Sasata

State of Genera lists in family articles

Not including monogeneric families. I'm afraid things leave much to be desired, and I can hardly proceed without reasonably accurate lists of genera-by-family... Circéus (talk) 16:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, give me a day or two. Sasata (talk) 16:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, you migth want to review what we had unearthed while working on Marasmiaceae, as it is relevant to some cases here. Circéus (talk) 16:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we want three crucial things here:

1. Any given genus is listed for one and one family only (or incertae sedis).
   1. The genus article does not conflict with the family one.
2. We list as many genera in the article as the number we have in text.
3. The number in family articles is the same as in List of Agaricales genera (noting where the numbers of genera in a family differ from the number in that entry for the Dict.).

Beyond that there are places where practical choices will have to be made, as you noted about Hormographiella. I suspect Entolomataceae might come down to what is simplest for us (e.g. if in some case most species don't have names under Entoloma, as happens with Endoptychum). Circéus (talk) 20:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Hmmm, Crepidotaceae and Chromocyphellaceae need to be added to various places, according to this ... the work keeps piling up ... Sasata (talk) 00:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Maybe we should stay with Kirk & al.'s Inocybaceae here, but maybe that's just my instinct. These devellopment are really nothing short of a Fungal equivalent of the APG revolution, but they lack a "central synthesis", with Kirk & al. slow to take up on these changes. Circéus (talk) 00:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I dunno. From the paper: "The present investigation serves to highlight a number of contentious issues relating to recent molecular studies of the Crepidotaceae in particular, and molecular systematics in general: As has been shown before, taxon sampling is of crucial importance, and the addition of various key taxa may have considerable influence on the resulting phylogenetic hypotheses. In this study, most of the investigations differ widely in their choice of ingroup (and outgroup) taxa, leading to widely different hypotheses of higher-level relationships." So all this work may have to be revised in the future. This sort of stuff is why I find it easier to work on single species, despite my "mission" to fill out the higher-level taxa. Ok, that's enough for me today, I feel like doing something else :) Sasata (talk) 00:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
      • What where Kirk & al. thinking anyway? You can't synonymize Crepidotaceae under Inocybaceae under any rule of the code! Circéus (talk) 00:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Having thought about it a bit more, how about we keep everything in Crepidotaceae (=? Inocybaceae sensu Kirk & al.) with commentary to the effect the family is known to be polyphyletic, but an final disposition has yet to be agreed on? It's already what we do about Cystodermateae and Endoptychum (at least in List of Agaricaceae genera), for example. Circéus (talk) 13:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Sound good to me. I will try to sort out Amylocorticiales, Crepidotaceae, Inocybaceae, and Chromocyphellaceae today. Sasata (talk) 13:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
• Ok, I started an article at Amylocorticiales (will be adding more over the next few days). Any opinion on how we should handle the taxonomy of genera within? Give family as incertae sedis, and redirect Amylocorticiaceae to Amylocorticiales? Sasata (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • When I read it, it seemed pretty obvious they were better circumscribing Amylocorticiaceae and moving it to a monotypic order. The only genera that could be said to become incertae sedis would be those (if any) that they excluded from Amylocorticiaceae without assigning them a putative family. Circéus (talk) 18:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
• So apparently Cribbea might be in Physalacriaceae . This is convenient (if correct: I don,t have access to that journal) as it resets Cortinariaceae to the correct number of genera, but it threatens Physalacriaceae with Cribbeaceae. w00t! </sarcasm> Circéus (talk) 13:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
  • What fun would it be if it wasn't a challenge? I don't have access to that journal, but I know who does. I'll ask if I can get it and update the page. Sasata (talk) 14:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I got the paper from Cas (very nice paper, BTW), and yes, it's clearly in the Physalacriaceae, pretty close to Oudemansiella. Sasata (talk) 14:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
• For Bolbitiaceae, I'll start work and add a note on the Agaricales families list about the 17 v. 15 discrepancy. For Entolomataceae, the Wikipedia way is typically "when in doubt, be conservative", so going with six genera and noting the dict. disagreement is a reasonable approach. I'll be waiting on a usable combined list for Inocybaceae and Crepidotaceae at the latter before I start on it. This leaves me with a reasonable buffer to work on.Circéus (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Actually, having now looked at Co-David & al., I say we go with three genera (Clitop., Entol., Rhodocybella), since they made all the necessary combination (they suspect Rhodocybella to fall in Clitopilus, but keep it separate for now). I've edited the family list accordingly, and will now do the same for the generic list. Circéus (talk) 12:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
• Which author is being followed for Hygrophoraceae? Not only is the number of genera in the lead not that of the Dict., but we list 11 in the taxobox, which, although the number given in dict., are definitely not those placed there in that work. Circéus (talk) 00:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Some investigation here: We have Pseudoarmillariella under Tricholomataceae (including the list of genera), but it seems to belong fairly clearly in Hygrophoraceae. That genus is unplaced in the Dict., which recognizes Cuphophyllus, but that recognition seems unwarranted. If we add Camarophyllus and Gliophorus, but exclude Camarophyllopsis, we get 11 genera: the 10 from Dict. with three extra (Pseudoarm., Camarophyllus, Gl.) and two cut off (Cuph., Camarophyllopsis; the first seems doomed to synonymy, the second belongs somewhere else not yet clear) [1], [2]. I will be working with that. Circéus (talk) 18:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Hi Circeus, I'm still with you, just devoting my limited wiki-time to finishing a primate article offline. Will get back into Agaricales once this monkey is off my back (lol). Sasata (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
      • It's okay. As it is, it appears the one part where your input will be really needed are the Physalacriaceae, Inocybaceae/Crepidotaceae and Strophariaceae. I'm Probably going to have to expand a ridiculous amount of energy figuring out what's going on with Maccagnia too. Circéus (talk) 16:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Family	Genera in lead	Genera in list	Notes
Amylocorticiaceae	10	8	What do we do of the Amylocorticiales paper? I say we use it. The authors are heavy hitters in fungal molecular phylogenetics, they used a 6-locus dataset & large sample size, so it looks good. I'll update pages soonish. Sasata (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)  Done
Bolbitiaceae	17	15	Found Cyphellopus and Galerella. Setchelliogaster may belong here too (says IF & MycoBank; Dict. says either Bolbitiaceae or Cortinariaceae)
Clavariaceae	7	7
Cortinariaceae	12	13	I confirmed that all 13 genera listed are given by the Dict as being in this family, so .... ? Will make stubs for those redlinks. Done.
Cyphellaceae	16	16
Entolomataceae	4	6	The Dict prefers to lump Rhodocybe, Rhodocybella, Rhodogaster, Richoniella, and several others not listed here into Entoloma. Many other sources keep them (or combinations thereof) separate. Who do we follow? The correct path to follow, I suspect, will only be revealed with much research ...
Fistulinaceae	3	3
Hydnangiaceae	2 (List) 4 (article)	4	# of genera depends on whether one treats the truffle-like Hydnangium and Podohydnangium as separate or lumped into Laccaria (like the Dict. does). Will investigate further.
Hygrophoraceae	9	11
Inocybaceae	13	10
Lyophyllaceae	8	9	All nine genera listed in the article belong in this family, says Dict. (Lyophyllopsis, however, is listed as "? Lyophyllaceae"
Mycenaceae	10	11	I guess the extra genus is the extinct Protomycena, to which the Dict. does not assign a family. Interestingly, they say the name is invalid. Might be because their way of counting anamorphs is at best murky: they seem not to count Ugola in Lyophyllaceae; do they include Decapitatus in their count for Mycenaceae? Impossible to tell. If they don't, they give ten, but list nine (which becomes 10 with Protomycena).
Niaceae	6	6
Phelloriniaceae	2	2
Physalacriaceae	11	16	*Guyanagaster is new and not accounted for in the Dict don't know about Hormomitaria-Dict says = Physalacria; Fungorum says it's valid; Mycobank says it's in the Marasmiaceae; no recent literature I say we keep it in. It seems to be traditionally treated close to Physalacria, and MB seems to have it in Marasmiaceae because no family monograph of either group has been published since the 80s. I say edge on separate genus in Phys. Dactylosporina: Dict says Marasmiaceae "or perhaps Physalacriaceae"; Fungorum & MycoBank says Marasmiaceae Himantia is anamorphic; not sure about the Dict's accounting for anamorph genera Dict. has Himantia unplaced to anything ("anamorphic Fungi").
Pleurotaceae	6	7 6	Fixed. Resupinatus was in there erroneously.
Pluteaceae	4	4
Psathyrellaceae	12	6 12	Now updated to include 12 genera. I included the anamorphic Hormographiella, don't know if that's "cheating" or not, but it has Coprinopsis teleomorphs, so it clearly belongs in this family.
Pterulaceae	12	12
Schizophyllaceae	2	2
Strophariaceae	18	13	In Matheny et al., 2006, they showed that Galerina, Phaeocollybia, Psilocybe (bluing ones), Anamika, Hebeloma, Alnicola, and Flammula cluster in a branch that is sister to the Stropharicaceae sensu strico. However, no formal familial change was made, and the Dict. classification does not follow this phylogeny (and they do state explicitly that they have taken into account the molecular results from that 2006 issue of Mycologia where several higher-level phylogenetics papers were published.) How to approach this on Wikipedia? About a year ago someone from the Matheny lab changed the families for these genera to Hymenogastraceae; I changed some of them back, because I wasn't convinced in some cases (i.e., the type species wasn't used in the analysis). Are we in limbo until the next phylogenetics paper comes out? I think following either is fine. Looks like an editorial, not formal scientific choice on the part of Kirk & al., and either choice is phylogenetically valid, plus the study actually says (probably accounting for Kirk & al.'s approach): "Indeed Bayesian analyses [...] significantly support [...] the union of Hymenogastraceae and Strophariaceae s. str. A recent 25S rRNA only analysis suggested a rather inclusive treatment of the Strophariaceae."
Tapinellaceae	2	3	All three genera listed seem valid, and are given by the Dict itself as belonging in this family.
Typhulaceae	6	6

