User talk:Sasata/Archive 3

Fungus
Hi Sasata! Many thanks for your message, and even more thanks for doing such a wonderful and thorough job on the Fungus article. I've been hoping for this sort of input after working on the entry on and off, and I too think it's high time for it to be submitted to peer review to solicit some more input. I've been procrastinating on this for a while now and been a little busy, so I'm glad that you've taken the initiative. I would be happy to be a co-nominator should we lift it to FAC level. Thanks again! Malljaja (talk) 12:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The PR feedback has been a little sluggish, and I agree with your suggestions and your time line—I don't see a reason why we should try to rush this, especially since the entry is bit of a behemoth. I've started more copy editing here and there as you probably noticed, and while re-reading some sections I'm seeing the need for more, but do not want to do it piecemeal as I've done on occasion, as it clogs the edit history. It would be good to get some help in this respect—although the prose seems to be consistent, which is an asset given its length, so we may need to be careful to retain that. I think the lead is already long enough (I like intros that are short & crisp), but the MoS may ask for more—in that case highlighting some of the salient features and life styles along with a little more detail on current and past phylogeny/taxonomy could be one way to go. The History section could be a bugbear—I've only got a couple or so mycology books and they're not exactly gold standards for that. Also, mushrooms are medicinally important in Asia, so there's most likely a parallel history that needs to be covered, but perhaps I'm fretting needlessly over this. Malljaja (talk) 19:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sasata! I have no quibbles with your recent suggestions for preparing for FAC. In regards to a picture for the phylogeny section, I've just found these two and, which give a general overview of the position of the Fungi, but the groupings are probably not uncontroversial and heavily biased towards prokaryotes. But they're the only ones I could find right now—we could include one of them for now, which might prompt taxonomy geeks to replace it with a more appropriate one.Malljaja (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * To add to my previous comments, a little while ago I've made multiple changes as per Philcha latest suggestions at the peer-review page. One comment I've not dealt with is the issue of the relative scarcity of fungi in aquatic environments despite their presumed aquatic origin—this may be because several defining apomorphic traits such as growth of hyphae may have evolved during and enabled the shift to land. Though this is no more than an educated guess at this point, and I'm not sure there is conclusive evidence for that given the poor fossil fungal record. Not sure if the characteristics should be placed in a table, as I find prose easier to follow than brief descriptions in small boxes in distant coordinates. So do we really need a table? Malljaja (talk) 14:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sasata, I concur with your solution re the Zygomycetes—it may spark some recurring changes by users still married to the "old" Zygomycetes, but that's ok. Re the AAA pathway to lysin, it's present in Thermus (see eg., here) and Pseudomonas, and as far as I remember some other bacteria use it as well. If this is an issue requiring more refs, I'll look into it—as far as I can gather this pathway may play a role in making the " D " raceme of lysine (see here), in at least in some species. The spelling drove me round the bend yesterday—I think "d" and "d" had swapped places, and in trying to correct this, I screwed it up even more (not that I think many readers would really notice). Thanks! Malljaja (talk) 14:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello again and great work on the recent changes—I think the entry is really getting there now. After looking at your consolidation of the characteristics section vs the draft table in your sandbox, I really do believe that the prose form is the way to go. This section reads very well now, and though I can understand that a table might be a useful vehicle to convey this sort of info, it falls severely short of depicting more nuanced details of more exotic characteristics, such as the aa pathway, storage and structural carbohydrates etc. So that's my vote on this, especially seeing what a grievous task it is to create and fill this table. I'm a little snowed under right now, but will try to chip in with tidying, etc. Thanks again! Malljaja (talk) 13:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that a simplification of the lead is in order. I'm not all too happy about some of the recent comments though, because they seem speak for those readers who like to have the spoon guided right in their mouth, and we need to bear in mind that budding mycologists may also be drawn to this entry and put off by an intro that is too "Walt Disney". But I concur that Looie's suggested changes are a good template—following Graham's suggestion, I've contacted Tim Vicker's who may also provide some useful directions. So I'd be happy to take turns and have a go at rephrasing sections were needed. Malljaja (talk) 02:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

