User talk:Sasata

State of Genera lists in family articles

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	Genera in list	Notes
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)  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	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	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

Reached maximum completion

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)

POTD notification

POTD

Hi Sasata,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Xanthoria elegans 97571 wb1.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on April 6, 2012. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2012-04-06. —howcheng {chat} 22:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 7

Hi. When you recently edited Entrophospora, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Emendation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Tammar wallaby genome

Hi, Sasata. LittleJerry asked me to check a few sources for potential inclusion in "Tammar wallaby". Please comment here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

• Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
  • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
  • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 21:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Lycoperdon echinatum

This is a note to let the main editors of Lycoperdon echinatum know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on April 16, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 16, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Lycoperdon echinatum, commonly known as the spiny puffball or the spring puffball, is a type of puffball mushroom in the genus Lycoperdon. The saprobic species has been found in Africa, Europe, Central America and North America, where it grows on soil in deciduous woods, glades, and pastures. Molecular analysis indicates that Lycoperdon echinatum is closely related to the puffball genus Handkea. Initially white in color, the puffballs turn a dark brown as they mature, at the same time changing from nearly round to somewhat flattened. The fruit bodies are edible when young, when the interior is white and firm and before it has turned into a powdery brown mass of spores. Young specimens of L. echinatum resemble another edible spiny puffball, Lycoperdon pulcherrimum, but this latter species does not turn brown as it ages. Laboratory tests have shown that extracts of the fruit bodies can inhibit the growth of several bacteria that are pathogenic to humans. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Responses to reviews

Hi Sasata - Just wanted to let you know that I think I've responded to everything at your reviews for Talk:Lettuce/GA1 and Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of amphibians of Michigan/archive1, if you want to drop back by. I know I've said this before, but thank you so much for your help and work on these articles - it is extremely helpful and much appreciated. Dana boomer (talk) 14:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• You're welcome; I don't see many science-related articles at FLC (and I need to get my reviewing "credit" up as I'll be submitting a few later this year), so I'm glad to help out. I'll revisit both sometime today or tonight. Sasata (talk) 14:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

POTD notification

POTD

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Lycoperdon pyriforme Sasata scale.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on April 23, 2012. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2012-04-23. —howcheng {chat} 05:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Velleral

Hi, here is the pic you requested: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Velleral.png

Is it alright?

I'm doing quite well, albeit a little tired. Thanks! How about you? -- YOSF0113 (talk - contributions) 12:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• I'm pretty good; mushroom hunting season is in the air, so I'm looking forward to getting back into the forest. Thanks again for making the structure for me, I've put it in the article already, and will start a stub on the compound itself. Cheers, Sasata (talk) 15:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For writing and reviewing many biology articles with thoroughness and good-humored discussion. The body of work you have created and helped to create is amazing! Dana boomer (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Aw shucks, thanks ... wait, are you saying I have a corpulent corpus?? Sasata (talk) 05:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Lactarius torminosus

I've given a first touchup to the article. My comments are here atm, but I can move them to the talk or FAC page. I wanna do some extra editing to the taxonomy section. Circéus (talk) 00:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the copyediting and commentary! It's probably best to move it to either talk page so the other reviewers can see why I'm making further changes. I'll work on it later tonight. Sasata (talk) 02:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 April newsletter

Round 2 of this year's WikiCup is over, and so we are down to our final 32, in what could be called our quarter-finals. The two highest scorers from each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers overall, have entered round 3, while 30 participants have been eliminated. Pool B's Grapple X (submissions) remains our top scorer with over 700 points; he continues to gain high numbers of points for his good articles on The X-Files, but also Millennium and other subjects. He has also gained points for a good topic, a featured list, multiple good article reviews and several did you knows. Pool E's Casliber (submissions) was second, thanks primarily to his biology articles, with Pool H's Muboshgu (submissions) coming in third, with an impressive 46 did you knows, mostly on the subject of baseball. Casliber and Cwmhiraeth both scored over 600 points. Pools E and H proved our most successful, with each seeing 5 members qualify for round 3, while Pools C and D were the least, with each seeing only 3 reach round 3. However, it was Pool G which saw the lowest scoring, with a little under 400 points combined; Pool H, the highest scoring group, saw over triple that score.

65 points was the lowest qualifying score for round 3; significantly higher than the 11 required to enter round 2, and also higher than the 41 required to reach round 3 last year. However, in 2010, 100 points were needed to secure a place in round 3. 16 will progress to round 4. In round 3, 150 points was the 16th highest score, though, statistically, people tend to up their game a little in later rounds. Last year, 76 points secured a place, while in 2010, a massive 250 points were needed. Guessing how many points will be required is not easy. We still have not seen any featured portals or topics this year, but, on the subject of less common content types, a small correction needs to be made to the previous newsletter: File:Wacht am Rhein map (Opaque).svg, our first featured picture, was the work of both Matthewedwards (submissions) and Grandiose (submissions), the latter of whom has also gone on to score with File:Map of the Battle of Guam, 1944.svg. Bonus points also continue to roll in; this round, Ealdgyth (submissions) earned triple points for her good articles on William the Conqueror and the Middle Ages, Casliber and Cwmhiraeth both earned triple points for their work on Western Jackdaw, now a good article, Dana Boomer (submissions) earned triple points for her work on lettuce and work by Stone (submissions) to ready antimony for good article status earned him triple points. Jarry1250 (submissions) managed to expand Vitus Bering far enough for a did you know, which was also worth triple points. All of these highly important topics featured on 50 or more Wikipedias at the start of the year.

An article on the WikiCup in the Wikimedia Blog, "Improving Wikipedia with friendly competition", was posted at the end of April. This may be of interest to those who are signed up to this newsletter, as well as serving as another way to draw attention to our project. Also, we would again like to thank Jarry1250 (submissions) and Stone (submissions), for continued help behind the scenes. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. 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 receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Thanks! The article was pretty solid already, and it's been pretty easy going so far—in most cases I have been able to replace citations to newer MedRS-compliant reviews without having to amend the original statement. Sasata (talk) 04:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

This is definitely a key improvement though.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Long-tailed Ground Roller FAC

Sasata,

Sorry for my delay in replying to you; I've been busy finishing up the semester. I've replied to your comments at the Long-tailed Ground Roller FAC if you want to take another look. I do have a few clarification questions about some of your concerns. Thank you. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 02:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Have a look here

Hi Sasata, I am Sainsf again. I required your help with Common eland, it's an article nominated for GA review. If you have time, please review this article, for it has been waiting as there is a backlog. I know you will give me good ideas, and this time the article wouldn't fail.--Sainsf _{Talk all words} 09:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sainsf, I'm a little busy in RL at the moment, but I'll take up the review in a week or two if someone else doesn't get there first. Cheers, Sasata (talk) 17:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Structural coloration

You reviewed this article for DYK, and the nominator has since responded to your concerns. Can you please check this and see if the changes have fixed the issues you saw with the nomination, and if so, could you finish the review? Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Resource exchange

I left a response for you here, regarding your request for frostbite articles. Buttonwillowite (talk) 07:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Clavaria zollingeri

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Clavaria zollingeri you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking up the review. I'll be by later tonight to address your comments. Sasata (talk) 22:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

As all the issues I raised have been addressed, I've passed the article.