Reached maximum completion

So I've just finished adding all I could, except for Physalacriaceae, Strophariaceae (incl. Hemigasteraceae) and Crepidotaceae (incl. Inocybaceae), for which (as said above) I'm reliant on you to establish lists of genera we are reasonably happy with. If Crepidotaceae ends up above 20 genera or so, I'll make it a separate list. Circéus (talk) 23:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of your Russulales idea, I'd make it a combined list for families and Genera, or at least consider it as a possibility. However, I notice the article clearly states Clavicorona ought to be in the Agaricales, but I can't find a family placement for it (except MycoBank, in the Tricholomataceae, but I don't trust it all that much). Circéus (talk) 00:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Tricholoma pardinum redux

sigh - can't find anything at all on var. unguentatum -have more material on filamentosum but is in italian and will try and translate soon. The unguentatum mystery is annoying. It'd also be good to get a fulltext (which I can't at my uni) of the Czech article which explains why they chose pardalotum and hopefully has an English translation (fingers crossed). If you could get that last one I'd be grateful, and I'd be keen to hear if you are able to ferret anything about unguentatum as I am stumped! I was blocked so went off and finished buffing another of Persoon's legacies (hehehe) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Is that article actually in Latin? Wow. I can apparently get it in the library if necessary, but that won't be much help if it turns out it's actually in Czech. Ucucha (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The abstract is available here; it turns out the article's actually in Czech. It does have an abstract in Latin, which says that they concluded that both Tricholoma pardinum and Tricholoma tigrinum were incorrect according to the rules of nomenclature, and therefore they gave it the new name Tricholoma pardalotum. Ucucha (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

You're too fast Ucucha! Cas, I will scour the library stacks for anything else I can find out about this species, but I might not get there for a couple of weeks. Sasata (talk) 20:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes - a couple of weeks is fine. I had writer's block for a while trying to figure out what next to buff for FAC but am now unblocked with a few options. I did latin at high school so will have a shot at translating the abstract. What I am really interested is the details on the specimens and naming of the two authorities and firming it up for the article. Thx, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Update

