User talk:Sasata/Archive 13

Zoopagales
I thought we were following the Hibbett et al. classification, under which Zygomycota is defunct. There is no division Zygomycota listed on the Fungi page, so that page needs to be synched with the Zoopagales page, if we're retaining Zygomycota for some taxa. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi EP. The upper-level classification of the Fungi, including Zygomycota, is in flux right now, and I'm not sure a clear consensus has yet been established among mycologists. I just did a search for "Zygomycota", and it appears that the taxon is still in common use in papers published in 2010 and 2011. For my work here, I've mostly been following the classification of the Dictionary of the Fungi (2008), and in their Zoopagales entry, they give Hibbett et al. (2007) as a reference... so I don't know if that means they disagree with their conclusions, or have just opted to remain conservative with regards to changing upper-level classification until more analyses are published. We really could use a Fungal classification article that goes into more detail about this. Agree totally about getting these articles in synch, but it will require someone surveying the recent literature and trying to determine what the consensus is... I will move this closer to the top of my to-do list, but hopefully someone gets there before me :-) Sasata (talk) 17:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Meinhard Moser
Hey, I've finally gotten around to expanding Meinhard Moser- I was wondering if you have access to the journal Sydowia? Neither of the articles I have read (the obituaries) have much by way of a bibliography, as "as one will be appearing in Sydowia, hopefully during 2003." He has around 200 publications, so I'm not sure how exactly I would format it (leave out the minor ones? Long table? Separate article?) but I'd love to get hold of that article, if it was ever published. J Milburn (talk) 21:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sydowia is online at, but I couldn't find any obituary for Moser (there is one for one Emil Müller in 60(1)). Ucucha 21:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, missed the "2003" part—the online stuff only goes back to 2005. Ucucha 21:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Older issues are available at Cyberliber, but they only go to 1978. My university library subscribes; I can scan the article for you next time I go, but can't give a firm date of when that will be – any time in the next three weeks... As for a list of publications, I'm not sure myself. I have a similar dilemma with some other mycologist biographies I've been working on. 200 publications sounds like enough for a separate list, but is there a precedent for this type of article? Sasata (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's really good of you. How annoying that it's not online- it means there's no chance of making use of copy-paste! There is some precedent for bibliographies; note, for instance, George Orwell bibliography, a featured list. Admittedly, Moser's no Orwell, and I can't think of a separate bibliography for someone so minor that I have seen, but it gives an idea. I'd like to keep it all in the one article, if possible, but I'll wait until I see the bibliography (if it did get published) before I make a decision. Of course, I very much doubt I'll have the patience to copy out lists of things in a language I can really read... J Milburn (talk) 00:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 20#Category:Pezizomycetes
You are invited to join the discussion at Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 20. Fayenatic (talk) 20:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Limnoperdon
Thanks from the DYK project Victuallers (talk) 14:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Fomitiporia ellipsoidea
Hey there- hope the trip's going well. Not often we get mycological articles in the mainstream press! I'm looking into expanding the article on the species, and I was wondering whether you have access to Mycotaxon- I'm looking for this article, which was the initial description. Mycobank does have some information, but I'd rather cite the original article, and I suspect there'll be a lot more anyway. J Milburn (talk) 12:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi JM, I've returned for a day then will be away in a different direction for a few more days. The article you seek is here. Great to see the fungus articles at GAN! I will snap them up to review upon my return, if that Rcej character doesn't get to them first! Sasata (talk) 04:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thank you- could have sworn I'd checked that, but thanks- hope you enjoy your next trip :) J Milburn (talk) 08:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Article's hit the main page as (I think) the first ever mycological ITN item. J Milburn (talk) 12:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent! BTW, I like your solution to not italicizing MycoBank in the refs, and will be using it for future articles (it's so easy I couldn't think of it myself). Perhaps sometime your bot might be able to mass change all of the other 100's of instances in one fell swoop? Sasata (talk) 13:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, should be able to do that. I'll look into it today. J Milburn (talk) 15:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Lobaria oregana
Hey Sasata, just wanted to thank you for adding a full taxonomic infobox to my dinky little lichen stub! I confess I didn't even know lichen (lichens?) are considered a part of the Fungi kingdom – so thanks also for helping me brush up on my high school bio :) --Accedie (talk) 10:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You're quite welcome. At least you learned about lichens in high school bio, we skipped the fungi chapter completely (guess the teacher wasn't interested). Sasata (talk) 13:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Away until Aug 22