This is actually the first GA review I've done – I deliberately chose an easy one! I think I've made all the changes needed once an article has GA status, but you should probably check – I see that you have done a lot. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Everything appears to be in order. Thanks again for your review! Sasata (talk) 14:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Myriostoma

I don't quite have the time for a review right now (plus I'm tired from not enough sleep), but I did quickly spot that you mention the second edition of Ray's Synopsis but are clearly citing the third. Here's the relevant page in the correct edition. This is important because the text is clearly pasted from Doody's, Ray did not say anything of his own. Circéus (talk) 15:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I corrected these–thanks. Will happily receive further comments later if you have the time. Sasata (talk) 16:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh I will. Maybe just not today. Circéus (talk) 17:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not so much that I don,t care about these things as I don't feel I've made nearly big enough a contribution to the article that'd I'd feel comfortable with being considered a co-nom... I'll keep an eye out for the nom, though. Circéus (talk) 19:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Cortinarius porphyroideus

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

GAN of malaria

Hello. I signed up to review malaria. I see you are shooting for FA so I plan on making comments that may be beyond the scope of a GA review. I see you know a lot about getting articles featured. I've been working on deep vein thrombosis lately and I would like to get it up to FA myself. If you have any tips or assistance you could provide it would be appreicated. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 18:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking on the review, Biosthmors. I'll respond to your comments in the next couple of days. I'd be happy to provide an informal review of DVT for you this week (as a layperson, with no knowledge of the subject matter). Sasata (talk) 06:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome and no rush. An informal review would be great, and I'm far from being a subject matter expert on malaria myself. Biosthmors (talk) 19:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

FYI, I'll be away for the next several days. Biosthmors (talk) 19:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Amylostereum

hello,

I see you are a fungus enthusiast and also a native English speaker. I wonder if you could copyedit the article Amylostereum. Thanks again for your fast help on the project talk page! :) Regards.--GoP_T^C_{N 08:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)}

Sure, I'll have a look in the next day or two. Sasata (talk) 20:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Should that be moved to Amylostereaceae if it is the only genera in the family? Nice article though! SmartSE (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Nope, according to this, "A family or order with a single genus is treated at the article for that genus." Sasata (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

A Boletus edulis for you!

	A Boletus edulis for you!
	For your great copyedits on Amylostereum, I hereby present you this tasty mushroom, which we call "Steinpilz" (stone fungus) here in Germany :). GoPTCN 16:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks (this is one of the few mushrooms that I enjoy the taste of) ... but I'm not done yet :) I will probably update the literature as well. Sasata (talk) 16:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I am planning to translate more. I started to work on Hygrophorus olivaceoalbus, and I created a table on my userpage with all "good" fungi on gerwiki. Regards.--GoP_T^CN 11:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I credited you at the DYK nom; if you don't want to be credited, please feel free to say it :). Also, you are welcome to suggest other hooks (and change the current if there are mistakes). Regards.--GoP_T^CN 12:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I tweaked the original hook, added an ALT, and a QPQ review. Sasata (talk) 15:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The second fungi: Hygrophorus olivaceoalbus :) --GoP_T^CN 19:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Nice! I'll give it a thorough copyedit tonight, but let's hold off on a GAN for a couple of weeks. I'll be going on a week-long holiday soon, and I like to make sure everything is well-written, accurate and updated, to make it easier for the GA reviewer to pass the article :) (Also need to do a couple of GA reviews myself!) Sasata (talk) 19:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 May newsletter

We're halfway through round 3 (or the quarter finals, if you prefer) and things are running smoothly. We're seeing very high scoring; as of the time of writing, the top 16 all have over 90 points. This has already proved to be more competative than this time last year- in 2011, 76 points secured a place, while in 2010, a massive 250 was the lowest qualifying score. People have also upped their game slightly from last round, which is to be expected as we approach the end of the competition. Leading Pool A is Cwmhiraeth (submissions), whose points have mostly come from a large number of did you knows on marine biology. Pool B's leader, Grapple X (submissions), is for the first time not our highest scorer at the time of newsletter publication, but his good articles on The X-Files and Millenium keep him in second place overall. Miyagawa (submissions) leads Pool C, our quietest pool, with content in a variety of areas on a variety of topics. Pool D is led by Casliber (submissions), our current overall leader. Nearly half of Casliber's points come from his triple-scored Western Jackdaw, which is now a featured article.

This round has seen an unusually high number of featured lists, with nearly one in five remaining participants claiming one, and one user, Muboshgu (submissions), claiming two. Miyagawa's featured list, 1936 Summer Olympics medal table, was even awarded double points. By comparison, good article reviews seem to be playing a smaller part, and featured topics portals remain two content-types still unutilised in this competition. Other than that, there isn't much to say! Things are coming along smoothly. As ever, 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. 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 • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Tammar wallaby genome

Hi, Sasata. LittleJerry informed me that you would like to see more information in "Tammar wallaby" about the genome. "Tammar wallaby" is supposed to be a general article about the animal. What information would you like to see included? Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Um, I'll know when I see it :) My suggestions on your talk page from April pretty much sum up what I think should be in the article. If you'd like, I can take a look at what you guys write up before the next FAC. Sasata (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you think a way to paraphase the conclusion to ref 39? LittleJerry (talk) 21:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Amylostereum

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Picture of Lactarius rupestris

Hello! In September 2011, we talked about Lactarius rupestris and you asked me if I would get a picture of the mushroom. Today I contacted the scientist Felipe Wartchow, who discovered the species, and asked him for a photo of the mushroom. If I get the picture, I'll upload on Commons and notice you. Cheers, Dr. Lenaldo Vigo (talk) 02:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Lenaldo, that's great! I hope you are successful; I find that I have about a 50% chance of getting a response when I make photo requests to scientists. Sasata (talk) 05:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Good news. The scientist sent me a photo of the L. rupestris. I'll upload the picture tomorrow. Dr. Lenaldo Vigo (talk) 15:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. Dr. Lenaldo Vigo (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Excellent—thanks for your efforts! Sasata (talk) 15:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in: Dr. Vigo, could you possibly forward the email releasing the image under the free license to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, with a link to where you uploaded the image, as explained here? That way, Wikimedia has a record of the release. Thanks! J Milburn (talk) 20:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

J Milburn, done. Dr. Lenaldo Vigo (talk) 01:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

POTD notification

File:Phallus indusiatus 96871 ed2.jpg

POTD

Hi Sasata,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Phallus indusiatus 96871 ed2.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on June 4, 2012. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2012-06-04. —howcheng {chat} 08:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Tammar wallaby fix

Check out the "model organism" subsection. What do you think? LittleJerry (talk) 12:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• Stills needs copyediting for better prose flow
• "This has provided much information about the genetics of marsupials and mammals in general." This sentence leaves me hanging... what kind of information was found? For example, you might want to mention

• the "small number of very large chromosomes"
• that the sequencing effort revealed new HOX genes that control gene expression, as well as novel small RNAs (Renfree et al. 2011)
• (from Fig. 3) "These findings suggest a rapid diversification of genes associated with immune function and lactation in the tammar."
• "The organization of the tammar MHC is vastly different from that of other mammals"
• I've only scanned Renfree, so there may be more worth mentioning; try to summarize the "Conclusions" section of this paper

• there's no discussion of Tammar wallaby phylogeny; see the inset to the "Phylogeny of the marsupials" figure in the aforementioned paper. It might be worthwhile to reproduce that cladogram in the article, perhaps integrated in the "Evolution" subsection
• the mention of Bacterial artificial chromosomes is probably too much detail for this general overview (average reader doesn't need to know what molecular biology techniques were used for sequencing) Sasata (talk) 17:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but I have a VERY, VERY hard time understanding and paraphasing the conclusion section. I don't understand it at all. I asked you to help (see above). LittleJerry (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll help by providing a thorough review at FAC, but in the meantime I only have so much time that's mostly taken up with other articles I'm working on and several other FAC and GA reviews I'm already committed to (oh yeah, real life too!). Sasata (talk) 20:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Did some more editing, maybe you could check again. With regards to the Phylogeny, the source they cite actually gives three different phylogeny maps. LittleJerry (talk) 22:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song)/archive3

I have responded to your concerns at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song)/archive3.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Malaria

I'll be traveling for almost two weeks so I probably won't review much during that time. I hope you don't mind the delay. Biosthmors (talk) 21:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't mind at all. Thanks again for your thoroughness, and I haven't forgotten I promised to take a look at DVT. Sasata (talk) 21:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll should be back to reviewing tomorrow. Thanks for your patience. Biosthmors (talk) 00:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Myriostoma distribution

I didn't think it was necessary to air that in the FAC nom, but on further thought, I really, really don't like the second paragraph in "Habitat and distribution". Prosewise, it really doesn't belong in a FAC: it's just a list of countruies where the species' been found, when it really wants and needs to be a more holistic account, plus I'm pretty confident it's not even complete as is and is probably going to become particularly outdated as time goes on.

