User talk:Sasata/Archive 5

Collecting mushrooms
Hey, I was patrolling new pages and noticed your name. Seeing that you seem to be an expert in fungus and mushrooms, I have a few quick questions (hope you don't mind.) Are most fungi harmful to be inhaled? And, where do you store the collected fungus? Thanks =D. Netalarm talk  03:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how one would inhale a fungus... so I'm assuming you mean fungal spores. Some susceptible individuals are known to have allergic reactions to fungus spores, but for the most part, they're pretty safe; keep in mind that we typically inhale thousands of spores with each breath. As for storage, when I plan on keeping a specimen for my personal collection, I dry the sample thoroughly, either on a rack in sunlight, or in a dessicator. I have a set of stackable plastic containers with individual compartments that I use to store them; typically I also include dessicant in the storage container to help prevent the mushroom tissue from absorbing moisture from the air. Hope this answers your questions. Sasata (talk) 03:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Ya. I meant to say spores (it would be quite hard to inhale a mushroom even if I tried.) Happy editing & cya around Wikipedia! Netalarm talk  04:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Concentrating and inhaling the spores of any fungus is probably a really bad idea. Tom Volk has a cautionary tale about this practice. Piggy@baqaqi.chi.il.us (talk) 03:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Embroidered blue jeans

 * Haha thanks! Does this give me +2 con? I need it about now... looking forward to more sleep at night... Sasata (talk) 06:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh noes, D&D refs..but which edition? Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I played the 1st in grade school, dabbled with the 2nd in University, and then got my fix by wasting countless hours on the MUD Aardwolf. Looking back, the experience filled my head with unending useless trivia about mythical characters and creatures, improved my typing skills considerably, and contributed to my CTS. At least now I can claim my obsession for useless trivia is helping mankind :) Sasata (talk) 22:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Are all of us fungi people roleplayers?! J Milburn (talk) 00:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You too? The more time I spend here the more I agree with this... Sasata (talk) 00:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, hence my request - I think you've gained 2000 experience points by now and hence time to level up. I recently roleplayed an act which was incompatible with the Lawful Neutral arbcom alignment and hence lost a level :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thanks Dana! Sasata (talk) 20:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Images
I've categorized all the images I've been uploading, in case you wanted to use images I'm uploading as inspiration to create a page for the species, view them all and listing of the species and if a page has been made for that species yet at Category:Fungi uploaded by raeky. — raeky ( talk 06:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Man! Those are some sweet pics - I'm inspired. Just created this one earlier today... Please keep up the excellent work! Sasata (talk) 07:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Uploading tons. ;-) — raeky ( talk 08:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Madrepora oculata
Thanks for adding the great-looking tax box!

I have been asked to expand on the statement in the article: "The first instances of seeming neoplasms in a coral were reported in a species of Madrepora in Hawaiian waters in which hypertrophied corallites or skeletons in the coral were noted. Similarly hypertrophied corallites were described in colonies of Madrepora oculata near northwestern Australia and Japan, as well as in the Formosa Strait and other areas, but have never been confirmed. A recent provisional reinterpretation is that these abnormal corallites are a form of internal gall, rather than a neoplasm." Could you explain to me what a gall is so that I can state the situation more clearly? (Although I wrote it, I don't quite understand it.) Regards, — Mattisse (Talk) 17:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A gall is an abnormal swelling or growth caused by infection by a parasitic microorganism, whereas a neoplasm is an abnormal growth caused by mutation, which may in turn be caused exposure by mutagenic chemicals or other nasty things people dump in the ocean sometimes. Hope that helps! Sasata (talk) 17:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was wondering if a gall was necessarily caused by a parasitic microorganism, so that explains it very well. Thanks, — Mattisse (Talk) 17:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Lulworthiaceae
I saw this and burst out laughing- it'd be a great April Fools' hook. Shame it's already been used. If you don't get the reference, something that is "lul worthy" is worth laughing out loud at... J Milburn (talk) 00:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, that hadn't occurred to me. There's still a chance to use Lulworthia for AF :) Sasata (talk) 00:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thanks Durova! Kudos on your well-deserved victory! Sasata (talk) 02:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on the bronze medal! :) - The left orium  09:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Boletus edulis
Okay, now I really need to do my tax...so have at it. I think throwing it up at GA is owrthwhile at this juncture. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL! I had assumed when I saw your edits that you had already finished them! Shame on you, your government needs your money, now. I'll put the bolete up for GAN later this evening. Sasata (talk) 03:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Halloween 2009
Together with Tim1965, you have made up almost half of the entire Halloween hooks. Well done! ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 13:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Best edit summary
Just wanted to say that made me lol. A bit of humor is really nice sometimes :P Circeus (talk) 18:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * While I'm on it, Pholiota flammans seems to have issues similar to those I had pointed out in Amanita abrupta: It's quite unclear whether only the habitat is a difference, or there are significant physical differences too. Circeus (talk) 18:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No reason being here unless its fun, right? Thanks for the Pholiota alert, hopefully it's improved a bit now. Sasata (talk) 19:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Marco Polo sheep GAR
Hey Sasata, thanks ever so much for taking the time to review this. I'm very sorry I didn't get it done, but other projects got in the way....I just got too busy. As I said before, it was nominated before I was quite finished working on it, but now I'll gather my sources and improve it as much as I can: hopefully this will be a Good Article very soon. Thanks again - I may drop you a note when I nominate it again. I owe you one: if you ever need anything, drop me a note.  Fl ee tf la me   ·  whack! whack!  · 15:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I completely understand how real life can mess up our Wikipedia time. Looking forward to seeing the article again at GAN. Best, Sasata (talk) 15:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

