User talk:Sasata/Archive 20

DYK for Boletus torosus

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 00:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Tylopilus felleus

I've begun a review for Tylopilus felleus and have a quick question for you on the review page. Thanks for your contributions to this very fine article. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		For your contributions to bring Tylopilus felleus to Good Article status. Thanks, and keep up the good work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

... and thank-you for your ongoing work in reviewing articles at GAN! Sasata (talk) 15:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Koala

I would like to add in information on the koala's nose and sense from this book. Do you think it is reliable enough. It is labeled as "juvenile non-fiction" but seems to be professionally written. LittleJerry (talk) 02:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it's probably best to stick to high-quality sources to avoid potential issues at FAC (I've seen objections to juvenile literature at several other FACs). I will be getting the Martin (1999) book and some other sources on marsupials this weekend, so I'll see if I can expand from those. Sasata (talk) 02:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you think we need information from this article? LittleJerry (talk) 13:37, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

That particular article might be too specialist for inclusion, but it's hard to know for sure without first establishing appropriate context by surveying the body of literature. When I do a Web of Knowledge search for koala, I get about 550 hits; I'll have to read through the abstracts of most of these to feel comfortable with meeting the "well-researched" criteria of FAC. BTW, I think you should put the article up for GAN, it should pass there without much difficulty, and will give me more time to work through the literature. Sasata (talk) 16:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

How's the lit review coming along? LittleJerry (talk) 21:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the article will be about 30% larger when I'm done. Sasata (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, can't wait! LittleJerry (talk) 21:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks like the koala's genome has been sequenced. May want to add this to your resources. LittleJerry (talk) 21:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that, but I couldn't find the original research publication (which I'd like to read). Will keep looking. Sasata (talk) 21:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I was informed by Peter Trimms via e-mail that the genome paper will be published no earlier than 2-3 months. Should be wait until then to nominate the article for FAC or just go on and nominate when we can and when the paper does come up, just add in information from it to the (hopefully) FA? LittleJerry (talk) 01:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we need to wait for that paper to come out (although we will certainly want to mention it when it does). However, it will probably take me another 2–3 weeks to add all the info I want from the lit review ... hope you aren't in a rush! Sasata (talk) 01:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I have other things to look at anyway. LittleJerry (talk) 01:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Would you be able to do a cladigram of vombatiforms. I could send you some papers with phylogenetic trees. LittleJerry (talk) 21:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure; what papers(s) did you have in mind?

I could send you some via email. You'll have to email me first. LittleJerry (talk) 22:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I probably already have access (or have them here already), just let me know the title and I'll check. Sasata (talk) 22:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Archer (1999) "The evolution and classification of marsupials" and V Weisbecker (2008) "Parallel evolution of hand anatomy in kangaroos and vombatiform marsupials: Functional and evolutionary implications". LittleJerry (talk) 22:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'll have a look tonight and see what I can come up with. Sasata (talk) 23:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

You can replace the taxidermy image. While you're at it, could you dropbox the Smilodon articles I post at Resource exchange request? LittleJerry (talk) 01:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks like those have already been posted. I added a cladogram from the more recent paper. What do you think? The caption could probably be more informative, and I'll probably blue those redlinks before this goes to FAC (I'm a bit OC that way). Sasata (talk) 06:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks nice but I think the caption should be changed to phylogeny of Diprotodontia with outgroup (whatever that group is called). LittleJerry (talk) 15:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Are we close? LittleJerry (talk) 23:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been distracted with other things. I'll resume the lit review additions tonight. Sasata (talk) 00:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Jerry: I'm getting close to the start of 2008 from the lit review (I've been working backwards from most recent). I think I'll do 2007 as well, and then more or less cut it off there as far as additions from current literature. For a big topic like this, secondary sources are better for more dated information. I found this recent book which seems like it would be a high-quality source for any info pre-2008. I will order it tonight, and it should get to me in about a week or two; then the next week after that I'll flesh out any areas where coverage seems thin. After a copyedit or two, it should be then ready for FAC (your Manta FAC will probably be finished by then). Sound like a reasonable plan? Sasata (talk) 05:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Alright, sounds good. LittleJerry (talk) 23:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Is the book in? LittleJerry (talk) 20:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Yup, I have the book in front of me; now I just have to read it! Hope to be done adding to the article, and ready for a final copyedit/prose massage in 1 week. Sasata (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay then. We'll have to come up with a game plan for Pinniped soon as well. LittleJerry (talk) 21:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you think some of the information in "Cultural significance" should be moved to "History"? LittleJerry (talk) 16:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Possibly, but we should probably wait until I'm finished adding info before we start reorganizing (I always underestimate how long it's gonna take me to get stuff done here...). In addition to more history, the Moyal book has chapters on the role of koala in indigenous Australian legends, trapping/hunting/fur trading, the koala in literature, aspects of conservation, and popular culture. So there's still lots to add, but I don't want to make the article too long, so must be judicious with this extra material. We'll probably need to fatten the lead a bit too after this is all added. BTW, how do you feel about moving the range map down to "Ecology and behaviour" so we can fit a list of historical synonyms in the taxobox? Sasata (talk) 18:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Eh, I prefer it being in the taxbox like in most animal articles but we'll see. LittleJerry (talk) 18:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Are we almost done? LittleJerry (talk) 00:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Almost ... How do you feel about splitting out a separate section called "Threats" that would contain the final three paragraphs of "Conservation status" and perhaps the final paragraph of "Health and mortality"? Sasata (talk) 07:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay. LittleJerry (talk) 10:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I think one problem we'll face is distinguishing "Threats" from "Health and mortality". Also which one do bushfires and dehydration belong? LittleJerry (talk) 22:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

It looks like that sentence about bushfire/dehydration would fit nicely in the "Threats" section. How do other mammal FACs organize this type of material? Sasata (talk) 23:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Man-made threats are usually grouped with conservation issues. I suppose threats by climate change would fit under this but do the papers link the droughts with man-made global warming? Perhaps we need a second opinion from someone like Cas. LittleJerry (talk) 23:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• <-- I tend to think the current organization is ok: "Health and mortality" deals with predators, pathogens, and routine things that may shorten the lifespan of individual animals (e.g. falling from trees), while "Threats" deals with larger-scale environmental issues that threaten populations or even the entire species, whether anthropogenic (habitat destruction, roadkill & dog attacks) or not (droughts, climate change). More opinions are always welcome, though. Sasata (talk) 23:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay then. But it seems that diseases can also threaten entire populations? Maybe we'll have to put them back, I dunno. LittleJerry (talk) 23:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, there are inevitable overlaps depending on how one defines the criteria for each section. I'll be happy to hear other opinions if it comes up at the FAC. Sasata (talk) 00:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

LittleJerry: I've more or less finished adding stuff from the Moyal book. I think the article could use another paragraph in the lead and a copyedit to smooth out any rough prose I've added since the last c/e. I'll try to work on this later tonoght (unless you get there first). Sasata (talk) 15:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay then. Also, now that I think of it, I think that the first two paragraphs belong in conservation and the last belongs in mortality. Is it okay if I put them back? LittleJerry (talk) 17:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, but we should then rename the subsection to "Threats and conservation". Sasata (talk) 17:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