You're way better than me in trying to attack the "Characteristics" section, since I've only procrastinated over this. I believe I have been too hasty in giving unconditional support to a re-write of this section. Just thinking about it while doing dishes or laundry, I could come up with a number of reasons why breaking it up according to kingdoms might create more drawbacks than gains. One is that the current version touches on every salient fungal feature w/o going into too much detail, another is repetition, which would be unavoidable if the section were to be structured by kingdom, and that some details likely need to be sacrificed in order to make such organization snappier. And trying to accommodate small groups like the Euglenoids (which is a funny group of organisms) would be a headache as well. You're right the prose is now on an even keel after having been polished by several authors, and the section isn't all that long. So I think this calls for a rebuttal of the idea that it needs to be re-structured. Malljaja (talk) 13:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Gyromitra infula
Just to let you know, I reviewed your article Gyromitra infula for GA and passed it. Very nice article. Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 19:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review Mattisse (... and also for checking dozens of my DYK submissions...) Sasata (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice work with regards to the image and the article, both of which I love. What a wonderful fungus. J Milburn (talk) 21:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Chorioactis geaster
Hi, I am reviewing your article Chorioactis geaster for GA and have left some comments at Talk:Chorioactis geaster/GA1. The things I mention should be easy to fix. Please contact me with any questions or comments. Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 21:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Cyathus striatus
Just to let you know this article has passed GA review. It is a wonderful article. Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 00:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You're a GA-reviewing juggernaut! Thanks again! Sasata (talk) 00:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Question
I am currently working on a list of skin-related conditions, and, if available, would love to get your feedback about the list. I am currently creating stubs for all the redlinks, and then plan on proposing it as a featured list. With that being said, I have actually never prosed an article for DYK or feature status; therefore, would really appreciate your opinions on how I can improve the list... since you seem to be an expert on the whole nomination process! ---kilbad (talk) 03:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow! Didn't know that there were that many skin conditions. I've never actually submitted anything for Featured list (it's on my long "to-do" list), but judging from the FL criteria it looks pretty close already. Suggestions:


 * I would consider having a pic in each section, to make it more visually appealing (or disgusting, depending on your POV).
 * Shorten the section headers – if the words are in the article title, they needn't be repeated in the section headers, so you can take out all instances of "Conditions of"
 * Increased wikilinking of medical terms in the explanatory sentence for each section, words that are obvious to you but won't be to a high school student, eg. cyst, neoplasm, inherited disorder
 * Relating to the above point, maybe some of the language should be simplified a little bit to make it more friendly, eg. "Nutrition-related skin conditions are caused by either insufficiency or excess of one or more dietary essentials, which present with cutaneous manifestations." I don't think it would be bad if some of the section intro sentences were expanded to two or three. For example, "Urticaria is a vascular reaction of the skin characterized by the appearance of wheals." There should be a quick definition of wheals so the user doesn't have to go to another article to find out what that is.
 * How about a basic cross-section diagram of the skin in the lede? Something like file:Skin.jpg


 * Thank you so much for your feedback. Allow me to follow-up your comments:
 * With regard to having a picture in each section, I have the following concerns—(1) there are not quality photos of each type of disease category on the commons yet; therefore some sections would not have a photo, (2) the article is already 114 kilobytes long, which is permissible for a list as per Article size, but I would not want to increase the size much more with so many photos. How important do you think this issue is?  A major goal of WP:DERM is to upload more quality derm images, but we simply don't have a lot of them at this time.
 * Not that important, I just like pictures. But if they aren't available, what can ya do? Sasata (talk) 06:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * With regard to shortening the section headers, the list is sectioned and alphabetized to mirror the category structure outlined at WP:DERM:CAT. This way the list can help contributors know where to categorize a disease initially.  Personally, I would like to keep the "Conditions of" phrase as they are subdivisions of the phrase "Conditions of or affecting the human integumentary system," not necessarily a repeat of that phrase.  I also like that the section names mirror the category structure.  Again, given that rational, how strongly do you feel about this issue?  I am flexible.
 * I'm even more flexible. Your rationale is sound. Sasata (talk) 06:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * In response to your feedback, I have significantly increased the number of wikilinks in the section intros. Look through and let me know if that looks better?


 * After reading your feedback, I tried to simplify some of the language in the article, with particular attention to the nutrition and urticaria sections. Do things read better to you now?