unknown Amanita
I copied a image of a unknown Amanita to the Talk:Amanita cokeri page to ask if this is the right picture, but I got no answer. You look like an expert in that field, so is it possible to tell if this is the right name for the mushroom on the image? Thanks--Stone (talk) 15:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Stone, I'm more "interested amateur" than expert. All I can say about the ID is "definitely maybe"; it's difficult if not impossible to accurately identify a species with just a single photograph, and often microscopy is needed to be sure. Here's some other pics of this species for comparison; also check out Rod Tulloss's page. I've been working on some species articles of Amanita section Lepidella, to which A. cokeri belongs, and A. cokeri is somewhere on my to-do list. Perhaps in a couple of weeks I'll have a less wishy-washy opinion :) Sasata (talk) 16:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Mushroom Observer Source Template
I created a source template for uploads from that site in case the url format changes at a later date. Please use as the source instead of the direct link to the image page. I'm also working on getting a bot to automaticly change all the uploads already uploaded with that template. Heres an example image using the template File:Amanita_amerimuscaria_60301.jpg — raeky ( talk 17:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a nifty-looking template! I will check it out more thoroughly later. Sasata (talk) 00:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it just me or is the template stuck at image #12638? Sasata (talk) 08:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's whatever # you put into it that it will display? Give me a link to an image your having trouble using it on. — raeky ( talk 09:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It works for me, heres another example of an image using it (and 2 others I made for MO) File:Mutinus borneensis 63181.jpg — raeky ( talk 09:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Awards
Congratulations! Hope to see you sign up for the 2010 WikiCup, here, if you haven't already!  iMatthew  talk   at 23:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks IMatthew. I'm already signed up! Sasata (talk) 00:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the gender pronoun in the template. Where have people got the idea that you're female? (Or, if you are, where have I got the idea you're male?!) J Milburn (talk) 00:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Doesn't much matter to me, gender identity is overrated. Or, in other words, "nobody on the internet knows you're a dog". Sasata (talk) 15:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:FOUR
At WP:FOUR, we are attempting to keep the queue down by asking people to review as many nominees as they add. If you get a chance please review a couple nominations.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Re:Cup question
This is potentially problematic. I don't think it would be fair for people to claim points for a FA merely for copyediting, and I think any co-noms would have to be looked at closely. Do you have any ideas for how to deal with this? Or would you be interested in simply banning "co-noms" and forcing a single person to take the credit? J Milburn (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's something I'll have a think about. I was going to discuss it with iMatthew, but he's just left the IRC channel because of a different disagreement... This is possibly going to be a rather lengthy process... J Milburn (talk) 17:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Four Award
As a past WP:FOUR awardee you may wish to comment at WikiProject Council/Proposals/Four Award.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Discovery and development of CCR5 receptor antagonists
Hello! Your submission of Discovery and development of CCR5 receptor antagonists at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 10:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Of psychoactive compounds and ominovorous birds....
I see you pulled psilocybin. I have an idea - I'll give it a going over now and pop questions that come to mind, and if you could do the same to Pied Currawong I'd be grateful, as that is now my next cab off the rank to FAC and I guess psilocybin would be yours (?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a great trade! I'l get on it later today. Sasata (talk) 13:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Four Award
Well done! don't forget that you can be eligible for more than one Four Award, if you nurture another article from creation to FA. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 18:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Good work! There's fungus among us.  Will Beback   talk    23:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Moldy barnstar
I humbly thank you; and look forward to working with you on future fungi GAN ;-) Rcej (talk) 01:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

