User talk:Sasata/Archive 6

Talk:Boletus zelleri/GA1
I have reviewed this article, and placed it on hold, pending a couple of simple changes. I've left a detailed explanation and some thoughts on the review page. Feel free to drop me a line on my talk page when you've dealt with the issues. J Milburn (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I am impressed- more improvement to the article from the review than I expected. I'll promote it now. Concerning the FAC issue, I'm always happy to review fungul FACs but I agree that, for most species, there just won't be enough info out there. As for the Lactarius issue- go for it, and I'd love to be listed as a co-nom. I'll do what I can with the articles if/when I see them popping up on my watchlist. J Milburn (talk) 01:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Help with a DYK
Somebody wants to put the Xeromphalina campanella‎ up for DYK, but it has some minor problems in it which a expert in fungi can easily fix. Thanks! --Stone (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. I did a quick clean, but will work on it some more later. Sasata (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks very much for the review. Sorry I was so slow to reply - first week of classes, and I'm teaching a class I've never taught before. Guettarda (talk) 01:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I'm looking forward to learning more about palms this year. Sasata (talk) 01:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Taxonomy
Do you know of a good website that can be used for information on a species's taxonomy? Joe Chill (talk) 00:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, Index Fungorum and MycoBank are the best two for mycology. Whenever I make a new species article I check both to see if they agree (they usually do, 98% of the time); if they don't I default to whatever the Dictionary of the Fungi (2008) says. Mycobank is especially handy as it gives full references to the publication of original species descriptions. Drop a note if you ever need assistance... I don't profess to be an expert, but I've been reading and learning about it for a while. Sasata (talk) 00:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information. I seem to have a lot of trouble finding taxonomy information for fungi. Joe Chill (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Banksiamyces
I think this paper will have some answers, and this expands upon it. I'd be grateful for help in getting these but think the latter might require a trip to the library....and we can fill out another fungus stub :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The Brit. Myc. Soc. articles I can't get online, but they have it at the local uni library. Will have to wait until my regular trip on the weekend though. Sasata (talk) 05:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Hygrophorus agathosmus/GA1
Review done. Feel free to drop a line on my talk page when the issues have been resolved. J Milburn (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Promoted, nice work, as usual. J Milburn (talk) 15:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Ecology
I was wondering who would be brave enough to tackle the GA review on Ecology. A daunting task - not because of its quality - but the sheer volume of information that it addresses. Kudos for your commitment to the cause!!!!! --JimmyButler (talk) 12:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a big job, but made easier by the fact that it's already well-written, and I'm very interested in the subject. Plus, I get the benefit of helping out with a core science article, which really helps out the encyclopedia. Win-win! Sasata (talk) 16:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Sasata - just wanted to let you know that you are doing a great job in the review. I hope my responses are helpful as well. I have been taking a look at everything you put down - item by item - and thinking everything through. If I don't agree with your suggestion I will often change the section anyway - because it often means that there is something wrong with it. I hope I don't sound too sharp in my responses. I really do appreciate all the help. I may grumble a bit - it is my way of thinking things through. I type pretty fast and don't really put much person-to-person emotion in my editorial text, so it might come across harsh at times. Take care. Keep up the good work!Thompsma (talk) 01:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. Don't worry about sounding harsh... I have a thick skin and appreciate it's just back and forth banter that will ultimately help the article. I don't really have a lot of background knowledge about the topic other than a few lectures I don't remember from Biology 101, and recent readings on the importance of fungi in all kinds of ecosystems. Many of my suggestions may be off-base, as I'm kind of "thinking out loud" while reviewing, and I don't mind being told I'm wrong :) Sasata (talk) 03:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Considering a few new categories
I am considering adding a few more dermatology-related categories. I have posted a thread at: Talk:List_of_cutaneous_conditions. Could I get your feedback regarding this issue? ---kilbad (talk) 01:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Research
Hello there! I've not interacted with you before that I can recall, but you're going great work here—thanks! With regard to this oppose, would you mind tipping me off about what database you used for these results? I often struggle when reviewing storm articles with determining of the correct levels of research and comprehensiveness have been reached. It would help if I knew where to look up information. I have access to most major research databases. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  20:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, in this case, I used the ISI Web of Knowledge, and set the search to all databases, so that it includes Web of Science, BIOSIS previews, CAB Abstracts, MEDLINE, Zoological Record, and Journal Citation Reports. I also use JSTOR and other specialized databases for other subject areas, but have found that topics related to pure science are best covered by this search. Sasata (talk) 20:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. I don't have the ISI Web of Knowledge but I seem to have access to all those individually. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  20:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Stipticus
You catch me just as I was going through books at the biology library. Jaeger only had a transliteration entry for "stypticus", and there is nothing in Stearn. However, I can cite "Styptic" in OED to calm down the critics, and this paper for the extra comment I want to ad that etymologically it's just a Greek equivalent for L. astringens. I'd love to cite a Latin dictionary, but I'm not in the humanities library and if we have any dictionary of Botanical epithets, it'd be at the botany library, across town. I'll add the two sources (OED and Forster) for now, and keep looking. Circéus (talk) 22:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * My problem is my books are all packed at the moment, as I am in the process of moving (groan) Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Having had to move a ~500 books library last Summer (though little botanical content was involved), I say I feel for you. In any case I've added what I feel is an acceptably source, slightly rewritten statement. Hopefully I'll be able to do better at some point in the future. Circéus (talk) 22:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry...
...for being a right dick at the FAC. It's times like this when I know I take WP too seriously. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 23:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's ok. BTW, if you ever want me to do a literature check for future storm articles you plan to bring to FAC, I'd be happy to oblige. It only takes me a few minutes, and the article will be better for it. Sasata (talk) 02:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks for the offer. :) Actually, I was planning on (eventually) polishing up Hurricane Bonnie (1998), which I've been working on since September 2008, for FAC, but one editor raised concerns on comprehensiveness. Could you do a quick check for that? Best, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 04:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied on article talk page. Sasata (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Well that was a nice surprise! Thank-you! Sasata (talk) 16:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

