User talk:Sasata/Archive 9

DYK for Guepinia
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 18:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Lactarius vinaceorufescens
The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Strombus canarium GA
Thank you very much for your excellent review! Several important improvements were made, and the article reached a completely different level. Best wishes! Daniel Cavallari (talk) 17:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome. Sasata (talk) 17:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I also wanted to say how pleasant it was working with you on the GA process because your review was exceptionally clear and helpful. Invertzoo (talk) 19:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Myriostoma
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 12:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Parasexuality
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 06:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Hydnellum peckii
Didn't know it was being hacked over at FAC, or I would have commented earlier. One bit of prose stumps me: "It is more or less uneven, somewhat round to irregular, 4 to 10 cm wide and as a result of confluence often as much as 20 cm wide."

Does the "more or less uneven" refer to the shape (i.e. circumference) or the surface? In either case it seems somewhat redundant... If I knew what this is intended to mean, I could find a better way to word it.
 * The unevenness here refers to the surface of the cap. Sasata (talk) 02:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Still editing and I'm catching a few items that makes me wonder whether the FA reviewer read the article (i.e. amyloid is no longer a correct link). Circéus (talk) 01:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW, Please don't edit the article in response to my question: I might unt you down if I lose the edit XD Circéus (talk) 01:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * re: "The hyphae are embedded in a gelatinous matrix, along with adhering mineral soil particles.", is that the same hyphae just mentioned (from the plectenchymatous mantle) or hyphae from the ectomycorrhiza in general? And are "chlamydispores" something the hyphae produce, or something they transform into? Circéus (talk) 01:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The gelatinous embedding refers to the hyphae in the plectenchymatous mantle. In response to your 2nd Q, according to Kirk et al., a chlamydispores is "an asexual 1-celled spore (primarily for perennation, not dissemination) originating endogenously and singly within part of a pre-existing cell, by the contraction of the protoplast and possessing an inner secondary and often thickened hyaline or brown wall, usually impregnated with hydrophobic material." The source itself uses "form", but I see the validity of using "transform into". Personally, I think it's splitting hairs, but feel free to tweak the text—your copyedits are always welcome. Perhaps I might hit you up for a copyedit of my next FAC, before I submit it? Don't know what it'll be yet (I feel a bit guilty about not reviewing others enough lately). Sasata (talk) 02:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think part of my confusion is that I'm not clear whether the ability to form chlamydospores is "special". It sounds vaguely so in the current (unqualified) form, but if (say) all or most Bankeraceae can do it, then it's nowhere as peculiar (though still relevant to mention, of course). Circéus (talk) 02:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * According to the referenced paper, "The most striking feature of H. peckii ectomycorrhizae is the chlamydospores." It then goes on to talk about chlamydospore structure in some other EM fungi (in the Thelephoraceae, Bankeraceae, and Boletaceae), but explains that those of H. peckii are distinct in their "prominent solid warts lying upon a homogenous inner wall." This detail is not in the Wiki article, but it's hard to know sometimes how much to put in /leave out. Sasata (talk) 03:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. Re-emphasizing on chlamydospore anatomy.Circéus (talk) 03:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I was forgetting. It's something I seem to harp on constantly, and I apologize for it: the similar species section leaves one with the impression that only characters separating the species at hands are smell and taste, which seems either misleading (while giving the most... handy ones is certainly pertinent, if there are others, e.g. microscopical, characters more discriminating that are unmentioned, then there is a lack in the article) or incomplete (if no sound morpho/anatomical characters are known, then it should be stated!). Circéus (talk) 03:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No disagreements there, in fact, with this prompting I went back to the literature and found a couple of details to add to that section. Sasata (talk) 03:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem remains with H. pineticola. I can't readily tell from the MycoBank descriptions about any discriminating macro-character. Rogers' online suggests the stipe color is distinct, but then it says of peckii "Taste [...] not distinctive", so... Circéus (talk) 03:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe Harrison, K. A. & D. W. Grund (1987a). Preliminary keys to the terrestrial stipitate hydnums of North America. Mycotaxon 28:419-426. can help? Peckii is on Couplet 19, whereas pineticola is relegated to couple 28. Circéus (talk) 04:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Harrison & Grund gave up the goods! Grows singly, and lacks a bulbous stem. Sasata (talk) 04:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Palaeoagaracites live
I just finished the article construction for Palaeoagaracites and moved it fom my userspace to the laive article! its aprox. 3900 characters, meeting the "dyk..." criteria, please check it over and see if it works. -- Kev min  § 00:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good! Someday the evolution of fungi article will need a major overhaul/expansion to reflect these discoveries. I will continue working on the the other fossil agaric articles in the next few days, and submit to GAN soonish. Sasata (talk) 15:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Boletellus ananas
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 18:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Boletellus
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 18:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