It looks much better. Here's a few more possible tweaks that (I think) don't change the meaning, but make the text more accessible to the medical neophyte:
 * "Acneiform eruptions are caused by changes in the pilosebaceous unit." -> "... by changes in the sebaceous glands (pilosebaceous unit)." Sebaceous gland more common term (I think, at least I've heard of it)
 * "Chronic blistering skin conditions have a prolonged course..." course -> duration
 * "...collagen synthesis and/or degradation." -> degradation - breakdown
 * "...reactive or neoplastic proliferation..." proliferation->growth


 * I tried using the File:Skin.jpg in the lead section; however, the font size is too small when the image is given a 150 or 200px width. Therefore, I am going to search the web and see if there are any better free images out there we can use.
 * I hope you can find one, I think it would go really well in the intro. Sasata (talk) 06:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks again for your help. I look forward to hearing from you. ---kilbad (talk) 18:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Crucibulum laeve
Hi, I am reviewing Crucibulum laeve for GA and have left some comments at Talk:Crucibulum laeve/GA1. Feel free to contact me with questions or comments. Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 00:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for comments
Thanks for the additional comments at the GA review for the Red-capped Robin, especially the need to cite the Sibley and Ahlquist study and the query about the breeding age for adult females. And good luck in finding your review.(LOL) Diderot&#39;s dreams (talk) 14:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Early thanks for GA review for Prevailing winds
I see you're in a similar situation within the fungi project that I'm in within the met project as one of the main people bringing articles up to GA. Thanks for being able to review the prevailing winds article. It will be nice to get a review from outside the met project, in order to get a fresh perspective on its status. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've either responded, or made the changes you mentioned. Let me know what more needs to be done.  Thegreatdr (talk) 21:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

writing about birds
Thanks. I did it for one of the high school projects that was writing biology article. I really should polish it up and finish it. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  19:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Expert help needed
Hya Sasata...Just been working on Agaricus campestris. I cudnt believe it was so sparse...definitely needs expanding in the 'Other uses' section. Might be a dyk in it then..Stay chilled...Luridiformis (talk) 22:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree! A quick check on the ISI Web of Knowledge Database reveals several hundred papers that have been published about this species, so it shouldn't be too hard to find info. I'll work on it later tonight. Sasata (talk) 23:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Upon reflection, this article needs a lot of work to do it justice, there's so much information that reading it, synthesizing it, and presenting a good overview will take quite a bit of time. It's worthwhile to do because it's such a common edible species, but I think I'll take this one slowly and add little bits at a time. Sasata (talk) 06:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Couple article stubs
Would you be willing to help with create a few article stubs at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Microbiology? ---kilbad (talk) 16:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem - they'll be there by tomorrow. Cheers Sasata (talk) 19:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No rush. Thanks again! ---kilbad (talk) 20:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I posted a few more redlinks I need help with at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_life. Would you be avaliable to help again? Feel free to say no! ---kilbad (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Withdrawing an FPC
When withdrawing an FPC, please allow someone else to close the nomination for you. They go into an archive. Thank you. ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 18:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't know. Sasata (talk) 18:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Unlucky with that one. If you're looking to use your new-found restoration skills for improving fungi related articles, contact . I think he had a few potential restorations- I remember there was a very early photo of a fly agaric that may fit in nicely in history of mycology or something. In any case, I suspect he'll be able to find you something. He's already given us the wonderful File:Hiroshige II - Kishu kumano iwatake tori - Shokoku meisho hyakkei.jpg in response to me casually saying I was looking for fungi FPs. J Milburn (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Nah, I don't think I'll be doing that again... I just wanted to see if I could do it. But it's pretty laborious work and fairly boring, so I think I'll mostly stick to article writing for now. However, the comments have motivated me do download an SVG program, so I'm going to play around with that and see if I can create some useful diagrams. Sasata (talk) 20:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Now that would be fantastic. This sort of thing would look fantastic as a colour SVG. Good luck with that! J Milburn (talk) 22:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation
Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am sending you this message since you are a member of the GA WikiProject. I would like to invite you to consider helping with the GA sweeps process. Sweeps helps to ensure that the oldest GAs still meet the criteria, and improve the quality of GAs overall. Unfortunately, last month only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process when 163 articles were reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.