 * I ALMOST made your picture a fungus or a pile of manure... just seemed more fitting that way... Ealdgyth - Talk 01:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * More fitting, but less tasty. Thanks for the note. Sasata (talk) 07:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Panellus cladogram
I saw P. stipticus at FAC, and read somebody asking for phylogenetic information. I made a phylogenetic tree real quick based on the ribosomal DNA analysis from the article at cybertruffle, page 16. I don't want to step on your toes or make extra work for you, but if it would help the article pass, please feel free to use it! Link to my sand box ManfromButtonwillow (talk) 05:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is great! I have used it in the species article, and will probably use it again later when I work on the Panellus article. Thanks for helping improve the article! Sasata (talk) 07:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad it was useful :) ManfromButtonwillow (talk) 09:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:CROWN
Hey, do you know about this? Similar in feel to the Four Award, but has been around a good while longer. You're more than eligible... J Milburn (talk) 14:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I do know about, and am working towards the ultimate triple crown! Sasata (talk) 16:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 January newsletter
We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. We've had some shakeups regarding late entries, flag changes and early dropouts, but the competition is now established- there will be no more flag changes or new competitors. Congratulations to, our current leader, who, at the time of writing, has more listed points than and   (second and third place respectively) combined. A special well done also goes to - his artcle Jewel Box (St. Louis, Missouri) was the first content to score points in the competition.

Around half of competitors are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. 64 of the 149 current competitors will advance to round 2- if you currently have no points, do not worry, as over half of the current top 64 have under 50 points. Everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places in round 2! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! J Milburn, Garden, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Fungal behavior
New article. FYI. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Was just coming here to note that myself... I think it's going to need some work, or even merging/deletion. Any thoughts? J Milburn (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My initial thought was deletion, but I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt. I think all the points made could be integrated in articles (or already are). Sasata (talk) 00:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