Have fun- good hunting! J Milburn (talk) 13:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Bring us all some great eye candy! Rcej (Robert) – talk  03:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Lactarius pallidus
Hi,

Can you explain this edit? The edit links should no longer be bunched even without the stack template. If is therefore unnecessary. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * My apologies: I've been pointed to the problem now. Sorry for that! Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Boletus.JPG


A tag has been placed on File:Boletus.JPG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Logan Talk Contributions 02:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:FOUR
I don't know if you have been keeping us up to date at WP:FOUR. The last WP:FA that you have sent us is Clathrus ruber, which was promoted 6 months ago. Your lead is shrinking.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Michaelis–Menten kinetics/GA1
Hey. Just checking to see if this review will be concluded; stalled about a month ago and just seems to be in limbo now. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder. I will revisit this week. Sasata (talk) 21:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Fomitiporia ellipsoidea/archive1
Hey, just to let you know that I've nominated the article at FAC, after getting hold of a picture. J Milburn (talk) 11:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Pygmy slow loris
I just read through the sandbox article and did some clean up. Though I probably did not fix all the potential cases of copied text, I did handle a few. For me, there are only a few big issues. First, the article reads "this species may be distinguished from N. intermedius and ..." after it noted that N. intermedius is simply an adult form of the species. Also, the "Diet" section seemed a little redundant. The "Conservation" section could also be consolidated a little bit, but to me, this isn't a reason to hold the article back. Yes, we need to add specific page numbers, but given that the citations are in place, I see no reason to go ahead and publish the article. (Anything is better than what's up now.) If you need, email me a zipped-up copy of the sources, and I can try to track down the exact page numbers and fix any lingering issues where the text is too close to the source. (Otherwise, good job!) –  VisionHolder « talk » 01:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll have another look at the pygmy too when I have time. Ucucha (talk) 11:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll be doing an all-day library session on Friday and will be able to fill in the missing page numbers then (several are from sources I can only access in print there). I'll give it another read-through and copyedit, and try to address VH's concerns. After that we should be ready to submit to GA. Thanks for the help, guys! Sasata (talk) 15:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Coconut crab
A couple of weeks ago, you offered to collaborate on the article coconut crab. I have managed to reference most of the text, and have made all the appropriate improvements from the peer review, I think. The thing that is most pressing, in my opinion – and which for some reason I just can't bear to do myself – is to sort out the section on the collecting and opening of coconuts (the last one or two paragraphs of the Diet section). I'm sure I've read lots of contradictory reports, and I'm no longer sure what we should say about it. A fresh pair of eyes would be a huge help. I think most of the sources are online, but I can provide copies of anything I've got; Drew et al. (2010) is behind a paywall, for instance. Once that part is sorted out, the article will probably be ready for GA review; no doubt other issues will crop up during that. Of course, if you have any other comments or changes, they're most welcome, too. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll be spending Friday at my University library, and plan to do an online & print lit review for additional sources. I'll keep my eyes open for more about their coconut-cracking capabilities. I've got pretty good access to online literature, so should be ok there. Will report back soon. Sasata (talk) 15:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Xeromphalina setulipes
Thanks for your edits. I'm thinking this one may be worth a shot at FAC once Fomitiporia ellipsoidea has gone through. I've already emailed for a picture, submitted the taxon to Index Fungorum (so, once reviewed, that will be another source) and I'll look into adjusting the map image a little once my map for F. ellipsoidea has been done. Is there anything else you think needs doing? I've searched and searched for more sources, but I don't think they exist in this case. (On a related note, you may have noticed that Ucucha's latest FAC offering, Drymoreomys, is based almost entirely on a single article; a precedent is very much developing for it concerning the most minor species.) J Milburn (talk) 18:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't gone through the article in fine detail (will save that for the FAC), but it seems like everything is there. Yes, Ucucha has set an admirable precedent for making obscure taxon articles into FAs... too bad he prefers the mundane structures of crests and furrows on fossilized teeth rather than the world of cystidia, basidia, and other fascinating, living fungal microstructures :) Sasata (talk) 18:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * p.s., I checked for that Moser article you asked about, but came up empty handed: I got the impression that my library subscribed, but it turns out they only have one volume, so you'll have to ILL or something. Sasata (talk) 18:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking. At this point, I'm not even certain if the Moser article exists- I don't have a citation, just a promise in an earlier article that one is to come. If it exists, I'll find it. Eventually. J Milburn (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Four Award