When you add more to the leading paragraphs, I think you just add to the third one instead of making a new one. The third paragraph is short as it is. LittleJerry (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Jerry: I think the article is ready to go when you are! I have a few more redlinks to turn blue, but don't let that hold you back. Sasata (talk) 09:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay then. Ready! LittleJerry (talk) 14:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Wait on second thought, could you trim down the lead paragraphs. Maybe summaries the "human relations" section more. Four paragraphs just doesn't look right to me. LittleJerry (talk) 18:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I trimmed the new additions. Four lead paragraphs is normal for an article this length, per WP:LEADLENGTH. Sasata (talk) 19:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Lets get the show on the road. I don't know how to co-nominate it though. LittleJerry (talk) 19:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Just initiate normally and I'll add my name on soon after. Sasata (talk) 19:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 19:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• grey kangaroo is a dablink, and I'm not sure which of the two species are intended (perhaps both collectively?) ... could you check your source? Sasata (talk) 23:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

Thanks for your contributions to bring Boletus luridus to Good Article status. You and Casliber make it look easy! -- Khazar2 (talk) 06:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Khazar2! Sasata (talk) 06:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Speakiing of which, which bolete you feel is most ready for FAC? As an aside, I was musing on some other articles such as Inocybe erubescens and Clitocybe rivulosa (or dealbata for that matter), but each has some taxonomic headaches - one source questions the lumping of erubescens and patouillardii and another wonders about all ones like Clitocybe rivulosa/dealbata/cerussata - groan......Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll get back to you soon on the bolete question ... I'd like to do a really thorough lit search before I answer (but I suspect that neither are that far off). I haven't checked, but perhaps the status of the Inocybe is addressed in this doi:10.3767/003158509X475913. From a quick search, it seems that the Clitocybe would be easier to push to FA, as there's more sources and images available, but it would be good to get both to at least GA (I dream that someday the article List of deadly fungi will be a good/featured list). Sasata (talk) 16:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I saw that article before - essentially it shows erubescens as nice and monophyletic with itself, and doesn't mention patouillardii which suggests to me that the authors have no question of them being separate taxa at all. I saw the other in passing and will try and remember/find out what it was.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Boletus luridus was also passed at GA - how do you feel about that one (i.e. how much of a lookaround in scholar etc.). It's small but has come together well....Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Let me trawl through the 81 hits in the Web of Knowledge, and then I think we'll be good to go. (p.s. another good one to push to FA this year (bonus points) would be Phallus impudicus.) Sasata (talk) 14:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes, forgot that one...will start looking at it...just having a brief digression into rainforest trees....Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Update - the main remaining issue with luridus is finding something about its infrageneric classification, Section/subsection/stirps luridi, I spent some time browsing unsuccessfully - there is one mycotaxon article (but I don't have access to that - my uni is 2009 onwards only for mycotaxon :( ), but I might be able to get to the university library today hopefully to help with that....Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

What article did you have in mind? I had a subscription until recently and so I might have the issue. Failing that, I can source its classification to section Luridi using Snell & Dick (1970) The Boleti of Northeastern North America. I think the article still needs a bit of expansion with regards to the distribution and morphology of the various forms & varieties. I still have some more recent literature to sort through as well, and I always like to have a look at the historical literature as well to see if there's any choice tidbits to add. I'd like to replace the current "Features of Boletus luridus" image with a couple of nice closeups from here once the expansion is complete and we know how much room there is to play with. The similar species sections needs to grow too ... Sasata (talk) 20:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

this one looks holistic....agree with other comments.Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, all of the old issues of Mycotaxon are available at Cyberliber; that article is here. Looks like it doesn't mention B. luridus, but might be useful in filling out the Similar species section. Sasata (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Also Singer's book (Agaricales in Modern taxonomy) has a precis apparently Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Singer is never too far away; I'll see what I can do in a day or two. Sasata (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Thursday got very busy and silly....RL has meant free time has been patchy to say the leastCasliber (talk · contribs) 12:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Damn - best I can do for subvescus is "sub-" "sort of" + vescus "edible"...but it's a bit cobbled together....from my Latin book plus meaning for Russula vesca out of Persson...anything else you wanna add?Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Some additional micro details, a fatter lead, and some images. A nitpicky copyedit would be good too. I'll work on it today/tonight. Sasata (talk) 15:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, we're getting close now ... what do you think about (a) sticking a historical image in the Taxonomy section (e.g., 1 of the bottom 3 of here); (b) going with a simplified version of publisher location in the references–only giving the city; (c) adding a double- or triple image to the Similar species section. I'll be going to the library tomorrow and will be able to add anything useful from Singer 1986 then. (p.s. add Boletus luridiformis/B. erythropus to the "To do" list....) Sasata (talk) 05:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I have Singer with me now (well, his book), but there's nothing more to add than is already there. Sasata (talk) 02:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay - been busy and a bit cold/flu-ey as well (amazing how that compromises one's ability to be finicky/discerning!) I like the Schmalfuß image best, the Sowerby one looks plain weird! NB: love the german name Netzstieliger Hexen-Röhrling. There are lots of similar species, so I am a bit take-it-or-leave-it on that suggestion (i.e. arbitrary which ones we include or not). City only in refs is fine. Agree about doing erythropus/luridiformis as it is a muddle - clarifying that would be good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The image at the top of the Description section has a large column of whitespace. Not sure what you had in mind there (inserting more images or making it horizontal?) so have left it. Not familiar with coding either. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, I didn't have any whitespace problem on my end. I think maybe there was an issue with a "upright" image underneath a multiple image, and so have tweaked ... is it any better now? Sasata (talk) 21:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Yep - fixed now. Should have more time to look/add tonight - busy ++ last few days.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Question now is, should we add translations of various other names listed there - primulicolor is too modern for my dictionary, and apart from the obvious ruber element, I don't have much for rubeolarius as such. Some of the others I can do....Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Good question. I don't think we need to add etymologies for any names that aren't used anymore or have been elevated to distinct species (e.g., erythropus or caucasicus), but it wouldn't hurt to have them there for the other ones. Would it be best to add the etymologies parenthetically (with citation) so as not to disrupt for flow of those paragraphs? About variety primulicolor, the source says "A typo differt pilei et stipitis flavoprimulae colore; interdum stipites passim rubro colore mediocriter est tinctus." -> "A different type of pileus flavoprimulae color of the stipe, and it sometimes blocks randomly colored red is slightly stained." What is "flavoprimulae"? (first yellow?) Not sure how much we have to worry about including descriptions/locations for the older varieties obscurus, rubromaculatus, and tenuipes, as these publications might be a hassle to get a hold of, and I haven't seen them used in more recent publications. Your thoughts? Sasata (talk) 20:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking it meant a yellow-flowered primula most likely. Agree with maybe prioritizing a few current only as the section could get very bloated otherwise. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The more I look at it the more I think maybe not worrying about any more of them - I've virtually never seen any of these varieties discussed outside where they were described, and the section is quite lengthy. If we do (say) primulicolor and not obscurus it will look a bit funny to the reader and require explaining as to why we've done one and not the other. I am tempted to leave as is.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. My sources for that article are more or less tapped out, I think it's about ready for FAC. Sasata (talk) 15:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