February GA Sweeps update
Thanks to everyone's efforts to the GA Sweeps process, we are currently over 95% done with around 130 articles left to be swept! Currently there are over 50 members participating in Sweeps, that averages out to about 3 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. Per my message last month, although we did not review 100 articles last month, I still made a donation of $90 (we had 90 reviews completed/initiated) to Wikipedia Forever on behalf of all GA Sweeps reviewers. I would like to thank everyone's efforts for last month, and ask for additional effort this month so we can be finished. I know you have to be sick of seeing these updates (as well as Sweeps itself) by now, so please do consider reviewing a few articles if you haven't reviewed in a while. 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) 02:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Panellus stipticus stuff
I just came across something that might interest you regarding that species, but no time to type anything. Remind me to do it should I forget? Circéus (talk) 02:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. Also, I plan to work on the Tricholomataceae genera article in the next week, and am working on an intro blurb for a DYK. Sasata (talk) 02:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * DYK on List of Tricholomataceae genera? *sceptical* How do you intend to enact a 5x enlargement??
 * Anyway, I was doing some light reading in McIlvainea (Petersen and Hughes. Names, Names, Names: When Nomenclature Meets Molecules. McIlvainea 18:22-28 if you're curious) and they mentioned a recent result about P. stipticus that came from unrelated research (see fig. 3, p. 25). Turns out that P. stipticus form three very-well defined clades. The original paper is Petersen et al. 2008. A new genus, Cruentomycena, with Mycena viscidocruenta as type species. Mycotaxon 105: 119–36 (abstract). I couldn't find a copy of the article and my Uni doesn't subscribe, so I can't tell whether they expound on it enough for it to be actually useful. Cheers. Circéus (talk) 03:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Funny you should mention that, I've got that Mycotaxon paper right in front of me. Ucucha had asked about it during the FAC, so I ordered from interlibrary loan. I will probably end up using the newer cladogram and replacing the one currently in P. stipticus. Am also working on the Cruentomycena genus article; turns out that Mushroom Observer has some really nice pics that I'll be able to use. It'll appear in the next Wikicup round :) Tricholomataceae expansion will be no problem, as the table currently there counts as a list, not prose, per DYK rules. Sasata (talk) 03:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, talk about coincidences! :p I feel sad re:the WikiCup. This semester has turned out to be busier than I expected and my participation got mostly shelved *sighs*. Circéus (talk) 06:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Feel free to pick a couple of fungus stubs (there's lots to choose from!), and we could work on them together over the next week if you'd like. Two or three DYKs should be enough to get you into the next round. Sasata (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Arthopyrenia
Hi Sasata, No quibble with your 117 species-edit for Arthopyrenia, I just wondered if you could pare down the ones (345) I added, from the book you cited (if you have the time...) so there is no discrepancy. My criteria for what to include was admittedly very loose (only those on the IF list that showed no synonyms). Thanks. Hamamelis (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it won't be quite that easy, as The Dictionary only lists down to genus level; if it listed all species I think it would be several times larger than the ~800 pages it is now :) I'll look for a source (hopefully someone's published a monograph) in the literature and try to work from that. Sasata (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Good grief! Sorry about that. Maybe the list could be removed for now, or temporarily hidden, ala . If you find a monograph, great, but don't sweat it. Let me know what you think. Hamamelis (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Update on Gray Mouse Lemur FAC
Just to let you know, I've made many changes per your comments on the Gray Mouse Lemur FAC. I have also added a range map, sounds, and a new image–all of which should be reviewed. Thanks again for the constructive comments made thus far! –  VisionHolder  « talk »  15:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw the changes, but it seems the longer I'm away the more the article improves :) I'll revisit later tonight. Sasata (talk) 16:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless I get blessed with some new, high-quality photos from the field researchers I've contacted—which is unlikely—I don't foresee any more improvements, aside from those you can provide. ;-) –   VisionHolder  « talk »  16:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Some of the changes you suggested have been made, and I have posted a reply at the FAC. Image placement will need to be reviewed as a result.  Thanks for looking it over again!  –   VisionHolder  « talk »  08:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding the removed photo of the Gray Mouse Lemur, would you mind adding it back in? It was only commented out, so it can be easily re-added.  The reason I ask is that I simply don't know where to put it.  From what I remember reading, there is a guideline that images should alternate left and right, and should not disrupt section headings (on the left).  This literally leaves me nowhere to place the image, especially if it should be in or near its appropriate section.  Maybe you have a better eye for image placement than I do... –   VisionHolder  « talk »  17:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Bolognia push
We have been making a lot of progress with the Bolognia push, but we still need your help. Would you consider picking up another letter? ---kilbad (talk) 03:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Galerina autumnalis
I think you might want to have a glance at this one too. Took me two minutes to find a glaring error due to bad sourcing (the species doesn't actually contain phallotoxins, according to scientific sources) not to mention poor wording (stating the species contain "amanitin" which is not only incorrect, but misleading: it contain at least three different ones according to the source I added), but I'm no mushroom specialist and don't have much time today for this. Nonetheless, I feel strongly someone with more qualification should try and give it a look before it goes son DYK. Circéus (talk) 17:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw this one. Turns out that both Galerina autumnalis and G. unicolor are now recognized as synonyms of Galerina marginata (although some mushroom websites apparently do not know this or don't agree), based on a 2001 study (Gulden et al., "DNA studies in the Galerina marginata complex, Mycological Research 105(4):432-40). I'm working on a G. marginata page right now, but it will take a couple of days to get in shape, as there's quite a bit of information, and I'll have to collate historical info on the three species and present as one. Since it's a "deadly" mushroom, it's especially important to get this one right. Sasata (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I just put what the book said. Joe Chill (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Your efforts to help improve fungal coverage are appreciated, Joe. Mushroom taxonomy/synonymy can be confusing at times. I'll work on the G. marginata page, and put it on DYK in a couple days as a co-nom, sound ok? Sasata (talk) 18:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Done! Sasata (talk) 16:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Awesome job in ecology!!!