En passant GA review
I think I've addressed all of the items in the current version of En passant that you listed. Unfortunately, I was not able to anything about the topics that you thought would be good to add. Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 03:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Trich split
An article 5k long hardly deserves to be split. Making people hunt down the genera with an additional click is far more effort than ignoring a section. 30k is the lower limit on size justifying a split. I think these articles should be re-merged. -Craig Pemberton 07:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It won't be that long for much longer. I'm currently working on a new version that I'll swap in the current article sometime in January, that will be put up for GA shortly after. I think people will find the extra click worthwhile when List of Tricholomataceae genera becomes a featured list. Same deal with Agaricales, and List of Agaricales families :) Sasata (talk) 07:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Talking about that list, Pseudolasiobolus says it's in Podoscyphaceae. Circéus (talk) 04:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out.. I have fixed my original error. Sasata (talk) 04:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

We seem to be taking different approaches to citing the protologues. I've been taking the Index Fungorum standard botanical refs and standardizing the abbreviations to IPNI. While I appreciate your ability to track the full citation, I have to say I find a certain esthetic interest in having the source within the table itself, as is allows the sources listed to be more "global" and slightly less overwhelming (plus obscure 19th/early 20th century sources are really not that useful to 90% of users, and here they are almost encyclopedic in themselves). I'll defer to you as main author, though. Circéus (talk) 07:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Doesn't functionality outweigh aesthetics? For anyone wanting to use this list as a scholarly reference (which is the plan for it) full references have to be given, and for possible FLC candidacy, refs have to be in proper citation templates. See for example List of Armillaria species (admittedly not yet finished) as the model I'm following. But since you're looking, I'd appreciate any ideas for improving lists like these, as I plan to make a lot of them and it would be best to figure out a quality standard "template" for the future. Sasata (talk) 07:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, my concern is on several aspects. I actually do think adding the short ref in the table improve the look (though if the format did not have that column, I'd be fine with the sources downstair). Also, as I've mentioned, for the most part, the short references are sufficient and more like encyclopedic information than sources per se: Technically we don't need to refer back to the protologue of every single genus (if only because these source are useless in distinguishing those that are current and those since moved or sunk in synonymy) and we could use global references with a few specific ones (cf. as I did in List of mammals of Canada though admittedly this is not an... exact parallel). Given that, we could consider that the protologue reference is more of an encyclopedic information than a source per se, and putting it in the table is fine, plus it avoids "overloading" the references. ut that's just how I approach it, ultimately I'll defer to whatever decision you take.
 * A middle ground approach might be: list all with botanical short form, and give a full reference for any source that is available online (e.g. Mycologia can be linked to either in JSTOR or its own website, Baroni et al. 2007 is also online). the same would be used where books are "concealed": book series such as Bibliotheca Mycologia are cited as periodicals, we would want the full book citation, of course. Any thoughts?
 * Also I can't help tracking the earlier references, so ultimately, whether that work is done now or after comments at FAC, you're probably going to be the one doing more of the work >__>;; Circéus (talk) 07:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, we differ on our ideas about this. Personally, I like the look of a well-stocked list of references complete with all available DOI's, links to online PDFs, Google Books (for example, most of the early important fungal taxonomical works by Fries, Persoon is readily available online) and anything else pertinent. Yes, it will take me hours of digging, but I find this kind of work fun, and it means that some student in the future will have all the information readily available to them. Those who find a lengthy refernence list overwhelming need simply to not scroll down that far :) Having the short form of the protologue is no different than what one can find at Fungorum or other similar online taxonomical databases, so it doesn't really set Wikipedia apart in research quality. Another reason is practical; I plan to bring up all of the linked genera articles to at least start or C-class, so I'd have to find most of these references anyways when working on those. The list articles are just to serve as an taxonomic overview, a visual summary of current mycological classification with handy links to genera articles that have more detailed information. Part of this summary should include (imo) the full bibliographic details of the original paper.
 * Guess I will leave you to your bibliographic digging, then (though I might throw in the occasional links and dois). I'll definitely feel a certain sadness at the empty feel of the authority column :p Circéus (talk) 08:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Just saw the addition of full refs... thanks! Do you think it would look better if the "Authority" column was taken out and the names were instead placed in small font under the genus name (like the type species column is currently). That way, I could add a new column with distribution information (which is handily given in the Dictionary of the Fungi)? Sasata (talk) 00:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well... Both approaches have arguments going for them: it would be kinda interesting to have the possibility of sorting by authority, though the column would not look super good. Both fits in 1024x800, though even the Armillaria list is a bit tight at 800x600... I don't mind either way, really. I'll probably add in the partial refs (for those I can't find the full details online) at some point so you don't have to juggle an extra step.