VPics
I have no idea what are your plans, but I noticed you have a ton of pics that are really nice and although they won't pass FPC, they should be fine VPs. Nergaal (talk) 20:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what pics you're talking about... I've uploaded a few of my own, but mostly I get fungus photos from Mushroom Observer. Isn't VP about to kick the bucket soon anyway? Sasata (talk) 03:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Mycena clariviolacea
The DYK project (nominate) 00:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Mycena fonticola
The DYK project (nominate) 00:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Mycena fuscoaurantiaca
The DYK project (nominate) 00:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Mycena intersecta
The DYK project (nominate) 00:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Mycena lanuginosa
The DYK project (nominate) 00:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Mycena multiplicata
The DYK project (nominate) 00:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Mycena mustea
The DYK project (nominate) 00:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Mycena nidificata
The DYK project (nominate) 00:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Awards

 * Thanks. I have a personal acquaintance with the species, as there's a tree stump down the block that makes a crop every year in the fall. Smells like garlic :) Sasata (talk) 02:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Pholiota squarrosa
--The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Re:Withdraw
I completely understand why you are doing this. I fear the Cup is dead; there's a lot of bad feeling, and too many accusations flying around. I'm not sure I want to remain a judge, if I'm honest- I think I may stick it out until the end of this year and then bow out. I'll certainly give Lactarius volemus another look- I've not really been involved in the article since DYK! Jew's Ear is something I'd love to see hit FAC- I'm waiting for a quiet afternoon to look through the literature again, and a visit to the library may be in order. Fomes fomentarius will, after the taxonomy section is done, make a solid GAC- again, it's a well known fungus, so I reckon there'll be enough out there for a FAC eventually. J Milburn (talk) 11:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry to here that you withdraw. But I like your articles, which will be created even without the cup! I am an optimist and at some point (202X) the cup will be fun till the last day. I was in for the first few rounds and to that point it was fun. The problems came with the last round.--Stone (talk) 21:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello there. I am sorry to see that you have interpreted my comments this way. That was really not the point. I hope that you do not stick to this decision since my comments were not aimed at any one participant in particular, but at things that may deserve attention in the next edition. Nergaal (talk) 21:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks both for your comments. I agree, it was fun until the last round when nasty accusations started flying (not just at me). Anyway, I'm happy with all the articles I was able to help improve, and certainly wouldn't have been so productive otherwise. I hope the cup and competitors will be able to iron out its negative aspects for future versions. Sasata (talk) 21:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Smartse. Tea is remarkably civil. I should probably replace my coffee with it more often :) Sasata (talk) 22:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries. You might risk decreasing your amazing productivity though if you did that too often though! Smartse (talk) 10:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I too just wanted to say that I am sorry that you hear that you have withdrawn from the WikiCup. The amount of work you produced was amazing in such a short time span, and I hope the craziness with the competition does not stop you from continuing to contribute in the future. Your work is very much appreciated! Remember (talk) 13:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Podostroma cornu-damae DYK
It's great, thanks. I welcome and hope anyone improve/expand the article. Most People besides mycologists may not know the fungus, as its habitat is limited to a few Asian countries(according to the ja.wiki article). So if DYK picks that it must be new to most readers. I wish the hook would have chance of nomination.--Sateros (talk) 09:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I read your expansion. It's incredibly nice and interesting. You must have pretty good sources (may be books) on fungi in general. Sorry for the picture. It was deleted due to copyright problem. I've been trying to get in touch with the author ... hopefully it would work.--Sateros (talk) 03:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have full access to many online scholarly databases with my University account, a growing library of books on fungi, and I also live just a few blocks away from a University library, so I have pretty good access to the vast body of fungal literature. I just found an older paper with a description of the fungus, so I will be adding that to the article soon. Too bad about the picture, I wish you success in your attempts to contact the owner of that mushroom blog... seems like pictures of this mushroom are scarce. Looks like he's got some other nice pictures as well. I saw some Japanese TV videos of the fungus on Youtube, here and here; have you seen those? Sasata (talk) 03:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I got a return mail from the author. He said "Kouchan" was undoubtedly himself and tried to upload the file himself, but because he was unfamiliar with the licensing (very true to me too), thus that source upload. I think Commons is a better place to upload ... I may need to ask you how to verify author's permission later. --Sateros (talk) 05:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds promising! But I don't deal with licensing issues that much, JMilburn will be able to help you much better if you have questions about this... good luck! Sasata (talk) 05:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. I hope you further expand the article toward WP:FA. --Sateros (talk) 06:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As for YouTube I watched them yes ... and that explains why you're that prolific. And "Kochan" was not just an average mushroom lover but a Doctor of Pharmacy to my astonishment! :) He asked for licensing so I'll ask JMilburn. --Sateros (talk) 07:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you add a source for/change the second sentence of the article? Nice idea for the halloween hook btw, I've adapted it slightly. Smartse (talk) 15:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, the article will be up to speed by the time it hits main page. Sasata (talk) 15:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Betelgeuse....
is liekly going to FAC soon...but as a huge article it would be great to deal with as much beforehand as possible. Sadalsuud has unearthed an amazing amount of material on it. I was hoping you weren't too familiar with stars so we might be able to minimise some unnecessary jargon etc. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