You've done a lot of work in ecology. Thank you so much for reading through and putting up with me. I'm going through all your suggestions. Once I am finished - I hope to go over the article again and simplify it even further. I have a lifetime to work on wikipedia. It will get done eventually. I wonder what this will all look like in ten or even fifty years?Thompsma (talk) 03:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note! The ecology GA review is a fun intellectual diversion... I look forward to seeing what the polished end product will be like. The Wiki of the future will be an even more amazing version of what it is now. As long as I keep learning stuff, and it's fun, I'll be here. Sasata (talk) 04:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Armillaria gallica
I made the DYK nomination for Armillaria gallica a co-nom with you and I. Joe Chill (talk) 16:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll have the Galerina autumnalis=marginata article updated this weekend. Sasata (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Mushroom pics from Mexico
User:Joe Chill recommended that I ask you... I came across some interesting mushrooms during the rainy season in central Mexico (Mexico and Hidalgo states near Mexico City) for sale on the street. If you get a chance, care to look at these pics in commons to identify? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MushTaxco.JPG http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ShroomsSaleVCarbon.JPG Are they really edible? I admit I was chicken to try them.Thelmadatter (talk) 16:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Mushrooms are notoriously difficult to identify from photos alone... a comprehensive observation would include details about habitat, substrate (what it was growing on), nearby tree species, time of year, spore print, and optimally, microscopic details like spore size and structure. I'd be chicken to try them too :) That being said, I'd guess that the first photo (MushTaxco) has some red Russulas and a couple species of Ramaria (both genera are large and difficult), while the second photo has some lobster mushrooms on the right, more Ramaria, some Boletus/Tylopilus/Leccinum (dark brown), and I'm not sure what the yellowish ones are. They probably are safe/edible, as Mexico has a long tradition of selling mushrooms in markets, and the collectors typically have much experience in collecting, so they know what to look for... but caveat emptor and all that. Sasata (talk) 17:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Laetiporus sulphureus
What rating do you think Laetiporus sulphureus is? I'm guessing C class, but I don't have experience with rating articles. Joe Chill (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * (butting in) C would be fine. I am kicking myself as I have moved house and loads of my books are in packing boxes (all the bird and fungi books are buried, I did find some gardening ones :/) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah C looks about right. There's a load of literature, and I think this species has been in just about every field guide I've seen. Would make a fine GA or even FA someday... Sasata (talk) 02:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Classical guitar
I see a while back you inquired about uploading classical guitar recordings and featured sound nominations. Have you given it any more thought? I would love to hear your work.  Jujutacular  T · C 05:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, yes, I have thought about it some more. I'm working on three short pieces by Mauro Giuliani, Matteo Carcassi and Dionisio Aguado, practicing for 20 minutes every day until hopefully someday I'll be able to play them perfectly blindfolded. Then I have to figure out whether my feeble recording equipment + Garageband will be sufficient to record at high-enough quality. If not, I'll have to wait until a friend visits who does this professionally, but he only visits once a year... If everything goes to plan, I'll have them ready for the last round of WikiCup :) Sasata (talk) 14:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Awesome! Well good luck to you, and I'll be looking out for those pieces.  Jujutacular  T · C 14:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Phallales
Hi Sasata! Can I ask you about some help? Do you know the real classification of Phallales? Coz I can't understand why this article shows three families: Mesophelliaceae, Phallaceae, Ramariaceae. And in article Mesophelliaceae we can see: "The Mesophelliaceae are a family of fungi in the order Agaricales". Something wrong with all this, I think. I tried Google: www.gbif.net, www.catalogueoflife.org, www.eol.org. Hm... Only reference in article - http://www.mushroomexpert.com/phallales.html - gives us Geastraceae, Gomphaceae, Hysterangiaceae, Phallaceae, Ramariaceae. May be this familia from new edition of Dictionary of the Fungi? I don't have any... So, please, help me, if you can. --Adept Ukraine (talk) 13:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your note. I can certainly help, and it's my goal to someday have the classification for all fungal taxa articles correct and up-do-date. I do use the Dictionary of the Fungi (10th edition, 2008) as my guide to classification; however, a lot of the fungal taxon articles I wrote before I got this book a few months ago, so probably a lot of revisions are necessary. Even the Dictionary sometimes contradicts itself, and a search in the literature is necessary to sort things out. I've updated/corrected the Mesophelliaceae and Phallales pages, but now I see that Ramariaceae is now considered synonymous with the Gomphaceae (sigh). Once I finish a different mushroom article I'm currently working on, I'll check out all these pages and make the necessary changes. Please feel free to drop a note again whenever you see any other inconsistencies like that and I'll do my best to update the classification. Sasata (talk) 14:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Adept Ukraine (talk) 06:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Galerina toxins
In Galerina marginata (great work BTW), there's this: "confirmed the occurrence of -Ama and ß-Ama" which is missing a greek letter. I assumed it is gamma, is that correct? As an aside, it looks kinda like phallotoxins are not known outside Amanita, but I can't find a source online (might have to get my ass over to the health library again to check on that). Am I misremembering? Circéus (talk) 18:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You are correct, and thanks again for cleaning up my sloppiness. According to a couple of sources handy at the moment, it does look like phallotoxins are only in Amanita, although interestingly when I was researching this article I did find two field guides that incorrectly stated that there were phallotoxins in G. marginata! Sasata (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that issue was partly what prompted me to point out the article to you in the first place. Maybe a mention about that the incorrect reports are contradicted by scientific evidence might be a good idea to placate in advance the chance somebody will come along and add this "missing" information? As a completely unrelated aside, Gertrude Simmons Burlingham is now in the work, though I don't seriously expect to get anywhere in the Cup with it XD. And re: List of Russula species, do you think a summary/reference to Kuo's rant on the topic regarding the problems with at least the North American species would be appropriate? Circéus (talk) 20:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a good rant, and definitely worthy of mention/summary. I'll make the appropriate prophylactic measures with the phallotoxins in G. marginata. Sasata (talk) 05:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Could I get your feedback
Perhaps I could get your thoughts on my first feature picture nomination at Featured picture candidates/Pyogenic granuloma 1.jpg? Please know that I am not asking necessarily for your support, just your thoughts on the image and possible feature status. ---kilbad (talk) 00:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Armillaria gallica