An Italian taxonomic book on Tricholoma had a detailed account, which I borrowed from the library - alas the bit on hte taxonomic history of T pardinum was only in italian, so I wrote it out and tried google translate with interesting results...Talk:Tricholoma_pardinum#Riva_book_in_Italian - on hte bright side, it does shed some light on the whole debate and clarifies the murkiness. Be good to look at some of the original plates and sources now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'll try to have a look again soon... sorry I haven't been able to make it to the library for a while. Sasata (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Update 2

I am feeling better about taxonomy thanks to google translate and Hans Adler and Giano. Some queries still but getting there. I just realised you've made half as many edits as me on the page. Are you happy to co-nom? Still need to read, digest and add micro stuff....Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• I'm down with that. I think it's pretty close... will read through again critically tomorrow and drop a note on talk if there's anything I think of. Sasata (talk) 08:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Cool. I feel better now I understand the taxonomic history a bit better, but reading Czech would be helpful....Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Update 3

Whenever you're ready to send the map, I'm ready....Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

PS: You saw this? Also a couple of queries on the talk page..nearing the finishing line, or is it starting line....Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the remind... will send picture soon, and will schedule some time for this article this weekend. Sasata (talk) 06:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Map now uploaded - can you add details of book? Is the green a tad bright...? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I've added the source to the Commons page. Have you seen the page WikiProject Maps Conventions? Sasata (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow! I must bookmark that....Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Update - I've added this to explain Secretan issue. Map added, so anything else you wanna do to article....? Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

Hi, I'm with the Wikipedia:WikiProject AP Biology 2011. I've been working on the Olympic marmot as part of a project, and now, multiple reviewers have told me that it's ready to be reviewed for GA! I nominated it, but TCO suggests to recruit reviewers to facilitate the process, and he directed me to you and a few other users. I would like to ask if you weren't too busy, to do the GA review for the Olympic marmot. I'd really appreciate it! I'm going to ask a few of the other names he gave me about this too, and whoever has the time to get to it first can review it. Thanks! Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 16:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks like someone else got there first, perhaps I'll have another chance at FAC? Sasata (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully! I'll definitely let you know if I get it that far. Thanks, and happy new year! :) Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 08:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

You fathered quads!

Canadian gigolo! ;) Rcej (Robert) – talk 04:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Impressive! Category:Marine fungi needs creating... J Milburn (talk) 14:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Aquamarina

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Keissleriella rara

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Massarina carolinensis

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Paraphaeosphaeria pilleata

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Fungi

This article could use your eye; we have a point-of-view pusher who will not discuss his changes, and is resorting to personal attacks. I can't revert a third time. As you are one of our leading fungal editors, I thought I'd alert you. There is a discussion of sorts of the offender's talk page, but he doesn't seem willing to be flexible. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's his hook.

From the article's tippy-toes ;) Rcej (Robert) – talk 09:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Protein lead too long

Hi!

Thanks for trimming down Protein lead a bit. However I think that template should stay there as a sign that there is still some work to do. If you have some realistic time frame (like about "up to 14 days") you want to do it yourself, and not anybody else, I may have an eye on this, but there's so many distractions in such cases, that I've learned to always leave at least tag on the top of the stack. =} kocio (talk) 11:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The article length is fine now (as in it complies with suggested article length:lead ratio per WP:LEAD), but the rest of the article needs some work ... I should have made that more clear in the edit summary. Sasata (talk) 16:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi again!

Well, the lead only formally conforms to the rules (I don't look into the rest of the article). Each paragraph is too long - it's easy to make huge paragraphs loosing the readability by the way. I guess historical summary can be removed from the lead and included in the proper section or trimmed if it already contains the same informations.

I will try to chop the lead to make "proper" paragraphs (i.e. not glueing together more than one topic at the time, as it is now) to prepare the article to the readable state. kocio (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

BTW: if you want to see the example of comparable important and complex topic with excellent trimmed lead, look at the RNA article. That's what I'd love to see and we're far from this in protein lead. kocio (talk) 22:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2012 WikiCup

Hello, and welcome to the 2012 WikiCup! The competition officially began at the start of 2012 (UTC), and so you are free to claim any content from after that time. Your submission page, where you must note any content for which you wish to claim points, can be found here, and formatting instructions can be found in hidden comments on the page. A bot will then update the main table, which can be seen on the WikiCup page. The full rules for what will and will not be awarded points can be found at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. There's also a section on that page listing the changes that have been made to the rules this year, so that experienced participants can get up-to-date in a few seconds. One point of which we must remind everyone; you may only claim points for content upon which you have done significant work, and which you have nominated, in 2012. For instance, articles written or good article reviews started in 2011 are not eligible for points.

This round will last until late February, and signups will remain open until the middle of February. If you know of anyone who may like to take part, please let them know about the comeptition; the more the merrier! At the end of this round, the top 64 scorers will progress to the next round, where their scores will reset, and they will be split into pools. Note that, by default, you have been added to our newsletter list; we will be in contact at the end of every month with news. You're welcome to remove yourself from this list if you do not wish to hear from us. Conversely, those interested in following the competition are more than welcome to add themselves to the list. Please direct any questions towards the judges, or on the WikiCup talk page. Good luck! J Milburn (talk) and The ed17 (talk) 10:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Sasata, thank you for your recent comment on the Pomegranate talkpage. It made me happy. I have written a summary of the response from the community on the Cranberry talkpage. Granateple (talk) 15:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:FA

Psilocybin; chemistry, biology, medicine? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd choose chemistry if I had to pick from those three. LSD is a FFA; is there any way to tell where that was categorized? Sasata (talk) 22:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It was in chemistry (diff). That seems like the best choice to me too. Ucucha (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd also support chemistry, for what it's worth. J Milburn (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

That's what I thought, but please have a look at my MEDRS query-- that one worries me :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Pygmy slow loris