 * Thanks! Sasata (talk) 20:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

RE: Structure Request
Hi, thanks for your request. But when do you need it? I'm a bit busy, so the best time to pass to you is Friday. But if you need it urgently I could do it tomorrow night (about 20 hours later?). So do you want me to upload to wiki commons then give you the link? :) -- YOSF0113 (talk - contributions) 16:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've finished the model :) Here it is: Astrahydrols.png
 * I'm not sure what to name it, so I just put it as "Astrahydrols" after the gif image you gave me. What do you want me to save it as? Oh, and please take a look and see if I had made any mistakes that I had overlooked. Thanks! :) -- YOSF0113 (talk - contributions) 04:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks great, I have already inserted it in the article! "Astrohygrols" would be a better spelling. Thanks very much for your time and effort, I appreciate it. I will add the source information on the Commons page soon. Sasata (talk) 04:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * :) I'm glad you like it. Oh, I've also listed it for renaming, so maybe you could change the link on the page when the file name is changed? And if you need any more diagrams feel free to tell me. (Looking forward to more) :) -- YOSF0113 (talk - contributions) 07:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested reassessment of Percheron
An article that you have been involved in editing, Percheron has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the good article reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Sorry about this. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Interested in supporting a mycology class as an Online Ambassador?
Hi Sasata! I wanted to let you know that there's a mycology course that's working with Wikipedia Ambassadors this term. If you're interested in helping to support that class, I invite you to apply to become an Online Ambassador (you'll be an easy pass) and then sign on to the team working with that class. If you have any questions, please let me know. --Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Sage, I am interested, but need to be careful about over-committing myself for the next while. Can you reveal the name of the instructor and the class title? Sasata (talk) 19:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What I know about it is here. The title is Mycology, it appears to be an upper division undergraduate course, and it's taught by Lee Kurtz at Georgia Gwinnett College.  Feel free to keep an eye on it and wait to decide; the course page should get created sometime soonish.  If you like, you can apply as an ambassador now, and then wait decide whether to actually be active and support that class later.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Panaeolina foenisecii
Panaeolina foenisecii is not a psychoactive mushroom. There are many reports of it containing psilocybin. This is because it shares its habitat with a psychoactive lookalike, Panaeolus cinctulus. Mixed collections are extremely common, resulting in many false positives in the literature. I know of dozens of people who have eaten Panaeolina foenisecii to see if it is psychoactive. All of them report no effects or diarrhea and none of them experienced hallucinogenic effects. I consider Wikipedia extremely accurate, and this is the only thing that wikipedia says that I know to be incorrect. I know that a 2006 analysis shows psilocybin, but I strongly doubt that the people who did that study checked the spore ornamentation on all of the mushrooms tested to make sure that none of them were Panaeolus cinctulus. Alan Rockefeller (Talk - contribs) 06:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note, replied on the talk page. Sasata (talk) 14:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination for Lycoperdonosis
I found a cooly alternahook! Rcej (Robert) – talk  05:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry ...
for being so slow at incorporating your excellent suggestions to the Michaelis–Menten kinetics article. But I agree it's not up to GA standard, I may give it another run some time in the future. Thanks again. U+003F? 12:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Seacology history
I'm reading Nafanua by Cox and I'm starting to get a clearer understanding of the sequence of events. I've got about 100 pages to go still, and it's proving to be a slow read, so it may take me a few days. Since the book is an autobiographical account—and thus a primary source—I'm not sure how to proceed. I feel Cox's account of events is more reliable than that of news articles, which are probably based off the book anyway... although probably inaccurately. What do you suggest? (Since I'm sure Ucucha monitors your talk page, his input is welcome, too.)

