User talk:Sasata/Archive 21

Pinniped
I plan on working on pinniped for FAC this summer. Would that interest you? I would need help with prose and lit review (I have three secondary sources). LittleJerry (talk) 19:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, that topic deserves a quality article. I probably won't start working on it until mid or late June, though. BTW, Amazon tells me that the Koala book won't arrive until May 31, but if everything goes smoothly, we should be able to put it up for FAC about a week after it gets here. Sasata (talk) 23:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Should we could up with a gameplan soon? LittleJerry (talk) 23:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello? LittleJerry (talk) 01:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like the simplest course of action would be to get a stack of secondary sources and start expanding. Once it has grown (I'm thinking the final article will be about 7500 words when done), we can start looking through the literature databases and add recent articles where appropriate. I checked my University library catalog, and have access to these books that look like they'll be useful:
 * Bruemmer, Fred (1998). Seals in the Wild ISBN 9781571456229
 * Berta, Annalisa (2012). Return to the sea : the life and evolutionary times of marine mammals ISBN 9780520270572
 * Monks, Gregory (2002). The exploitation and cultural importance of sea mammals ISBN 1842171267
 * Riedman, Marianne (1990). The pinnipeds : seals, sea lions, and walruses ISBN 0520064976
 * King, Judith E (1983). Seals of the world ISBN 0198585136
 * ... and various other minor sources that could have useful tidbits. Will start working on the article in earnest in July, with the plan of GAN sometime in mid-August, and FAC nomination shortly after it gets promoted (would like to have the article close to FAC-quality for its GAN). We'll keep the referencing formatting the same as what we're doing for Koala, if that's okay by you. Does that sound like a reasonable plan? I'll finish up the koala additions in the next few days. Sasata (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * (Sorry for the rollback. Your talk page is on my watchlist, I must have clicked by accident. J Milburn (talk) 21:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC))


 * I agree. I own Reidman's book as well as Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals and The encyclopedia of mammals which have a wealth of information on the animals. My biggest problem is getting enough peer reviewed articles as sources.


 * As for the structure of the article I propose this:
 * Taxonomy (discussing the different families plus an "Evolutionary history" subsection)
 * Anatomy and physiology
 * Distribution and habitat
 * Behavior and Lifecyle (reproduction, diet, communication ect)
 * Human relations (conservation, culture ect)