NB: If I get time today, I will try to get to library and see if there is anything in one of the big bolete tomes on Boletus badius or Tylopilus felleus. 21:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that last one went through pretty smoothly! I'll have a look tonight at these two and see what final touches might be needed. Sasata (talk) 21:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Today is looking bad free-time-wise - Tylopilus felleus is looking ok and well rounded now I haven't looked at it for a bit, Boletus badius might need a bit more investigating. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Guys why is "stem" being used in place of "stipe"? I really don't think that is helpful, they are anatomically different. Also, what do you guys want or need? I have access to a very large amount of Boletales papers, even some of the fundamental chemotaxonomic papers that are in German. Course, I cannot read German... Also, as I said above, Boletus badius is not a Boletus it is not in the Boletus sensu stricto clade, a.k.a. Singer's Boletus subsection Boletus. It's most recent common ancestor is the Xerocomellus clade. Obfuscateme (talk) 04:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Happy to use "stipe" - I thought Boletus badius was the current name as it is in the "too hard basket" - I wasn't sure that its position was clearly resolved. Getting the paper or papers which give that info into the article if they are not already there would be a good thing. Has anyone advocated a name change as yet? We are tidying up Tylopilus felleus and Boletus badius at the moment to get them as complete as possible to be Featured Articles. Had also planned to do the same with Boletus calopus and (given I am an Australian) Phlebopus marginatus...but this last one looks difficult. Would also like to get Boletus luridiformis more complete, including exaclty why we can't call it B. erythropus any more. All input much appreciated ... Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Boletus badius eh, Just depends on what Boletogist you ask what term they prefer. The most current name is Xerocomus badius By Sutara 2008, Xerocomus s.l. That said, it is much in a clade with they type of Xerocomellus. That said, I think it may be a separate genus, but we don't have the sampling. In the "Xerocomellus" there are three distinct lineages, the badius lineage containing Boletus pallidus as well; the core Xerocomellus clade containing the type, Xerocomellus chrysenteron, and Xerocomellus rubellus. At the moment, all I would be willing to say is that they are more related to each other that any other member of the Boletacea. I'll look into the luridiforms/erythropus issue. Obfuscateme (talk) 04:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Sigh - mycobank and index fungorum are sitting with Boletus badius at the moment as it is not close to the other Xerocomuses - and no-one has published Xerocomellus badius as yet. One thing that takes a bit of getting used to at wikipedia is the no original research rule - it is supposed to reflect current knowledge. Best we can do is go into as much detail of its phylogenetic placement as possible, and it is great to have someone knowledgeable here to make sense of the phylogenetic porridge that is Boletus/Tylopilus etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

It has been published now, but it isn't related to Xerocomus despite the name. M.E.Nuhn (talk) 19:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Ummm....you mean Xerocomellus badius ..... that 2013 article is great.....PS: can any old names be resurrected for all the red-pored boleti? Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

badius has not been placed in Xerocomellus. We show that it is closely related to the type species of Xerocomellus in Phylogenetic overview of the Boletineae, but did not make comb. nov. As of the best phylogenies we have right now, I would guess no (in regards of resurrecting old names), they are not in a single clade. At this point though, it is way too early to say anything, we just don't have the sampling.M.E.Nuhn (talk) 13:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

ok thanks for that - interesting looking through old genus names - Rostkovites, Ixocomus and Viscipellis have either Suillus luteus or granulatus as their types.....Dictyopus has B. edulis, but Tubiporus has B. luridus which could be interesting....Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Many of the old names comprise groups of species that have now been shown to be so distantly related that I doubt we will see many old names coming back. For instance, Smith and Thiers's The Boletes of Michigan place Boletinellus merulioides in Gyrodon, but now we know that Boletinellus merulioides is in the Sclerodermatineae and the type of Gyrodon, G. lividus, is in the Boletineae. For instance, Ixocomus has had Aureoboletus, Boletus, Suillus, Chalciporus and Paragyrodon. M.E.Nuhn (talk) 03:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

True - as far as I know Tubiporus has been entirely synonymized - and as it has B. luridus as the type, is available and would presumably have priority for whatever clade has Boletus luridus in it (as long as it was validly published in the first place....) Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Not sure about B. luridus having priority. Some of the clades have multiple sections inside them. So, if the type species of two or more sections fall into the same clade... Basically, we just don't know enough due to lack of sampling if the sections will work out or not. Well, that is a lie, we know that they will not all be clades as even with the small amount of sampling of Boletus there is in my paper there are clades that contain species from multiple sections. I don't recall the exact numbers, but I have like 30 or so of what I think of as residual boletes (Boletus w/o section Boletus) and that is maybe 11% of residual Boletus. It is actually smaller because of the number species that are hard to find info about (tropical boletes). — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.E.Nuhn (talk • contribs) 19:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

(belatedly) I'd wager B. luridus and the available genus name Tubiporus will be the oldest available in the dupainii clade (presuming the European luridus slots in there) - it is an interesting exercise figuring that one out :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

NB: Have added a sentence incorporating 2013 study into all four taxa we've been buffing (and a few more too). I reckon T. felleus is ready to roll.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Right - now that one is nearing its star, how do you feel about Boletus badius - the 2013 Nuhn etc al paper helped give it some location in the shemozzle that is the boletineae ...or buff up Boletus calopus to GA...or leave for a bit until Koala is a bit more processed...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's do both, but buff up badius first so it's ready to go @ FAC. I'll scour the literature again over the next week to make sure there isn't anything we've missed. Sasata (talk) 07:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

ok, sounds like a plan. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Updating - I just rejigged part of a sentence to remove any possibility of generalisation from a source....but it leaves the second part of the sentence. Can you clarify from the source for Rogers 2012 some details (otherwise it looks like they were done in scotland too...)? After that...ready to roll..? cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:34, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I changed it to this. Rogers 2012 doesn't mention from where the study originated. Overall, I'm generally satisfied with the comprehensiveness criterion, and think it's about ready for FAC (though would be happy if you checked the prose carefully for any clangers I may have left in there). Sasata (talk) 05:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Yep - I just saw your edits while on a smartphone. I will make one or two tweaks then we're off I think. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and nominated the next one - looked though some books at the library - nothing more I could see to add. It's small and looks pretty tight to me so anything that crops up should be quickly remediable...Apologies if I was too hasty...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 17:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't mind at all ;) Sasata (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Given we have a boletales expert active at present, it seems like a good time to capitalise on this and buff some more of these to GA/FA - just looking, Chalciporus piperatus seems to be nice and solid at present and a good bet for least improving needed for GA, but Boletus luridiformis, Xerocomus subtomentosus and Boletus torosus are other options which come to mind. I am sure there are others as well - ''Boletus would be good to at least clarify and note about the sensu stricto core boletes or something. Xerocomellus chrysenteron is aanother...anyway, I find the best deciding factor is enthusiasm at any one time. I'd be happy to attack any of these - do you have a strong hankering for any particular one? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Boletus torosus is pretty close to GA, we could add final touches to that and send it off to GAN soon. Chalciporus piperatus needs a bit more work, but shouldn't be far behind. Boletus luridiformis would be nice to work up to FAC in time for the final round, but we'll have to sandbox it to ensure DYKability. I'm game for all of these but won't be able to spend much time for another week. Sasata (talk) 08:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay - I buffed up a lead for Boletus torosus - if you're pretty sure we got all sources possible for it, I reckon it is about ready for GA nom. I am intrigued by Chalciporus piperatus and can nose around for some sources over the next week or so - it's also interesting because of where it sits taxonomically. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Update - bit tricky as we are rearranging furniture and I had to climb over boxes etc. to get to my bookshelves, but have scraped books for info on Chalciporus piperatus (pretty much got all I can out, so now it's for journals. Did a bit for Xerocomus subtomentosus and Xerocomellus chrysenteron but could do more for them if you feel a hankering for buffing them now. No need to hurry back as I have lots of cicada stuff (I have been finding these critters over the summer and was pleased that an expert has IDed some photos), birds, astronomy etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I will have some time over the next week or three and will work on all of these as time permits (Pinniped and a few others are also waiting for me!) Sasata (talk) 21:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