Also, in regards to some of the people, Verne Read is a Milwaukee businessman who also helped bankroll Bat Conservation International, according to the book (pages 84–85). If I include that information, would that make him notable? For where I'm at in the book so far, his role appears to be quite important in the events that led to the founding of Seacology. And FYI: the logging did start, which prompted Cox to call Read to secure a loan. Again, I can clarify if I can use the book as a source. Just let me know what you think. –  VisionHolder « talk » 08:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Nafanua is published by a reputable publisher, and a brief search didn't reveal any unfavorable reviews for the book that might indicate that it's inaccurate or biased, so I don't see any problems with using the book the fill in some details in the article; you have my (unneeded) blessing! Sasata (talk) 15:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

MycoKeys
Hello Sasata, I recently encountered a new Journal on fungi which is completely free to use (all text and pictures in the journal are CC-BY-3.0). You might be interested. There are only three articles published as of yet, so not that much, but I am sure more will follow in future. If you want I could let you know when a new issue is out, I check the publishers page often to check for new ZooKeys issues. The Journal is located at: http://www.pensoft.net/journals/mycokeys/ Cheers Ruigeroeland (talk) 08:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note; I am interested, and have bookmarked the site. Sasata (talk) 15:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations from Brazil
Hello Sasata. I'm from Brazil and I have interest in fungi. I appreciate your work and decide to translate to portuguese some of your articles about Lactarius. I translated pt:Lactarius volemus,  pt:L. alnicola,  pt:L. argillaceifolius,  pt:L. fallax,  pt:L. deceptivus. I want to translate all the other good and featured articles about Lactarius and other fungi. I hope you continue writing great articles, which also helps Brazilian mycologists. Congratulations! Dr. Lenaldo Vigo (talk) 16:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Lenaldo, thanks for the message. It's great to see the fungus articles being translated to other languages. If you plan to translate all the featured and good articles, I think you will be busy for quite a while :) It's an interesting coincidence that you should write, as I was recently working on a article Lactarius rupestris, which was newly described in 2010 (see the abstract), and is known only from the semi-arid region in the National Park of Catimbau of Brazil. Are you anywhere near there? (I'm asking for the extremely remote chance you might be able to get a picture). Cheers, Sasata (talk) 16:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Sasata. I can not take a picture of L. rupestris (I live far away). I will learn how to upload pictures on Wikipedia, because I plan to take pictures of fruits, trees, mushrooms and insects in the region of Brazil where I live. Cheers, Dr. Lenaldo Vigo (talk) 20:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Lycoperdonosis
Materialscientist (talk) 08:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Lycoperdon perlatum
Materialscientist (talk) 08:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! Sasata (talk) 15:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Re:Honey fungus
Done. J Milburn (talk) 20:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's quick service, thanks! Sasata (talk) 21:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Featured Article promotion
Thanks Quadell! Sasata (talk) 18:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Tidying up....
Another one I always meant to finish...so have finally started a to do list of sorts on the talk page here...(I always like to finish the job eventually...) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Category:Fungi described in 1991 et al
Hello, you added Category:Fungi described in the 1990s and its parent category Category:Fungi described in the 20th century which would normally be wrong so I started removing the latter, but then thought you may have a valid enough reason in this case?? Regards (Crusoe8181 (talk) 06:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)).
 * Not really; I tend to take my first steps doing anything here by doing what others do, and had seen other users add both of these categories, so I figured it was the way things were done. Remove them if you see fit, or I'll do so next time I work through them. Sasata (talk) 14:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Titration peer review
Hello! I've started a peer review on Titration, and would be much obliged if you could give me some input. Thank you very much for your time. :) Neonfuzz (talk) 17:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it's certainly a topic with which I have ample experience. I'll have a look sometime this week. Sasata (talk) 17:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 September newsletter
We are on this year's home straight, with less than a month to go until the winner of the 2011 WikiCup will be decided. The fight for first place is currently being contested by, and , all of whom have over 200 points. This round has already seen multiple featured articles (1991 Atlantic hurricane season from Hurricanehink and Northrop YF-23 from Sp33dyphil) and a double-scoring featured list (Miyagawa's 1948 Summer Olympics medal table). The scores will likely increase far further before the end of the round on October 31 as everyone ups their pace. There is not much more to say- thoughts about next year's competition are welcome on the WikiCup talk page or the scoring talk page, and signups will open once a few things have been sorted out.