 * We'll also have to decide on what type of English it should be written in. LittleJerry (talk) 21:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * So how would you like to go about the article. Should we both work on one section at a time or pick different sections to do? LittleJerry (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no strong preferences. Just start adding stuff and I'll join soon. Let's also try to get everything that's already in there sourced. Sasata (talk) 06:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll start this coming week. LittleJerry (talk) 23:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll build a section through my sandbox and when finished add it to the article. Then you can look it over and copyedit, expand, ect. Sound good? LittleJerry (talk) 14:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yup, that'll work. Sasata (talk) 17:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You think we should keep the current "Pulmonary surfactant" section? It seems pretty technical and I don't know if the editor did any copying of the sources are close paraphrasing. LittleJerry (talk) 23:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's leave it in for now; I have access to the sources, and will work it over and make it more reader-friendly (I did my graduate research on a similar topic). Sasata (talk) 01:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Would the circulatory system and thermoregulation fit in the some category? It doesn't mention those. LittleJerry (talk) 01:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * We could probably have a section titled "Physiology" (or similar) where we could fit this, as well as the current sections "Thermoregulation" and "Pulmonary surfactant". Sasata (talk) 07:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well I intended to name the whole section, "Anatomy and physiology". I'll deal with circulation and thermoregulation when you're done with the surfactant sections (unless you what to tackle them). For now, I'm moving on. LittleJerry (talk) 22:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you think discussion of diving should be part of physiology or behavior? LittleJerry (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmmm ... mostly under behavior, but probably a few sentences (similar to what's there currently) will be needed in physiology. Sasata (talk) 04:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you gonna expand the conservation section? I think so topics we can cover under Conservation should include seal hunting in Canada, the decline of the Steller sea lion, conflicts with California sea lions and the extinction of the Caribbean monk seal and Japanese sea lion. I plan an having it be a subsection of a "Human relations" section. Also, I won't be able to purchase The exploitation and cultural importance of sea mammals. Money is tight. LittleJerry (talk) 21:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'll expand the conservation section; I haven't had time recently to get to the library for those books I listed above. Sasata (talk) 00:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * So when you have free time again, we can dive (pun) into the article. LittleJerry (talk) 16:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * When will you have the time again? LittleJerry (talk) 19:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Soon! Sasata (talk) 03:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Would you be able to create a collage for the lead image? LittleJerry (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can do that. Sasata (talk) 21:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Great! I would suggest using these images:, , , and . They don't have to be right next to each other but have lines between them, like this. LittleJerry (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you also create a range map? LittleJerry (talk) 00:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a bit trickier for me but I think I could do it. Did you have a source in mind? Sasata (talk) 17:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The section on pinnipeds in MacDonald's The Encyclopedia of Mammals has a range map on the first page. I've also been looking at pinniped range maps on the IUCN and focusing on the most extensive range. LittleJerry (talk) 18:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess we can worry about the range map and collage later. For now, I'll need you to fix up the surfactant section. LittleJerry (talk) 21:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think Schaffer belongs to the bibliography since he's only being used once. LittleJerry (talk) 20:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's already used twice. Sasata (talk) 20:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I added all I can for now. I'll let you work your magic. LittleJerry (talk) 17:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * When do you plan on getting this to GAN? LittleJerry (talk) 19:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Friday evening! Sasata (talk) 03:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay then, the main things we need now are a sub-section on diving physiology (discussing the respiratory and circulatory systems) which should replace "Pulmonary surfactant" and one on thermoregulation. Do you think play behavior should also be mentioned? LittleJerry (talk) 04:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you expand the lead? LittleJerry (talk) 01:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. I'll be spending the day at the library tomorrow and so should be able to finish up the loose ends above. If everything goes ok we should be able to put it up for GAN shortly after. Sasata (talk) 02:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you also check on the "Sleep" section (CE and spotcheck sources) and tidy up the 5th paragraph of the "Conservation and management issues" (so its not so California sea lion-centric, do your sources discuss general conflicts between seals and fisherman/docks?) Thanks again. LittleJerry (talk) 22:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure; I'll be going through the entire article again tonight for another c/e (and to build the lead), but will pay particular attention to these sections. Sasata (talk) 22:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh and don't forget to spotcheck cites 58–61. Good luck! LittleJerry (talk) 23:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Jerry: I think the article is ready for GAN. We can still keep tweaking it for FAC, but there's no reasons not to have it waiting in the queue. What do you say? Sasata (talk) 00:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay then. I'll nominate it. LittleJerry (talk) 22:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you think there's anything wrong with the timelines in the evolution section? LittleJerry (talk) 23:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please answer this. It may be a problem for FAC. LittleJerry (talk) 14:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What do you think the issue is? That the presentation is not completely chronological? Sasata (talk) 18:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, Puijila is stated to live in the early Miocene while Enaliarctos is stated to live in Oligocene/early Miocene. Also the split between phocids and otariids seems to have occurred earlier. Does that ruin the chronology? LittleJerry (talk) 18:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe you could take a look at the article. I was referred to the "Methods Summary" section. LittleJerry (talk) 17:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, shouldn't be a problem since transitional is not the some an ancestral. LittleJerry (talk) 18:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * So when Casliber is finished, do you think the article is ready for FAC? LittleJerry (talk) 20:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I must say I think it is looking pretty polished - I read through it a few times....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * When I was at the library last time I was comparing the article with the coverage given in texts, and I think we've done a pretty good job at not "neglecting major facts or details and placing them in context", and I think the prose is pretty decent (although there will always be additional tweaks to make). I think we'll be able to handle anything that comes our way at FAC ... so, yes! Sasata (talk) 17:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Done! LittleJerry (talk) 19:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you please fix the remaining duplinks? LittleJerry (talk) 15:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you take care of the remaining task? LittleJerry (talk) 21:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you finish the last three four? LittleJerry (talk) 17:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, will take a couple of hours to deal with RL first. Sasata (talk) 17:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Does the new book mention that other government followed the Canadian in regulating seal hunts? This is just an case C62 asks "what about other governments?" LittleJerry (talk) 19:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Another success! Thanks again for your help. LittleJerry (talk) 22:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that worked out well! Hit me up if you want to do a similar mammal collaboration next year. Sasata (talk) 05:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Boletales systematics
I need some help making some phylogenetic trees for the Boletales, and Boletineae. I know what I am doing, and I know the group but I can't code wikipedia worth a damn. What needs to be done is the combination of the trees that appear in Binder and Hibbett 2006 and the Amylocorticiales paper. There is a bit of an issue there though with the taxonomy not being up to date with the trees. The 2006 paper puts more into the suborder coniophorineae than the 2010 Amylocorticiales. So here is a description of it: Most derived Boletaceae and sister Paxillaceae (most derived as in furthest from root). Sister to both of those, Hydnomerulius. That is the Boletineae. Sister to the Boletineae, Scerodermatineae. Sister to all of that, the Suillineae. Now that is a clade, and sister to that is a clade that contains the Coniophorineae (but not the original description). This coniophorineae would be coniophora as sister to a clade of Hygrophoropsis & Leucogyrophana. Sister to all of that, a clade of Serpula and austropaxillus. This is the Serpulaceae and why the original description of coniophorineae cannot stand (it included serpula). Sister to all of that is the Tapinellineae, with Bondarceomyces branching off first and then a clade of Tapinella and Pseudomerulius.

That is the Boletales. The sister of the Boletales is the Atheliales. I don't know as much about that group, but it does look like the Fibulorhizoctinia branching first and sister to Athelia and Piloderma.

I just cannot make a damn tree on here to show you, so I will have to do my best with using numbers to indicate nodes away from root, which I will list as node 0. The = signs indicate the node the name connected to the = sign should be applied to.

/Boletaceae 7                               / \                    Boletineae=6   \---Paxillaceae / \                            /   \                            5     \                           / \     \--Hydnomerulius pinastri /  \                         4     \---Sclerodermatineae / \                       /   \---Suillineae /                    3                    / \                   /   \                  /     \     /Hygrophoropsis /      \   5                /         \ / \Leucogyrophana /          4=Coniophorineae 2            \---Coniophora / \           |   \ /---Austropaxillus |   3=Serpulaceae |    \---Serpula  /-Pseudomerulius Boletales=1                3 |\              / \-Tapinella | \-2=Tapinellineae |               \---Bondarceomyces /                                      --0                    /Athelia \                 2             |                / \Piloderma \Atheliales=1 \--fibulorhizoctinia