What do we need to say?

• It's found all over the world, having been found on all continents in its natural habitat.
• It's not really common or abundant anywhere (as far as I gather anyway, see also [3]).
• It was (UK) or is thought (Switzerland) extinct in some countries.

In particular I really don't think giving a purportedly complete list of countries is appropriate, plus it accidentally hide that we fail to give a proper citation for the North American distribution outside of the single Mexican report we're citing!

I run into this problem a lot, where there isn't a single source that gives a detailed picture of distribution for a species and I have to piece it together from numerous different sources—and the results feel "piecemeal". My thought initially when compiling this section was that I should try to give an accurate account of European distribution because it's one of the few officially "threatened" fungi, but yeah, I agree with the problems you see. Have a look at Sarcosphaera, where I put the list of Euro countries in a footnote to reduce the listiness of that section; is that a better solution? I do have one recent source (The Book of Fungi, by Roberts & Evans (2011) (ISBN 9780226721170) that gives a distribution map; the whole map is colored except for Greenland and New Zealand. Maybe this level of generality is more appropriate for Wikipedia? (I'll add a proper source for NA distribution soon). Sasata (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

How about something that goes roughly:

"the species is widespread, being found on all five continents in its natural habitat.[rattle here reports for Asia and the southern hemisphere] However, it is not an abundant species, being [insert here redlist status, former or currently thought extinct in England and Switzerland etc.]. In Europe and North America, [add more details here as appropriate without descending in a list of countries, even in the U.S. AFAICT, it's only reported from a couple states in the literature]."

Circéus (talk) 02:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, here's a minimalist version of the last two paragraphs of distribution.

The species is widespread, being found on all five continents in its natural habitat. However, it is not an abundant species. Myriostoma coliforme is rare in Europe, where it appears on the Regional Red Lists of 12 countries, and is one of 33 candidate species for listing in Appendix I of the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (the "Bern Convention"). Although originally described from England, it was considered extinct in mainland Britain after having been unreported since 1880, but it was found again in Suffolk in 2006 near Ipswich, one of its original localities. The fungus is considered extinct in Switzerland. Its most northerly location is southern Sweden, although it is generally rare in northern Europe.

Are there are details currently in the article missing from this short version that you think should be included? It's Euro-heavy, but there's not much else to add from anywhere else other than the countries it's been found in. Sasata (talk) 17:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Euro heavy, but as you said, it hasn't been studied much outside that country. Still an improvement. If we have some more info for NA it would be nice, plus I think it's missing the part about it possibly being an introduction to Australia (or was that in a separate paragraph?), but all in all, I feel it's a much better version. Circéus (talk) 23:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'll make the change soon(ish), but as many refs will be axed, I want to go through each to make sure there's not any interesting distributional info I might have missed adding. Sasata (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done (but I suppose at some point I have to go back and change all the other fungus articles accordingly ...) Sasata (talk) 00:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK fungus

hello,

I credited you at this DYK. Also just want to announce my next fungus, the better referenced de:Fichten-Reizker, which nearly became a featured article there. Regards.--GoP_T^C_{N 11:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)}

Looks good, I have quite a bit of literature on genus Lactarius, so should be able to do justice to this species. But please wait a while before nominating for GA, it's easier to make sure everything is in shape with the article without the pressure of the GAN. I'll finish up the Hygrophorus olivaceoalbus referencing this weekend. Sasata (talk) 15:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

H. olivaceoalbus

I am utterly useless for figuring out what the "aiguillons fibrilleux" is supposed to mean. Not because it's in French, but rather because it seems to be outdated, practically meaningless terminology that could only be understood by a specialist looking at the type. And that's assuming the key characters are not the italicized ones, but I can't tell if those are key to the description, or key to characterizing the thing in general vs. everything in the article. Most likely it's impossible to tell without looking at a quélet description of the species. Circéus (talk) 06:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, according to the French wiktionary, "aiguillons" is used today to refer to "teeth" like those of Hydnum, so "fibrillose teeth-like structures", I guess. Will insert that in lieu of a blank space in the column. Sasata (talk) 03:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Nuclear Barnstar
		For your GA review of James B. Conant, I hereby award you the Nuclear Barnstar. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Never had a review blow up in my face before ... thanks! Sasata (talk) 21:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Hygrophorus olivaceoalbus

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

DOI reverts

Hi, if you revert me e.g. here, please let me know so we can agree the right solution, otherwise I'm likely to repeat the same edit again later. On the subject of DOI versus JSTOR, is it better to have the DOI and not the JSTOR if both are available (and both are to the JSTOR site)? Thanks Rjwilmsi 16:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about the revert. I've wasted too much time of my life reverting unhelpful bot edits and have become so blasé about it that I guess I sometimes revert well-meaning cyborg edits as well :) Regarding JSTOR vs DOI, I don't have any particular preference as long as both don't get included. I posted a question about this some time ago to one of the citation template talk pages (too long ago to find diff) but never got a satisfactory response. I suppose one argument is perhaps the DOI might be preferred as the JSTOR link promotes a commercial organization? But this seems ridiculous to me if the DOI is just leading to JSTOR anyway. Maybe a talk page stalker will have another opinion? Sasata (talk) 16:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Reference formatting

I think we touched on this a while ago but I forget where. It appears that this new reference style is not support in other languages. Thus I propose we switch it back.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Will not make any changes to the formatting until at least after the GA as you find this formatting easier. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok. As I mentioned on the talk page, it's a 20-minute change to change back to non-list defined refs. I plan to take this article to FA, so would like to keep the format as is for a while longer. What version of the article will be translated? If the article becomes GA next week, but the article is gradually improved over the next two months in prep for FAC, will this be a hassle for translators, or will the GA version be used? If the latter, I can prepare a non-list defined version in a sandbox for the translators, if that helps. Sasata (talk) 18:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

While if you are planning on staying at it I am happy to hold off until it has reached FA. The translators still have plenty of work to do. I never try for FA as my grammar simply isn't good enough :-)

Anyway once again many thanks for all your efforts. We can switch it all to that list style once it heads to FA. And than figure out what to do with the style after you are done. Will try to expand a few sections between know and than. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Amanita gemmata

Hi Sasata, after so long! Well, I saw your edits at A. gemmata. Thanks for your help. Actually I want to improve it into a GA, so first I decided to have the article peer-reviewed. About the source for ibonetic acid and muscimol in A. gemmata, there is a source here (a journal) and here (a book, where it is mentioned that the substances are present in less concentrations). Can these be used? I fixed a few more things, you can see if it is OK.--Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 03:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

HI Sainsf! I saw your edits yesterday and it reminded me that we worked on it together some time ago, but I got distracted with other articles and forgot about it (a typical story for me). I've acquired some more literature on Amanita since we last talked. This one is a bit tricky, as it's a species complex, and the article should emphasize that. I'd like to get it to GA as well. Shall we collaborate? If this sounds ok with you, you could probably pull it from peer review and save some reviewer's time; I have a pretty good idea of what's required for a mushroom GA :) Cheers, Sasata (talk) 05:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

That's too good, no problem! Well, the peer review is done, two minor errors (see here, may prove useful). I believe if you, someone really good in mycology, collaborate with me for this article, it would surely be a GA! I may be a bit slow, sometimes, for I remain busy, but I shall show up in weekends. Just tell me what should be done, I shall do all possible. Really, it is going to be great!--Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 03:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. I will fill in missing details over the next week. Sasata (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

As you wish. Well, if there is anything you want me to do, tell me. I fixed the photos, they were not properly located. I will be available this whole week. I think the article is better now.--Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 04:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:FOUR for Myriostoma

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Myriostoma. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Amylostereum FA

hello,

I thought we could nominate this article at FAC as I believe it meets the criteria. If you don't oppose to it then I am happy to nominate the article. Regards.--GoP_T^C_{N 13:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)}