I know this can't be your favorite topic, but I was wondering if we could do some work on the Pygmy slow loris article very soon. At the very least, I'd like to see your work published so that others (including myself) can work on it. The reason I bring it up is because a new BBC special will air later this month featuring Dr. Nekaris and a lot of the material we covered about loris conservation. It would be nice if Wiki had full-fledged articles about every species. Are you up for publishing this last article? – VisionHolder « talk » 05:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• Ok, it's up next on my article to-do list. The remaining missing page numbers are a hassle (the journals are in dead tree form at my library, scattered among several different buildings, or already-returned interlibrary loans), but that shouldn't stop me from publishing the draft. It'll be "live" by this weekend. Sasata (talk) 17:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• I might have some of those—let me have a look. We could also publish it in incomplete form and then add the page numbers later—they're good to have, but not absolutely necessary for a presentable article. Ucucha (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• I just thought I'd check in with this article. Slow loris is already getting hammered (9k hits so far) following the British release of the BBC slow loris special last night. Is there anything I can help with? – VisionHolder « talk » 12:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• Yes! Copyedit the hell out of it, especially from the conservation section downwards. It's still repetitive and poorly written, and doesn't flow well... some of the details are probably unnecessary and could/should be trimmed, and I'm not well-attuned with the literature of mammalian conservation, so it's difficult for me to decide what should stay or go. Sasata (talk) 14:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• I did a relatively quick copyedit, and I think those final sections at least merit publication at B-class rating. We can certainly tighten it up for a GAN run. There are a few citations needed in general, but otherwise I think the article should be ready for the main space, as Ucucha noted above. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks VH, the article is now "live". Sasata (talk) 15:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• Perfect! It looks wonderful. Much better than before. With the lingering needed citations, do you have any hunch as to were the information came from? I might be able to fill in a few by looking over the other articles we wrote and seeing if I can spot a likely citation to explore. Otherwise, once you're ready for GAN, just let me know. Anyway, thank you! I'll be sure to pass this page along to Dr. Nekaris. If you haven't seen it yet, try looking for an online copy of the BBC special "Jungle Gremlins of Java" (part of the Natural World series), or just wait for its release in Canada/the U.S. on Animal Planet. It all ties in beautifully with what we worked on last year. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, good. Let's fix all the issues, give it a good copyedit, and then GAN it. Ucucha (talk) 21:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Psilocybin

		The Bio-star
		Congratulations on the promotion of psilocybin. The amount of work that has gone into the article is clear; you're really making a difference. J Milburn (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Here's a psilocybin themed gift [3]. It needs to be opened in chrome. SmartSE (talk) 00:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Thirded. Jesanj (talk) 01:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, guys; each of you helped with the article, so you all deserve an Asterias arm. It was a lot of work, but a fun challenge. SmartSE, that graphic reminds of the Spirograph my kids make pictures with, which I also used as a lad. I will definitely watch than again when I'm more mystically inclined. Sasata (talk) 03:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Psilocybe aztecorum

--Allen3 ^talk 00:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Update at The Monster (novella) FAC

Hey Sasata, thanks for taking the time to review The Monster. It's always great to get an outside opinion, especially when it comes to pointing out extraordinarily tricky words such as "supererogative". :) I've made some additions to the article per your suggestions, incorporating some sources from JSTOR and expanding on a couple key themes/elements in the process. If you have time to revisit the FAC, I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks for your help! María (yllosubmarine) 03:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome, and  Done. Sasata (talk) 06:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Pygmy slow loris

As I asked the WP:RX question just before yours, I saw your post. I don't have access to Folio Primatologica but as I was using JSTOR and have access I dropped "pygmy slow loris" into a search and found two articles: "Fast Food for Slow Lorises: Is Low Metabolism Related to Secondary Compounds in High-Energy Plant Diet?" (American Society of Mammalogists) and "Evidence from Opsin Genes Rejects Nocturnality in Ancestral Primates" (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America). If you'd like either, shoot me an email and I'll send the PDFs.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I haven't used either of these in my draft, so I'll see if they have anything worth including (I have jstor access, but thanks for the offer). Sasata (talk) 06:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Anytime. Information wants to be free.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Panaeolina foenisecii

I need your help fixing an error in the Panaeolina foenisecii article. It says that this species contains psilocybin, however I am certain that this is an error. There are studies showing that it does contain psilocybin, but these must have been false positives, which is a common occurrence in mushroom testing. It is the only error I know if in Wikipedia. How can we make the article reflect reality? Alan Rockefeller (Talk - contribs) 22:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• I think the best way is to summarize the literature on the subject (i.e. the conflicting reports) on the talk page, and once we have that laid out, we can figure out a summary paragraph to put in the article. When I have time later tonight or tomorrow I'll start compiling sources. Sasata (talk) 00:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Psilocin

Hi Sasata. No big deal, but the chemical diagram for psilocin could be improved. The C-C should not be represented as bending in a "U shape". Please check the title image for psilocybin, or read about carbon-carbon bond angles. Although the current diagram is technically correct, I think it should be changed. Happy editing! Jatlas (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Instead of the vague directive to "read about C–C bonds", could you be more specific as to the precise nature of your objection? AFAICT, there's nothing inconsistent with the structural diagram given and sp³ hybridized C–C bonding. We aren't indicating conformations (nor do we need to); are you thinking that there may be steric hindrance between the dimethylamino group and the indole ring? I agree that this particular conformation likely does not represent an energy minimum, but I don't know what the difference between the gauche and anti states might be for this molecule, or the extent of the torsional strain. I will assume (until shown otherwise) that, under normal conditions, there's enough thermal energy to traverse the energy barrier between forms, and for the purposes of this general encyclopedia article, the bond can be considered freely rotating, and thus the given diagram is sufficient for illustrative purposes. (p.s. it's kind of a shame that the psilocin article is so underdeveloped compared to more its famous prodrug brother. If someone else doesn't get there first, I'd like to work on it someday, and I imagine the chemboxes will be standardized between the two articles—including the lead image(s).) Sasata (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the vague request. From what I remember from o-chem, the C-C bond angles average out at 114 degrees. If you look at similar molecules, serotonin, psilocybin, dmt, 5-MeO-DMT, o-acetylpsilocin, 4-Acetoxy-DET, 4-Acetoxy-DiPT, etc. you see the C-C bond angles next to the amine group as being angled as \/\/\/\/ as opposed to the "u shape". Even the 3-D stick model for psilocin (below said diagram) is represented as such. My chemistry is too rusty to go into further details but carbon chains are usually represented as /\/\/\/\/\/ unless there are double bonds present.Jatlas (talk) 22:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Update: Looks like I was mistaken with the C-C bond angle (109). Anyways, I gave it a bit more thought. The C-C single bond is freely rotating (so the diagram is technically not incorrect) but the carbons have roughly the same "partial charge". Like charges repulse each other. So this is why the diagram should be changed. Also ChemSpider has it diagrammed as such. [4] Again, not a big deal, but I think it should be changed. Peace. Jatlas (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Cyathus