I don't want to put my email on here, but I think Satasa can figure out where to find it. As I said, I just released a bunch of sequences on genbank and just had a paper accepted as lead author. Anyway, feel free to email me, which is a much better way of contacting me than through here. I am trying to update the pages on as many of the Boletineae and general Boletales as possible, but there are also just a lot of damn pages to make. Obfuscateme (talk) 03:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've made a simplified cladogram based on Hibbett et al. 2006 to get us started. I'd be happy to convert your cladogram from Nuhn et al (2013) into Wiki format too; the red links will allow us to easily see what new articles have to be made. Give me a day. Sasata (talk) 07:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It's Nuhn et al, 2013. Anyway, the 2006 is pretty out of date on the relationships.  Course, we we still have a long way to go.  I'll see what I can do updating the Boletineae and Boletales member pages. M.E.Nuhn (talk) 19:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, I saw you changed Durianella back to being a member of the Boletaceae. I don't disagree with you, but your source figure (Supplemental Figure 1) is not readable by me. I tried downloading the manuscript PDF (not in there), viewing the figure in workspace (font size too small to read the species), downloading the full-size image (ditto), and downloading as a PPt slide (even worse). Is there any chance you might be able to email this to me in a form where I could read the species? I may end up making a cladogram for this too, as it would be good to have articles for all of these boletineae. Sasata (talk) 02:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * As soon as everything is settled with the journal I'll email you a copy. I hope that the final version doesn't have these image issues.M.E.Nuhn (talk) 13:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * How's this? Sasata (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Looks good, I have fixed H. pinastri from gasteroid to resupinte. I should point out we returned X. stramineum to Boletus and moved Gastroboletus subalpinus and Notholepiota areolata to Boletus, now B. subalpinus and B. semigastroideus.  I left them as is in the figure so they are easier for the reader to find their placement.M.E.Nuhn (talk) 06:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll move those new Boletus species to their updated names soon. Casliber and I are slowing chipping away the redlinks... why isn't Xerocomus perplexus in IF/MycoBank?? Perplexing ... Sasata (talk) 02:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, is Xerocomellus zelleri the current (undisputed?) name for the species formerly known as Boletus zelleri? MycoBank has Xerocomus, IF has Xerocomellus, and from this cladogram it doesn't seem like the two are clearly separated ... I've been thinking about working on this article for an FA push and it would be good to know the correct name! Do you have access to Öst. Z. Pilzk. 20: 39 (2011)? Sasata (talk) 02:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess it depends on your view on "undistputed." No one is forced to use the most up-to-date names.  But you are misinterpreting the clades.  X. zellerii is not closely related to Xerocomus subtomentosus at all, so at least using current knowledge, it should not be considered a Boletus or a Xerocomus.  It doesn't matter that the clade that contains Xerocomellus also contains some Xerocomus species, because it doesn't contain the type of Xerocomus, X. subtomentosus.  I might have that paper, I have yet to go through all of the hard copies I have been giving.M.E.Nuhn (talk) 18:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Tylopilus intermedius
The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Tylopilus rhoadsiae
The DYK project (nominate) 00:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Tylopilus peralbidus
The DYK project (nominate) 00:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pulveroboletus ravenelii
The article Pulveroboletus ravenelii you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Pulveroboletus ravenelii for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- 16:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bothia
The article Bothia you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bothia for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Reid,iain james -- 23:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Cucurbita peer review
I just listed Cucurbita at Peer review/Cucurbita/archive1. If you have time, would you be so kind as to look at this article, especially the medical/pharmacological issues, which are in Cucurbita? I'd greatly appreciate it. I appreicate any assistance you can provide. HalfGig (talk) 01:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll try to put up some comments in the next couple of days. Sasata (talk) 05:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've done some additions the last couple of days. HalfGig (talk) 00:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi HalfGig, I haven't forgotten about this, but am on vacation until the middle of next week and am rationing my Wiki time until then. Sasata (talk) 09:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Boletus subluridellus
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Boletus subluridellus you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dana boomer -- 18:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Clitocybe albirhiza
Gatoclass (talk) 00:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Floccularia albolanaripes
Gatoclass (talk) 00:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Geopora cooperi
Gatoclass (talk) 00:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Hygrophorus goetzii
Gatoclass (talk) 00:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Hygrophorus marzuolus
Gatoclass (talk) 00:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Hygrophorus purpurascens
Gatoclass (talk) 00:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Lentinellus montanus
Gatoclass (talk) 00:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Ramaria magnipes
Gatoclass (talk) 00:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Tricholoma vernaticum
Gatoclass (talk) 00:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Snowbank fungus
Gatoclass (talk) 00:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Mycenastrum
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Boletus subluridellus
The article Boletus subluridellus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Boletus subluridellus for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dana boomer -- 16:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

John Edward Brownlee
Hi Sasata,

I noticed that you have been involved with the John Edward Brownlee articles in the past and I thought that you might be interested in the current featured topic candidacy for these articles. Any constructive comments you would be willing to provide there would be greatly appreciated.

Neelix (talk) 20:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Clark Thomas Rogerson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Pacific Theater


 * Nivatogastrium nubigenum (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Sierra Nevadas

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

peer review
Hi. Please review and fix "Fluorine". If it's too long, just hit sections of interest.-TCO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.137.171 (talk) 14:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nivatogastrium nubigenum
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Nivatogastrium nubigenum you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- 16:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Malaria
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Malaria you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of LT910001 -- 23:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Onygena equina
The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

God of War: Ghost of Sparta FAC
Hi, if you have some time, would you care to do a source review for the aforementioned article? I've also messaged another editor, so if they get to it before you, then no worries. -- JDC808  ♫  05:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The other editor I contacted has taken care of this. -- JDC808  ♫  21:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Nivatogastrium nubigenum
The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nivatogastrium nubigenum
The article Nivatogastrium nubigenum you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Nivatogastrium nubigenum for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- 16:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Fungal articles
Hi Sasata. Great article on Onygena equina. Unfortunately I had assigned this as a topic to one of my students! I wonder if you could take a look at the list of articles I've assigned in this session and let me know if there are any others that conflict with your plans. Also, I'd be very interested if you would like to add yourself as an editor to any of the topics I've assigned that interest you. Medmyco (talk) 16:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As I indicated in my last reply to you, I already had a half-written draft for O. equina that I didn't want to go to waste. I checked out the topic list, and there are no others on there that I was planning to write about, so you don't have to worry! I'm not quite sure what you mean by adding myself as an editor (I mostly write about fungi with macroscopic fruiting bodies, particularly the Agaricomycetes), but I'd be quite happy to review any fungus articles that might appear at wp:Peer review or WP:GAN; alternatively, feel free to have your students ask me for an informal review if you think that would help them improve their work. Cheers, Sasata (talk) 09:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, I had missed your previous reply. Thanks for the suggestions. Medmyco (talk) 03:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations!

