User talk:Sasata

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Reminders to myself[edit]

State of Genera lists in family articles[edit]

Not including monogeneric families. I'm afraid things leave much to be desired, and I can hardly proceed without reasonably accurate lists of genera-by-family... Circéus (talk) 16:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, give me a day or two. Sasata (talk) 16:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Also, you migth want to review what we had unearthed while working on Marasmiaceae, as it is relevant to some cases here. Circéus (talk) 16:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we want three crucial things here:

  1. Any given genus is listed for one and one family only (or incertae sedis).
    1. The genus article does not conflict with the family one.
  2. We list as many genera in the article as the number we have in text.
  3. The number in family articles is the same as in List of Agaricales genera (noting where the numbers of genera in a family differ from the number in that entry for the Dict.).

Beyond that there are places where practical choices will have to be made, as you noted about Hormographiella. I suspect Entolomataceae might come down to what is simplest for us (e.g. if in some case most species don't have names under Entoloma, as happens with Endoptychum). Circéus (talk) 20:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Hmmm, Crepidotaceae and Chromocyphellaceae need to be added to various places, according to this ... the work keeps piling up ... Sasata (talk) 00:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Maybe we should stay with Kirk & al.'s Inocybaceae here, but maybe that's just my instinct. These devellopment are really nothing short of a Fungal equivalent of the APG revolution, but they lack a "central synthesis", with Kirk & al. slow to take up on these changes. Circéus (talk) 00:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I dunno. From the paper: "The present investigation serves to highlight a number of contentious issues relating to recent molecular studies of the Crepidotaceae in particular, and molecular systematics in general: As has been shown before, taxon sampling is of crucial importance, and the addition of various key taxa may have considerable influence on the resulting phylogenetic hypotheses. In this study, most of the investigations differ widely in their choice of ingroup (and outgroup) taxa, leading to widely different hypotheses of higher-level relationships." So all this work may have to be revised in the future. This sort of stuff is why I find it easier to work on single species, despite my "mission" to fill out the higher-level taxa. Ok, that's enough for me today, I feel like doing something else :) Sasata (talk) 00:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
        • What where Kirk & al. thinking anyway? You can't synonymize Crepidotaceae under Inocybaceae under any rule of the code! Circéus (talk) 00:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Having thought about it a bit more, how about we keep everything in Crepidotaceae (=? Inocybaceae sensu Kirk & al.) with commentary to the effect the family is known to be polyphyletic, but an final disposition has yet to be agreed on? It's already what we do about Cystodermateae and Endoptychum (at least in List of Agaricaceae genera), for example. Circéus (talk) 13:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
          • Sound good to me. I will try to sort out Amylocorticiales, Crepidotaceae, Inocybaceae, and Chromocyphellaceae today. Sasata (talk) 13:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Ok, I started an article at Amylocorticiales (will be adding more over the next few days). Any opinion on how we should handle the taxonomy of genera within? Give family as incertae sedis, and redirect Amylocorticiaceae to Amylocorticiales? Sasata (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
    • When I read it, it seemed pretty obvious they were better circumscribing Amylocorticiaceae and moving it to a monotypic order. The only genera that could be said to become incertae sedis would be those (if any) that they excluded from Amylocorticiaceae without assigning them a putative family. Circéus (talk) 18:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • So apparently Cribbea might be in Physalacriaceae. This is convenient (if correct: I don,t have access to that journal) as it resets Cortinariaceae to the correct number of genera, but it threatens Physalacriaceae with Cribbeaceae. w00t! </sarcasm> Circéus (talk) 13:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
    • What fun would it be if it wasn't a challenge? I don't have access to that journal, but I know who does. I'll ask if I can get it and update the page. Sasata (talk) 14:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
      • I got the paper from Cas (very nice paper, BTW), and yes, it's clearly in the Physalacriaceae, pretty close to Oudemansiella. Sasata (talk) 14:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
  • For Bolbitiaceae, I'll start work and add a note on the Agaricales families list about the 17 v. 15 discrepancy. For Entolomataceae, the Wikipedia way is typically "when in doubt, be conservative", so going with six genera and noting the dict. disagreement is a reasonable approach. I'll be waiting on a usable combined list for Inocybaceae and Crepidotaceae at the latter before I start on it. This leaves me with a reasonable buffer to work on.Circéus (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Actually, having now looked at Co-David & al., I say we go with three genera (Clitop., Entol., Rhodocybella), since they made all the necessary combination (they suspect Rhodocybella to fall in Clitopilus, but keep it separate for now). I've edited the family list accordingly, and will now do the same for the generic list. Circéus (talk) 12:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Which author is being