We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Feel free to stop by and only review a few articles, something's better than nothing! Take a look at the list, and see what articles interest you. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 08:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Welcome onboard. I have looked at your GA reviews and find them to be very detailed. Just remember not to go overboard and become overzealous because after all, this is GA and not FA. If you haven't done so, add your name to WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps/Running total to keep track of the progress of articles that you reviewed. Please follow this sweeps process so that the format and layout will be consistent throughout all articles reviewed by different editors. OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Ding Ding
Are you forgetting something? Rory (talk) 09:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ummm... I must be... what am I forgetting? Sasata (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You CLEARLY said in your last archive, after your major revamp: "I'll try find some refs and prop it up to B-class later this week". And, for the past 3 weeks, it's been blowing around like a tumbleweed. OK? So that's a detailed explanation about what you're forgetting. P.S Do you want to join the Cabal of Reverters? It's GREAT! Rory (talk) 21:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is it so important to you that I do this work? Sasata (talk) 23:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry... Rory (talk) 23:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fountain of Time/archive2
Since you participated in the discussion at Featured article candidates/Fountain of Time/archive1, you might want to comment at Featured article candidates/Fountain of Time/archive2.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you so much for your help with Dogger Bank itch. I love your work! ---kilbad (talk) 03:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, I get a kick out of writing about stuff I know nothing about :) Access to online scholarly databases makes the "work" easy. (P.S. Dogger Bank itch has been submitted for DYK) Sasata (talk) 04:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Verpa conica and Phyllactinia guttata
Success! I found a photo of a decent quality of Verpa conica and replaced the drawing. While I'm here- which image would you say better represents Phyllactinia guttata for the portal- the diagram, or the microscopic shot? Do we not have a picture of it infecting a leaf? J Milburn (talk) 18:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * (chiming in) a leaf wold definitely be good - the diagram is a nice piece of work to look at, but is hard to choose between the two. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm partial to the diagram, but only because the micro photo isn't that great. I tried to find an infected leaf picture to put in, but the closest I got was these lovely photos – all under non-wiki compliant licenses .... argh.  Sasata (talk) 06:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:CUP
A discussion regarding some of your edits was started here. Cheers, — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  03:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't think I was being rude/sarcastic/whatever with the comment about the "mysterious clever competitor", it was a lame attempt at humor, since I was that guy following and tagging your articles. Useight (talk) 04:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No rudeness was assumed, I'm pretty good at catching implied humor :) And it would be great to have you helping with fungal stub sorting later, it does get rather boring after a while.... Sasata (talk) 05:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The "Bs" are done in Category:Stub-Class_Fungi_articles. Useight (talk) 06:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool! With your help they might actually all get done before the Cup is over. Now please don't get eliminated! Sasata (talk) 06:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can do. I expect to make it through this round as a Wildcard, but it is unlikely I survive the following round. Useight (talk) 16:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Howdy gents. I'm up for stub sorting too - bugger 'em. Not tonight though - too pissed off. Sasata, your edits rock - ignore the naysayers. Cheers, Paxse (talk) 17:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am here just to second Paxse. Sasata, you are too hot to handle. Keep going. I hope to see fungus soon on FAC, at the end to rest in the company of archaea and bacteria. - DSachan (talk) 17:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the words of encouragement guys, I do plan to ignore the naysayers. Fungus will be up at FAC in mid-June! Sasata (talk) 17:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My 2¢... I think you are a great editor. Keep it up! ---kilbad (talk) 18:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Phosphatidyl-Ethanolamine.png
All looks pretty legit to me- I checked the original upload, and the uploader claims to be the creator, and I see no reason to doubt that. I have removed the tag over on Commons after clarifying the source info a little. J Milburn (talk) 16:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Great! Thanks for the assistance. Sasata (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Constipated
While I am waiting for a map for Australian Magpie before sending it to FAC, I did spend some time working up Macaroni Penguin...and it has a map so I am musing on sending it to FAC first, but I inherited much of it from a now retired user and I am concerned about the prose in places, but have been staring at it for so long I am going bleary eyed. I would much appreciate a pre-FAC prose and flow checkover and note of any glaring absences in content you can see. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

PS: Point me in the direction of whatver you want to send to FAC or GAN next and I will have a look :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll have a look today/tonight. Fungus is headed to FAC in mid-June after a wikibreak, and it would surely benefit from any attention :) Sasata (talk) 16:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, will do. A very long time since I looked at it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Aha, well done on the additions - what do you think of the prose then? I was musing on adding a bit on zoos and tourism, but it doesn't appear to be specifically the subject of any toruism and it is in quite a few zoos. PS: Left some notes at fungus - that'll be a challenge...Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The prose looked respectable to me when I went through it, although I was more in "update" mode rather than "nitpick" mode. I'll have another go-over specifically for prose this weekend, and drop notes on the talk page if I'm not confident to change it myself. Fungus still needs some work, but I think I can see the finish line in sight, and it helps that Malljaja is with me on this one. More of a challenge will be deciding what to take to FAC after that... there's so many on the list. Sasata (talk) 03:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Pseudocolus fusiformis
Hi, I did make a comment at Talk:Pseudocolus fusiformis/GA1. Basically, the article is fine and I will pass it for GA as soon as you answer my comment. Sorry for taking so long! Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 17:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice work, added to the portal. Most of the content on there seems to be thanks to you... You're a machine. J Milburn (talk) 19:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Phallus impudicus
Hi, I am review Phallus impudicus for GA and it is fine article for GA. I did leave a comment at Talk:Phallus impudicus/GA1, as I changed something and you may want to fix it. Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 20:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Dogger Bank itch