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 WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, 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 WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 12:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi there again!
Hi, I'm Sainsf, and it seems ages since I heard last from you! I couldn't get anyone better than you for this work, so I contacted you. Actually, as you know, I've made and am still working hard on WikiProject Fungi, removing redlinks and fixing things and expanding articles. You can see my userpage to know about all my articles (not all of them are complete). If you think I'm worthy of a barnstar- say, The Red Link Removal Barnstar, or the Tireless Contributor Barnstar, or Wikiproject Barnstar- for all my contributions (though not many of them are so good...), then give it to me. If I'm not worthy of any such barnstar, then don't hesitate to tell me any tips or things I can do. And as I thought of your help, I gave you this!:


 * Thanks Sainsf. Barnstars are nice, but I prefer the self-satisfaction that comes from doing a job properly ;) Please keep up your good work, we need committed editors to help catalogue the thousands of fungal taxa that are missing articles! Sasata (talk) 16:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Spongiforma
Don't know if you've noticed, but you've got yourself a nice little good topic if you can work on the above article. You probably already have most of it in the other articles, so it shouldn't be too difficult! J Milburn (talk) 22:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I had noticed and planned on doing that when the mood strikes... can't say exactly when that will be though (my mood is hard to predict). Sasata (talk) 00:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There are several good and featured topics on rodents, birds, and gondwanatheres, but none on fungi. You can't let the fungi down like that. Ucucha (talk) 12:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if you put it that way, I guess I have no choice. GT coming up soon. Sasata (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thanks! Sasata (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * NP, just help spread of love, would ya? Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 23:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Coconut Crab
Nice job, tighten up the page numbers for FAC and maybe get some more sourcing on the Earhart reference and you should be good to go. I think you and I have worked on similar articles in the past. (I'm mostly an editor on firearms and knives, but have edited quite a few reptile and bird pieces getting them to GA and FAC). I used to work at a Chimpanzee rescue a long time ago.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the GA review; I can't take much credit for the article's shape though, Stemonitis is the driving force behind restoring the article to its previous FA-status. Hopefully we can give it the final push in the next while. Cheers, Sasata (talk) 20:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Advice for new Wikipedia editors
Hi, Sasata. I've worked for some time on User:Philcha/Essays/Advice for new Wikipedia editors. I'm to approach the subject from the viewpoint of a new editor possibly seeing WP for the first time - in other words I think it must be one easy step at a time, starting from the new editor's starting position. I take WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR seriously, but am trying to make the whole process easier for the new editor. So I: use an informal style; emphasise techniques and tools that help new editors' work to be productive and pleasant; give the basis of the main policies and how to get advice about them; but not overload new editors with loads of details on policies, etc. I hope the essay will be worth publishing in main space, and even get a link for from the main "Welcome". Could you please comment at User talk:Philcha/Essays/Advice for new Wikipedia editors. --Philcha (talk) 21:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)