followed for Hygrophoraceae? Not only is the number of genera in the lead not that of the Dict., but we list 11 in the taxobox, which, although the number given in dict., are definitely not those placed there in that work. Circéus (talk) 00:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Some investigation here: We have Pseudoarmillariella under Tricholomataceae (including the list of genera), but it seems to belong fairly clearly in Hygrophoraceae. That genus is unplaced in the Dict., which recognizes Cuphophyllus, but that recognition seems unwarranted. If we add Camarophyllus and Gliophorus, but exclude Camarophyllopsis, we get 11 genera: the 10 from Dict. with three extra (Pseudoarm., Camarophyllus, Gl.) and two cut off (Cuph., Camarophyllopsis; the first seems doomed to synonymy, the second belongs somewhere else not yet clear) [1], [2]. I will be working with that. Circéus (talk) 18:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Hi Circeus, I'm still with you, just devoting my limited wiki-time to finishing a primate article offline. Will get back into Agaricales once this monkey is off my back (lol). Sasata (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
        • It's okay. As it is, it appears the one part where your input will be really needed are the Physalacriaceae, Inocybaceae/Crepidotaceae and Strophariaceae. I'm Probably going to have to expand a ridiculous amount of energy figuring out what's going on with Maccagnia too. Circéus (talk) 16:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Family Genera
in lead
in list
Amylocorticiaceae 10 8 What do we do of the Amylocorticiales paper?
  • I say we use it. The authors are heavy hitters in fungal molecular phylogenetics, they used a 6-locus dataset & large sample size, so it looks good. I'll update pages soonish. Sasata (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes check.svg Done
Bolbitiaceae 17 15 Found Cyphellopus and Galerella. Setchelliogaster may belong here too (says IF & MycoBank; Dict. says either Bolbitiaceae or Cortinariaceae)
Clavariaceae 7 7
Cortinariaceae 12 13[1] I confirmed that all 13 genera listed are given by the Dict as being in this family, so .... ? Will make stubs for those redlinks. Done.
Cyphellaceae 16 16
Entolomataceae 4 6[2] The Dict prefers to lump Rhodocybe, Rhodocybella, Rhodogaster, Richoniella, and several others not listed here into Entoloma. Many other sources keep them (or combinations thereof) separate. Who do we follow? The correct path to follow, I suspect, will only be revealed with much research ...
Fistulinaceae 3 3
Hydnangiaceae 2 (List)
4 (article)
4 # of genera depends on whether one treats the truffle-like Hydnangium and Podohydnangium as separate or lumped into Laccaria (like the Dict. does). Will investigate further.
Hygrophoraceae 9 11
Inocybaceae 13 10
Lyophyllaceae 8 9 All nine genera listed in the article belong in this family, says Dict. (Lyophyllopsis, however, is listed as "? Lyophyllaceae"
Mycenaceae 10 11 I guess the extra genus is the extinct Protomycena, to which the Dict. does not assign a family. Interestingly, they say the name is invalid.
Might be because their way of counting anamorphs is at best murky: they seem not to count Ugola in Lyophyllaceae; do they include Decapitatus in their count for Mycenaceae? Impossible to tell. If they don't, they give ten, but list nine (which becomes 10 with Protomycena).
Niaceae 6 6
Phelloriniaceae 2 2
Physalacriaceae 11 16 *Guyanagaster is new and not accounted for in the Dict
  • don't know about Hormomitaria-Dict says = Physalacria; Fungorum says it's valid; Mycobank says it's in the Marasmiaceae; no recent literature
    • I say we keep it in. It seems to be traditionally treated close to Physalacria, and MB seems to have it in Marasmiaceae because no family monograph of either group has been published since the 80s. I say edge on separate genus in Phys.
  • Dactylosporina: Dict says Marasmiaceae "or perhaps Physalacriaceae"; Fungorum & MycoBank says Marasmiaceae
  • Himantia is anamorphic; not sure about the Dict's accounting for anamorph genera
    • Dict. has Himantia unplaced to anything ("anamorphic Fungi").
Pleurotaceae 6 7 6 Fixed. Resupinatus was in there erroneously.
Pluteaceae 4 4
Psathyrellaceae 12 6 12 Now updated to include 12 genera. I included the anamorphic Hormographiella, don't know if that's "cheating" or not, but it has Coprinopsis teleomorphs, so it clearly belongs in this family.
Pterulaceae 12 12
Schizophyllaceae 2 2
Strophariaceae 18 13 In Matheny et al., 2006, they showed that Galerina, Phaeocollybia, Psilocybe (bluing ones), Anamika, Hebeloma, Alnicola, and Flammula cluster in a branch that is sister to the Stropharicaceae sensu strico. However, no formal familial change was made, and the Dict. classification does not follow this phylogeny (and they do state explicitly that they have taken into account the molecular results from that 2006 issue of Mycologia where several higher-level phylogenetics papers were published.) How to approach this on Wikipedia? About a year ago someone from the Matheny lab changed the families for these genera to Hymenogastraceae; I changed some of them back, because I wasn't convinced in some cases (i.e., the type species wasn't used in the analysis). Are we in limbo until the next phylogenetics paper comes out?
I think following either is fine. Looks like an editorial, not formal scientific choice on the part of Kirk & al., and either choice is phylogenetically valid, plus the study actually says (probably accounting for Kirk & al.'s approach): "Indeed Bayesian analyses [...] significantly support [...] the union of Hymenogastraceae and Strophariaceae s. str. A recent 25S rRNA only analysis suggested a rather inclusive treatment of the Strophariaceae."
Tapinellaceae 2 3 All three genera listed seem valid, and are given by the Dict itself as belonging in this family.
Typhulaceae 6 6
  1. ^ Descolea listed here and in Bolbitiaceae
    • Now removed from the Bolbitiaceae.
  2. ^ With two unlinked