 * Just throwing this out there: Crystal Falls, Michigan holds a "Humongous Fungus Festival" every summer. Not sure if you want to include this in the article? (and perhaps I'll go and get pictures for you this summer ;) — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  03:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It was in there already, but I just now added the specific location and name. If you got some pics, it might be worthy of its own little article :) Sasata (talk) 03:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (sorry, forgot about this post) If I get a chance, I'll be sure to go this summer with my camera in tow. :) — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  04:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Mycena haematopus
I'm not too pleased with the etymology bit. For starter, the second root is most likely ποῦς, that is, "foot", not "stalk" (which as far as I can tell was usually expressed with καυλός). Further it's not Greek per se, but a latinised form (the greek would be in -pous), and it's dubious there was a word haematopous (αἱματοπους) in use, so I'd be in favor of going straight up to the Greek roots. Any thoughts?
 * I believe matters like etymology and roots from classical languages are best left to people who know more about it than me, like you! Seriously, I just write according to what I see from the sources, and have no classical training to help me filter out what's incorrect.... that's what's great about Wikipedia, there's always someone to correct the mistakes I can't see. It would be great if you could fix it and source to someone better than Tom Volk's web page.

On a different issue, "Description" states the color is "due to a red pigment called haematopodin", but "Natural products" says haematopodin is "a byproduct during the decomposition of the native pigment of the latex." Are you sure you (or the source) are not confusing two different substances? The problem is that, apparently, haematopodin was found to come from the degradation of another compound they called... haematopodin B, which is the aforementioned primary primary. Talk about a bad terminological approach! Boy, that's going to be difficult to explain clearly... Circéus (talk) 05:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll think about this some more and try to clarify. Sasata (talk) 15:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 February newsletter
Round one is over, and round two has begun! Congratulations to the 64 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our first round. A special well done goes to, our round one winner (1010 points), and to and , who were second and third respectively (640 points/605 points). Sasata was awarded the most points for both good articles (300 points) and featured articles (600 points), and TonyTheTiger was awarded the most for featured topics (225 points), while Hunter Kahn claimed the most for good topics (70). claimed the most featured lists (240 points) and featured pictures (35 points), claimed the most for Did you know? entries (490 points),  claimed the most for featured sounds (70 points) and  claimed the most for In the news entries (40 points). No one claimed a featured portal or valued picture.

Credits awarded after the end of round one but before round two may be claimed in round two, but remember the rule that content must have been worked on in some significant way during 2010 by you for you to claim points. The groups for round two will be placed up shortly, and the submissions' pages will be blanked. This round will continue until 28 April, when the top two users from each group, as well as 16 wildcards, will progress to round three. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup; thank you to all doing this last round, and particularly to those helping at WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1010 points in just the first two months. Quite impressive! Congrats on the strong start. Calmer   Waters  02:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, congratulations! If you ever run out of fungi, perhaps do a few rodents. :) Ucucha 03:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! The real work is yet to begin. I don't think I'll be running out of fungi anytime soon, but to "broaden my horizons", I'm working on articles about a turtle, a jellyfish, a homo sapien who studied fungi, and a skin disease caused by fungi. Sasata (talk) 06:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Completed!
Thanks to everyone's amazing efforts in February, we have reviewed all of the articles and are now finished with Sweeps! There are still about 30 articles currently on hold, and once those reviews are completed, I will send you a final message about Sweeps process stats including the total number of articles that were passed and failed. If you have one of these open reviews, be sure to update your count when the review is completed so I can compile the stats. You can except to receive your award for reviewing within the next week or two. Although the majority of the editors did not start Sweeps at the beginning in August 2007 (myself included), over 50 editors have all come together to complete a monumental task and improve many articles in the process. I commend you for sticking with this often challenging task and strengthening the integrity of the GA WikiProject as well as the GAs themselves. I invite you to take a break from reviewing (don't want you to burn out!) and then consider returning/starting to review GANs and/or contribute to GAR reviews. With your assistance, we can help bring the backlog down to a manageable level and help inspire more editors to improve articles to higher classes and consider reviewing themselves. Again, thank you for putting up with difficult reviews, unhappy editors, numerous spam messages from me, and taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Congrats!
Hey Sasata. I just wanted to congratulate you for scoring the most points in the first round of the WikiCup! I know very little about fungi, but I've read your articles with interest from your submissions page. I think it's cool how most of us in the WikiCup have our own little niches we like to concentrate on, and I really respect the mission you've outlined on your userpage of ensuring all fungal taxa have a page. I think the difference between a good encyclopedia and a great, comprehensive one is made by editors like you, who are really on top of their game in focusing their efforts on a specific area and bringing it up to such a high standard. Keep up the good work! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  04:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind note. I'm glad my fungal gospel is reaching new converts :) The more I do this, the more I realize the enormity of this project I've chosen as a hobby. Gives extra incentive to live for a long time... Looking forward to future "battles" in the Wikicup. Sasata (talk) 06:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Tickle Mycologist Elmo (was: Robert Delafield Rands)
Hi Sasata!

Well, as you can see here, I'm no scientist. Everyone knows that scanning electron microscope pix are in greyscale.

--Shirt58 (talk) 11:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't think Gram-staining would work with EM either :) However, it might be worthwhile to start a trend to replace the mycological jargon tomentose with "elmo-like"... would help to make the lingo more decipherable to the masses. Sasata (talk) 15:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Language to be vetted
So... I'm doing a more thorough copyedit job on Galerina marginata and need opinion on some of those changes (issues of fact/contradiction will be at FAC): Circéus (talk) 20:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Going from "initially convex, sometimes with a rounded tip." to "convex, sometimes broadly conical" based on the image. Talkign about a "rounded tip" when the umbo is mentioned right below seems to me like asking for trouble.
 * Maybe I should fit in this picture to help illustrate what I'm trying to say?
 * Seems overly fine a distinction to me. I'd think the fact it can be umbilicate is a more striking divergence than this quasi-umbo thing.
 * Is dropping "hyphae" in "Cystidia are cells of the hyphae in the fertile hymenium [...]" a gross misrepresentation?
 * Nope, that's simpler and better.
 * Also tentatively replacing "basidiospore" by "spore" throughout. The distinction between different types of spores is not really relevant to species articles. (As I was reading, I actually managed to confused basidiospores and basidia, leading to a rather "bwah?" moment XD)
 * Someday, I'm gonna work on the basidiospore and ascospore articles so I can link to them confidently in these situations, but at the moment, spore will do fine.
 * Even so, I'd still reduce them to "spore" in species- and even possibly genus-level articles...
 * I tried to qualify "resemblance". The idea seems to be "there's some similarity at first glance, but a quick examination will rapidly reveal the differences", which is hard to convey concisely...
 * Whatever you did to it, it reads fine to me.
 * "depolymerize" -> "dissolve". Despite the redirect, polymerization actually has nothing on depolymerization, plus depolymerize is needlessly technical IMHO.
 * Agree.
 * Not sure what the basidiome (in "toxicity") is specifically. It's the fruit body, right? With that assumption I used "specimen" instead.
 * Yes, another needless jargon word I forgot to replace. Thanks for improving the prose! (p.s. do you like any of the microscopy pics on this page better than what's currently in the article?) Sasata (talk) 22:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The current spore pic is fine to me, but I think a good crop from image #63803 (without color correction) would do a better job of showing the a cystidia in relation to basidia than the current pic we have. Circéus (talk) 01:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Help standardizing lemur articles using LDR
I looked at some of your recent articles and noticed that you used LDR. While in the process of re-writing the lemur articles, I would like to standardize the citation system, and LDR looks perfect. The problem I'm having involves organizing some very different types of sources. I've written the question up at Wikipedia talk:Footnotes. If you have a moment, could you read it over and maybe use an empty sandbox (possibly mine: #9) to create a simple example that addresses each of the 5 types of sources, all in one article?