Copy edit question
Hey, I'm current doing peer review/copy edit for Supernatural (season 2). I was hoping that you could please give your opinion on the changes I made to the paragraph you cited in your FAC review. Thanks. Ω pho  is  20:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's better, but there's still room for improvement... How about I rewrite that paragraph in a way that I think would qualify as good FAC prose, leave it on the talk page, and then we can compare? Give me a couple of days, as it takes time for my brain to write well on topics not related to science :) Sasata (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. Thanks. Ω  pho  is  12:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And there have been a few more changes to it since then. Ω  pho  is  13:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, just checking in to see how the rewrite was going. :) Also, I've copy-edited pretty much the whole article. Hopefully it has improved a lot. Ω  pho  is  16:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey. I don't know if you have the peer review on your watch page or not. If you do and just haven't had time to respond, then I apologize. Anyways, I responded to your comments, and integrated most of the rewrite into the article. Do you mind looking over the rest of the changes made to the article since the FAC? Thanks. Ω  pho  is  10:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Valued pictures and ITN in the WikiCup
Hi. I am contacting you on behalf of the WikiCup judges because you were involved in our previous points polling. Though most of the polls are now closed, we have restarted polls relating to the points value for both valued pictures and in the news entries. You are welcome to submit your votes here; the polls will be closing in a week's time. J Milburn (talk) 19:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The Chinese Restaurant
Good evening, I have fixed (most of) your issues at the "The Chinese Restaurant" FAC, would you be kind enough to take another look? Thank you.-- Music 26/  11  19:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

2010 WikiCup Signups Reconfirmation!
To ensure that everyone who signed up is still committed to participating in the 2010 WikiCup, it is required that you remove your name from this list! By removing your name, you are not removing yourself from the WikiCup. This is simply a way for the judges to take note of who has not yet reconfirmed their participation. If you have not removed your name from that list by December 30th, 2009 (by 23:59 (UTC)) then your name will be removed from the WikiCup.

It's worth noting the rules have changed, likely after you signed up. The changes made thus far are:
 * Mainspace and/or portal edits will not be awarded points at all.
 * Did you know? articles (which were worth 5 points last year) will now be worth 10 points.
 * Good articles (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
 * Valued pictures will be now awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.
 * Featured lists (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
 * Featured portals (which were worth 25 points last year) will now be worth 35 points.
 * Featured articles (which were worth 50 points last year) will now be worth 100 points.
 * Featured topics (which were worth 10 points per article last year) will now be worth 15 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
 * Good topics (which were worth 5 points per article last year) will now be worth 10 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
 * In the news will still be awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.

