all the observations, thank you very much! I specifically commment on each of your suggestions on how I resolved them. Still, I did not explicitly asked you to review the article again. It would be helpful for me to learn if the same levels of criteria applied each time for the first and the second version of the article. Therefore, can you please review it again? The article could still be expanded by other aspects on HNMT on health such as its possible association with mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS) and other conditions, but there is never a limit, each article can be endlessly updated and enhanced, so I think the version as it is now is a good balance between completeness and conciseness. Thank you very much for considering my request. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 22:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)