 * Sasata - Thank you for your help getting this article on the DYK template. That is the first DYK article I have been involved with.  I know you are busy with your own projects, but if you ever want to collaberate on any other articles listed at the list of skin-related conditions, I would love to work together again sometime. ---kilbad (talk) 02:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That skin disease list is like DYK cherries ripe for the picking, I'm sure I'll be writing some more articles in the future :) Sasata (talk) 02:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Update
Just FYI, the "Cs" in Category:Stub-Class_Fungi_articles have the Fungus Stubs category now. And, man, are there a lot of fungi with a name starting with C. Useight (talk) 05:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice! I think I'll make temporary alphabet on my user page, and whenever a letter is finished, we can cross it off. Thanks for your help! Sasata (talk) 05:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea. If I start one but do not finish it, I'll put a, just to be sure we don't duplicate our efforts. Useight (talk) 06:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Caversham FAC
hi Sasata - the references in the FAC-proposed Caversham, New Zealand article have been done... would you care to take another look? Grutness...wha?  06:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi again - I've made most, but not all, of the changes you suggest. There are a couple I strongly disagree with, as I've explained at the FAC. Grutness...wha?  21:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

RfA
PS: You ever want me to nominate you for adminship, just ask. The extra tools are quite handy. :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I would definitely support that nomination. ---kilbad (talk) 21:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

GA review
Thanks for all the effort you put into the hippocampus review. Have a good vacation (presuming that's what it is). Regards, Looie496 (talk) 22:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You're quite welcome, hope to see more neurology articles from you in the future. Sasata (talk) 22:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you for helping get Caversham, New Zealand to Features Article status! The little gold star was added to the top about an hour ago... Grutness...''  wha? '' 06:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice work! It's great to see featured articles on smaller communities that would otherwise get little coverage. Sasata (talk) 07:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Cane toad
How are you going with this, I would normally have moved the FAR to the FARC stage, but I know you are usually diligent so I've waited...  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 08:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I just got stuck in with the fix up myself, but I think I need help  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 04:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps June update
Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 396 articles were swept in May! That more than doubles our most successful month of 163 swept articles in September 2007 (and the 2 articles swept in April)! I plan to be sending out updates at the beginning of each month detailing any changes, updates, or other news until Sweeps are completed. So if you get sick of me, keep reviewing articles so we can be done (and then maybe you'll just occasionally bump into me). We are currently over 60% done with Sweeps, with just over a 1,000 articles left to review. With over 40 members, that averages out to about 24 articles per person. If each member reviews an article a day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. I know that may be asking for a lot, but it would allow us to complete Sweeps and allow you to spend more time writing GAs, reviewing GANs, or focusing on other GARs (or whatever else it is you do to improve Wikipedia) as well as finish ahead of the two-year mark coming up in August. I recognize that this can be a difficult process at times and appreciate your tenacity in spending time in ensuring the quality of the older GAs. Feel free to recruit other editors who have reviewed GANs in the past and might be interested in the process. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Template parameter capitalization
When using cite journal please note that all parameters must be lowercase. My bot is currently in the process of fixing these templates on all of your articles similar to Gloeandromyces. It appears the only real problems on most of these was the "publisher" parameter. Don't worry about fixing your existing articles (the bot will do that) but in the future please pay attention to the case of template parameters. Thank you. --Pascal666 17:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking for help adding photos
As you are aware, I have been working on the List of skin-related conditions, and wanted to know if you would help me add more disease thumbnails to the list? I am shooting for anywhere from 1 to 3 thumbnails per section of the list, depending on the size of the section. I am anticipating nominating the list for feature status in the next month or two, and would make sure you are credited for your work. Regardless, thanks again for all your help. ---kilbad (talk) 14:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll help where I can. The thumbs you've already put there make the article more visually interesting, in a morbid way. I think Norwegian scabies would be near the top of the list of skin diseases I'd least want to get! Sasata (talk) 22:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Geastrum pectinatum
Hi, I passed Geastrum pectinatum as a good article, as it meets all the criteria. (See Talk:Geastrum pectinatum/GA1) Congratulations on another excellent article. Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 21:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the speedy review – I left the computer for a few hours and the article was GA when I returned! Now working on the next one. Sasata (talk) 22:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Rhodotus
Hi, Rhodotus has been passed as a GA. See Talk:Rhodotus/GA1. Congratulations on another fine article. Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 02:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Sasata (talk) 02:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Rhodotus