NB: have asked M.E.Nuhn to take a look at the peppery chalcipore (may as well give it a new common name ;)) - do you think there's anything else to do on torosus? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I think torosus is ready for GAN whenever you are; piperatus is getting there, but the nine citations in that one sentence should really be looked at individually to see if they're all necessary, or perhaps to expand that sentence to a paragraph or two. Sasata (talk) 08:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok - bombs away then. I was thinking the same way about that nine-citation sentence - will see what M.E. Nuhn has to say as well. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I am musing on whether Boletus torosus should go through FAC - for completeness it'd be good but it is a bit on the short side, not that that's necessarily a precluding factor. What you reckon? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

It is a bit on the short side, but I'm not sure there's much we can do about that. For this last WikiCup round, I'd be more inclined to submit for FAC something that has a few more interwiki links, so we could scoop up at least a 2X bonus. Chalciporus piperatus isn't that far off; how about I work on the isotope fractionation stuff over the weekend and we'll see where we stand on Monday? I'll also start a sandbox for Boletus luridiformis so we can get that on the DYK/GA/FA path too. Sasata (talk) 18:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, sandbox started. Goal is 11935 characters (should be doable). You can history merge when we're done, correct? Sasata (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan - agree those few refs on Chalciporus piperatus would be good to sort and once done it can go to GA. The sandbox will be interesting to 5x expand. Trying to think of what else might be good while M.E. Nuhn is around and is knowledgeable about too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes I can do history merge - adding material from books but a little fragmented. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, piperatus is in the queue. Will continue working on it and luridiformis this week. Sasata (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

NB: Chalciporus piperatus GA now and looking good - anything you wanna look up before nominating it at FAC? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Nope – I think it's about good to go. Do you have a page# for ref#28 (Furher and Robinson 1992)? Sasata (talk) 05:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Damn - that will require another trip to the library :( - can't find that online anywhere either....hmmm. Wanna run with it anyway or wait for the page number. Trying to see what I can find online. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Do Watling & Hill 2005 (Boletes and their allies) say the same thing? Sasata (talk) 07:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I can't see that book sadly. All sources point to the Furer 1992 ref which I will chase as soon as I can. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd order the book, but can't find it on Amazon not on the CSIRO website ... if you're confident you can see it in a library visit sometimes in the next 4 weeks, it probably shouldn't hold us back. Sasata (talk) 01:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely will get it - I borrowed it before but was a little unimpressed by how much of it is in the Fungi of Australia book and how little was Tasmania-specific. Must have missed the bit on C. piperatus - ok will flick it up in a sec. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Cas: I need more convincing before I believe luridiformis/erythropus are the same species. This claim is cited to Phillips Mushrooms (2006) (which I don't have; I do have Phillips' 2006 Mushrooms and Other Fungi of North America, but these taxa aren't mentioned). They are given as synonymous in Bessette's (2000) monograph of N. Am. boletus, but without any justification. More recent journal publication appear to use the names independently. See also the listings for both in Index Fungorum, who think they are independent species, but some of the named subtaxa appear to be synonyms of each other .... all very confusing. If you're listening M.E.Nuhn, we could use some expert help here! Sasata (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes - I just noticed this on mycobank yesterday....am still in China for a day yet so time is limited and wifi highly variable. We can do some evidence gathering and ask M.E. Nuhn too...one thing I recall was that Persoon's description was considered nondiagnostic but it looks pretty thorough for 1795....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, the two sequences I have (B. luridiformis from the UK and B. erythropus from Germany) hvae only 2 base pair differences. I would be inclined to treat them as synonyms lacking any further molecular work. One thing I would say is that B. erythropus is not in America and what has been called B. erythropus in USA is not close to either of my before mentioned European species. I'll have to look into who first thought they were synonyms and why. M.E.Nuhn (talk) 01:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Cool/thanks! we'll wait for an update....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

In regards to index fungorum and the like, it is important to remember that those site typically lag behind and are not really an authority on nomenclature. Oh, the sequences I am talking about are nuclear large subunit and roughly 960 base pairs. The nuc-lsu is extremely conserved in the Boletaceae so it would be prudent to look at ITS, tef1, or rpb1. M.E.Nuhn (talk) 23:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

What do we do about photos and corrections?

The photo that is supposed to be a Boletus subvelutipes on this wiki page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boletus_amygdalinus seems to be a very odd specimen, if it is a B. subvelutipes at all. What do we do with this type of thingM.E.Nuhn (talk) 19:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

You could propose a replacement on the talk page, or replace it yourself. I agree the image quality is not great (and so it could be changed for that reason alone), but am interested to hear what you think is odd about it? Sasata (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Based on what I have seen and what other mycologists have called B. subvelutipes that I have feen in the field with, the stipe is too thin, the cap coloration is of the pore surface is not typical, the pileus coloration is too light, and the edge of the pore surface is more a yellow color instead of the more typical orange color. It could be a young or slightly atypical specimen compared to what is called B. subvelutipes in New England. I have some photos of specimens that where identified by myself and Manfred Binder. I'll dig around and see what I can find, I don't think I have them on this computer.M.E.Nuhn (talk) 13:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I've found some photos so as soon as I get around to learning how to put them online and the like. I have several photos of well identified boletes. Additionally, when I get a bit of free time I will prepare some images of the some microscopic features used, like what the different tube trama looks like, the cheilocystidia in Boletus edulis, and possibly the some of the other tissues and features commonly mentioned as characters.M.E.Nuhn (talk) 03:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

aaah, ok, what you do is try to log in at [1] with your wikipedia account and upload photos there. It's pretty easy - only problem is the copyright - you have to release them for possible commercial use. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not satisfied with my photos on hand, they are all in the lab. I will take new photos as soon as the boletes start hoping around here. I also need to take those photos of microscopic morphologies that I mentioned. Not sure if it will be helpful to everyone, but I will try to get them up for use. You guys should really feel free to put any Boletales question on my talk page or email me. Please don't expect a quick answer, especially at this time, but I will answer.M.E.Nuhn (talk) 04:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