I oppose—it has not yet had sufficient time to age, like a fine wine. Seriously, before I take an article to FAC, I do everything in my power to ensure it's as good as I can make it: I scour every academic database for references, order literature I don't have access to through interlibrary loans, look around for better pictures, carefully sift through the prose sentence by sentence, and then wait a while to achieve "strategic distance" and do it again. If I'm feeling particularly masochistic, I ask someone who's willing to say it's still crap for a second opinion. In terms of Wikicup timing, there's no way it would be promoted in time for points to be counted for this round anyways; how about we wait until the 2nd or 3rd week of July for FAC? That'll give me time to perform the ritual above, and allow us to use the points for next round. In the meantime, I'm ready to work on Lactarius deterrimus whenever you post the translation. Sasata (talk) 16:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Alright then. I will finish with Lactarius deterrimus this week. I created Willkommlangea reticulata, and discovered that fungi articles from Myxogastria are a bit underrepresented here on dewiki. I will translate some of the redlinks, but bear with my prose! =) Regards.--GoP_T^CN 18:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Careful, it's a slime mold, not a fungus (different kingdom), although they are traditionally studied by mycologists. Your DYK hook looks a bit dry ... I'll check the literature and see if I can find something more interesting to say about it. I agree that the slime molds are very poorly represented on English Wikipedia. I've got quite a few of them on my "to-do" list, but there's only so much time! Sasata (talk) 18:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Ponies

FAR on New Forest Pony got bogged down, want to take a peek at it now and see if see if we addressed your concerns? Pesky has a lot to deal with IRL, but I'm trying to round up the cavalry of reviewers and see if we can give her the gold star on that article yet. Montanabw^(talk) 21:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

A. gemmata

Hi, sorry if I disturbed you, I just wondered if you were too busy. The article A. gemmata is waiting, but I won't force you to work on it right now. Simply, I will be happy if it goes on a bit quicker. --Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 05:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I will be happy if the article is well-researched and well-written, which takes time. There's some taxonomy missing: currently, the article briefly mentions the gemma– synonyms resulting from generic transfers but misses others like Amanita junquillea and Amanita adnata. Will take some digging to figure out what the story is with these (some recent authors are still using A. junquillea, not sure why yet). Also, the similar species section needs to be expanded (which will address the peer reviewer's second concern), and the whole story isn't yet told about toxicity; apparently the poisoning deaths in Chile were from a very similar but distinct species (that has not been validly named, to add to the confusion). Still looking for more info about this. I'm thinking about removing the cladogram: it takes up space (squishing the text), it's based on a 12-year old study, and the results are adequately summarized already in the section. What do you think? Sasata (talk) 05:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I know you can do your 'digging' very well :) I rely upon you. And also it is you who knows much more about this subject than me. Well, about this cladogram, I do not complain about it if it improves the quality of the article and is accurate (no matter if it is old info if it is right) as well (I think portraying the results that way would help readers understand easily) . Do not worry so much about its squishing up the article, I don't think it matters so much. If you expand the section a bit more (don't forget the stuff about muscimol and ibonetic acid) then the thing will look nice and organized (I know how to manage such 'numerous-items-in-one-place' situations, don't worry!) Rest, I leave to your wish. And take your time and work on the article, I know you have GA and FA things to attend to as well. --Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 13:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar

great work on the Boletales sections of wiki. I noticed you cleaned up my lazy edit of notholepiota, very nice. I have been meaning to work up a section on the sub orders, Paxillineae, boletineae, sclerodermatineae, etc. personally though I think you are missing the Xerocomus and Xerocomellus genera in the Boletaceae. These are clearly genera based on molecular works. Boletellus is polyphyletic, and some other things. Don't really know how to do discussion on here properly. Just got on to message your specifically (never edited wikipedia before) until I saw all your tireless work on the Boletales. Obfuscateme (talk) 14:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I hadn't added Xerocomus to the Boletaceae genera list as it wasn't recognized by the Dictionary of the Fungi (2008), but I haven't really researched it beyond that to see how it's accepted these days by other authorities. Had never heard of Xerocomellus until you mentioned it, but doing a quick lit search, it seems that Šutara is the only one using the name so far (looks like he also circumscribed Hemileccinum gen. nov. in the same paper). I just downloaded the Czech Mycology paper; will read it soonish and make the additions. I think articles for the suborders would be a great idea, they're on my list of stuff to do, but there's so many taxa and too few people working on them here. Please consider staying on and helping contribute to the database. We have a WikiProject for like-minded funguphiles to coordinate our efforts. Cheers, Sasata (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm really not sure how do use this thing, I should learn but I am rather busy. See Halling et al 2012 (Mycologia in preprint) for placement of Xerocomus in the Boletaceae and Peintner et al 2003 (Myco. Res. 107(6)) for evidence for the distant relationship between Xerocomus proper (subtomentosus group) and Xerocomellus (X. chrysteneron). For further evidence see Douhan and Rizzo 2003 (Myco. Res. 107(11). Sepedonium (Hypomyces) species seem genus specific, though Douhan and Rizzo do not recognice the Xerocomellus group, X. dryophilus and X. chrysenteron are in Xerocomellus. If you cannot get these papers I am able to email them to you. I will try to help out in the Boletales, specifically specialize in the Boletineae. The Sutara paper is good, but it is all morphology and some authors do not believe the differences are big enough. Halling et al.2012 clearly show Xerocomus subtomentosus and Phylloporus pelleteiri as more closely related to each other than any other Boletaceae species, IMO. Hemileccinum is also in there as well and is not in the Xercomus clade, nor the Boletus nor Leccinum. Ciao,Obfuscateme (talk) 00:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)Obfuscateme (talk) 00:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

FA level GA review

How are you able to get a FA level review for a Goodn Article Nomination? LittleJerry (talk) 04:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Ask for one? Replace the G with an F? Not sure I understand the question. Sasata (talk) 17:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Lactarius deterrimus

hello,

just wanted to say that I finished the translation of Lactarius deterrimus. I removed some information from dewiki as they were not directly related to this fungus. I also removed some pictures to avoid stacking. Regards.--GoP_T^C_{N 09:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)}

Very good! I'll start working on it soon. Sasata (talk) 13:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Bivalvia

On the Bivalvia FAC page you offered to visit your library to refer to their copy of Barnes "Invertebrate Zoology". Unless you have already done so, please don't bother. This is because I am in a better position now to access the information myself courtesy of winning a third prize in the "Core Contest" where I was awarded a £30 Amazon voucher. I spent it on six used books for Wikipedia research, the most relevant arrived yesterday being "Encyclopedia of Marine Invertebrates" by Jerry Walls. It has 27 pages on the bivalves covering basic biology and should cover the material previously referenced to the Barnes book. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Problem solved! Sasata (talk) 17:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Ecology

I noted your comment in the ecology discussion page about getting it up to FA status. Have you thought of working on this? I've tried very hard to get that page up to FA status, but haven't had the time. I can swing in on occasion to lend a hand.Thompsma (talk) 19:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Replied on talk page. I think a co-nom for FAC would be great if you're willing: I have experience with MoS and formatting requirements for FA, while you have the subject matter expertise. Win-win? Sasata (talk) 19:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Psilocybe cubensis Spores/Vectors

Sasata, sorry for not using this feature, new here and not familiar with it.

Regarding the spore info I contributed, it was in fact peer-reviewed by Gaston Guzman. I have the original manuscript, marked-up by Guzman, but I don't know how else to prove this unless you want to contact him by email. To me, the info is an interesting and noteworthy addition to the Psilocybe cubensis article. Also in the spore section I dispelled a pervasive and annoying myth about Ps cubensis: that cattle are fed fungicides that prevent growth of the mushrooms. As mentioned cattle are not fed fungicides that inhibit spore/mycelial growth. I can elaborate further and even pinpoint the origin of the myth, if you want. Seems to me this is the kind of comprehensive info that would be welcome on a source like Wikipedia.