 * And so it begins! Welcome back! J Milburn (talk) 21:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My sentiments exactly :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Time for some hardcore action. Sasata is back. - DSachan (talk) 11:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Herminiimonas
Nice work on getting those up so quickly! --Rajah (talk) 11:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Geastrum pectinatum

 * You have been lately getting DYK credit after the articles reach GA status. That's funny. - DSachan (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Cyptotrama asprata
Hi, I am reviewing Cyptotrama asprata for GA and have entered a few comments at Talk:Cyptotrama asprata/GA1. Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 18:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Verpa bohemica
Hi, I have passed Verpa bohemica for GA. Congratulations on another good article! Regards, &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 01:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!

 * Nice work, is there anything you can't do? You're on fire at the moment. J Milburn (talk) 20:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There's lots of stuff I can't do. For example, I can't figure out how to get a fungus-related featured sound :) Sasata (talk) 20:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar!

 * Thanks kindly! And hey, take it easy with the GAs, it's hard work trying to keep up :) Sasata (talk) 20:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Fail
Hi there, Sasata! I saw that you have just listed Spontaneous cerebrospinal fluid leak as failing the GA nomination. I am confused! First, I never saw a formal GA review under taken. Second, you don't seem to give a reason why. I am very interested in bringing this article up to GA status, so perhaps you can help answer this? Thanks! Basket of Puppies 19:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Strinking through as I see you quickfailed it. I have to admit I am miffed as to why it was quick failed. The issues you've identified could have easily been remedied, thus avoiding the quickfail. I will post this on the talk page. Basket of Puppies  19:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey there, Sasta. Left you a message here. Basket of Puppies  00:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Ascocoryne sarcoides
Hi, I have passed another fine article of yours for GA, Ascocoryne sarcoides. Congratulations, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 21:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's excellent news – A simultaneous GA and DYK! Thanks for your continued efforts in reviewing, Mattisse. Sasata (talk) 21:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Alpine chough
Thanks for GA, and particularly for beyond-the-call-of-duty FA tips and links, very helpful! jimfbleak (talk) 05:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Fungi articles
I've noticed that many species articles use the binomial (e.g. Calamus caryotoides). Perhaps you could move the fungi article to a title with that sort of format? (If you happen to reply here to this, please make a notice on my talk page.) Vltava   68  07:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Which fungi article are you referring to? If its Caloscypha at GAN, its a single name because the article is named after the genus (genus is monotypic), not the species, as per Tree of Life article naming conventions. Sasata (talk) 07:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, they were recently created ones. (I saw them on the new pages list at most thirty minutes ago.) Vltava   68  07:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I just realized that I misread the stubs as articles for species instead of stubs for genus (whatever the plural is). Vltava   68  07:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