 * Thanks Quadell, your in-depth reviews for this and cabbage were much appreciated. Sasata (talk) 17:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of Pinniped and Cabbage to FA status recently. If you would like to see these (or any other FA you may have helped to write) appear as "Today's featured article" soon, please nominate them at the requests page; if you'd like to see an FA on a particular date in the next year or so, please add it to the "pending" list. In the absence of a request, the article may end up being picked at any time (although with 1,335 articles in Category:Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page at present, there's no telling how long – or short! – the wait might be). If you'd got any TFA-related questions or problems, please let me know. BencherliteTalk 10:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Hydrus/GA1
ping....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Cas, I'm at the airport in San Francisco now, I'll do a lit check and spotcheck of sources tonight when I get home, then it should be good to go. Sasata (talk) 14:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Malaria
The article Malaria you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Malaria for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of LT910001 -- 01:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Million Award
You're also welcome to display this userbox:

This is what, your third one of these? Keep up the great work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Khazar, hopefully there'll be more like this! Sasata (talk) 01:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I hope so too! Medical topics are far enough out of my purview that I can't really help with reviews, but if there's ever another way I can pitch in on one of this scale, just let me know. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I came to thank you for today's Mycena aurantiomarginata, precious  again, and found no better place than trying to continue a bit of Khazar's work, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
I wanted to show you my appreciation for reviewing the article I put up for GA, so I'm giving you this kitten. :)

PS: Hope you're not allergic to cats.

Seppi333 (talk) 05:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC) 


 * Since the page is a bit cluttered by now, I figured I'd just mention here that I finished formatting citations, replacing non-MEDRS sources and associated text where necessary, and checking for WP:V. Seppi333 (talk) 06:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Daedaleopsis confragosa, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Sessility and Sapwood (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) 11:24, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Russula densifolia
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Russula densifolia you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- 10:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mycenastrum
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mycenastrum you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Miyagawa -- 17:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mycenastrum
The article Mycenastrum you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Mycenastrum for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Miyagawa -- 17:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mycenastrum
The article Mycenastrum you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mycenastrum for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Miyagawa -- 21:42, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Russula densifolia
The article Russula densifolia you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Russula densifolia for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- 19:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Daedaleopsis confragosa
The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Ligusticum scoticum
Hi Sasata,

Thanks for reviewing my DYK entry for Ligusticum scoticum, and for adding "(pictured)" – something I frequently forget. One (very) minor point – do you realise that convert already changes a hyphen given as a parameter into an en-dash on output? Changing the hyphens within the template to dashes therefore has no effect on the visible text. I just thought it might save you some time in future. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Stemonitis; no, I did not know that! This will help me from wasting valuable microseconds in the future :) Cheers, Sasata (talk) 17:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Armillaria mellea
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

chyrid
I hope that the revisions to the section are to your satisfaction. I expressed that the article from 1939 was just to illustrate the excitement, that it was one example and used another source that say other doctors have been using these frogs since 1933. That article is entirely dedicated to this frog as the sole cause of the spread. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5e ext2013 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it's still original research. The Slate article does not mention the 1939 article, and I cannot find where in that article it supports the statement "the excitement amongst the scientific community created by this new discovery." I also cannot find the original Nature article upon which this Slate article is based. Do you have a reference? Sasata (talk) 18:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Is it your job to give me a hard time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5e ext2013 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it's my hobby to help ensure that fungi articles on WikiPedia have some semblance of accuracy. Sasata (talk) 18:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Every source used in all sections I added were primary literature found in Rutgers databases except the Slate article which I would be happy to remove. The points I made were all accurate and relevant to Chytridiomycota as a parasite. Please stop giving me a hard time on this I'm working on this for an assignment so all sources HAVE to be Primary and legitimate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5e ext2013 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:Primary; it appears the instructions for your assignment conflict with Wikipedia editing guidelines. Does your professor have an account? Perhaps (s)he's just not aware of this. Sasata (talk) 18:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, you might want to read WP:3RR before you get blocked. Sasata (talk) 18:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I did read it and I see that though secondary sources are preferred, primary sources are allowed. All I did was summarize primary research I did not leave anything up to my own interpretation. 5e ext2013 (talk) 18:29, 24 October 201

Thank you for putting the grade of five separate people in danger because you have nothing better to do. Get a life.
 * Could you please tell me the account name of your professor? Thanks, Sasata (talk) 18:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I am the professor. Apologies for my students rude behavior. "Get a life" is uncivil and entirely unbecoming of a Rutgers student. To my students: this is not about a grade but about what kind of people you are becoming. The desire to have accurate entries on fungi backed by real effort is something we all need to respect profoundly. Concerns about grades are parochial in comparison. Extprof (talk) 14:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. I'm glad you've been in contact with Wikipedians involved in the Education Program. Sasata (talk) 15:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * To the student--Sasata is following wikipedia policies, which have the goal of making article as accurate as possible, which includes solid sources. I use the best sources possible; usually academic, university, or official government sources. If it's a questionable source, I don't use it and leave the material out if no good source can be found. Sasata has always been most kind, civil, and helpful towards me, and all other users as far as I know, and your behavior towards him is totally inappropriate and uncalled for. Please take his advice and use it to make fungi articles as good as they can be. HalfGig (talk) 11:57, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Helping Hand Award

 * A hearty Thank You for the review on Cucurbita! This is what the article needed at this point. I'm not sure if you're done, but if you have more input please let me know. I simply want to make the article as good as it can be. I truly enjoy working on it. Your great input will keep me busy for awhile, but I will get through it. HalfGig (talk) 11:49, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! I'm sure I'll have more comments later :) Sasata (talk) 06:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Calvatia craniiformis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Moiety and Pedicel


 * Armillaria mellea (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Locust tree