Best regards, Baseheart — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseheart (talk • contribs) 02:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Baseheart, thanks for contacting me. It's not up to me to decide if the source is ok to include, I'm merely following Wikipedia policy regarding source reliability. From WP:Sources: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published (made available to the public in some form); unpublished materials are not considered reliable." I agree that the info sounds interesting and would go well in the Psilocybe cubensis article, but we can't use it yet. Have you considered publishing the article? Sounds like the kind of material that Fungi magazine might be interested in. Hope your initial experiences here have not turned you off Wikipedia. Sasata (talk) 03:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Sasata, many thanks for the tip about Fungi magazine. Apologies for getting so miffed about the reverts, have never been here until a week ago and thought the material fit Wikipedia's criteria. Have contacted Fungi and will let you know if the article gets published. Thanks again for the tip! (~; — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseheart (talk • contribs) 04:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Ashleigh Brennan

I can't believe you chose to do nothing whatsoever with my edits and my comments. You basically said "whatever"--ten edits later the problems are solved. When I review DYK nominations, I take it seriously, including copyediting. Drmies (talk) 02:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Good for you! I applaud your efforts. Sasata (talk) 02:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

William "Russel" Dudley: middle name spelling

Sir,

I recently corrected the Wikipedia page to reflect the proper spelling of Dudley's middle name to Russel. I recognize that it is often (erroneously) cited as "Russell" in the literature due to the sloppinesss of some bibliographers; however, it is with one "l". In addition to having read several of his signed manuscripts, I would refer you to the following as powerful proof : http://archive.org/stream/cu31924024545273#page/n3/mode/2up. If you would like additional evidence as well as his signature, let me know. I would appreciate it if you would correct this so that he is more easily found on Wikipedia by those who enter his name correctly in search engines. I have seen the same problem occur with Alfred Russel Wallace.

Weindan (talk) 00:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree, that's pretty convincing; I'll move the article back. Would you happen to know of a source that mentions the misspelling? I'd like to add a note in the article to that effect, and it would be best to add a citation. Sasata (talk) 14:37, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't know of any references that specifically address the spelling- but from what I've seen, all the material written during his lifetime, or by colleagues who knew him personally, has it right. All of the Cornell and Stanford archival material, including online, is also properly done. It is only some of the more recent authors, cataloguers etc. who have not appreciated the subtle missing "L". Another example from Cornell: http://bhort.bh.cornell.edu/dudley.htm

Weindan (talk) 15:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Lactarius deterrimus

Thank-you from the DYK helpers and Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I will nominate it :)--GoP_T^C_{N 18:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)}

WikiCup 2012 June newsletter

Apologies for the lateness of this letter; our usual bot wasn't working. We are now entering round 4, our semi-finals, and have our final 16. A score of 243 was required to reach this round; significantly more than 2011's 76 points, and only a little behind 2010's 250 points. By comparison, last year, 150 points in round 4 secured a place in the final; in 2010, 430 were needed. Commiserations to Pool A's igordebraga (submissions), who scored 242 points, missing out on a place in the round by a whisker. However, congratulations to Pool B's Grapple X (submissions), whose television articles have brought him another round victory. Pool A's Cwmhiraeth (submissions) came second overall, with an impressive list of biological did you knows, good articles and featured articles. Third overall was Pool D's Muboshgu (submissions), with a long list of contibutions, mostly relating to baseball. Of course, with the points resetting every round, the playing field has been levelled. The most successful Pool was Pool D, which saw seven into the final round. Pool B saw four, C saw three and Pool A saw only the two round leaders.

A quick note about other competitions taking place on Wikipedia which may be of interest. There are 13 days remaining in the June-July GAN backlog elimination drive, but it is not too late to take part. August will also see the return of The Core Contest- a one month long competition first run in 2007. While the WikiCup awards points for audited content on any subject, The Core Contest about is raw article improvement, focussing heavily on the most important articles on Wikipedia. As ever, 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. 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 • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 11:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Bivalvia FAC

In the Bivalvia FAC, one of the comments you made was "the subscription needed tag is only required if a link is directing the user to a paywalled site. If only a DOI or JSTOR link is given, this template is not needed." Could you explain this in words suitable to someone unfamiliar with scientific papers. My background is not academic and my BSc was 50 years ago! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

(TPS reply) Basically, if you're linking through the title of the article (using the url= parameter of cite templates, for example), and the link takes the reader to a subscription-only website, then you need the "subscription needed" tag. If the link is automatically generated through an identification number (using the doi= or jstor= parameter of cite templates), then you don't need the "subscription only" tag, even if clicking on the number takes the reader to a subscription-only page. Hope this helps, Dana boomer (talk) 13:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

It does. Thank you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Psilocybe hoogshagenii

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Dendrocollybia

This is a note to let the main editors of Dendrocollybia know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on July 8, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 8, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Dendrocollybia is a genus of fungus in the Tricholomataceae family of the Agaricales order. It consists of the single species Dendrocollybia racemosa, a somewhat rare fungus found in the Northern Hemisphere, including the Pacific Northwest region of western North America, and Europe. It usually grows on the decaying fruit bodies of other agarics—such as Lactarius and Russula—although the host mushrooms may be decayed to the point of being difficult to recognize. Dendrocollybia racemosa fruit bodies have small pale grayish-white or grayish-brown caps and thin stems. The species is characterized by its unusual stem, which is covered with short lateral branches. The branches often produce spherical slimeheads of translucent conidiophores on their swollen tips. The conidiophores produce conidia (asexual spores) by mitosis. Because the fungus can rely on either sexual or asexual modes of reproduction, fruit bodies sometimes have reduced or even missing caps. The unusual stems originate from black pea-sized structures called sclerotia. It is able to reproduce at relatively low temperatures, an adaptation believed to improve its ability to grow quickly and fruit on decomposing mushrooms. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Formatting references

You pointed out to me that it is unnecessary to provide an url in a "cite journal" reference if there is a DOI. Is the same true of other things like PMID, PMC, JSTOR etc which lead to equivalent sites? If the answer is "yes", which should I choose in preference to the others? For an example of what I mean, see #13 in Frog. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• In that example, I'd leave out the url (it's redundant as it leads to the same place as the doi link), but leave in the doi, pubmed, pubmed central, and JSTOR links (if you leave any of these out a bot will eventually come along and put them in anyway). An open access icon would be helpful for the reader here too. Also, I'm not sure what code you're using for dashes, but it doesn't look like an endash. I'm on a Mac and can type option-hyphen; I think on a PC one can type Alt-0150, or, failing that, just type &endash; and the Wiki software will render the character correctly. Sasata (talk) 16:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you. I was using "‑" which I copied from somewhere, not being familiar with such things. It seems to work. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• FWIW, my policy is to only link an article if it's open access. If that open access is through a DOI, JSTOR or PMC identifier, I deal on a case-by-case basis (e.g. with {{open access}}). Circéus (talk) 20:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

MSA workshop

Hello again,

just wanted to let you know that my talk for the workshop is nascent at User:Daniel Mietchen/Talks/Wikimania 2012/FESIN North American Mycoflora Workshop. You'd be most welcome there. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 03:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Bivalvia

Having put a lot of time and effort into improving Bivalvia, it would be a pity if it were to fail FAC on the hurdle of a lack of page numbers for books. I have looked through the references and found 7/8 without numbers. These are

• 3 Huber
• 20 Barnes where the page range is 389–430
• 64 Hockey
• 66 VanBlaricom
• 69 Stein
• 76 Carlson
• 90 Phillips
• 113 Newell

Will you be satisfied if I find page numbers or alternative sources for these or have I missed some vital ones? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree it would be a pity for the FAC to not be promoted. I would gladly support if you were to find page numbers or replace the sources. (Add #35 Cardoso to the list; even narrowing it down to a specific chapter would probably suffice.) Sasata (talk) 06:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I have found replacement sources for all the above (including #35 Carduso) except for Huber, now reference #50. I have taken steps to try to get a page number for that and Invertzoo tells me here that she has a friend who has just bought a copy of the book so that page number should be available before long. I have also emailed the author, Markus Huber, which might or might not produce a page number. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Invertzoo's contact has provided the page number and I have added it to the reference. Meanwhile, the article has been promoted! Thank you for your guidance. I won't be quite so dim next time. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Precious