Reached maximum completion[edit]

So I've just finished adding all I could, except for Physalacriaceae, Strophariaceae (incl. Hemigasteraceae) and Crepidotaceae (incl. Inocybaceae), for which (as said above) I'm reliant on you to establish lists of genera we are reasonably happy with. If Crepidotaceae ends up above 20 genera or so, I'll make it a separate list. Circéus (talk) 23:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of your Russulales idea, I'd make it a combined list for families and Genera, or at least consider it as a possibility. However, I notice the article clearly states Clavicorona ought to be in the Agaricales, but I can't find a family placement for it (except MycoBank, in the Tricholomataceae, but I don't trust it all that much). Circéus (talk) 00:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Boletopsis nothofagi[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Boletopsis nothofagi you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg 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 Legobot, on behalf of Seppi333 -- Seppi333 (talk) 02:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Celebration time[edit]

2012. День металлурга в Донецке 677.jpg The coloured skies award for lighting the way
Hi Sasata, some metalloid-enabled fireworks as a way of thanking you for
your help here wrt to the metalloid article, recently promoted to FA. Please let me
know if I could return the investment.  Sandbh (talk) 00:34, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

FA congratulations[edit]

Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of Morchella rufobrunnea to FA status recently. If you would like to see this (or any other FA) appear as "Today's featured article" soon (either on a particular date or on any available date), please nominate it at the requests page. If you'd like to see an FA appear on a particular date in the next year or so, please add it to the "pending" list. In the absence of a request, the article may end up being picked at any time (although with about 1,307 articles waiting their turn at present, there's no telling how long – or short! – the wait might be). If you'd got any TFA-related questions or problems, please let me know. BencherliteTalk 18:29, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Boletus luridus[edit]