I do favor putting all references under one heading, and then using subheadings for notes, footnotes, etc. But I also don't want to violate any rules that might jeopardize a FAC run. If you need sample citations of each of the 5 source types, let me know. –  VisionHolder  « talk »  16:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's how I would deal with the 5 examples you listed:


 * Journal articles (some with page numbers, others without), news articles, web sites, etc.
 * These are regular named refs that go into the "References" section.


 * Books where I cite just a page or two here or there... usually for just to support a brief factual statement
 * If I only cite one page or page range, I put it in the Footnotes section as per #1. If separate pages are being cited, I use short form for every instance and list the book in section "Cited books". I don't usually bother list-defining single instances of short-form refs into the refs section.


 * Books with regular chapters (no contributors) where I cite the one or more chapters regularly
 * As #2, but use the chapter parameter in the cite book template if the chapter is named. If the chapter isn't named, it's just a regular book reference with a page range.


 * Books with chapters written by various contributors
 * As above, but use the separate authors and editor_last & editor_first parameters to list all names properly.


 * Books with chapters of collected articles by various contributors
 * As above.


 * Sometimes I have an extra section called "Notes" (or "Footnotes" if you prefer), but this is only to include extra info that doesn't fit in well with the text. (See Boletus edulis for an example). Sasata (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry. I guess I'm still unclear on points 3-5.  If you look at the (valid) references in my sandbox (#1), you can see what I'm working with.  The use of the "Notes" section is "under construction" pending a request to add a "|group=" parameter to the Sfn template.  Otherwise, I'm not sure how to handle those last 3 points, as I mentioned.  In the code of the References section, look at the refs named "MittermeierX" (X = 1, 3, or 5, for example) for a sample of the 3rd point, "LemursX" for a sample of the 4th point, and "NatHist-Xa" (Xa = 2c, 13a, for example) for a sample of the 5th point.  In all three cases, I have also listed the full book citation under "Cited texts", but you can see there's a lot of redundancy and simple short footnotes don't work because you have no way to identify which text it came from without including an almost complete citation for each chapter/contribution.  Do you think you can explain how to handle this mess?  –   VisionHolder  « talk »  19:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * For the 3rd point, take for example ref #31, currently "Mittermeier, R.A.; et al.. "Family Cheirogaleidae". Lemurs of Madagascar (2nd ed.). pp. 89–182." Why not have the shorter "Mittermeier et al., 1994, pp. 89–182."? Does the reader really need to know the chapter name in this instance to help find the source? For points 4&5, how long are these chapters? If they're relatively short, then specific page #'s aren't necessary. How about just listing the book in the cited texts, and making LDRs for each chapter, something like this:

Cited text

 * Goodman, S.M.; Benstead, J.P., eds (2003). The Natural History of Madagascar. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-30306-3.

I am taking your advice about ditching chapter names on simple books. However, I am now trying something new by using Template:Sfn on my #1 sandbox. There are two catches. First, I'm using a unique method (I think) for individually citing components of the book, which can then be linked to through the Sfn. (Is that organization method under "Cited texts" acceptable?) Second, I'm trying to make a case for adding a "|group=" parameter to Sfn, but not doing a good job. If I could get that feature added, I could separate short footnotes (for books) from my journal and web references. Instead, the latest suggestion is to use Sfn for everything. If I do that, I'd be tempted to format the references section into subsections: "Notes" and "Works cited", with the latter being broken down further into "Books", "Journals", and "Web". I just wish there was one way to do this stuff. –  VisionHolder  « talk »  21:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I look forward to the day where all we have to do is input the information properly in templates, and the wiki software will display the references in whatever user-defined style we want. Sasata (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I just wish I could make linked anchors (easily) like the Sfn template does. In your example above, I don't like "In: Goodman and Bensted".  I'd rather use the title, and have the title link to the "Cited text" reference below.  That anchoring and linking is a cool feature in Sfn, but it conflicts too strongly with LDR and the R template, which are so damn convenient and straight-forward.  Unfortunately, its the anchoring and linking that makes all of the solutions that I can come up with possible.  I guess I can try implementing my own anchoring and linking... but it will make life hard for anyone else who wants to edit the article in the future.  –   VisionHolder  « talk »  23:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry to keep clogging up your talk page. However, I think I've found a simple solution, which could be made simpler yet with the creation of a new macro (named Sfn2, maybe).  Go to my #9 sandbox and take a look.  I make my own CITEREF calls, but it's not too difficult.  The only difference between what I'm doing and the Sfn output is that I can control my ref tags and thus embed them in a LDR block.  Sfn has to be used in the body text.  Let me know what you think of the layout and approach.  If you like, I'll offer to make a new macro based on Sfn for use with LDR and the R template. –   VisionHolder  « talk »  00:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for your review of Babakotia. Every little tweak helps make that page look better and better. Back to this topic, though, if you look at my #1 sandbox, you'll see a new approach I'm testing out in the References section. When you have time, would you take a look at it, both on the surface and in the code, and tell me what you think? I use CITEREFs to link the notes to their sources, and that could be turned into a neat little template, which I discuss at the end of this discussion: here. If you don't like having the notes separated from the journal & web citations, I can change that. The biggest issue for me is whether or not you approval of the indentations I use for separate articles and chapters in the more complex books I work with. In my opinion, it keeps things organized, reduces redundancy in the citation (so I'm not doing "|title=..." for every chapter/contribution), and makes it easier to track down the source (book) of the material. Anyway, let me know what you think. I know the discussion I linked to above isn't going well, but I'm also talking to the wrong crowd. Sfn people generally don't like LDR, which is what I'm trying to use. –  VisionHolder  « talk »  05:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've never used the sfn citation template before in the article I've written, but I can see how it'd be handy someday. I'll read over this stuff tomorrow, as I've already had most of a bottle of wine and the minutiae of citation template intricacies isn't high on my priority list right now :) Sasata (talk) 05:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