	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 and 23 April 2009)! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• Danke Gerda! Sasata (talk) 07:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Kalapuya brunnea

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Antrodia serialiformis

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Stropharia semiglobata

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Hemitomes

I tried to add a picture for Hemitomes, and uploaded the picture to commons, but it didn't work. Perhaps you can help me fix it. Or maybe I just need to wait longer?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemitomes

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hemitomes.darvin.jpg

Alan Rockefeller (Talk - contribs) 07:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the pic made it in ok, but it won't last with that license (by-nc-sa-3.0). You'll have to ask Darvin if he'll change the license to the Wiki-compatible by-sa-3.0. Sasata (talk) 08:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Paper from Nordic Journal of Botany on Vulpicida

Saw your old request for a paper, do you still need it? I have access to that paper you were seeking for. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure! Is it a PDF? Sasata (talk) 19:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but it turns out the PDF is only 1 page, containing the abstract (which is available for view without passing paywall) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, ok, thanks anyway. Will have to order through ILL then. Sasata (talk) 07:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

your GAN Volvariella surrecta has passed!

Hi,

See Talk:Volvariella surrecta/GA1

Congratulations!

Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 20:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

GA review

Hi Sasata, and thank you very much for your helpful comments at Talk:Chikaraishi/GA1. I'll try and address them within the next couple of days. However, would you mind doing me a small favour and formatting your responses with a {{GAList}} template or similar? It would make it much easier for me to see which comments relate directly to which GA criteria, and thus which ones need to be dealt with most urgently. Much obliged, and thanks again for your review. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference Update & Survey (your opinion requested)

Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:

• Link to Survey (should take between 5-10 minutes): http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N8FQ6MM

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Peziza phyllogena

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Volvariella surrecta

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Entoloma murrayi

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Agaricus hondensis

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Re:Email

Hello, Sasata. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 15:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Psilocybe makarorae

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

WT:WikiProject_Biology#A-class

Thought you might have an opinion. Gratz on the latest mushroom to sprout an FA-star. - Dank (push to talk) 18:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:FOUR for Marasmius rotula

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Marasmius rotula. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Phaeocollybia christinae

Orlady (talk) 16:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Malaria GAN

I don't mind the the slow going, I hope you don't either. I was planning on doing some reviewing today but I might be out of time for the day. I did put DVT up for a peer review so if you have any ideas you could put them there. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I don't mind the slow and steady pace—thanks for your patience. My free time is unpredictable at the moment, but the GAN is near the top of my "to do" list. I'll look into the PR soon. Sasata (talk) 22:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Re:Phillips

I don't have a hardcopy of Phillips's more recent book; I access it through Google Books. The page number was wrong (I've corrected it), and it shouldn't be being used for the desciption of the nominate variety at all, as it is a description of var. spissa. I'd recommend gutting it and starting from scratch. In case you can't access it through Google Books, I've uploaded the description for you here, so that you can use it when describing the variety. J Milburn (talk) 09:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks JM. Yes, complete gutting is probably the way to go. Sasata (talk) 16:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
• FYI, Template:Did you know nominations/Amanita excelsa and Template:Did you know nominations/Amanita eliae–both pulled, only wasted a little more than an hour of my life >:/ Sasata (talk) 19:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 July newsletter

We're approaching the beginning of 2012's final round. Pool A sees Cwmhiraeth (submissions) as the leader, with 300 points being awarded for the featured article Bivalvia, and Pool B sees Grapple X (submissions) in the lead, with 10 good articles, and over 35 articles eligible for good topic points. Pool A sees Muboshgu (submissions) in second place with a number of articles relating to baseball, while Pool B's Ruby2010 (submissions) follows Grapple X, with a variety of contributions including the high-scoring, high-importance featured article on the 2010 film Pride & Prejudice. Ruby2010, like Grapple X, also claimed a number of good topic points; despite this, not a single point has been claimed for featured topics in the contest so far. The same is true for featured portals.

Currently, the eighth-place competitor (and so the lowest scorer who would reach the final round right now) has scored 332, more than double the 150 needed to reach the final round last year. In 2010, however, 430 was the lowest qualifying score. In this competition, we have generally seen scores closer to those in 2010 than those in 2011. Let's see what kind of benchmark we can set for future competitions! As ever, 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. 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 • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 22:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Gyroporus cyanescens

Yngvadottir (talk) 00:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

WP Fungi in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Fungi for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 00:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Puccinia mariae-wilsoniae

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Sasata, thank you for promoting Giant eland to GA. Well, currently I am working on Dromedary, may be posting it soon for GAN. If you like you may help me with any literature you have. It is already becoming an informative article!--Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 05:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

A Web of Knowledge search for Camelus dromedarius pulls up over 8000 sources; most of it is technical stuff that's not really appropriate for a Wikipedia article. Any way you could narrow the search to something you're specifically looking for? Sasata (talk) 05:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Thurovia

Hi Sasata, I noticed you created the article Thurovia, which is tagged for merging with Thurovia triflora. They do appear to be duplicates, but they seem to make conflicting claims about what the genus name is. I'm happy to carry out this merge myself once the matter is cleared up. Feel free to reply to me here or to my request for help at WikiProject Plants. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• Looks like the merge was appropriate. I added a source that confirms synonymy with Gutierrezia triflora. Sasata (talk) 05:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For your fine assistance and knowledgeable edits in ecology!!! Thompsma (talk) 05:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks Mark! I left some thoughts about further things to mull over before FAC on the talk page. Sasata (talk) 18:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Article request

Hi Sasata! I was wondering if you would be able to send me the chapter on cabbage from Transgenic Crops, Biotechnology in Agriculture and Forestry, as you did with lettuce? Cabbage is my new project, after the success of taking lettuce to FA! It's still in sandbox form at the moment, but I'm hoping to get it moved to the mainspace within the next week or so, hopefully in better shape (i.e., more complete) than the lettuce one was when I moved it! Thanks in advance, Dana boomer (talk) 23:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Received your e-mail - thank you very much! Dana boomer (talk) 10:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Zeus (fungus)

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The last fungus

Hello,

thanks for your work on Barbeyella minutissima!. I will begin to work on the probably last fungus translated from a German featured version, but I am not sure what is the best time to do that in regard to WikiCup. Do you want me to translate it during the last round or the current? Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 19:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Anytime that works for you is ok with me; I'm more or less done my vacation and back on a regular editing schedule. When you go live with the last article I can copyedit/expand it within a day or two. Sasata (talk) 19:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I see a quirky hook for Tricholoma vaccinum

Were you going to nom him already? Rcej (Robert) – talk 07:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Nothing special suggested itself to me ... whaddya have in mind? Sasata (talk) 07:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Wait and see ;) Its not gonna be the hook Taj Mahal, though. lol Rcej (Robert) – talk 07:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Boletus curtisii

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Re:Image query

That's really quite regrettable; we can get around potential problems like this with license reviews, but I'm not sure that there's much that can be done here. Of course, I have no doubt that they were released, but there's potentially a dangerous precedent to be set. With the featured picture, it seems like a fair guess that people checked the licensing, and the fact JJ uploaded his own version shows that he will have checked... But the other one is definitely problematic. I note Rcej didn't even make a generic "licenses check out" comment in his GA review. Also, I've checked the Internet archive, and there's nothing there. I think contacting the authors may be the best option- see if they are willing to "release" the images, or at least confirm that they did once release them. Without that, I'm not sure that this would get through FAC, as, otherwise, all we have are vague assurances that it was probably checked. Sorry I don't have some magic way around this! J Milburn (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I think, if email is not an option, the best way would be to have some kind of centralised discussion somewhere (perhaps on Commons) where you may be able to get some kind of consensus that the images are OK- a common sense versus procedure-type situation. One possible venue could even be at FPC. J Milburn (talk) 21:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Your requests