This is a note to let the main editors of Cyathus know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on January 30, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 30, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Cyathus is a genus of fungi in the Nidulariaceae, a family collectively known as the bird's nest fungi. They are given this name since they resemble tiny bird's nests filled with "eggs". The "eggs", or peridioles, are firmly attached to the inner surface of this fruiting body by an elastic cord of mycelia known as a funiculus. The 45 species are widely distributed throughout the world and some are found in most countries, although a few exist in only one or two locales. Cyathus stercoreus is considered endangered in a number of European countries. The internal and external surfaces of this cup may be ridged longitudinally; this is one example of a taxonomic characteristic that has traditionally served to distinguish between species. Generally considered inedible, Cyathus species are saprobic, since they obtain nutrients from decomposing organic matter. They usually grow on decaying wood or woody debris, on cow and horse dung, or directly on humus-rich soil. The life cycle of this genus allows it to reproduce both sexually, with meiosis, and asexually via spores. Phylogenetic analysis is providing new insights into the evolutionary relationships between the various species in Cyathus. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

45,000 per month, congrats!

Awesome article on that magic mushroom! Very cool all the different aspects (chemistry, bio, culture, history). Long too. Congrats on the hard work. Very slick and polished in writing and refs as well.TCO (talk) 04:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! You must be referring to this, the magical compound in the magic mushrooms. This drug provided a major impetus for me to do what I'm doing here on Wikipedia. I've got some other high-view articles in the pipeline, but they will take a long time to complete (hopefully I can get a couple done in the wikicup this year). I've seen your great work on fluorine; if you like, let me know right before you intend to submit for FAC and I'll give it a lookover for prose and MoS. Sasata (talk) 18:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Spotcheck

Hello, would you be able to do some source spotchecking for the giraffe article? LittleJerry (talk) 23:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 January newsletter

WikiCup 2012 is off to a flying start. At the time of writing, we have 112 contestants; comparable to last year, but slightly fewer than 2010. Signups will remain open for another week, after which time they will be closed for this year. Our currrent far-away leader is Grapple X (submissions), due mostly to his work on a slew of good articles about The X-Files; there remain many such articles waiting to be reviewed at good article candidates. Second place is currently held by Ruby2010 (submissions), whose points come mostly from good articles about television episodes, although good article reviews, did you knows and an article about a baroness round out the score. In third place is Jivesh boodhun (submissions), who has scored 200 points for his work on a single featured article, as well as points for work on others, mostly in the area of pop music. In all, nine users have 100 or more points. However, at the other end of the scale, there are still dozens of participants who are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly!

The 64 highest scoring participants will advance to round 2 in a month's time. There, they will be split into eight random groups of eight. The score needed to reach the next round is not at all clear; last year, 8 points guaranteed a place. The year before, 20.

A few participants and their work warrant a mention for achieving "firsts" in this competition.

• 12george1 (submissions) was the first to score, with his good article review of Illinois v. McArthur.
• 12george1 (submissions) was also the first to score points for an article, thanks to his work on Hurricane Debby (1982)- now a good article. Tropical storms have featured heavily in the Cup, and good articles currently have a relatively fast turnaround time for reviews.
• Sp33dyphil (submissions) was the first to score points for a did you know, with Russian submarine K-114 Tula. Military history is another subject which has seen a lot of Cup activity.
• Sp33dyphil (submissions) is also the first person to successfully claim bonus points. Terminator 2: Judgment Day is now a good article, and was eligible for bonus points because the subject was covered on more than 20 other Wikipedias at the start of the competition. It is fantastic to see bonus points being claimed so early!
• Speciate (submissions) was the first to score points for an In the News entry, with Paedophryne amauensis. The lead image from the article was also used on the main page for a time, and it's certainly eye-catching!
• Jivesh boodhun (submissions) was the first to score points for a featured article, and is, at the moment, the only competitor to claim for one. The article, "Halo" (Beyoncé Knowles song), was also worth double points because of its wide coverage. While this is an article that Jivesh and others have worked on for some time, it is undeniable that he has put considerable work into it this year, pushing it over the edge.

We are yet to see any featured lists, featured topics or good topics, but this is unsurprising; firstly, the nomination processes with each of these can take some time, and, secondly, it can take a considerable amount of time to work content to this level. In a similar vein, we have seen only one featured article. The requirement that content must have been worked on this year to be eligible means that we did not expect to see these at the start of the competition. No points have been claimed for featured portals or pictures, but these are not content types which are often claimed; the former has never made a big impact on the WikiCup, while the latter has not done so since 2009's competition.

A quick rules clarification before the regular notices: If you are concerned that another user is claiming points inappropriately, please contact a judge to take a look at the article. Competitors policing one another can create a bad atmosphere, and may lead to inconsistencies and mistakes. Rest assured that we, the judges, are making an effort to check submissions, but it is possible that we will miss something. On a loosely related note: If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia: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, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 00:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Email

You haz it. Raul654 (talk) 02:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

POTD notification

POTD

Hi Sasata,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Cypripedium acaule - Sasata edit1.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on February 3, 2012. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2012-02-03. —howcheng {chat} 05:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Actinospermum

A tag has been placed on Actinospermum, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Definition

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. :- ) DCS 08:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

POTD notification

POTD

Hi Sasata,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Clavaria zollingeri 90973.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on February 4, 2012. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2012-02-04. —howcheng {chat} 09:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Good articles

Hello Sasata,

I became interested in Good Articles after entering the WikiCup at the beginning of the year. The articles I write are mostly species accounts so I had a look at some articles of yours, also species accounts, that had achieved GA status and then nominated Millepora alcicornis, largely to see how the system worked.

