User talk:Sasata/Archive 16

POTD notification
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)

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: Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 21:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 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 on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

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 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 or his delegate, 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 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 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


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!

 * 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)

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 |undefined 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!

 * 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 C N 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 C N 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 C N 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)

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
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 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? 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!
 * 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 ).
 * It was (UK) or is thought (Switzerland) extinct in some countries.
 * 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)
 * ✅ (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

 * 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 &lt;^&gt; 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 &lt;^&gt; 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 &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 04:52, 18 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 <sup style="color:#8EE5EE;">C <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">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 <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">T <sup style="color:#8EE5EE;">C <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">N 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 &lt;^&gt; 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 &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 13:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
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 <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">T <sup style="color:#8EE5EE;">C <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">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 <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">T <sup style="color:#8EE5EE;">C <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">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, who scored 242 points, missing out on a place in the round by a whisker. However, congratulations to Pool B's, whose television articles have brought him another round victory. Pool A's came second overall, with an impressive list of biological did you knows, good articles and featured articles. Third overall was Pool D's, 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 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 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 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 or his delegate, 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 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 "&#8209;" 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. --<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;"> 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 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)
 * 3 Huber
 * 20 Barnes where the page range is 389–430
 * 64 Hockey
 * 66 VanBlaricom
 * 69 Stein
 * 76 Carlson
 * 90 Phillips
 * 113 Newell
 * 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

 * 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. <b style="color:#0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color:green;">Talk page</b> 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) <b style="color:#0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color:green;">Talk page</b> 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&zwj;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! Ocaasit &#124; 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
-- Sainsf &lt;^&gt; 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
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)

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)