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Calvatia craniiformis
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Calvatia craniiformis you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- 10:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Russula densifolia
The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Calvatia craniiformis
The article Calvatia craniiformis you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Calvatia craniiformis for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- 19:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Russula crustosa
The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Calvatia craniiformis
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Column width as per resoulution
 D ip ta ns hu Talk 15:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Daedaleopsis confragosa
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Daedaleopsis confragosa you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- 19:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Your contribution in Calvatia craniiformis
There is a disagreement between two sections. Under description, it is said: "The skin of the puffball comprises two distinct tissue layers, the outer peridium (exoperidium) and the inner peridium (endoperidium)." but under Development, it is said: "Unlike some other puffball species, the peridium does not differentiate into a distinct exoperidium and endoperidium". Jean Marcotte (talk) 19:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank-you kindly for pointing out the contradiction. I've checked my sources and removed the first sentence. Sasata (talk) 15:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Tricholoma vernaticum
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Tricholoma vernaticum you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- 20:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Daedaleopsis confragosa
The article Daedaleopsis confragosa you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Daedaleopsis confragosa for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- 09:02, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Tricholoma vernaticum
The article Tricholoma vernaticum you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Tricholoma vernaticum for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- 20:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

POTD notification


Hi Sasata,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Mycena atkinsoniana 60804.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on November 27, 2013. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2013-11-27. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:42, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

FA congratulations
Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of Chalciporus piperatus to FA status recently. I know you know all about WP:TFAR and the "pending" list, so this is just a reminder to use them as and when suits you. Many thanks. BencherliteTalk 11:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

GA review
Hello, we may nominate Crocodilia for GA soon. Could you review and prepare it for FAC? LittleJerry (talk) 22:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've already got my hands full with other GA reviews I should really finish first. I may be able to provide a review when it gets to FAC. Sasata (talk) 00:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Amph page permalink for refs
Hi Sasata, would you be able to give me a permalink of the page you used for the refs this time around? There were a lot of ref changes over the past 2 days (atm there are no refs 121-126). Thanks in advance, Seppi333 (talk) 06:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This one should do the trick. Sasata (talk) 06:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Seppi333 (talk) 14:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Finished the citation edits. Thanks for all the help btw! Seppi333 (talk) 23:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I forgot about asking this - what did you mean by "ref #78: don't need journal publisher" on the oldid page? I didn't notice a publisher parameters in any cite journal refs around that ref #. Seppi333 (talk) 02:17, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Bruceomyces
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:05, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I haven't "bugged" you lately!
But FYI, a spanking new beetle genus article says its members vector the blue stain fungus, which has a sadly little article, into trees. Did you know that? ;)  Rcej (Robert) –  talk  12:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Clark Thomas Rogerson
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Clark Thomas Rogerson you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cwmhiraeth -- 06:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Clark Thomas Rogerson
The article Clark Thomas Rogerson you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Clark Thomas Rogerson for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cwmhiraeth -- 09:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Question about quote on Magnus Carlsen article
I posted a question to Talk:Magnus Carlsen. The quote in question was added by you meaning you may still have the publication that was cited. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 00:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Nigersaurus
Finished. LittleJerry (talk) 05:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello? LittleJerry (talk) 20:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * We are waiting for your response. LittleJerry (talk) 21:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Tyromyces chioneus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Circumpolar and Tomentum


 * Boletus vermiculosus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Tomentum

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=584221377 your edit] to Tricholosporum violaceum may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Tricholosporum violaceum is a species of fungus in the family [Tricholomataceae]. Found in Costa Rica, the species was described as new to science in 1996.

Stub Rerates
Hey, how are you finding all the stubs and rerating them so quickly? How do you already have 500?! Newyorkadam (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Newyorkadam
 * I open the stub categories in each of the article assessment boxes I find in each Wikiproject (there are 100's, I've only done about a dozen so far), starting from top importance down to low importance. Starting from the top of the list and working down, I open about 25 articles in separate tabs of my browser window; it takes me about 1–2 seconds to quickly scan each for potential candidates. I can usually find a few every minute by doing this. At this point, the score is limited only by the amount of time put in repetitively clicking and scanning articles. Being a bit OCD helps :) Sasata (talk) 19:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I've been doing something similar, I've been opening the Wikipedia Release Version Tool and opening a bunch of articles in new tabs. Thanks! Newyorkadam (talk) 20:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Newyorkadam

Wanted to say thanks...

 * You're welcome! I hope it makes your FAC ride less bumpy. Sasata (talk) 14:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The Stub Barnstar

 * Thanks! I've made several thousands stubs, so it's only fair that I expand a few dozen :) Sasata (talk) 14:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Afroboletus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Congo and Costa


 * Gymnopilus punctifolius (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Washington


 * Lactarius torminosulus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Boreal


 * Styela montereyensis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Hope Island


 * Émile Borel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to University of Lille

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Morchella frustrata
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Morchella frustrata you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- 20:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Merugia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Petiole


 * Tricholosporum tropicale (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Cacao

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Morchella frustrata
The article Morchella frustrata you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Morchella frustrata for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- 19:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Morchella importuna
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Morchella importuna you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Rcej -- 11:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Morchella snyderi
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Morchella snyderi you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- 17:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

You have a 5x double!
Which I'm sure you know with Morchella importuna and Morchella snyderi. Just about Washington state is the only hook I see. Will start review of importuna ASAP ;) --  Rcej (Robert) –  talk  04:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * … and there'll be more coming soon! Sasata (talk) 21:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Morchella importuna
The article Morchella importuna you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Morchella importuna for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Rcej -- 04:32, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Morchella snyderi
The article Morchella snyderi you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Morchella snyderi for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- 12:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Morchella populiphila
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Morchella populiphila you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- 16:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Morchella populiphila
The article Morchella populiphila you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Morchella populiphila for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- 20:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy holiday season....