List of skin-related conditions nominated as featured list candidate
I have continued to work on the list of skin-related conditions, and recently nominated it for FL status. If available, your comments would be greatly appreciated at the nomination page. Regardless, thank you again for your work on wikipedia. ---kilbad (talk) 06:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Rhodocollybia
Thank you so much for getting Rhodocollybia into the DYK. You really made the article wonderful!--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Fungus stubs
Hi. I was taking a look at the fungus stubs and I noticed that you still have all your articles in the general fungus stubs category using the category, even after sorting the template. Is there a reason for this? The general category's massively oversized. 66.162.13.211 (talk) 16:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps July update
Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 290 articles were swept in June! Last month was our second most successful month in reviewing articles (after May). We are currently over 70% done with Sweeps, with just under 800 articles left to review. With nearly 50 members, that averages out to about 15 articles per person. If each member reviews an article every other day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. This may sound difficult, but if everyone completes their reviews, Sweeps would be completed in less than two years when we first started (with only four members!). With the conclusion of Sweeps, each editor could spend more time writing GAs, reviewing at the backlogged GAN, or focusing on other GARs. Again, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. Feel free to recruit other editors who have reviewed GANs in the past and might be interested in the process. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Scutellinia scutellata
Hey, I'm aiming for this to hit DYK with a five-times expansion, but I haven't found enough material on Google Books/my bookshelf. Fairly well known fungi, and pretty common (if I've found it, it must be...). I was wondering if you had access to any articles with interesting material worth adding? Thanks. J Milburn (talk) 22:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I sure do! I'll buff it up later tonight. Sasata (talk) 23:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's awesome, thanks. J Milburn (talk) 23:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Long-toed Salamander
Hi, I am reviewing Long-toed Salamander and have left a few comments at Talk:Long-toed salamander/GA2. Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 01:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Caloscypha
Hi, I am reviewing Caloscypha for GA and have left a few comments at Talk:Caloscypha/GA1. Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 22:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:ITALICS
Do you have a lot of knowledge/experience regarding the WP:ITALICS policy? If so, I wanted to know if you would help me make sure the list of cutaneous conditions is meeting WP:ITALICS for foreign terms. Regardless, thanks again for all your help in the past. ---kilbad (talk) 00:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Astraeus hygrometricus
Hi, I am reviewing Astraeus hygrometricus for GA and have a question. See Talk:Astraeus hygrometricus/GA1. Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 22:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Annelid
Thanks for the improvements in the article, and for putting up with one of the most argumentative reviewees on en.WP :-) --Philcha (talk) 16:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You're quite welcome... I read some of your previous reviews, so I knew what I was getting into when I signed up :) Sasata (talk) 16:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ROFL :-) -Philcha (talk) 16:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Montypic genera
I just found the category Category:Monotypic genera and so, inline with the existing plant and animal categories, I am heading through and adding Category:Monotypic fungi genera to a large number of articles. Am I right in thinking that, in the case of monotypic genera, articles on the genus and the species should be merged? I've come across Arkoola and Arkoola nigra and was wondering if there was any reason to keep them separate... J Milburn (talk) 23:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No reason, the species page should be made into a redirect to the genus. When I made the first batches of taxon stubs I neglected to create species->genus redirects for the monotypic genera. Am currently (slowly) rectifying these omissions on a second pass through the stubs, where some more info gets added. Sasata (talk) 07:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Scutellinia scutellata
I went through the books to which I had access (bookshelf/Google Books) times, trying to expand the article enough for a DYK credit. I'd love another fungal GA- we can share it, if you like! I'll see if I can find anything else. J Milburn (talk) 14:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent! I can find some more references on my end and work on it over the next couple of weeks, and we can co-nom for GAN then. Sasata (talk) 14:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Polyozellus
Hi, I reviewed and passed Polyozellus as a GA. Very nice. Congratulations! Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 22:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Mary Tofts/GA1
Hi, sorry I didn't have the page on watch and didn't notice your comments. I've addressed most of them now. I now have nearly all the eye-witness accounts for the affair, but I'll wait for the review to end before I use them. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Why thank-you :) Do you have any observations before I consider heading to the Lion's den? Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest finding a third party copyeditor to tighten the prose... not that I think the prose is bad or anything, but there were a few instances where maybe I though the wording was a bit "sketchy", and a fresh set of eyes always helps. Other than that, everything looked pretty good to me. Sasata (talk) 16:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup participates in the The Great Wikipedia Dramaout
Hello all, iMatthew here. I just wanted to let you know about "The Great Wikipedia Dramaout" which starts this Saturday. The goal of the Dramaout is to spend five days working on improving articles and abstaining from any of Wikipedia's drama. I don't think that any of you will have a problem focusing on articles for five days, because of course, any work you get done during the Dramaout will count towards your score in the WikiCup. Details are on the page; hope to see you all signing up! :)  iMatthew  talk  at 00:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Red-throated Diver
Hi Sasata: Thanks for all the time and effort you put into GA-assessing Red-throated Diver; I was happy to get such a rigorous, thoughtful read-through! MeegsC | Talk 08:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Re:Scutellinia scutellata now at GAN
Thanks, that's brilliant. J Milburn (talk) 12:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Hogarth
They are fascinating images, aren't they? I love there's so much going on in there. Gin Lane is another fantastic Hogarth engraving. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Urnula craterium
Hi, I am reviewing Urnula craterium and have left a few comments at Talk:Urnula craterium/GA1. What a beautiful fungus! Especially in that last photo. Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 21:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