More recently I thought I would try reviewing a nomination and it is about that review that I am contacting you. I looked at the reviews you had done and how you had proceeded. I chose Paterson's worms as an article to review and have made some initial comments to which there has been a response. It was suggested on the GA page that inexperienced reviewers should ask a mentor for advice. Are you able to help me? Are there problems with the article that I have missed? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Cwmhiraeth, sure I can assist. My first question, after glancing at the limited sources, is whether the coverage is adequate (i.e., criterion 3). A quick and dirty search of the Web of Knowledge and Google Books for "Paterson's worms" suggests that there isn't a lot written about the topic, so coverage may be ok, but here's a couple of sources that could be incorporated (especially the first; I can provide a PDF if the nominator doesn't have access). One might be able to get some more results by trying searches with "cellular automata", "Mike Paterson and John Horton Conway" or others

• Brian Hayes. "Computing Science: In Search of the Optimal Scumsucking Bottomfeeder". American Scientist Vol. 91, No. 5 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER 2003), pp. 392-396 JSTOR 27858267.
• this
• shouldn't start a sentence with a number
• some things that are confusing to me:
• "A worm whose ruleset begins with 0 continues in a straight line forever." Why is this the case? For example, wouldn't a ruleset of {0,1,2,3} cause the worm to end up at its origin?
• "There are 1296 possible combinations of worm rules." If the triangular grid is infinite, why then aren't there also an infinite number of worm choices? Is there perhaps a length limit on the worm movement rule that hasn't been mentioned? Some more explanation on how this number was obtained would help.
• it's not completely clear to me what a "species" is here ... is this shorthand for "a worm with a specific movement rule?"
• I don't understand what "solving" means in this context, possibly because of my misunderstanding of worm ruleset limitations?
• "He used an algorithm based on Bill Gosper's Hashlife to simulate the worms at extraordinary speeds." Could add a little detail about the memoized algorithm used
• I'd be interested to see if this cellular automata concept has any practical applications other than modelling ancient worm movements
• you might want to explicitly mention in the review that you checked the images and they were ok
• good work checking the text against the original source, this step is performed too infrequently!

I hope this helps; feel free to copy/paste any of this reply to your GA review. Sasata (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed reply.

• I think you have misunderstood the rules. You mention that a ruleset of {0,1,2,3} would cause the worm to end up at its origin? I think this is not so. It never finds a situation where it has to make a choice so it only ever looks at the first part of its rule.
• I think a species is a worm with a particular unique rule set and which will always behave in the same way.
• Solving is finding the unique route followed by each species of worm.

I will follow your suggestions as to how to proceed, but it's getting late here so I think I will leave it till tomorrow. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Hensley

Thanks for your thorough 1b/1c review of George Went Hensley, I replied at the FAC page. If you could e-mail me a copy of those book reviews I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Send me an email and I'll reply shortly. Sasata (talk) 04:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, e-mail sent. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done Sasata (talk) 17:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

History of the Earth

Its been a couple of days so this is just a friendly reminder that you are currently reviewing History of the Earth. I'm not trying to rush you to do it since you probably have other things to do but this is just in case you may have forgotten. I have gone through and put more citations where I felt necessary. If there are still problems just let me know and specify where I need to fix things. Just a friendly reminder, thanks :) Cadiomals (talk) 16:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry, I haven't forgotten. It's an important (& lengthy) article, so I'll need some time to check citations, digest the material, offer careful feedback—and juggle other wiki stuff. Will try to start us off with some comments on the first few sections tonight. Sasata (talk) 17:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I was just making sure :) Cadiomals (talk) 19:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Good articles again

A few days ago I contacted you about the good aricle review I am doing on Paterson's worms. Editor Reyk _{YO! asks if you can supply the Brian Hayes pdf file you mentioned previously. Thank you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)}

• Brian Hayes. "Computing Science: In Search of the Optimal Scumsucking Bottomfeeder". American Scientist Vol. 91, No. 5 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER 2003), pp. 392-396 JSTOR 27858267

No problem, someone just needs to send me an email and I'll reply with the PDF attached. Sasata (talk) 14:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Forgot DYK...

My apologies... I completely forgot to nominate pygmy slow loris for DYK. I just now realized it. Anyway, just ask and I'll bend over for a good hard kick. Otherwise, great article! – VisionHolder « talk » 07:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Meh, DYKS come and go. There will be many coming from these parts later this year! Sasata (talk) 07:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

New Geosmithia article

		The Bio-star
		Thanks for increasing Wikipedia coverage of Biology-related topics with your creation of the new page Geosmithia. Your efforts are appreciated. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks! Sasata (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your improvements to Human

Hi Sasata, just wanted to say a quick thanks for your diligent improvements to the Human article. Excellent referencing and streamlining of wikilinks as well as innumerable other useful tweaks. Keep up the great work! DMSchneider (talk) 12:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your note! If everything goes to plan, further improvements will be forthcoming. Sasata (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Great, many thanks. DMSchneider (talk) 16:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

In case you care...

I just wanted to let you know I've been busy lately but I plan on continuing improvements to the History of the Earth article based on your specifications sometime this week. Just a head's up. Cadiomals (talk) 00:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem, I'm not on a schedule. I'll have my next batch of comments up soon. Sasata (talk) 02:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I had planned to have some more comments up by now, but got sidetracked with real life. I'll be away for a few days, and will resume the review next week. Sasata (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with Adiantum viridimontanum

		The Original Barnstar
		Sasata, thank you very much for your helpful contributions to improving Adiantum viridimontanum. I particularly appreciate your help in improving the quality of the prose in some of the more technical sections that might have been less-accessible for a lay reviewer. I'm amazed at the amount of detail that could be tweaked in what seemed like a rather short and obscure fern article, and I really appreciate your help in improving it. Yours, Choess (talk) 03:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! Hope to see you around more at FAC. Sasata (talk) 15:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Help getting an article

I was wondering if you might have access to the following:

If so, would you mind sending it to me in an email? My username on Gmail has changed to "makilahy", but the old account still works. (And, FYI, I have put in a request to change my Wiki username to "Maky", so that may happen later this week.) – VisionHolder « talk » 21:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, here are a few more, if you don't mind:

Thanks. – VisionHolder « talk » 05:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done (2/3) Sasata (talk) 15:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Which can't you get? SmartSE (talk) 16:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no access to Folia Primatologica. Sasata (talk) 16:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

If Smartse can access Folia Primatologica, there is one more that I need if I want to re-write the toothcomb article:

If no one has access, I can try some of the researchers I know. But thanks for what you have sent so far! – VisionHolder « talk » 17:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I only have online access 98-08. Have you tried asking at WP:REX? If you can't get them off anyone else, it wouldn't be too much effort for me to get the paper journals + send you copies. SmartSE (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I've put in the request, and if I don't get a reply, I'll let you know. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Water cobras

I also moved B. christyi to "Congo water cobra". Just thought I'd let you know. You can turn it back. RedGKS (talk) 21:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: Lycoperdic acid

Hi, I have received your request :)

I'll try my best to do it ASAP, I think I should be able to do it by tomorrow or Wednesday. It's past midnight now (so technically "tomorrow" is today), so I'll do it after school :D -- YOSF0113 (talk - contributions) 16:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks much! Sasata (talk) 16:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I've done it, can you check if it's okay? Thanks! It can be found here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lycoperdic_acid.png

Lycoperdic acid

Great! I've added it to the article, and added some extra info to the description page at commons. Thanks for lending me your skills once again! Cheers, Sasata (talk) 14:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Magic mushrooms

Could you mark all the references in need of changing or such? ~~Ebe123~~ → report 20:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I will start work on the article soon, I have a stack of relevant source material from recent work on the psilocybin article. Sasata (talk) 00:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

That's good, and lets get it to GA. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 14:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Human

Btw, I commend you for your efforts on Human. If there's anything I can do to help, just ask. Just keep in mind that I favor fashioning it after the other primate articles, while saving plenty of room for all the special cultural, technological, and psychological specialties that we take such great pride in. If I can help on the biological side, particularly with evolution or comparisons with general primate anatomy, just let me know. Also, don't be afraid to relegate "odds and ends" to related articles. Too many people are going to try to cram obscure facts, like the "Constituents of the human body" table, into the article, when they should be moved to more specific articles. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. That article is going to be a long haul, and much of it will have to be changed/rewritten/deleted—finding the proper balance will be key. It doesn't help that I'm not a expert on the subject material (but I am human, so have some experience!), so I'll have to do a lot of reading to get up to speed. When it's nearing GAN-readiness (which I don't think will be for several months) I plan to put it up for peer review. In the meantime, feel free to make changes as you like, or put up suggestions for improvements on the talk page. Sasata (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, thinking about it some more, it may be a better idea to put it up for peer review sooner, so I can get some other opinions on balance/weight, which should make writing easier later on. Sasata (talk) 17:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

This kind of article is vastly interdisciplinary, which makes it very difficult for one person to write. And, unfortunately, people from each discipline will bring in their own bias and misconceptions, and will especially insist that their material be covered in depth. Opening it up for peer review—although a very important step!—will be opening a massive can of worms. Not only will you get a few experts in the various subtopics, but you will get a ton of feedback from non-experts who will offer even more widely variable suggestions/changes. Just don't let yourself burn out on it. I'll be there to support you. For me, though, I will have many suggestions about the evolution and general biology sections, as well as the structure, balance, and general content. Having written Lemur (though still needing to write several subtopic articles), I feel I've learned a lot about writing articles for broad topics like this. Hopefully that will come in handy here. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

One advantage of not being an expert is I have fewer biases regarding what should be in the article! I think I'll try to patch it up as best I can (mostly fixing up weaker sourcing) for the next couple weeks and then send it to PR to get more eyes on it. I'm not worried about burnout, I have many stress-free fungus articles I can hide in if necessary :) Looking forward to your suggestions and direction when the time comes. Sasata (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem. (And in case you didn't notice yet, I just changed my name.) – Maky « talk » 20:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again!

For the main page featured, featured psilocybin! Jesanj (talk) 16:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure! Its main page appearance resulted in some improvements, which is always nice. Sasata (talk) 00:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Lycoperdon perlatum

I have put my name down to do a GA review of Lycoperdon perlatum. Before I did so, I read the article through and decided that my task was unlikely to be too difficult. I looked up the species in my "Blandford: Mushrooms and Toadstools in Colour", because I thought that what I call the common puffball in the UK must be a different species. I see however that it is in fact the same species. It is also in my "A Handbook of Mushrooms" by Helen Watney-Kaczerova which is translated from a Czech language book so it seems to occur across Europe, and this is not mentioned in the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking up the review. I guess the sources I used didn't mention European distribution (I have mostly North American field guides); mention it in your review, and I'll add that in this weekend. Sasata (talk) 14:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

source for adnate gills

Hi Sasata - Thanks for the note. I'm frankly not certain of which guide it was I used. But, you can use the Simon and Schuster's Guide to Mushrooms edited by Lincoff as a reference. It has an appropriate illustration in the glossary. Cheers and good luck with the FA. de Bivort 00:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:FOUR for Boletus frostii

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Boletus frostii. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for creating such high quality content. You are quite a standout at WP:FOUR with 25 promoted articles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Common Tern

Hi, you've been kind enough to review my FACs in the past. This one seems to be slow in attracting reviewers as it descends the list, I wonder if I could impose on your good nature to cast a beady eye over it? thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure, it was on my list ... I'll be there soon. Sasata (talk) 15:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I think I've fixed everything, but I've just noticed, somewhat belatedly, that you need to sign your comments. I didn't spot it before because I knew who it was (: Thanks again Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Charles Thom

The DYK project (nominate) 22:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry

About the missing italics. [5] Graham Colm (talk) 18:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

No apologies needed for formatting mistakes ... or I'd be spending much of my time here writing sorry notes myself :) Sasata (talk) 18:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