This is a note to let the main editors of Boletus luridus know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on June 20, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at present, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 20, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Boletus luridus mushroom

Boletus luridus, commonly known as the lurid bolete, is a fungus of the bolete family, found in deciduous woodlands on chalky soils in Asia, Europe, and eastern North America. Fruit bodies arise in summer and autumn and may be abundant. It is a solid bolete with an olive-brown cap up to 20 cm (8 in) in diameter, with small reddish pores on the underside. The stout ochre stem reaches dimensions of 8–14 cm (3–6 in) tall and 1–3 cm (0.4–1.2 in) wide, and is patterned with a reddish meshwork. Like several other red-pored boletes, it stains blue when bruised or cut. Though edible when cooked, it can cause gastric upset when eaten raw and can be confused with the poisonous Boletus satanas. Hence some guidebooks recommend avoiding consumption altogether. Boletus luridus has been implicated in causing adverse reactions when eaten with alcohol similar to those caused by the compound coprine, though laboratory testing has not revealed any evidence of coprine in the mushroom. Boletus luridus is mycorrhizal, forming a symbiotic association with deciduous trees such as oak, birch and beech, and has been found to have a growth-enhancing effect with conifers in experiments. (Full article...)

You (and your talk-page stalkers) may also be interested to hear that there have been some changes at the TFA requests page recently. Nominators no longer need to calculate how many "points" an article has, the instructions have been simplified, and there's a new nomination system using templates based on those used for DYK suggestions. Please consider nominating another article, or commenting on an existing nomination, and leaving some feedback on your experience. Thank you. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Delayed review[edit]

Hi Sasata, Just letting you know my laptop broke so my capacity to do any substantial editing/reviewing on WP is somewhat limited at the moment. I should be finished with my review sometime this week. Sorry for the delay! Best, Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 01:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

That's alright; luckily, there is no deadline! Sasata (talk) 06:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I just got a new working laptop, so I'll finish my review by tomorrow at the latest. Sorry for the extra week delay! There may be no deadline, but I still feel I have an informal obligation to complete the reviews I take on, especially if they're for someone who has done me a big favor in the past. Face-wink.svg Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 17:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Boletopsis nothofagi[edit]

The article Boletopsis nothofagi you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Boletopsis nothofagi for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seppi333 -- Seppi333 (talk) 02:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Add sources
Achaemenid Empire
Phylloporus pelletieri
Acquiring bank
Mushroom hunting
Ring-tailed cat
Psilocybe villarrealiae
American mink
Lambda phage
Paleo-Tethys Ocean
Gray fox
Fistulina hepatica
Constructal law
Maximum parsimony (phylogenetics)
Wenlock (Silurian)
South American fox
Southern spotted skunk
Phlox paniculata
Pardine genet

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 08:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Volvopluteus michiganensis[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Volvopluteus michiganensis you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg 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 Legobot, on behalf of Seppi333 -- Seppi333 (talk) 08:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Boletus fechtneri - Butyriboletus fechtneri[edit]

Hi, I think these articles are duplicite: Boletus fechtneri - Butyriboletus fechtneri. Regards --Xth-Floor (talk) 14:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The former is now redirected to the latter, thanks. Sasata (talk) 15:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. There's one more discrepancy. B. fuscoroseus and B. pseudoregius are listed as two species, but they are just synonyms. Arora et al. used the name Butyriboletus pseudoregius, but Vizzini et al. changed it to Butyriboletus fuscoroseus, because Boletus fuscoroseus is older name and has priority. Best regards. --Xth-Floor (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I am not able to confirm this; Vizzini does not mention this synonymy in Index Fungorum no. 162 (nor is it in subsequent updates). Do you have a source? Sasata (talk) 16:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I found it in Assyov (2012). Thanks for the heads-up, I will make the appropriate changes soon. Sasata (talk) 19:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Than you very much. It was also explained in Šutara et al. (2014), where B. fuscoroseus was neotypified (detailed explanation, why the name B. fuscoroseus has priority, is described on pages 29-30). --Xth-Floor (talk) 06:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Engleromyces sinensis[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Engleromyces sinensis you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg 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 Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 14:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Engleromyces sinensis[edit]