2nd International emergency medicine GAN

Hello. I'm AmericanLemming. As you may or may not remember, back in late January/early February you reviewed International emergency medicine for GA status. I've attempted to incorporate all of your recommendations into the article, and I was wondering if you would be willing to review the article for GA status again. If not, that's fine; it seems that generally reviewers try to not review the same article twice. Anyway, Mjs15 is my older brother, so if we need to get in contact with him about where he found some of his information, I can do that quite easily. A reply would be appreciated. Thanks! AmericanLemming (talk) 21:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi AmericanLemming. I'm one of those who typically doesn't do a second review on the same article. I think it's better for the article if another person reviews, so it benefits from an extra set of eyes that can pick out the stuff I missed. That said, you've made some good improvements, and I think it has a good chance for a successful GAN. Good luck! Sasata (talk) 23:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Salamander

Are you still interested in jointly working on Salamander? It is relatively undeveloped (compared to Frog) and I think there is plenty of scope for improvement. When working on Frog, I made much use of a book I have, "A Natural History of Amphibians" by Stebbins and Cohen, and would propose doing so again for Salamander. If you have other priorities, I might work on the article for GA but if we cooperated I hoped we might go for FA. I was thinking of making a start on the article soon. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, let's lets work together to bring this to GA and then FA. I currently have Petranka, James W. (1999). Salamanders of the United States and Canada ISBN 978-1588343086 as well as a general book on vertebrate biology, Kardong, Kenneth V. (2009) Vertebrates ISBN 978-0073040585, both of which will be useful in filling in some background info. I probably won't get started for another week or two (need a break from animals to get back to my fungal roots!) Sasata (talk) 17:24, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Coffee

Thanks for all your work on this article! DMacks (talk) 09:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure! Still lots to do ... Sasata (talk) 09:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow I didn't notice this - I deleted my watchlist when it hit around 11000 and made it too long to load, so didn't see work on it - it'd be a great epic article to get to GA/FA Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, please join in ... I was thinking about GA, but if there's someone to share the workload, there's no reason we couldn't aim for FAC in a month or two. Sasata (talk) 14:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

ok - will be a long haul. I borrowed a couple of books on the history of coffee a few years ago when I tried buffing the article. I can head back to the library at some point and fetch them again...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll do the same over here and report back when I get some books. Sasata (talk) 14:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Your recent reverts of "one source" maintenance tags

Since the {{one source}} template is essentially a specialized form of the {{refimprove}} template, I fail to see why reverts of my edits that added the former template to articles that clearly deserved the latter were necessary. APerson241 (talk!) 17:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Rather than adding a useless template (it's obvious that the article has only one source), how about actually adding a source yourself? Sasata (talk) 17:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Review of Tintin in the Land of the Soviets

Sasata, thank-you for the good suggestions on your FA review! Please return and indicate your Support. —Prhartcom (talk) 18:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Precious again

featured pictures of funghi
Thank you for showing us in consistent quality the rich hidden world of funghi, in words and excellent images, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (28 February 2009 and 23 April 2009)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 175th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Boletopsis nothofagi

Hi! I have an idea that you are a fungus expert (if I'm wrong, please ignore what follows!). I wondered if it would interest you to look at Boletopsis nothofagi, which has been languishing on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English for a while now, presumably because no-one who reads that page has the necessary expertise (I know that I don't!). It's a poor translation from German that needs to be rewritten. I just thought I'd ask ... Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've have that page on my to-do list for a while now ... thanks for reminding me. Sasata (talk) 01:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Lactarius indigo

I have nom'd this at WP:TFAR, slot 4. PumpkinSky talk 02:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/August_8,_2013 PumpkinSky talk 22:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks PSky; I will update it and tidy it before then. Sasata (talk) 23:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

No problem. PumpkinSky talk 01:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mycena overholtsii

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Mycena overholtsii 333331.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 02:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Calopin

File:Calopin.png

Skeletal structure of calopin, from en:Boletus calopus.

Hi, sorry for the late response ><

Here is the picture: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Calopin.png

-- YOSF0113 (talk - contributions) 06:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks YOSF0113, much appreciated! Sasata (talk) 08:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your help with Social history of viruses. I was lucky to have a respected and gifted editor guiding and assisting me. Your astute observations and meticulous edits were indispensable. Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 19:17, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

It was my pleasure Graham! I look forward to seeing your next FAC submission. Sasata (talk) 23:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

RfC

Hi, would you like to elaborate your rationale in the General Discussion section?--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 09:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Starfish FA

Are you gonna continue your review? LittleJerry (talk) 15:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Spare time has been tight recently (and will continue to be for another week or two). I'm also a little worried about the sourcing, and would like to wait for Axl to finish his checks. Sasata (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks like Axl is nearly done. Hope you'll find the time to finish your review soon. LittleJerry (talk) 19:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 July newsletter

We're halfway through this year's penultimate round, and the competition is moving along well. Pool A's Sasata (submissions) currently leads overall, while Pool B's Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) is second. Both leaders are WikiCup veterans, and both have already scored over 600 points this month. If the round were to end today, Miyagawa (submissions), with 274 points, would be the lowest-scoring participant to make it through. This indicates that participants will need a score comparable to last year's (573, the highest ever) to qualify for the final. The high scores this year are a testament both to the quality of participants and to the increased focus on significant content (eligible for bonus points) in this year's competition. So far this round, both Sasata and Cwmhiraeth (submissions) have made up over half of their score through bonus points, with, for example, high importance FA koala earning Sasata a total of 440 points (from a multiplier of 4.4) and high-importance GA sea earning Cwmhiraeth a total of 216 points (from a multiplier of 7.2). Other articles on important topics submitted this round include a featured article on the Norman conquest of England by Ealdgyth (submissions), and good articles on Nobel laureate in literature Henryk Sienkiewicz, Nobel laureate in physics Hans Bethe, and the noted Japanese aircraft carrier Hiryū. These articles are by Piotrus (submissions), Hawkeye7 (submissions) and Sturmvogel_66 respectively.

Other than that, there is not much to report! If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! 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 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) 23:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK RfC

• As a listed GA participant, you are invited to contribute to a formal Request for Comment on the question of whether Good Articles should be eligible to appear in the Did You Know? slot in future. Please see the proposal on its subpage here, or on the main DYK talk page. To add the discussion to your watchlist, click this link. Thank you in advance. Gilderien Chat|Contributions03:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

FAC: Trees (poem)

I have addressed your comments at the FAC discussion for Trees (poem) located here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Trees (poem)/archive1. Could you please review whether your comments have been sufficiently resolved as I seek to improve the article and to obtain support for this article's promotion to FA status. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I appreciate your assistance. --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Please review

Please review the table I have made here[2] and decide if/where it should be applied. I will also work on creating images of the tissue types I am talking about and release them to public domain (i.e. lateral stipe stratum, tube stratum, etc).>>M.E.Nuhn (talk) 01:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'm thinking perhaps it should go more-or-less as-is into Boletaceae (it doesn't really fit in conveniently at the moment, but there's room for lots of expansion in that article ... With respect to the four target genera, probably better than repeating the same table would be to give each column as prose (with appropriate layman explanations of the myco-jargon). Cas, any thoughts? (p.s. images would be great!) Sasata (talk) 02:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I have a larger table for the entire Boletineae (Boletaceae and Paxillaceae). It was published in the article, but would probably be best split into Boletaceae and Paxillaceae for wikipedia instead of kept as is. I'll work on some images/drawings, but MSA is in a week so I will not have much time until mid August.>>M.E.Nuhn (talk) 17:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia mentioned in slow loris research article

• Tickled to Death: Analysing Public Perceptions of 'Cute' Videos of Threatened Species (Slow Lorises – Nycticebus spp.) on Web 2.0 Sites, by K. Anne-Isola Nekaris, Nicola Campbell, Tim G. Coggins, E. Johanna Rode, Vincent Nijman

I'm not too happy that only I was mentioned (vs. the entire collaboration team), and that the mention was so brief and not descriptive of our work. I'll cautiously bring that up with her. But I wanted you to know about it, and I wanted you, Ucucha, and the others to know that they also deserve a lot of the credit.