PS.....
this --> Boletus satanas is/was another GA thought that I worked up to a point and then got distracted elsewhere. The stickler here is some issue between US and European tax maybe being different but this not having appeared in a reliable source as yet (headdesk..) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Crucibulum
Hi, I am reviewing Crucibulum snd have added a few comments at Talk:Crucibulum/GA1. It is a very wonderful article. Is Crucibulum related to orchids, as Charles Darwin in his Fertilisation of Orchids talks of these processes of reproduction? Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 22:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not related in any way other than the shared morphology, I imagine. There's also a species of mollusc (also cup-shaped) that uses the genus name as well. Thanks for the review! Sasata (talk) 23:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Problem - article already exists
In promoting Crucibulum I noticed that Crucibulum laeve already exists. They both cover the same topic. One has to be merged into the other. Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 01:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * One article is for the genus (Crucibulum), the other specific to a species (Crucibulum laeve). There is overlap between the two because C. laeve is the most well-known of the three species of Crucibulum. As far as I'm aware, species articles need to be merged into the genus article only when the latter is monospecific. Sasata (talk) 01:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It's time...:
Excellent! Malljaja (talk) 16:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Fungus
Not sure what your talking about... I plan to keep editing the medicinal section of the page. I will only make minor edits to this minor section of the article I hope its not a problem...Jatlas2 (talk) 22:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Sorry, I just made one more edit. I am done now, I won't change anything without asking the discussion panel. Good luck with your projects Jatlas2 (talk) 22:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC) By the way, please be more careful with references, recently I provided references for the hypoglycemic effect of some mushrooms, on one page you deleted all of them and replaced it with a generic reference which wasn't even accessible. On the fungus page you deleted them and replaced them with a broken reference... Jatlas2 (talk) 23:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was trying to remove them all, but missed one. Have now restored to the old version, thanks for letting me know. Sasata (talk) 00:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Great the article is worse... Good job Jatlas (talk) 00:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry you think so. If you have suggestions to improve the article, please see my last notes to you. Sasata (talk) 00:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps August update
Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 215 articles were swept in July! We are currently nearly 80% done with Sweeps, with under 600 articles left to review. With 50 members, that averages out to about 12 articles per person. Once the remaining articles drop to 100, I'll help in reviewing the last articles (I'm currently taking a break). If each member reviews an article every other day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. Again, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. Feel free to recruit other editors who have reviewed GANs in the past and might be interested in the process. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

File:William Hogarth - Credulity, Superstition, and Fanaticism.png
If you want, I'd be happy to work with you to get this up to FP quality - I think a little restoration and it'll pass. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 184 FCs served 17:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Certainly, I think it's a fine pic that deserves to be featured, and would be happy to co-nom. Thanks for lending your expertise. Sasata (talk) 17:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't suppose you could rescan it with more generous borders? There's a bit of a "B" cut off on the left, and some more paper would make fixing the edges a little easier. I do propose to minimise paper texture (modern paper just isn't that important to maintain) but I'd like to keep a little, and reconstructing the B is a little annoying if you don't have to.
 * Also, if possible, a little higher resolution might be nice. You know me. =)
 * I'm not that concerned whether we suspend the nomination, or let it fail and renominate - it's going to go through in the end whichever we try; suspension might speed this up a little. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 184 FCs served 00:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't the original scanner, so I don't have access to the original material; look like user:BryanBot (the uploader) is no longer active. Will it be possible to work with the given scan? Sasata (talk) 04:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Bingo!
Recall the comments you made at the FAC for Rosewood massacre about pp instead of p? Remember my saying someone will come along and change it? I get $1,000 right? I'll give you $500 to change it back. Double or nothing if I do it and get accused of owning the article.

Bing! --Moni3 (talk) 23:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That paltry amount of money is a mere pittance compared to the eternal satisfaction you should get from knowing, deep down in your heart, that the reference formatting is now correct. Sasata (talk) 00:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ?? It's correct with pp, as it is now? Or it was correct when you asked me to change it to single p? --Moni3 (talk) 00:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * p=page; pp=more than one page Sasata (talk) 00:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Translation problem of Amanita flavoconia
Hi, can you help me? I'm trying to translate this article to Chinese Wikipedia. But I'm confused by the phrase "in association with hemlock". Does "in association with" mean symbiosis? Thanks! --PhiLiP (talk) 13:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes it does, but more specifically, a mycorrhizal association. I'll put that in the article to make it more explicit. Thanks for your note. Sasata (talk) 15:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/Spider internal anatomy
I think we've fixed all the problems you've identified, except for the stomach muscle lines which are still being discussed. Was there anything else that you were still opposing based on? Kaldari (talk) 20:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

FPC
Just to give a little note: You're overdoing it a bit: It's considered polite to limit yourself to one or two a day, particularly if they aren't yours. People could get upset if you continue. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 184 FCs served 09:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah oh, was not aware of this unwritten convention. Thanks for the note. Sasata (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Aye, it's one of those things where, well, put up too many, and all the people below you get shoved down the page, and may hit problems of not getting a quorum and so on, so pacing yourself a bit is encouraged. It should probably be mentioned somewhere, but it doesn't come up much. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 184 FCs served 00:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * .That said, if you wanted to participate in WP:FSC, you can probably be as prolific as youlike, and people will merely cheer "Huzzah! About damn time!" Shoemaker's Holiday Over 184 FCs served 00:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)