PS: Had a great meal of fresh ceps last night :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yikes, it's a monster! I'll have a readthrough and leave comments on the talk page. Will probably take me a while to get through the whole thing though. No, I don't have much familiarity with astronomy. Sasata (talk) 20:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Sepedonium
Good morning Sasata, I have a question regarding the placement of the genus Sepedonium. I'm slowly attempting to work up articles on Mycetophagites and Entropezites but the placement of Mycetophagites is something I'm having trouble with. In Poinar & Buckley they say "M. atrebora appears to have had habits similar to members of the genus Sepedonium Link 1809 in the Hypocreaceae (Hypocreales)". Problem is the Hypocreales article says the group is disused and I cant locate much information on where Sepedonium and thus Mycetophagites are currently placed. -- Kev min  § 20:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In a strange coincidence, I was just updating the Hypocreaceae page only minutes before your message arrived! Sepedonium is an anamorphic version of Hypomyces and thus belongs in the Hypocreaceae family. Sasata (talk) 21:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Weird! Thanks for the clarification, that will hopefully help break the writers block a little.-- Kev  min  § 02:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Re:Request
Done. J Milburn (talk) 00:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Fungus images
Hi again! Sorry to be a bother, I was wondering where I should post requests for identification on images of fungi that I will be adding to wikicommons soon. I checked out WP Fungi but didnt see a specific area for image ID. should I just post to the project talk page? I hope the images will be good enough for ID and usage in articles, but I'm afraid some may be rather obscure and hard to identify. Here is the first image I have uploaded as an example. -- Kev min  § 02:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The best place for image ID is Mushroom Observer. In addition to the fairly substantial assemblage of interested amateurs (like myself), there are "real" mycologists who hang out at the site and are happy to share their opinions on what your fungi might be. As to this particular fungus, I have no idea :) I think those are decurrent gills I see, so that might narrow it down to Agaricales or so, but nothing specific comes to mind . Sasata (talk) 03:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Actually, Omphalina (or one of the similar genera) comes to mind, but it's just a wild stab. Sasata (talk) 03:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I just created an account there, and will start working through my image archives for specimens to upload, Thanks! If the images are there should I duplicate them on commons after general identifications? -- Kev  min  § 09:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say to only upload to Commons if you have an ID for them. BTW, you can combine several photographs of the same specimen into one observation, by clicking "upload another" in the upload window (mentioning as I saw three photos of what appeared to be the same specimen of Neolentinus ponderosus). Sasata (talk) 15:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As I was figuring, uploading only after a consensus seems to have been reached on IDs. I did see that feature and will certainly use it when I can! The Neolentinus ponderosus images were found in the same area, but aren't the same specimen, which is why I have them separate.-- Kev  min  § 16:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And I have just uploaded the images of these two as my first observation on the site. -- Kev min  § 09:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And Im done for the evening after totaling 17 images from 2006 and 2007, now to see if any are good enough to make possible identifications from.-- Kev min  § 12:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Yummy...