How do you think we should share this with the Wikipedia community? I think this should be discussed widely. – Maky ^« talk » 17:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Alex. I think a Signpost blurb would be sufficient. I'm not too worried about not getting credit (wouldn't be hanging out here if I was!), and besides, I didn't have much to do with Conservation of slow lorises. Looks like a few of the slow loris articles need updating now! Sasata (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I mentioned it on their suggestions page. Hopefully that was the right spot. I'm not sure when, but I'll try to make time to update the articles. Interestingly, I'm not sure if and how an article can mention itself on Wikipedia. This might prove interesting since the conservation article is explicitly discussed, and it probably merits mention on the article itself. – Maky ^« talk » 17:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Boletus badius/archive1

Congratulations on the promotion- thoroughly deserved. I'm with you that the historical lower-than-species taxa aren't super important, and that's why I didn't withhold my support. If you feel that a comment like the one you mentioned could be added to the article, I could get behind that- I'm happy to trust your judgement. J Milburn (talk) 19:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'll do that, it might take a few days though. Sasata (talk) 01:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Starfish FAC

Do you wish to comment further at the Starfish FAC? I understand that Axl has finished his reference checks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes. My free time is sparse for the next while (guest at the house), but I'll try to continue soon. Sasata (talk) 18:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Xerocomellus

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Xerocomellus armeniacus

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

TFA

I have nominated koala at [{WP:TFAR]]. Great article!PumpkinSky talk 02:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Shroom ID

Can you ID this mushroom for me? Top:File:ShroomIDtop.jpg, Gills:File:ShroomIDgills.jpg. They were found in the same area as others you helped me ID: File:Mutinus_elegans_2012-09-03.jpg, File:Macrolepiota procera young 2012-10-07.jpg, File:Macrolepiota procera 2012-10-07.jpg, and File:Macrolepiota procera gills 2012-10-08.jpg. I'll send an email with more details. Thanks. PumpkinSky talk 01:44, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Yellow pores and blue staining reminiscent of Boletus badius or something similar in Xerocomus - perhaps M.E.Nuhn (talk · contribs) will know - he is an expert on boletales...and one reason why we're buffing so many. :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Cas, nice to see you. I posted on his talk and emailed him. PumpkinSky talk 03:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks like, Boletus aff. sensibilis/pseudosensibilis to me. They are a difficult little group to sort out. I am bet that stained with the slightest touch, and very rapidly? It lacks reticulation so I would lean towards pseudosensibili but if it has a curry or licorce (some descrive as fruity) smell it would me likely be B. sensibilis. What was it, about 3 to 5 inches tall, 2 or 3 in across pileus? M.E.Nuhn (talk) 06:26, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

If it's still there I'll go measure it. I'll also email you the same basic info I sent to Sasata. PumpkinSky talk 11:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Smell is nondescript to me. They just smell like a shroom, no fruit, licorice, or curry smell that I can tell. The one I took a pic of is the biggest, if the stipe were straight it'd be about 4.5" tall, but as is it is about 3.5" high and 3" wide. All to one side of it are more of them. The whole group is in a circle no more than 18"-24" wide. The one big one is off by itself. There are two other groups in that same circle, one with two of them, one with 4 of them. In both of those groups the biggest is about two inches high and wide. It stains almost instantly when you put any pressure on it at all. It also has a yellow-tan slightly sticky fluid in the gills. So would you say B. pseudosensibilis ? PumpkinSky talk 13:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

B. pseudosensibilis? PumpkinSky talk 18:41, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, better start expanding that one for a DYK then....actually both of them as the interesting hook would be the smell to distinguish them :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

B. pseudosensibilis. I can help but I'd like Nuhn to confirm that it is B. pseudosenisbilis first. PumpkinSky talk 21:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

And here's another for you File:AiryShroom.jpg, taken in my backyard. This is about 1.5" high and 1" across. I've seen others a little bigger. PumpkinSky talk 13:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

That one looks like a Parasola or a Coprinopsis. Sasata (talk) 16:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, without a specimen or more info, I wouldn't call it Boletus pseudosensibilis as that particular fungi is in a difficult cluster of species. For now I would call it, Boletus aff. pseudosensibilis. As for the other one, I would say you need photos of younger specimens and photos showing the gills, stipe, etc. M.E.Nuhn (talk) 04:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

What does aff mean? PumpkinSky talk 20:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Affinity. Basically, if you see a name a person has listed as Genu aff. or cf. specific it means the person believes that there are slight differences, or the specimen is in too poor of condition to be 100% sure, etc. In this case, I am very confident it is Boletus pseudosensibilis, but I almost never list a name as 100% positive ID on just photos. M.E.Nuhn (talk) 03:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I will rename and tag appropriately. PumpkinSky talk 00:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

And next time remember to stick your nose in and smell them ;) ...but seriously it is an acquired art remembering all the things to check...bruising color changes, gills/pores. .Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I did smell it. See above, smelled like a shroom, not fruity nor anything else noticeable. PumpkinSky talk 14:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Starfish FAC

Hi Sasata, unless you're dissatisfied with the responses to your latest comments I was planning to close this shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: koala

This is a note to let the main editors of koala know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on August 16, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. 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 one of his delegates (Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs)), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 16, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The koala is an arboreal herbivorous marsupial native to Australia, and is recognised worldwide as an iconic symbol of the country because of its distinctive appearance. It is the only extant representative of the family Phascolarctidae and its closest living relatives are the wombats. It is easily recognisable by its stout, tailless body, round, fluffy ears and large, spoon-shaped nose. It is popularly known as the koala bear because of its bear-like appearance. The koala has a body length of 60–85 cm (24–33 in) and weighs 4–15 kg (9–33 lb). Pelage colour ranges from silver grey to chocolate brown. Koalas typically inhabit open Eucalyptus woodlands, and the leaves of these trees make up most of their diet. Because this eucalypt diet provides them with only low nutrition and energy, koalas are largely sedentary and sleep for up to 20 hours a day. They are asocial animals, and bonding only exists between mothers and dependent offspring. They have few natural predators and parasites but are threatened by various pathogens, as well as by bushfires and droughts. The biggest threat to their existence is habitat destruction due to agriculture and urbanisation. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Koala discussion you might be interested in

Hi Sasata!

I just wanted to invite you to participate in a discussion being had at Talk:Koala#Popularly known as a koala bear, I think not...