upcoming lemur FAC (again)
Just a heads-up: I'm probably going to push for another FAC with Mesopropithecus once it passes its GAC. When you have time, I would greatly appreciate an article list and maybe a copy edit to make the FAC go as smoothly as possible. If you can't do it, just let me know. Thanks for all your help so far! –  VisionHolder  « talk »  04:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Lit review added. Ping me when when the GAR is done and I'll give it the once-over. Sasata (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:FOUR
Rumor has it that you have several articles that are eligible for the WP:FOUR award. Please come by and nominate them as they qualify.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Synchronicity
I thought I'd have a go at expanding the brief and muddled Tremella mesenterica entry - but when I'd written something and returned to the entry a day later, I discovered it had significantly changed for the better...  Beat me to it. I have, however, taken the liberty of adding or amending a few things, particularly concerning Tremella aurantia. The previous main photo almost certainly showed this latter species - matt, on a (burnt?) trunk, with a possible small Stereum fruit body showing. Hope that's ok.RunningClam (talk) 13:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for unintentionally sabotaging your article improvement! That article was on my (growing) list of species that I'd like to improve to GA status, and I just felt like working on a jelly fungus that day. More work is still needed for that article, as there's a large body of literature about medicinal properties that needs to be summarized and added. About the lead picture, after researching the species, I share your reservations about its identity, but Noodle Snacks says it was confirmed by an Aussie mycologist, so who knows? Maybe I can get his email from NS and ask him to clarify his identification. Sasata (talk) 17:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Latin and stuff
So tomorrow I'll swing by the bio library to re-borrow Stearn's Botanical Latin so I can properly source the etymology at Armillaria gallica. Want me to have at a couple other species while I'm at it (I know I've been wanting to do Amanita onusta for a while...)? Circéus (talk) 03:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes please! These are on my "possible FAC" list, and it would be great to have a more solid source for etymology: Ascocoryne sarcoides, Coprinellus micaceus, Amanita abrupta, Tremella mesenterica, Battarrea phalloides. Thanks, Sasata (talk) 04:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, abrupta, phalloides and micaceus are easily dispatched (though micaceus has a fascinating etymology here). Can't wait to see what sarcoides and mesenterica mean. Circéus (talk) 07:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

As a side note, you might want to be more careful when citing your original pubs: A. onusta's original description was published earlier and in a different publication than what you cited: when Morgan writes "Howe. Torrey Bulletin. Vol. V, p. 42." he is quite clearly giving a citation to the actual publication... Botanicus.org and biodiversitylibrary.org are good places to check for the availability of original material. Circéus (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Lemur articles ready for your review
Both Collared Brown Lemur and Mesopropithecus just passed GA today and I'd like to start them through the FA process. I went through your list of articles on the former, so we should be good there. I forgot if you found anything on the latter, but I'm pretty sure that with all the cross-linked papers from Babakotia and Ucucha's FAC-quality GAC review, we should be good there as well. Anyway, whenever you have time, I would appreciate your review before I file for FAC. There's not a huge rush since I'm going out of town between Monday night and Thursday night, so I probably can't nominate them for a bit anyway. –  VisionHolder  « talk »  02:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok I will have a look in the next few days. Sasata (talk) 15:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Sasata,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Phallus hadriani.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on March 18, 2010. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2010-03-18.  howcheng  {chat} 17:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Streptococcus iniae/GA1
Given that he's been inactive for awhile due to lack of time, I would personally fail this until he returns and can make whatever changes are needed. No need to keep it under review for 100 days when we have no timetable of when he'll be back. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