Looks like that issue of the Naturaliste is available at the botanical garden (which is more practical for me than the university library, as I can edit at the former, but not the latter). I'll try to drop there this week (also I'll give Phallus indusiatus a look asap). Circéus (talk) 04:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

As a side note, for quebec distribution you can probably rely on Mycoquebec.org (though it's in French). It's got input behind the scenes by professional/published mycologists, and even offline discussion with experts outside Quebec, so i consider easily as, if not more reliable than MushroomObserver.com Circéus (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I've let JMilburn know about your opinion, and will see what he thinks. Sasata (talk) 19:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

So I've started with a pass at the references, and I'd like to know which style should I standardize the short refs to? "Doe (year), page" or "Doe year, page"? Circéus (talk) 04:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The former is what I've done with previous FA's ... thanks! Sasata (talk) 06:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Tricholoma vaccinum

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Ding

I've emailed you. Thanks, J Milburn (talk) 19:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Boletellus russellii

Hello! Your submission of Boletellus russellii at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 August newsletter

The final is upon us! We are down to our final 8. A massive 573 was our lowest qualifying score; this is higher than the 150 points needed last year and the 430 needed in 2010. Even in 2009, when points were acquired for mainspace edit count in addition to audited content, 417 points secured a place. That leaves this year's WikiCup, by one measure at least, our most competitive ever. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:

1. Grapple X (submissions) once again finishes the round in first place, leading Pool B. Grapple X writes articles about television, and especially The X-Files and Millenium, with good articles making up the bulk of the score.
2. Miyagawa (submissions) led Pool A this round. Fourth-place finalist last year, Miyagawa writes on a variety of topics, and has reached the final primarily off the back of his massive number of did you knows.
3. Ruby2010 (submissions) was second in Pool B. Ruby2010 writes primarily on television and film, and scores primarily from good articles.
4. Casliber (submissions) finished third in Pool B. Casliber is something of a WikiCup veteran, having finished sixth in 2011 and fourth in 2010. Casliber writes on the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy. Over half of Casliber's points this round were bonus points from the high-importance articles he has worked on.
5. Cwmhiraeth (submissions) came second in Pool A. Also writing on biology, especially marine biology, Cwmhiraeth received 390 points for one featured article (Bivalvia) and one good article (pelican), topping up with a large number of did you knows.
6. Muboshgu (submissions) was third in Pool A. Muboshgu writes primarily on baseball, and this round saw Muboshgu's first featured article, Derek Jeter, promoted on its fourth attempt at FAC.
7. Dana Boomer (submissions) was fourth in Pool A. She writes on a variety of topics, including horses, but this round also saw the high-importance lettuce reach featured article status.
8. Sasata (submissions) is another WikiCup veteran, having been a finalist in 2009 and 2010. He writes mostly on mycology.

However, we must also say goodbye to the eight who did not make the final, having fallen at the last hurdle: GreatOrangePumpkin (submissions), Ealdgyth (submissions), Calvin999 (submissions), Piotrus (submissions), Toa Nidhiki05 (submissions), 12george1 (submissions), The Bushranger (submissions) and 1111tomica (submissions). We hope to see you all next year.

On the subject of next year, a discussion has been opened here. Come and have your say about the competition, and how you'd like it to run in the future. This brainstorming will go on for some time before more focused discussions/polls are opened. As ever, 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. 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 • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I can't believe it's not butter!

If you'll 5x Boletus regius, we have double DYK: " ...that the butter-foot bolete (pictured) and red-capped butter bolete are in the same section?" Its more work for you...cool! ;) Rcej (Robert) – talk 04:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

No jokes about butter, it might spread. Gimme a coupla days, will see what I can find out about B. regius. Sasata (talk) 04:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

LOL...boo!! Rcej (Robert) – talk 10:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done – note I changed the common name of B. regius in the hook. Not the most earth-shattering of hooks, but it's better than anything I could come up with! Sasata (talk) 06:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Podoserpula

Hello! Your submission of Podoserpula at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Chris857 (talk) 01:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Pluteus nevadensis

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Mycena atkinsoniana

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Engleromyces sinensis

Orlady (talk) 00:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Cortinarius camphoratus

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Barbeyella minutissima

When I took on the review of Barbeyella minutissima, I expected that the person who responded would be Kürbis who nominated the article for GA. I am well aware that you know a great deal more about slime moulds than me and are much more experienced in writing GA and FA articles, so that making suggestions for improvement is rather like a penguin providing lessons on flight to a seagull! So, if you disagree with things I suggest, you had better take no notice of what I say. Although I have not yet considered the other GA criteria, I am not expecting to find much amiss with the article.

Would you consider taking on the GA review of Amphibian? I am keen to get this started because I have further plans for the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, Kürbis kindly agreed to let me tag on to his GAN after I found some additional sources and expanded the article. I don't really know a lot about slime moulds, but at any rate, all of your suggestions for prose improvements have been helpful. I will consider taking on the amphibian GAN, but should really finish off another one I've started first, and I should also really complete my GAN of malaria, before I exhaust the kind reviewer's patience :) I am a fan of amphibians (worked a bit on Mark's Thompson's article Long-toed salamander to help bring it to GA), and will take the review in a week or so if no-one else gets there first. Sasata (talk) 16:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, that would be helpful. I'll carry on with this slime mould review when you have decided whether to add some background information. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

bioluminescent fungi

I'll be happy to have a look through it. Probably not before tomorrow or Wednesday though. I'm slightly more busy than usual this week. Circéus (talk) 16:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Having pored over it a little (focusing mostly on the prose part): intro needs a complete rewrite and split for a "bioluminescence in fungi" intro section. An exemple of a serious problem: it contradict itself right off by saying that biolum provides antioxidant protection and then stating that "the function of fungal bioluminescence has not been established" (this being because there's a failure to distinguish the biolum phenomenon and the biochemical process that causes it). I'll do a rewrite myself. In the meantime, I strongly suspect that the ref for the Lucentipes lineage comment is second hand (Oliviera & al. doesn't seem to include much phylogenetic info but I can't see more than a few graphs and the abstract), so can you try and dig up the ref, assuming it's not to something in press? Circéus (talk) 16:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they source this statement to Matheny et al. (2006). Let me know if you'd like any of the refs emailed to you. Sasata (talk) 16:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually I'd like to see Oliviera & al., 'cause Matheny has nothing to do with either taxa. I'm going to assume it's cited to indicate the clade is not named, not to any paper that established it since Desjardins & al. (2010) has this in the intro (emphasis mine, author citations removed for legibility): "and an unnamed lineage (including Gerronema viridilucens and Mycena lucentipes; Perry and Desjardin unpubl)." Circéus (talk) 19:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment. Paper sent. Sasata (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I've chosen to work on it in my sandbox to avoid disrupting the article. As to Bisporella citrina, the writing could be improved a little, but is basically accurate. Circéus (talk) 03:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• Ok, thanks for checking the disco. Sasata (talk) 04:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

On deeper looking, we have some serious taxonomic problems. We cannot seriously list species in genera (Dictyopanus) that the encyclopedia does not recognize and that may not be considered good taxa. I have hardly found anything about those two taxon for the last 40 years! Burdsall & Miller (Mycotaxon 7(3):511-514. 1978.) notes that the type of D. foliicolus seems lost. And the name was never transferred (as far as I can tell) to Panellus. Similarly we mention Prunulus, but don't list any species from that genera, while a bunch of other genera (Dictyopanus, Filoboletus, lampteromyces, Nothopanus, Pleurotus and Poromycena) are in the list, but not assigned to any lineage. That looks pretty sloppy for an article aimed at Featured status. Circéus (talk) 04:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Boletellus russellii

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mycena atkinsoniana

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Mycena atkinsoniana 60804.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Julia\talk 13:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-09-10/WikiProject report

Hey, have you seen this? Seems a shame not to have you chipping in when you're the most prolific editor in the project! J Milburn (talk) 20:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I did, but I prefer to keep a low profile. Sasata (talk) 15:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Endogone