Regards,

--Forward Unto Dawn 07:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Pacific Swift

Thanks for offer to do source review, Aa77zz has just done one. Obviously you are entitled to do your own check, but I didn't want to put you to unnecessary effort otherwise Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:FOUR RFC

There are two WP:RFCs at WP:FOUR. The first is to conflate issues so as to keep people from expressing meaningful opinions. The second, by me, is claimed to be less than neutral by proponents of the first. Please look at the second one, which I think is much better.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

ununseptium

R8R seems severely out of time at the moment. Could you please give me some comments so that I can take it back to FAC? (link to 1st FAC) Double sharp (talk) 14:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

oh, and if you have time, I would greatly appreciate comments on my two personal FA projects: one two. Double sharp (talk) 15:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Replied at Talk:Józef Zajączek/GA1

I wonder if we have a chance to pass it today (the reason for hurry being that today is the last day of WP:CUP scoring :>)? If the unrefer orders are the only remaining problem, we could strike them out till RS are found. I asked pl wiki editors who added them for sources ([3], [4]), but no idea when (if at all) they'll reply (at least both of them art still active). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

No guarantees, but I'll try! (p.s. it would also count for points tomorrow) Sasata (talk) 07:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Million Award

		The Million Award
		For your contributions to bring Koala (estimated annual readership: 1,239,000) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Wikipedia:Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox:

This editor won the Million Award for bringing Koala to Featured Article status.

If I've made any error in this listing, please don't hesitate to correct it; if for any reason you don't feel you deserve it, please don't hesitate to remove it; if you know of any other editor who merits one of these awards, please don't hesitate to give it; if you yourself deserve another award from any of the three tiers, please don't hesitate to take it! Cheers and all best, -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I owe you at least one more of these. Sorry they're coming piecemeal; we're still building up the database.

		The Million Award
		For your contributions to bring Fungus (estimated annual readership: 1,026,000) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

This editor won the Million Award for bringing Fungus to Featured Article status.

Double congratulations on such an impressive body of work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 August newsletter

This year's final is upon us. Our final eight, in order of last round's score, are:

1. Hawkeye7 (submissions), a WikiCup newcomer who has contributed on topics of military history and physics, including a number of high-importance topics. Good articles have made up the bulk of his points, but he has also scored a great deal of bonus points. He has the second highest score overall so far, with more than 3000 points accumulated.
2. Casliber (submissions), another WikiCup veteran who reached the finals in 2012, 2011 and 2010. He writes on a variety of topics including botany, mycology and astronomy, and has claimed the highest or joint highest number of featured articles every round so far this year. He has the third highest score overall, with just under 3000 points accumulated.
3. Cwmhiraeth (submissions), 2012 WikiCup champion, who writes mostly on marine biology. She has also contributed to high-importance topics, seeing huge numbers of bonus points for high-importance featured and good articles. Previous rounds have seen her scoring the most bonus points, with scoring spread across did you knows, good articles and featured articles.
4. Sasata (submissions), a WikiCup veteran who finished in second place in 2012, and competed as early as 2009. He writes articles on biology, especially mycology, and has scored highly for a number of collaborations at featured article candidates.
5. Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), the winner of the 2010 competition. His contributions mostly concern Naval history, and he has scored a very large number of points for good articles and good article reviews in every round. He is the highest scorer overall this year, with over 3500 points in total.
6. Ealdgyth (submissions), who is competing in the WikiCup for the second time, though this will be her first time in the final. A regular at FAC, she is mostly interested in British medieval history, and has scored very highly for some top-importance featured articles on the topic.
7. Miyagawa (submissions), a finalist in 2012 and 2011. He writes on a broad variety of topics, with many of this year's points coming from good articles about Star Trek. Good articles make up the bulk of his points, and he had the most good articles back in round 2; he was also the highest scorer for DYK in rounds 1 and 2.
8. Adam Cuerden (submissions) has previously been involved with the WikiCup, but hasn't participated for a number of years. He scores mostly from restoration work leading to featured picture credits, but has also done some article writing and reviewing.

We say goodbye to eight great participants who did not qualify for the final: Piotrus (submissions), Figureskatingfan (submissions), ThaddeusB (submissions), Dana boomer (submissions), Status (submissions), Ed! (submissions), 12george1 (submissions), Calvin999 (submissions). Having made it to this stage is still an excellent achievement, and you can leave with your heads held high. We hope to see you all again next year. Signups are now open for the 2014 WikiCup, which will begin on 1 January. All Wikipedians, whatever their interest or level of experience, are warmly invited to participate in next year's competition.

This last month has seen some incredible contributions; for instance, Cwmhiraeth's Starfish and Ealdgyth's Battle of Hastings—two highly important, highly viewed pages—made it to featured article status. It would be all too easy to focus solely on these stunning achievements at the expense of those participants working in lower-scoring areas, when in fact all WikiCup participants are doing excellent work. A mention of everything done is impossible, but here are a few: Last round saw the completion of several good topics (on the 1958, 1959 and 1962 Atlantic hurricane seasons) to which 12george1 had contributed. Calvin999 saw "S&M" (song), on which he has been working for several years, through to featured article status on its tenth try. Figureskatingfan continued towards her goal of a broad featured/good topic on Maya Angelou, with two featured and four good articles. ThaddeusB contributed significantly to over 20 articles which appeared on the main page's "in the news" section. Adam Cuerden continued to restore a large number of historical images, resulting in over a dozen FP credits this round alone. The WikiCup is not just about top-importance featured articles, and the work of all of these users is worthy of commendation.

Finally, the usual notices: If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! 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 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) 05:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pycnoporellus alboluteus

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Pycnoporellus alboluteus you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Rcej -- Rcej (talk) 06:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Horse dung fungus deserves its due!

I'm having too much fun... ;-) Rcej (Robert) – talk 07:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lactarius sanguifluus

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Lactarius sanguifluus you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 22:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lactarius sanguifluus

The article Lactarius sanguifluus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Lactarius sanguifluus for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 18:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pycnoporellus alboluteus

The article Pycnoporellus alboluteus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Pycnoporellus alboluteus for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Rcej -- Rcej (talk) 11:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Roba Ranch

• Thanks for reviewing Roba Ranch DYK submission. Regarding your comment about "Location" section reading like driving instructions, I have deleted last 5 sentences from "Location" section. This was text that provided info on how to get to the ranch. Believe this should resolve concerns.--Orygun (talk) 21:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• Done, thanks for the reminder. Sasata (talk) 21:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool update

Hey Sasata. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Morchella rufobrunnea

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Morchella rufobrunnea you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Rcej -- Rcej (talk) 07:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Morchella rufobrunnea

The DYK project (nominate) 00:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Pycnoporellus alboluteus

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Acarospora janae

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Exophiala hongkongensis

The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Lepiota maculans

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Candida keroseneae

The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Tremella mesenterica.jpg

As you know mushrooms, could you tell me if this is properly identified? If not, I think we should delist the picture from FPC. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