 * Cheers Cas, back 'atcha! Sasata (talk) 15:08, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Cutthroat trout GAN
I think I've got to all the issues raised. Thanks for all the help. Let me know if anything additional is required. --Mike Cline (talk) 23:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I have addressed all the issues you raised in the article. Let me know if any more is needed. Thanks. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Is there anything specific holding up the decision on the Cutthroat trout GAN that I can address. Its been open over a month now and the last comments in the GAN were three weeks ago.  Let me know.  Thanks. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Sasata (talk) 16:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks --Mike Cline (talk) 17:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Agaricus hondensis
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Agaricus hondensis you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Reid,iain james -- 21:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Phillipsia
Hello, I'm sorry for not paying attention to the fact that Berk. is the abbreviation of Berkeley, so thank you for redirecting that. However, unless this is diffent between plants and animals, I believe that the use of brackets, and the absence of commas, as it is done in the Phillipsia taxobox, diverts from common practise. Author and year are one piece of information always divided by a comma. Brackets only occur when a species has been reassigned to another genus, and around both name and year, so: Cummingella Reed, 1842
 * C. jonesii (Portlock, 1843) (type), = Phillipsia jonesii.

Kind regards, -Dwergenpaartje (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, the practise is different between plants and animals. Fungal taxonomy uses what was the "plant rules" (formerly the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, now the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants). Sasata (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

[Stub Contest] 3rd place
Congratulations. With a final score of 1,822 points, you earned 3rdd place in the Stub Contest. You were declared third place at at the contest talk page. There you can find the info to receiver your €25 voucher for Amazon.com. You did an excellent job, but I know your work well from the WikiCup, congrats. Mitch 32 (The man who renounces himself, comes to himself.) 05:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Sasata (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Agaricus hondensis
The article Agaricus hondensis you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Agaricus hondensis for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Reid,iain james -- 03:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Trying again
I've decided to try again to make Cucurbita as good as we can. I'll start by going back over the peer review. Any help is greatly appreciated. Thank you again for your long support and superb guidance. Best wishes to you on the New Year. HalfGig  talk  13:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That's good to hear! I'll be lurking. Sasata (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Smotlacha
Hi, I tried to remove "Abbreviation" paragraph from "Miroslav Smotlacha" article, because the abbreviation is not related to Miroslav Smotlacha, but to František Smotlacha, his father. My change was automaticla reverted by ReferenceBot, because removal of the text caused some problems with references. Could I ask you to remove the paragraph in a correct way? Thanks in advance. --Xth-Floor (talk) 12:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You weren't reverted by a bot, but by a human, probably because your edit also removed two urls in valid citations and messed up the birth/death categories. I've removed the incorrect author abbreviation. Cheers, Sasata (talk) 17:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Cucurbita tables
I've added the data you asked for (I can't find just "melons") in the form of two more tables. While the data is essentially there, it's certainly not in what I'd call prime display form and your help would be appreciated. I also can't figure out how to do the table centering you asked for. Thank you. HalfGig  talk  01:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright I gave it a try. There's another way to do this, search "Decimal point alignment" at Help:Table, but the way I used lines up ok on my browser and is perhaps easier to understand. Sasata (talk) 04:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Nice! Do you think the three separate tables are okay as is or should they be combined somehow? Note that the top 10 aren't the same for each crop. We may want to add a bit of text because some may wonder why the two new tables are there.  HalfGig   talk  11:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think the "source" columns are needed, as it's the same info for each entry. I'm not sure how/if the tables could be combined, you'd need to get in touch with someone with better table mojo than me! Sasata (talk) 17:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Volvopluteus earlei
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Volvopluteus earlei you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seabuckthorn -- 18:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Lepiota cristata
The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Out of curiosity
Do you still intend on bringing coconut crab back to FA? LittleJerry (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Eventually, yes – it's on the long-term to-do list. However, if someone else got there before me I would not mind in the slightest :) Sasata (talk) 04:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Sasata,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Volvariella bombycina1.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on February 11, 2014. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2014-02-11. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Volvopluteus earlei
The article Volvopluteus earlei you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Volvopluteus earlei for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seabuckthorn -- 09:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Cucurbita
We've worked through remaining issues except prose. I know you have a lot of featured experience and write well. Can you give this article a good rewrite and look over before filing for featured status? It'd be vastly appreciated. If you don't have the time or inclination, I understand and is there someone you recommend in such a case? No rush. HalfGig  talk  23:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I can take a look if you're not in a rush! I'm working on some other things, but I think I could free up a few hours on the weekend for a pre-FAC copyedit/review. Sasata (talk) 16:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That'd be great. Thank you.  HalfGig   talk  20:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Cabbage
This is a note to let the main editors of Cabbage know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on February 16, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/February 16, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Cabbage is a leafy green or purple biennial plant, grown as an annual vegetable crop for its dense-leaved heads. It is closely related to other cole crops, such as broccoli, cauliflower, and brussels sprouts. Cabbage heads generally range from 1 to 8 lbs, and can be green, purple and white. Smooth-leafed firm-headed green cabbages are the most common, with smooth-leafed red and crinkle-leafed savoy cabbages of both colors seen more rarely. Although the exact history of cabbage is uncertain, it had become a prominent part of European cuisine by the Middle Ages. Cabbages are prepared in many different ways for eating. Pickling the vegetable, in dishes such as sauerkraut, is the most popular, but it is also steamed, stewed, sautéed, braised, or eaten raw. Cabbage is a good source of beta-carotene, vitamin C and fiber. Cabbage is prone to several nutrient deficiencies, as well as multiple pests, bacteria and fungal diseases. World production of cabbage and other brassicas for 2011 was almost 69 million metric tons (68 million long tons; 75 million short tons). Almost half of these crops were grown in China, where Chinese cabbage is the most popular Brassica vegetable. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I like cabbage much more than sorrow, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations on winning the Natural History Shield

 * Thanks :) Will be having a look at the cucurbits soon. Sasata (talk) 20:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Another mammal article
I'm currently in semi-retirement but I may possibly return in the summer for at least one more FAC project. Would Narwhal interest you? LittleJerry (talk) 01:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I won't have much free time this year as several offline projects are competing, and I'd like to use as much as my little editing time as possible on fungal articles. Sasata (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay. LittleJerry (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