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Boletus auripes

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Boletus regius

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Giant eland

Hi, Sasata. This is about the article Giant eland, which you promoted as GA. Now I have time, and can start work on it to make it an FA. I would be glad to have your help, as this shall be my first FAC attempt. If you have time (I see you are busy the whole year with the WikiCup championship!) then you can guide me with this. --Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 13:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'd be happy to help you out. I recommend submitting the article to peer review, to get more eyes on the prose. I'll do another lit search search soon to ensure there's nothing important that's been missed. Sasata (talk) 17:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Albaflavenone

Hi, here it is: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Albaflavenone.png

Please tell me if there is an error with it, I will change it :) -- YOSF0113 (talk - contributions) 15:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Holy cow that was fast! Thanks very much, it will go in the article Phallus indusiatus that I hope to submit to FAC soon. Sasata (talk) 16:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Podoserpula

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Parasola auricoma

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 00:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for List of bioluminescent fungi

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 00:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Mycena chlorophos

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 00:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Agaricus bernardii

The DYK project (nominate) 16:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Ibogaine

Could you respond on the GA nomination? ~~Ebe123~~ → report 19:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

re GAN Podoserpula

Hi,

I've reviewed your nomination and made a few comments at Talk:Podoserpula/GA1.

Temporarily on hold. Wonderful fungi!

Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 16:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Colus hirudinosus

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again

Thank you for your long-term committment to the GAN of Malaria. I really think we're making great progress on improving the quality of this important article. Let me know if you think I'm being overly nit-picky. I guess it's entirely possible I'm bringing up things that aren't typically dealt with in a GA review, but I figure we've got a good thing going. Let me know if it could be improved. And still, I don't mind the slow going, but I can accelerate things if you'd like. Best. Biosthmors (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure if I could have gotten a better reviewer :) It's an important article, and I don't mind taking the time to get it right. My wife (a senior resident) has lined up a couple of subject-matter experts who've graciously offered to review it when it's ready (probably after peer review, but before FAC), so I'd like it to be in the best shape possible before then. And thank-you for putting up with my slow responses; I try to juggle a lot here on the 'pedia (including my time-consuming guilty pleasure), and I sometimes have to do quite a bit of background reading before I feel confident enough to make a change in the malaria article (I don't really have any particular expertise in the subject, just a science background). Sasata (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Perfect, and thanks. And I was going to offer to try and line up a subject matter expert for you too... But the offer stands. =) Once we get to that point, I'd actually like to try for you, because it could establish some new contact avenues for me or help start a useful avenue for high-quality medical articles to receive feedback on Wikipedia in general. Biosthmors (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

That's fine with me, the more eyes, the better! Sasata (talk) 19:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK review concerns

Hi Sasata, Ive tried to address the concerns you raised on my nomination here: Template:Did you know nominations/Eucommia jeffersonensis, Eucommia rolandii When you get a chance would you be willing to recheck the articles and nomination? Thanks!--Kevmin § 20:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK criteria

I was thinking about DYK because I just found Medicines for Malaria Venture, which is unsourced. Now if someone completely rewrites the article, and sources it well with one edit then they don't meet the eligibility criteria. But could that same content qualify under 1. (d? I guess it would have to be done in user space, and then one would have to find an administrator to speedy delete before a move. And the admin would have to see that it obviously improves the article. Or, can someone make an edit to "chop it", for a minute, to remove everything but a sentence that demonstrates notability (because the content is problematic and unsourced WP:V) and then post the rewritten version? Then can they get an expansion. There's gotta be a way to reward people for completely rewriting and sourcing articles that clean up. Maybe at Wikipedia:Dyk#Eligibility_criteria under New there could be a sentence like, "Completely rewriting an article that previously met the criteria for a good article quickfail are also considered 'new'." Just wondering about this. I'm sure some aspects of what I'm saying have been discussed before, but I'd rather ask you than dig for a long time, if you don't mind. Biosthmors (talk) 16:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• I've seen a few cases like this discussed at DYK over the years. Expanding and resourcing existing poorly-sourced (or completely non-sourced, in this case) content, unfortunately, doesn't qualify for any exemptions. I see you've placed a verification tag on the article. If no-one responds in about a week, our policies allow you rip out the unsourced text, and then you can plop in your userspace draft (as you proposed; I've seen this suggestion given by DYK regulars when posed a similar question on the talk page). Or, if your draft ends up being over 13095 characters (or thereabouts) it would qualify anyway. You could suggest amending the eligibility criteria on the talk page, but I've seen similar suggestions shot down in the past (for better or worse, the emphasis is on new content). Sasata (talk) 20:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• Interesting. Well then maybe I don't want to change any eligibility criteria. Maybe what would be best is just adding some prose and clarifing the meaning (even if most of the text is in a note at the bottom of the page). I want others to know there is an avenue to get a DYK for articles like this, because it wasn't clear to me. And FYI I don't think I'll end up rewriting this article, but knowing I could get a DYK for doing so makes it more likely. Am I understanding you right, and does the approach I describe sound reasonable (in that you may support something like this or you think others would)? Biosthmors (talk) 20:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, I think your approach is reasonable, and would be supported by (at least some) DYK regulars. Here's a couple of links to somewhat related discussions from the past year: 1, 2 (you could probably find more by searching the archives). Sasata (talk) 21:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

POTD notification

POTD

Hi Sasata,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Cortinarius vanduzerensis 134617.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on September 21, 2012. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2012-09-21. —howcheng {chat} 17:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks for all your input at The Hunger Games FAC, Sasata. Your suggestions were very helpful and even taught me something about proper sentence construction. The article wouldn't be as good as it is now without your help! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 22:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• My pleasure! Sasata (talk) 23:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

TFA considered

I suggested Armillaria luteobubalina to be considered for TFA, please feel free to join the discussion, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Next: same thing for Phallus indusiatus, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Good articles (Participant Clean-Up)

Hello, you are receiving this message because you are currently a participant of WikiProject Good articles. Since the creation of the WikiProject, over 200 user's have joined to help review good article nominations and contribute to other sections of the WikiProject. Over the years, several of these users have stopped reviewing articles and/or have become inactive with the project but are still listed as participates. In order to improve communications with other participants and get newsletters sent out faster (newsletters will begin to be sent out monthly starting in October) all participants that are no longer active with the WikiProject will be removed from the participants list.

If you are still interested in being a participant for this WikiProject, please sign your user name here and please help review some articles so we can reduce the size of the backlog. If you are no longer interested, you do not need to sign your name anywhere and your name will be removed from the participants list after the deadline. Remember that even if you are not interested at this time, you can always re-add your name to the list whenever you want. The deadline to sign your name on the page above will be November 1, 2012. Thank-you. 13:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Update for: WikiProject Good articles (Participant Clean-Up)

Sorry for having to send out a second message but a user has brought to my attention that a point mentioned in the first message should be clarified. If user's don't sign on this page, they will be moved to an "Inactive Participants" list rather then be being removed from the entire WikiProject. Sorry for any confusion.--Dom497 (talk)15:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The Mechanics of Oscar Pistorius' Running Blades

Hi, Sasata. I added citations to this article per your request: Template:Did you know nominations/The Mechanics of Oscar Pistorius' Running Blades. Hopefully it's now good to go. Pkeets (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Malaria GAN since May 2012?

Hi Sasata. I notice that Malaria has been on the GA Nom list since May ... quite a long 2-week period. Further, the GA review page doesn't seem to contain a GA review.

Should we remove Malaria from the GA nom list now? all the best Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• The review is in progress. Thanks for your concern. Sasata (talk) 17:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Bisporella citrina

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Go Cup Canada!

Wow...very nice! ;) Rcej (Robert) – talk 09:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Impressive! It's not a record, but it will appear on the leaderboard if selected. J Milburn (talk) 18:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, I've got a few multihooks already that aren't on that board. Anyway, I'm prepping a couple more that will blow this octahook out of the water (if I can get my lazy ass in gear in the next few weeks). Sasata (talk) 18:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)