GA review

I want to ask your advice. I took on the GA review of Stresemann's Bushcrow and got in touch with the nominator to say that I was reviewing the article. However, he/she has not responded to the few comments I made. It seems to me I have 2 options. Either I can pass or fail it as it stands now, according to the GA criteria, or I could sort out myself the few minor points I raised, and after that I would probably pass it. What do you think I should do? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the nominator hasn't edited since 10 March. If the edits you think are required to pass GA are minor, you could make them yourself and pass the GA. Otherwise, I'd put the GAN officially "on hold", send SP-KP a note to update the status, and wait a week or 10 days for them to make the adjustments. If there's no response, you could drop a note at WP:BIRDS and maybe someone else would make the final fixes required. Regarding the article, in my opinion there seems to be a heavy reliance on just two sources (not necessarily a bad thing); I'd check to see if there were other sources that could be consulted. Sasata (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. In fact I have now passed the article having dealt with the small number of points I had raised. I found that the nominator was not the same person as the original author, Rufous-crowned Sparrow, who does not seem to have been editing recently. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

FAC for A Free Ride

Hello, I came here after an advice in my talk page that you could help in determining FAC. If you have time, would you be interested in reviewing this article to determine whether all the sources available on this topic have examined. Thank you! --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 03:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to drop by and have a look (no guarantees). Sasata (talk) 16:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Polysphondylium pallidum

An editor, Sgsfdhd, who probably knows a lot more about slime moulds than I do, disputes a particular fact in the article I wrote, Polysphondylium pallidum. He first edited what was there and has since removed a whole chunk of the article. I think this is a pity but do not want to revert his action and get into an edit war so I wondered if you could apply your expertise as to whether the information concerned should be in the article or not. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I find slime moulds fascinating (and hope to write about a few of them some day), but unfortunately cannot claim to have any sort of expertise in them, so Sgsfdhd probably knows a lot more than me too. Sorry, I can't really help here without doing background reading. Sasata (talk) 16:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect id

Hello Sasata. Would you mind responding to this? (stating that "This photo is incorrectly identerfyed Arcyria nutans. It should be Fuligo septica.") -- JeffreyBillings (talk) 08:51, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks like that discussion has been moved to Commons, but FWIW I agree with the IP. Sasata (talk) 14:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Callistosporium vinosobrunneum

Rschen7754 00:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Marasmiellus hapuuarum

Rschen7754 00:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Marasmius koae

Rschen7754 00:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Mycena marasmielloides

Rschen7754 00:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Pleurocybella ohiae

Rschen7754 00:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Nordic Journal of Botany

Hi Sas, are you still looking for this? I tried getting hold of it, but it has been moved to a swanky new lab who won't let me in to their library. I can try elsewhere though if you still want it. SmartSE (talk) 18:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Smartse, thanks for searching for this on my behalf. I'm still interested in the article (I think I could make Vulpicida and its species into a GT), but it looks like it would be some hassle for you, and for that reason, I'll just order it through my own library interlibrary loan. I was just hoping it might be available in a convenient electronic format, but I guess it'll be a while before paper becomes obsolete :) Thanks again, Sasata (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

No probs. That library is kind of scary so it's a good thing you can get it another way! And yep, it'll be a long time before paper is useless - well done for removing the FUTON bias! Could you take a look at this edit? It's about chess, which I have zero clue about. All the user's recent edits are bordering on vandalism, so I thought it would be a good idea for someone more knowledgeable to check. Cheers. SmartSE (talk) 11:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

That particular edit is factual and fine (I have the source used.) Sasata (talk) 14:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for checking SmartSE (talk) 14:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

My library has hardcopies of that journal, but I can't tell which volumes without physically checking. I'm heading up there as we speak, so I'll take a look, but I can't promise anything! J Milburn (talk) 15:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Only '81-'88, I'm afraid. J Milburn (talk) 15:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for checking .... I've just ordered it through ILL. Sasata (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Sasata. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

-- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 23:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again

For your comments and assistance on George Went Hensley during its first (unsuccessful) FAC; after working on the feedback from that round, it passed very smoothly on the second try. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• You're quite welcome! Sasata (talk) 18:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

resource request

Hi Sasata,

I've uploaded one of the articles you requested at the resource exchange. You can find a link to the article at that page. Best, GabrielF (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 March newsletter

We are over half way through the second round of this year's WikiCup and things are going well! Grapple X (submissions), of Pool B, is our highest overall scorer thanks to his prolific writings on television and film. In second place is Pool H's Cwmhiraeth (submissions), thanks primarily to work on biological articles, especially in marine biology and herpetology. Third place goes to Pool E's Casliber (submissions), who also writes primarily on biology (including ornithology and botany) and has already submitted two featured articles this round. Of the 63 contestants remaining, 15 (just under a quarter) have over 100 points this round. However, 25 are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly. 32 contestants, the top two from each pool and the 16 next-highest scorers, will advance to round 3.

Congratulations to Matthewedwards (submissions), whose impressive File:Wacht am Rhein map (Opaque).svg became the competition's first featured picture. Also, congratulations to 12george1 (submissions), who claimed good topic points, our first contestant this year to do so, for his work on Wikipedia:Featured topics/1982 Atlantic hurricane season. This leaves featured topics and featured portals as the only sources of points not yet utilised. However, as recent statistics from Miyagawa (submissions) show, no source has yet been utilised this competition to the same extent it has been previously!

It has been observed that the backlogs at good article candidates are building up again. While the points for good article reviews will be remaining constant, any help that can be offered keeping the backlog down would be appreciated. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

An award for you

Golden Wiki Award In recognition of all the work you’ve done lately! 66.87.2.193 (talk) 16:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

POTD notification

POTD

Hi Sasata,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Xanthoria elegans 97571 wb1.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on April 6, 2012. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2012-04-06. —howcheng {chat} 22:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 7

Hi. When you recently edited Entrophospora, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Emendation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Tammar wallaby genome

Hi, Sasata. LittleJerry asked me to check a few sources for potential inclusion in "Tammar wallaby". Please comment here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Modest Barnstar
		You are among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this past month! 66.87.7.204 (talk) 00:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)