 * Mmm! (I'm too facebookish... Wiki needs a like button!) Rcej (Robert) - talk 04:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

This is the best I can find, but you or I might be told off for using it. The French sure do know how to eat though. Smartse (talk) 10:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You crazy mycophagists... you actually eat the things? Ewww... Sasata (talk) 15:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Dendrocollybia
Remember to hit b about the FAC at some point. I really want to hit away at the Taxonomy section. Circéus (talk) 23:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What, ya mean it's not perfect as it's written now? (be my guest) Sasata (talk) 00:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I meant to say to remind me XD. I think my brain was having trouble with typing... Circéus (talk) 15:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: PUF
I've just deleted it at Commons- I should probably nominate it over there, but it's pretty unambiguous, and the deletion procedure is slowww. J Milburn (talk) 07:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Clitopilus byssisedoides
 — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 12:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Amanita rubrovolvata
<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 00:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Mycena maculata
<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 18:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Largest mushroom
Hey Sasata, just found Termitomyces titanicus mentioned in Termitomyces as being the largest mushroom in the world at 1m in diameter (unsourced). If it is indeed correct, I thought it would make a pretty awesome DYK hook for you as the article is a single sentence at the moment. Smartse (talk) 22:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll hunt around for a good source, but yeah, those Termitomyces can get pretty massive. (Phlebopus marginatus is another contender). Watch for it at a DYK near you... Sasata (talk) 22:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow. Ucucha 22:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed! This is pretty irrelevant, but can you think why a mushroom would evolve to be so large? It seems like a massive waste of energy to me - they can't be that much more effective at dispersing spores than a smaller mushroom can they? This might explain it in part, but I'd been thinking about this before and wondered if you knew of any other sources? Smartse (talk) 22:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Dunno any specifics yet, but thinking out loud, in a bell-curve distribution of mushroom sizes, one of them's gotta be the biggest... maybe this is just that one. Perhaps I'll have a better answer later. Sasata (talk) 22:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Armillaria root rot
I figured I should point this one to you, in case you wanted to add it to your watchlist. Circéus (talk) 02:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Watching. Sasata (talk) 02:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Podostroma cornu-damae
<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 00:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Harry Bemis
Hi, thanks for your comment. I've tried to re-word that section on Harry Bemis. - PM800 (talk) 02:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Microsoft hoax
Hi, I've responded to your concerns regarding reliable sources on the nomination page. To be honest, I think this could be described as reliable a source as any I could provide for this article, especially considering that the source has been compiled into a book and was named by PC Magazine as one of their top 100 sites you didn't know you couldn't live without. However, I have added a second source to the article to back the fact up even further.  Arctic   Night  03:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I also did the same for Douglas R. Archer. The hook is far "hookier" than other hooks I've seen out there - including one that simply describes what Minds and Machines, a science journal, contains!  Arctic   Night  03:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting back to me on the Microsoft article. Much appreciated!  Arctic   Night  04:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. That's an impressive number of Canadian-related articles you've started; I've been meaning to work on some myself (I'm from Saskatchewan), but the fungi have me too firmly in their grasp :) Sasata (talk) 04:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'm doing historical articles at the moment, but have done political ones in the past and even the odd television DYK. Why did the mushroom get invited to all the parties? Because he was a fungi.  Arctic   Night  04:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ugh... my own joke thrown back at me ... (I still LOLed tho, itza classic) Sasata (talk) 05:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Why didn't the fungi go to the party? There wasn't mushroom. OK, I'll stop now. :D  Arctic   Night  05:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * British comedy version Sasata (talk) 06:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Aah, you win!  Arctic   Night  07:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!
Cheers! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 04:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 Final 8
Hey- I'm just dropping you a line to say that you are very much entitled to an award for reaching the final 8 of the WikiCup this year. I wasn't sure if you wanted to accept it, seeing as you withdrew, but I am happy to award it, if you want it :) J Milburn (talk) 00:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Nah, I'd rather slink away quietly from association with the Wikicup :) Thanks anyways. Sasata (talk) 00:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)