The article Engleromyces sinensis you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Engleromyces sinensis for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 19:41, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Curve-billed Thrasher[edit]

Hello. I've made amends to most of the suggestions/corrections that you had suggested (and some of my own), but the article is that far away from the GA status (I didn't realize how awful and rusty I've become with article writing on Wikipedia until I read what needed to be done) feel free to rescind the GA nomination. Thanks for reading, and contact me on my page whenever you get the chance! LeftAire (talk) 15:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Butyriboletus[edit]

Gatoclass (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Butyriboletus appendiculatus[edit]

Gatoclass (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Japanese serow[edit]

Hi. I was going over the pointers you left me from the Japanese serow GA review (I haven't touched the article in a while). You said that a Web of Knowledge search turned up more than 400 articles—I'm probably using it wrong, but I'm getting no hits whatsover, whatever search term I use. Is there a magic spell I need to chant or something? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 03:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you using the Latin name (and spelling it correctly)? If that's not working for you, then I'm not sure what's going on, maybe you have some filter turned on? Alternately, try a google scholar search: over 1100 hits. Sasata (talk)
I was copy-pasting the names to make sure I didn't misspell them. Thanks for the Google Scholar link. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 June newsletter[edit]

After an extremely close race, Round 3 is over. 244 points secured a place in Round 4, which is comparable to previous years- 321 was required in 2013, while 243 points were needed in 2012. Pool C's Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions) was the round's highest scorer, mostly due to a 32 featured pictures, including both scans and photographs. Also from Pool C, Scotland Casliber (submissions) finished second overall, claiming three featured articles, including the high-importance Grus (constellation). Third place was Pool B's Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), whose contributions included featured articles Russian battleship Poltava (1894) and Russian battleship Peresvet. Pool C saw the highest number of participants advance, with six out of eight making it to the next round.

The round saw this year's first featured portal, with Republic of Rose Island Sven Manguard (submissions) taking Portal:Literature to featured status. The round also saw the first good topic points, thanks to Florida 12george1 (submissions) and the 2013 Atlantic hurricane season. This means that all content types have been claimed this year. Other contributions of note this round include a featured topic on Maya Angelou's autobiographies from Idaho Figureskatingfan (submissions), a good article on the noted Czech footballer Tomáš Rosický from Bartošovice v Orlických horách Cloudz679 (submissions) and a now-featured video game screenshot, freely released due to the efforts of Republic of Rose Island Sven Manguard (submissions).

The judges would like to remind participants to update submission pages promptly. This means that content can be checked, and allows those following the competition (including those participating) to keep track of scores effectively. This round has seen discussion about various aspects of the WikiCup's rules and procedures. Those interested in the competition can be assured that formal discussions about how next year's competition will work will be opened shortly, and all are welcome to voice their views then. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 18:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Why so sceptic on sour cream? (Amantia Smithiana)[edit]

Why so sceptic on sour cream? You can't find any name Smithiana over the world. Try this: Seems I'm right? (talk) 01:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The etymology is already sourced in the article. Your conclusion is original research. Sasata (talk) 02:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Rule says: "all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable , published source." There are no such source for true explnation of surname Smithiana. And there can be no such source. Of course I could prove my point, but it would took 4 years of direct verbal explanation, 6 hours every day, in form of dialog.

Еtymology is already sourced in the article, but it does not explain origins of the name. You can't even challenge it.

So just admit direct knowledge.

I saw dozens of published resources that push fake. If I challenge Cambridge University, you will have to erase 90% of WikipediA. (talk) 11:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

From the source: "ETYMOLOGY: Named in honour of Dr. A. H. Smith, Ann Arbor.". If you wish to discuss the etymology of the name "Smith", that should be at the article Smith (surname). Sasata (talk) 15:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Calbovista[edit]

Gatoclass (talk) 02:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Calbovista[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Calbovista you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg 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 Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 12:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Precious again[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

featured pictures of funghi
Thank you for showing us in consistent quality the rich hidden world of funghi, in words and excellent images, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (28 February 2009, 23 April 2009)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Two years ago, you were the 175th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)