If you have any final concerns about the WikiCup's rules and regulations, please ask them now, before the Cup begins to avoid last minute problems. You may come to the WikiCup's talk page, or any of the judge's user talk pages. We're looking forwards to a great 2010 WikiCup! On behalf of the WikiCup judges,  iMatthew  talk   at 03:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Edward Drinker Cope/archive1
Just letting you know I've responded with an update. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 21:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Bolognia push update
We continue to make a a lot progress with the Bolognia push 2009. Thank you for your help thus far and, if you still are free, I ask for your continued help. Regardless, thanks again! ---kilbad (talk) 03:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Trich genera
I'd be honored. I have to say there's only so much I can do in taxonomic/documentation search (although my uni is specialized in Botany, the library is across town and not an attractive travel in winter, plus the focus is on higher plants: mushrooms are on permanent loan to DAOM), I'll do all I can with the formatting. Circéus (talk) 18:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've started adding alt text and am rather enjoying the task of trying not to make them too repetitive. The one for Catathelasma has me somewhat stumped though, and I had to resort to a rather... unorthodox simile. Seems to me like this is an anomalous specimen and another image from those I trimmed when converting the layout could be brought back in to replace it. Circéus (talk) 17:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL! Feel free to replace it with a less "provocative" version file:Catathelasma imperiale2.JPG. Sasata (talk) 18:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

FAC for Pseudoryzomys
A few weeks ago, you commented at the FAC for Pseudoryzomys that you'd come back after others have had a chance to comment. There have been a few such comments (though not many), and I'd appreciate it if you could have another look at the candidate. Thanks, Ucucha 16:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll read it again tonight. Sasata (talk) 17:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Problem with former FAC nominee
Hi Sasata, User:Ophois told me you requested me to help her by copyediting former FAC nominee Supernatural (season 2), I made a lot minor edits and think the article needed a minor touch up, but fits FAC criteria. I saw the archive of the nominee and I still don't understand. Could you explain the exact problems? Could you let me know if I fixed them all? Thanx! ATC. Talk 23:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Have commented at the Peer review page. Sasata (talk) 05:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Didn't see that, now I did. Oh, okay then. Thanx! ATC . Talk 12:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Bog Turtles
Your impact on the learning process has been immeasurable. The group is very fortunate to receive such a tactful; yet thorough review. I sincerely appreciate the expenditure of your personal time to perform such a critique as well as your patience. The students did not expect the bar to be set so high - I for one am thrilled. I have insisted that respond to every concern; hopefully, they will not disappoint you. Cheers! --JimmyButler (talk) 18:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It was my pleasure! I would have loved the chance to do an assignment like this when I was in high school. In fact, reading about the turtles during the course of this review has inspired me to work on the Wood turtle article, and I hope to bring that up to GA quality in the New Year. The group did a great job in bringing up Bog turtle to GA-standard and should be proud of their efforts and contribution to Wikipedia. Sasata (talk) 15:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Poikiloderma vasculare atrophicans
I posted a couple photos of this condition at the medicine talk page. Perhaps we could collaborate to make this article a DYK? ---kilbad (talk) 21:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

the race is on...
I have nominated one of the banksias at DYK...which is attacked by...guess what...one is an easy 5x expand, but the Armillaria one might be a challenge to get to 600 words. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I like challenges... give me a couple of days, I'm working on a dinky little laptop (that I have to share with wife), so am slower than usual. Sasata (talk) 13:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Zygoballus sexpunctatus reliable sources issue
Per your advice at the peer review, I have integrated the David Hill sources into the Zygoballus sexpunctatus article. I was wondering if you could be so kind as to endorse this decision at Talk:Zygoballus sexpunctatus in preparation for the inevitable FAC challenges. Kaldari (talk) 22:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps just a small comment such as "I agree that these sources are reliable"? Just so it doesn't sound like I made the decision unilaterally. Kaldari (talk) 22:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Sasata (talk) 02:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Thank you! Kaldari (talk) 04:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Supernatural Season 2 FAC

 * Supernatural (season 2) has been renominated here. Ω  pho  is  16:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Parachute (song)
Please can you review the hook for said article here? Thanks, WossOccurring (talk) 04:53, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that's a hook I would normally avoid reviewing... I don't even know what the rules are for articles and sourcing for as yet unreleased songs. Sasata (talk) 16:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

GA review
Hi Sasata, thanks for volunteering to do the GA review for Carletonomys. I'll be off on holiday from tomorrow until January 8 and I don't know whether I'll have Internet access during that period and if so, when. Perhaps it'd be best if you just do the review and when I'm able to, I'll respond as soon as I can, and if not, I'll respond after January 8. Alternatively, I could just ping you again when I have Internet access--what you prefer.