FAC Rainbow trout
Sasata, thanks for all the inputs on Rainbow trout. I think I've addressed them all (save one) with fixes, additions or comments. The one issue I am still working on is the Aquaculture section. This a combination of legacy and another editor's content. Have identified several new sources to work with in getting this section balanced. I am home for the next week, so I'd like to get as many things resolved as possible. Following couple of weeks won't allow much time for this. Thanks again. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll try to wrap up my commentary in the next few days. Sasata (talk) 16:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Aconitella, Aconitopsis, Aconitum, Delphinium
Today I made a few edits on Aconitum, Delphinium, and I created Aconitella and Aconitopsis, both redirects, based on some recent literature. I did not think through all the implications, so now I am sorry I made these edits. One implication being that D. staphisagria was reassigned to the new genus Staphisagria, but no new combination was proposed and indentical generic and species names are not permitted in botany as far as I am aware. The authors synonymize Consolida (and Aconitella) with Delphinium, but also note that about a dozen epithets are identical for Consolida and Delphinium, creating the need for the assignment of new epithets, but they did not propose any.

The following tasks are still open, but before executing them, I thought I'd better ask you advice.
 * Specify subgenera in the box of Delphinium, and just putting the species D. anthriscifolium where no proposal was made to name this monotypical subgenus.
 * Merge Consolida into Delphinium.
 * In the Taxonomy section of Delphinium, specify the species within each of the subgenera.
 * Same for Aconitum.
 * Create a substantive article on Staphisagria, now a (wrong) redirect to Delphinium staphisagria, as D. pictum and D. requienii are also assigned to the genus (or when not accepted subgenus).
 * Create Gymnaconitum
 * Move Delphinium staphisagria, but where, because S. staphisagria is not a valid combiniation.

Thank you in advance. Dwergenpaartje (talk) 17:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Surely this post was meant for the WP:Plants talk page? I'm hardly an expert on plant taxonomy, and often have difficulty understanding the conventions of my preferred kingdom! Sasata (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I assumed you are an expert on taxonomy. But I've copied my posting now. Thanks for the pointer. Dwergenpaartje (talk) 23:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Pryor Mountain Mustang
Hi Sasata - I've been working on buffing Pryor Mountain Mustang for FAC. I know you have said elsewhere that you don't have as much time for WP at the moment, but if you have a bit of extra time, would you be interested in giving the article a quick look? It had a very easy GAN, so I'd like to get another experienced eye over it before I nominate at FAC. Thanks in advance if you have time, no worries if you don't. Hope everything is going well in RL! Dana boomer (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll try to have a look in the next couple of days, but no guarantees! Things are well in RL, but who knew having three children was going to take up so much time :) Sasata (talk) 21:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Biology query
Hi. I know you are a biologist. Could you give an opinion on the terminology "genetic purity" and "genomic extinction" here? --John (talk) 11:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=596859963 your edit] to Polyporales may have broken the syntax by modifying 3 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There are several genera classified in the Polyporales that are i poorly known, ii  have not been subjected to DNA analysis, or iii  if analysed phylogenetically do not group with as yet named or identified families, and have not

GAN March 2014 Backlog Drive
The March 2014 GAN Backlog Drive has begun and will end on April 1, 2014! Sent by Dom497 on behalf of MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Just to let you know -- not in scope of wp:MED
You may be interested in the discussion at: Wikipedia_talk:Council. XOttawahitech (talk) 19:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Four-tuned Award