"Say Say Say"
Hey, I would just likely to notify you that the nominator for the FA candidate "Say Say Say" (User:Pyrrhus16) has corrected your comments that you cited with the article. Can you check the article to see if all your concerns have been addressed? Thanks, Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 02:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Bog Turtle New References
Hello Sasata, would it be possible to get some of the PDFs you were referring to? I thought they were all interesting, but I hope to stay clear of anything referring to the genetics of the bog turtle (including things like its mitochondria and number of chromosomes). I feel like we have enough on its fossil records in the subsection named as such. Articles on anything else are welcome! Thank you.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, please send me an email ("email this user", left hand side toolbox) and I'll send what I can find. Sasata (talk) 03:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sasata, could you please update your post at the article talk page as to whether the article is ready for FAC? Thanks !  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 08:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Will do. Sasata (talk) 14:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Streptococcus iniae
Don't know whether you're watching my Talk page, so I'm cross-posting this here: thank you :) You've done a fantastic job on the article—I don't know how to thank you guys for picking up the torch. I'd love to bring it to FA eventually; my break remains indefinite, though, so no telling when that'll be :P Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Some resources
Hello Sasata, you have used some interesting resources for your article Boletus edulis. Could you please help at WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request, where Thorsten/Thgoiter requested two resources (National Library of South Africa and AJOL - African Journals OnLine)? --Toffel07 (talk) 13:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I checked, but unfortunately I don't have online access to either of the requested articles. Sasata (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. --Toffel07 (talk) 10:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

April 2010 GAN backlog elimination drive
–MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 18:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Endogone
Do you know anything about this fungus? The marsh rice rat apparently eats quite a bit of it, and judged from Special:Search/Endogone it's not the only rodent that does so. Ucucha 00:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No I don't, but ask again tomorrow. Sasata (talk) 00:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Great. Don't feel obliged to write about it though—it's not essential for my article at least. But I would like to learn about some of the animals with ecological relations to the rice rat. Ucucha 00:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I started a stub in a sandbox here and will work on it some more before moving into mainspace. It's a interesting fungus, and different than my usual basidiomycetous fare. I found some nice pics and will probably try to give this a GA treatment eventually. Sasata (talk) 07:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I added a few other animals that eat it. I found that Whitaker and Hamilton's Mammals of the eastern United States (p. 273) have some more information on Endogone-eating mammals in the account of the woodland jumping mouse (Napaeozapus insignis): "The stomachs of 103 individuals of this species from New York contained tiny fungi of the genus Endogone and related genera, the fungi comprising about a third of the total food assayed. Endogone is poorly known and difficult to find even by sieving soil samples, yet Napaeozapus and many other small mammals feed on it in quantity, presumably locating it by olfaction. To the unitiated, at low power of the dissecting microscope this fungus looks like dirt; one must increase the power to distinguish the individual spores." That may provide some useful information for the article. It looks like the ultimate references are to American Midland Naturalist 67:152–156, Journal of Mammalogy 44:316–321, and Journal of Mammalogy 45:265–271, which all should be on JSTOR and probably provide more information. Ucucha 11:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

A sincere thank you from Wikiproject Good Articles
On behalf of Wikiproject Good Articles, I would like to express our gratitude to you for your contributions to the Sweeps process, for which you completed 23 reviews. Completion of this monstrous task has proven to be a significant accomplishment not only for our project, but for Wikipedia. As a token of our sincere appreciation, please accept this ribbon. Lara 01:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Lichen pictures
I've attempted to organize the lichen pictures on the Wikimedia Commons, under the category Lichens. There are a fair number of pictures there, 2450 pictures of 445 different species.

My strategy was to categorize each lichen photo according to its species, and put it in a gallery for that species. This way any all of the pictures can be linked to a Wikipedia article via the template (as you pointed out to me). I also put each gallery in the Lichens category, so that there is an easy way to see what species we have photos for, without clicking through a thousand subcategories.

Hopefully this helps. Feel free to improve upon my organization.

Millifolium (talk) 18:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow! I would have guessed an order of magnitude fewer. That's great... I'll be more careful to slot my own uploads into the proper categories in the future. Thanks for doing the grunt work! Sasata (talk) 21:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Zapata Rail
Many thanks, especially for finding the citation  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  17:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Physciaceae, also called the Caliciaceae
Hi, Sasata! In article Physciaceae you combined Physciaceae with Caliciaceae, according to Outline of Ascomycota - 2007. Do you really sure? Coz EOL, IndexFungorum and MycoBank treat them like different families. There is the template in Wiki: Template:Lichen family taxonomy, and Physciaceae and Caliciaceae are different families there too.

Just curious. --Adept Ukraine (talk) 18:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup, you're right, they are separate families. I will fix it later today or tomorrow. Thanks! Sasata (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 March newsletter
We're half way through round two, and everything is running smoothly. leads overall with 650 points this round, and heads pool B. currently leads pool C, dubbed the "Group of Death", which has a only a single contestant yet to score this round (the fewest of any group), as well five contestants over 100 points (the most). With a month still to go, as well as 16 wildcard places, everything is still to play for. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Although unrelated to the WikiCup, April sees a Good Article Nominations backlog elimination drive, formulated as a friendly competition with small awards, as the Cup is. Several WikiCup contestants and judges have already signed up, but regular reviewers and those who hope to do more reviewing are more than welcome to join at the drive page. If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk about poor judgement...
Funny thing, the description in this edit? It appears to be a copy-paste job from your own site. The other part was from California Fungi. Circéus (talk) 03:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought that description sounded familiar :) Sasata (talk) 05:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Four Awards
Thanks for the barnstar/award blast! I just got my new issue of Mycologia last week and there's another dozen species to write about... Sasata (talk) 03:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Bog Turtle Again
Hello there Mr. Sasata, we were able to use two of the PDFs thus far, unfortunately we were only able to link to the abstracts in the citations. Do you feel this is acceptable? Also, We're looking at putting up the article for FAC fairly soon (it should get heavily worked on with spring break coming up and all), is their any particular passage or bit of research you feel needs to be in the article?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied on talk page. Sasata (talk) 03:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)