And merry Christmas (a bit late, but Christmas is two days in the Netherlands - so it still counts). :) Ucucha 18:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, I'm in no rush... and we have unexpected visitors here, so it will take me longer than I thought to do the review anyways. Happy holidays to you and we'll chat when you get back :) Sasata (talk) 19:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It didn't turn out well with the Internet access, so I'm back only now, and will be looking into your comments. Happy New Year! Ucucha 21:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

GA review of Spontaneous cerebrospinal fluid leak
Dear Sasata, hi!! How are you doing? I am ok and busy editing. Some months ago you helped out at Spontaneous cerebrospinal fluid leak by doing a GA review. The article failed then, but it recently underwent a peer review and significant changes were made in the article, layout, format, etc. At this point I am wondering if you might consider doing an additional GA review. Thanks so much!! Basket of Puppies 23:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi BoP, normally I avoid doing a re-review of GAN, as I think it's best for the article if as many eyes as possible see it. That being said, if it's still waiting at the GAN queue in 2-3 weeks I'll consider reviewing it again. I had a quick look and really like the improvements that have been made since I last saw it (especially the long list of scholarly sources)! Sasata (talk) 15:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The 2010 WikiCup begins tomorrow!
Welcome to the biggest WikiCup Wikipedia has yet seen! Round one will take place over two months, and finish on February 26. There is only one pool, and the top 64 will progress. The competition will be tough, as more than half of the current competitors will not make it to round 2. Details about scoring have been finalized and are explained at WikiCup/Scoring. Please make sure you're familiar with the scoring rules, because any submissions made that violate these rules will be removed. Like always, the judges can be reached through the WikiCup talk pages, on their talk page, or over IRC with any issues concerning anything tied to the Cup. We will keep in contact with you via weekly newsletters; if you do not want to receive them, please remove yourself from the list here. Conversely, if a non-WikiCup participant wishes to receive the newsletters, they may add themselves to that list. Well, enough talk- get writing! Your submission's page is located here. Details on how to submit your content is located here, so be sure to check that out! Once content has been recognized, it can be added to your submissions page, from which our bot will update the main score table. Remember that only articles worked on and nominated during the competition are eligible for points. Have fun, and good luck! Garden, iMatthew, J Milburn, and The ed17 19:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps update
Thanks to everyone's efforts to the GA Sweeps process, we are currently over 90% done with only 226 articles remain to be swept! As always, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. With over 50 members participating in Sweeps, that averages out to about 4 articles per person! If each member reviews an article once a week this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. At that point, awards will be handed out to reviewers. As an added incentive, if we complete over 100 articles reviewed this month, I will donate $100 to Wikipedia Forever on behalf of all GA Sweeps participants. I hope that this incentive will help to increase our motivation for completing Sweeps while supporting Wikipedia in the process. If you have any questions about reviews or Sweeps 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) 00:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Bog Turtle Distribution Map
Hey, Sasata, sorry it took so long (Christmas and the like took up a lot of my time), but how does this look overall (apart from being a little bland)?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing this is a photograph or a scan of an image you drew? My guess is that you would be asked to redo this at FAC. For one thing, its hard to tell (especially for non-Americans) what part of the US this is, largely because the water isn't shaded a different color. You could try dropping a request at the graphics lab and I'm sure someone would be able to convert this into a high-quality graphic for you. Just let them know exactly what you want, tell them about the class project and your deadlines. The map wouldn't necessarily have to be made before FAC submission (although it would be nice). Good luck! Sasata (talk) 08:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I did this in about ten minutes right next to my computer, hence the weirdness of the image. I left a formal request on this page, telling them of the project and the deadline.  Thank you for the link and advice, talk to you soon.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Someone made a second map, on this page, which one do you like better?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 15:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks great! Make sure you put a source for where you got the distribution information from in the image file at Commons (they'll probably ask you to do that anyways at FAC). How's the rest of the pre-FAC preparations coming along? Sasata (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I can easily provide a reference for where I got the actual areas, but should that go in the caption, or somewhere else? The rest is going okay, we have alt text that I believe goes along with its intended purpose, we are about to have a map, we are working on including more information from scholarly literature (like from this government website: ftp://ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/WHMI/WEB/pdf/TechnicalLeaflets/bog_turtle_Oct%2023.pdf), we are working on getting a copy-editor (but we're sure of how to ask a person to do it), and we have answered all the concerns of Yohmom (although the spelling out of numbers is not checked, but we asked her and she seemed to think it was corrected), at least the one's she voiced on the talk page.  Other that I have one big several-part question: Should we have a section on conservation and endangernment? If we do, should threats be a subsection of it? Should it be a subsection of threats?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK: Maritime Museum (Indonesia)
Hi Sasata. That information was taken from a book: "Historical Sites of Jakarta", written by Adolf Heuken SJ. I have copy pasted the references to the sentence that tells the DYK. Is it the right thing to do? --Rochelimit (talk) 16:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it looks better now... any chance you could include page #'s? How about citations for the other unreferenced paragraphs? Sasata (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There are one paragraph that I cannot find the source. The information about the building condition during Japanese occupation is found from the id.wikipedia.org site and it doesn't cite any sources. Although I am pretty sure that the information is correct, as it was probably made by the officials (there is this habit of officials to link their own page to a page in id.wikipedia, as if the information is an absolute correct). I guess the article is not worthy of a nomination (kinda sad :( ...), since the sources are not complete? do you have any suggestion? (I know it is not right make an 'id.wikipedia' link) --Rochelimit (talk) 23:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Dermatology-related content progress
Thanks again for your help in the past with the dermatology-related content on Wikipedia. We have continued to make significant progress with the Bolognia push. Also, the most recent project popular page statistics are out, and the list of cutaneous conditions continues to rise, now #49, up from #65 last month. Thanks again for your support! ---kilbad (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've been slack with my Bolognia helping. Will try to make a better effort in the upcoming weeks and cross off a couple of letters. Sasata (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Self-Recordings
Jafeluv (talk) 17:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I'm practicing a few songs and hope to try recording and submitting for FSC later this year. Sasata (talk) 17:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