 * Support. Looking at today's mushroom, bitter and growing in the dark, I think your contributions are rather sweet and shown in bright light, in other words: precious  again, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Re: Featured picture candidates/Stereum ostrea
Hi Sasata, it's been a month but I've only just seen your disagreement on the identification of the fungus in the above featured picture nomination. In an attempt to clarify I contacted the creator of the image today on his Commons talk page. He's replied on my page saying that he is not certain of the ID and that he would welcome the identification being changed if you think Stereum hirsutum is more plausible. I don't want to put words in your mouth though and would like to know if you support requesting a name change on Commons and moving the image from the S. ostrea article. Thanks! Julia\talk 04:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Although it's impossible to know the id with certainty without specimen in hand, I do think S. hirsutum is a better id and would support its rename. Sasata (talk) 17:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Wiki competitions
I was hoping to avoiding specifics, but it became necessary to quote you when I was challenged at Wikipedia_talk:Stub_Contest. This is a polite message just to keep you informed. You may or may not wish to contribute to the discussion over there. Snowman (talk) 10:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Physoderma
You beat me to the punch! I was in the process of writing up a page for Physoderma. ;)TelosCricket (talk) 17:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Allomyces too! Yay! TelosCricket (talk) 17:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Please add more meat - this is just bare bones so far. There are many redlinked Blastocladiomycota taxa (genus and above) that need pages too… Sasata (talk) 21:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Physoderma, Allomyces, Catenaria, & Coelomomyces are on my to-do list. I will work on them as I can. Thanks! TelosCricket (talk) 19:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Preserving history
Hi Sasata, just wanted to leave you a quick note that the redirect of Morganella (fungi) was fine. The edit history of that page doesn't need to be physically integrated into that of Morganella (fungus) as long as the former redirects to the latter. (A histmerge might be necessary if we were to deleted one of the pages, for example.) Anyway, I performed a merge by adding a sourced statement from the (fungi) page to the (fungus) one and tagged both pages to indicate that a merge was performed. --BDD (talk) 17:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. Sasata (talk) 16:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Tephrosia apollinea
Still not happy with it?♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, it's better now than the embarrassment that was passed as a GA. Sasata (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not very nice is it. It was every bit as good as Miniopterus tao which you passed.♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No need to get defensive because errors and inadequacies in an article you wrote are being pointed out and corrected. If you can find any inaccuracies or additional information that should be included in Miniopterus tao, please feel free to point them out (or in any article I've written; I like feedback). Sasata (talk) 19:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a way of going about it though which is at least half respectful of the writer/reviewer while being constructive. We're all volunteers here Sasata, it isn't pleasant to see that sort of comment. Short and sketchy, yes, but hardly embarrassing in the way many of our articles truly are. There weren't any major errors in it. You could argue that any article which has very poor coverage in sources should never really end up at GA. How many TV episodes and minor US roads are at GA for instance? Should they really be considered a truly "good article". Probably not, but I'd imagine that the authors thought that they provided an adequate coverage based on what exists in sources to make them worth taking to GA. I have some very strong articles, and some poorer ones which should be a lot better, you and most others are the same on here. I'm not an expert in the topic, but I thought it was a half decent article based on what very limited sources seem to be available. Fortunately I can now access JSTOR and at least the article as it stands now I think is acceptable even if not very good. I'm sure I could write a 100kb article with 300 sources on a well-known plant and could write something of very high quality, although I might need some assistance from the "experts" surveying it and correcting things. I won't tell you why I decided to pick such an obscure species but it is easily in the top 5% of plant articles in terms of quality which should be seen positively rather than negatively. If I decide to write another one and take it to GA in the future I'll definitely pick something which has an abundance of source material. As I say I'd love to be able to expand the article to 60 kb but if nobody can show me detailed sources then it's not going to improve much.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "… the article as it stands now I think is acceptable even if not very good." I agree! Sasata (talk) 21:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I've further expanded it. Reached page 27 of google web search, and ransacked google books and JSTOR. It's almost 27kb now. Almost entirely written from snippets.♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Good work in expanding it, now it just needs a solid GA review! Sasata (talk) 19:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * But it is already GA? ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 19:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I know it's already a GA, I said it needs a solid GA review. Sasata (talk) 19:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing issues
I re-worded the "Behavior" section of the Eastern green mamba article. I would like you to know that any close paraphrasing was not intentional and I always try my best to change words around and write things a little differently, but I will admit that I do have trouble with that sometimes. I would like to re-write any close paraphrasing in the Black mamba article, aswell. I will use a thesaurus to help me along. I have done a lot of good work on many snake articles, including the mamba articles. -- Dendro†Naja Talk to me!  23:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Parmulariaceae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arx (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) 10:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Closing DYK nominations
I noticed you recently removed the DYK nomination for Eastern green mamba. For future reference, the proper method for dealing with this is to reject the hook instead of removing the transclusion from the nominations page. DYKHousekeepingBot, among its many tasks, searches for open nominations that are not listed on the nominations page and raises an alarm when one is found. Closing the nomination as either a promotion or rejection prevents this. I have taken care of this nomination, but instructions are located on the nominations page at Template talk:Did you know in case you run into this type of issue in the future. --Allen3 talk 20:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I see; sorry for the trouble and thanks for the information. Sasata (talk) 20:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Species, Plants, Fungi etc described in by year
Query re Species, Plants etc described in by year eg Category: Fungi described in 1772: Do you think that having a category containing all years of a century is useful, rather than having the category tree year-decade-century with the century category containing decades only but not years? See discussion on my talk page. Hugo999 (talk) 10:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Copyvio in Zanabazar (dinosaur)
Hello Sasata. I have moved the information of Zanabazar (dinosaur) to my sandbox, and changed the wording of the closely paraphrased sections. Could you look over it and give me suggestions on how to change it further, if any change is needed? Thanks - IJReid (talk) 14:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I had a quick look, and the paraphrasing seems acceptable. I would highly recommend that you have an expert from the dino project read over your draft before submitting to GAN; they will be able to quickly determine if there have been errors or alterations introduced from your paraphrasing. The article could also use a copyedit; some freebies:
 * "even though it's overall endocast"
 * "more closely appreased "
 * "but still longer than the later ."
 * "is a estimated"
 * "its brain size has been estimated to be 45 cubic centimetres (2.7 cubic inches) and 49 cubic centimetres (3.0 cubic inches)." how can it be both? Were these two independent estimates?
 * "Him and his colleagues"
 * "lie a a low angle"
 * "Only scarce remains of the non-cranial or vertebral (appendicular) skeleton is known"
 * "which alows comparison"
 * I would also recommend that you read through WP:Close paraphrasing and make sure you understand it completely. You were the GA reviewer for Eastern green mamba, an article that was found to have similar problems with close paraphrasing. Please ensure that you check for this in your future GA reviews (even ones that I submit!). Cheers, Sasata (talk) 16:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Leucostoma canker, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nitschke (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) 08:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK
is a bit moribund at present. Morale is low (I suspect) and a lot of regular contributors are inactive. Now might be a good time for some fungus DYKs. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think that a few fungus articles will have much effect on the problems at DYK, but I do have a some half-finished articles here that I should get done... Sasata (talk) 19:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah I know, it is weird though in terms of editors..like the tide just went out in a very big way. I did also think that there is a benefit of an extra check on recent GAs too though not many are nominated. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

ununseptium
the last FAC was two years ago, and I'm thinking of giving it a push to FA. would you mind nitpicking it? Double sharp (talk) 08:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, but I won't have much time until the middle of next week. Sasata (talk) 00:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Cyanea angustifolia
Hello Sasata. In the photo description for the images used for this article the term Campanulaceae is used. I can't tell if this is in fact the family of this plant? I don't want to include it unless I'm sure. Should I include synonyms Delissea acuminata var. angustifolia, Delissea angustifolia, Delissea honoluluensis, Lobelia angustifolia? Any help you can provide is most appreciated. Thank you for your time and for all your wonderful contributions and photographs to Wikipedia. Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Candleabracadabra. I looked at the genus page to confirm that the family is indeed Campanulaceae, and added a few synonyms (the three with the highest confidence levels from the Plant List source), some cats and other minor things. Cheers, Sasata (talk) 02:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. Very much appreciated. There's something exciting about establish a new article on a plant especially when there are good photos. I envy you all your wonderful creations! Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:42, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chaetomium thermophilum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dung (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) 08:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)