John Ramsay (surgeon)
I've sourced the fact inline for the DYK. Cheers. &mdash;Dark 12:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Sasata (talk) 17:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

My apologies
Looking back through my contributions to that thread, I sounded far more accusatory than I intended to be. Please accept my apologies, as I think I was kind of venting my frustration with the whole "if-you-nominated-it-before-12:00AM-January 1-it-doesn't-count" rules, which was unfair to you. I apologize. Unit Anode  18:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Accepted, no worries. Sasata (talk) 06:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Email
I've sent you a quick message. J Milburn (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, don't worry, it's all good. Sasata (talk) 04:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Panal
How's this? Took me long enough, sorry... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 11:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is great! Thanks kindly for bringing the cadinane skeleton to life :) Sasata (talk) 16:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Cookies

 * That's cosmically wierd: I just finished giving my kids a snack of Oreos and milk just minutes before I read this! Thanks for the sentiment, and it's not bothering me... I think I smell fear in the Tiger :) Sasata (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL, now that is cool timing :D -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 01:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Conservation section for bog turtle articls
Hey Sasata, how's something like this for a conservation section?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Have made some comments in the sandbox. Sasata (talk) 04:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 16:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Bioluminescence
Hi, Sasata. The image File:PanellusStipticusAug12 2009.jpg was taken without enhancement in natural light. Thanks!

Ylem (talk) 10:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes! It was a great find. You are correct about the exposure (517 seconds). The location was central North America. Thanks again.

Ylem (talk) 07:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Paleomycology
Interesting little subject here. Finding the term in a lot of journal articles as key words, but not confident with regards to doing much with the article. Perhaps something you could add a little to? J Milburn (talk) 14:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I added a couple refs so I could remove the refimprove tag. There will probably be considerable overlap with this article and evolution of fungi (an article on my "list" for improvement), so will have to think about how best to distribute info between them. Sasata (talk) 15:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that
I was using your submission as a guide on how to propely format and didn't relise I was still on your page-- Coasttocoast (talk) 20:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, that's what I figured. Sasata (talk) 20:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/A Rugrats Chanukah/archive1
I have responded to your concerns and humbly ask you to look them over. Cheers,  The Flash  {talk} 16:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Responded again :)  The Flash  <sup style="color:black;">{talk} 18:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Responded to whatever's left. And thanks for the support. :)  The Flash  <sup style="color:black;">{talk} 20:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)