As it's an Australian one, Casliber (talk · contribs) may be better placed. If I remember correctly, JJ actually found a university mycologist to help him identify his shots, but identifying from pictures alone is always going to be an imprecise science. J Milburn (talk) 10:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Ah. I'll post on Cas's talk page if he doesn't reply here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• The possible misidentification was first pointed out by User:RunningClam, who, based on his edits to many mycology related articles, seems to know what's he's talking about; unfortunately, he hasn't been editing recently. He suggested that the photo is of Tremella aurantia, and I recall agreeing with his id based on the research I was doing for the article Tremella mesenterica at the time. That's about all I know ... Sasata (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks, pinging Cas at his page now. Feels like the image should be delisted... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Damn - have no idea. Not familiar with this group of fungi. Would need to read up on it a bit. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Alright. I'll be posting the delist nomination shortly (not used, since we aren't sure of the identification, and if it's not used, there's no EV) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Harrya chromapes

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Harrya chromapes you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 10:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Tuber donnagotto

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Norbadione A

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Chess in Armenia/GA1

Please continue the review. --Երևանցի ^talk 01:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Harrya chromapes

The article Harrya chromapes you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Harrya chromapes for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 09:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hydnum repandum

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hydnum repandum you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 15:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Tubaria punicea

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sclerodermatineae

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sclerodermatineae you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 10:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Stemonitis axifera

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sclerodermatineae

The article Sclerodermatineae you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sclerodermatineae for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 17:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hydnum repandum

The article Hydnum repandum you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hydnum repandum for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 10:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Glutinoglossum

The DYK project (nominate) 16:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Glutinoglossum glutinosum

The DYK project (nominate) 16:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Tapeti

Allen3 ^talk 00:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Harrya chromapes

Allen3 ^talk 00:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Chalciporus piperatus

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Chalciporus piperatus you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 19:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Mexican cottontail

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Chalciporus piperatus

The article Chalciporus piperatus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Chalciporus piperatus for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 10:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Medical mycology education initiative

Hi Sasata,

I'm a prof at University of Toronto teaching a 4th year undergraduate course on medical and veterinary mycology. I have begun a class assignment to improve upon WP articles on biomedically important fungi. This is part of WP's Education Program, and my course page is here: Education_Program:University_of_Toronto/HMB436H_-_Human_and_Veterinary_Mycology_(2013_Q3). On it I've included a description of the project and a list of species we're hoping to tackle. Given your interests in fungi (and the fact that I'm using your articles as models for my students), I thought I'd give you a heads-up on our project and hopefully have you drop in and visit! Medmyco (talk) 22:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• That's great news! Fungi that don't make macroscopic fruit bodies tend to be mostly ignored on Wikipedia, so this should help improve the coverage of some important, but largely unseen fungi. I'll be watching the progress with interest. (p.s. I noticed you have Onygena equina on your species list; I have an article draft I'm working on that I hope to make "live" soon, I hope that doesn't mess up your species assignments.) Sasata (talk) 17:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Pholiota iterata

The DYK project (nominate) 16:05, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Ramaria botrytis

I nominated attractive Ramaria botrytis for TFA, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:07, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Did You Know....Pholiota iterata

Hi. I saw this on the main page in a section called "Did You Know..." and you seem to be the person that created it. Nice article. I enjoy the Plantae more myself. I enjoyed reading it. That main page section also says "From Wikipedia's newest articles". I like making new articles. They are mostly about Cucurbita. The articles I've made are on my user talk page. However, I do not know how the new articles get on the main page. Again, very nice article you created there. HalfGig (talk) 22:25, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi HalfGig, thanks for the note. Curcubits are great! I have a massive pumpkin growing the garden as well as several oddly shaped gourds that the kids are growing. It's easy to get an article on the front page: first create or expand article; next create a "hook" and fill out "How to post a new nomination" in the "create nomination" box at the tope of here. Fill out the required lines in the page that comes up, and Bob's your uncle. Further instructions/links here (and in painstaking detail here.) Good luck and let me know if you need assistance. Sasata (talk) 07:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, but my, that's a lot of rules. I am afraid that right now, the two articles I've started that would most likely otherwise qualify, Cucurbita fraterna and Cucurbita texana are some days to qualify. I'll certainly keep this in mind for next time. Thank you again for this information.HalfGig (talk) 23:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Entoloma austroprunicolor

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Entoloma austroprunicolor you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 18:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Entoloma austroprunicolor

The article Entoloma austroprunicolor you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Entoloma austroprunicolor for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 10:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Ping

Template:Did you know nominations/Clarke, Irwin & Company. :) The Interior (Talk) 03:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

This slow-motion nom is finally ready to close, methinks. The Interior (Talk) 21:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the review and good luck in the WikiCup! Cobblet (talk) 11:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• No problem, it was my pleasure. I've toyed with the idea of writing an article on one of my favorite openings, and your well-written article will serve as a useful template! Sasata (talk) 16:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mycena purpureofusca

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mycena purpureofusca you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 12:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mycena purpureofusca

The article Mycena purpureofusca you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mycena purpureofusca for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 21:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Pinniped FAC

Greetings. I thought I'd direct your attention to a notice I left for your co-nominator. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 18:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your thorough review! I've begun working through your suggestions. Sasata (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Caripia

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Red fox

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Red fox you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 09:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bothia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hemlock (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) 11:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Parsnip GAN

It never occurred to me to include you as a co-nominator for the Parsnip GAN. We had no arrangement to co-operate on it but I knew you had worked on it and I intended to inform you if the article was successful so that you could add it to your point count for the WikiCup.

We did, as I understood it, have an arrangement to co-operate over improving Salamander. I did quite a bit of work on the article but left the Reproduction section untouched for you to deal with. If you are no longer interested, I will probably finish it off myself (when I am less busy). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I didn't find enough time/motivation to do a lot of work on the Salamander article; it's a topic with which I'm not intimately familiar, and the background reading I had to do to bring myself up to speed was daunting (specially when there were so many easier fungus articles to work on!). Realistically, I won't have time to work on it until the end of October, as I still have dozens of half-written articles that I should prioritize. If you haven't GA'd/FA'd it by the end of the competition, I'd be happy to work on it with you after that. Sasata (talk) 15:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. We'll think about it again after October. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Clavulinopsis fusiformis

The DYK project (nominate) 08:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Guepiniopsis alpina

The DYK project (nominate) 16:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Hydnum repandum

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Mycena purpureofusca

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Bothia

The DYK project (nominate) 12:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Cantharellus zangii

Hello! Your submission of Cantharellus zangii at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! NinaGreen (talk) 21:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Cucurbita improvement

I was wondering if you have any input to offer here: User_talk:Chiswick_Chap#Cucurbita_constituents. Thank you.HalfGig (talk) 00:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi HalfGig. The only genus article I've moved to FA (that wasn't monotypic) was Cyathus, which has a section on "Bioactive compounds", but this was my first FA and looking at it now, I'd do things a bit differently. For Cucurbita, I imagine a similar section could be a lot larger, so I recommend sticking mainly to secondary sources (review articles and books). I'd be happy to give you more specific ideas that would help an FAC run if you put the article at peer review (just ping me, but I might be a bit slow until the end of October). Sasata (talk) 16:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

GA1 Parsnip and User:AfadsBad

I'm not going to continue the GA review until I've received the advisory opinion from WP:AN/I on how to proceed. If you'd like to comment, I've asked for advice here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Please advise. --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

No thanks, I'd rather just help improve the article. Sasata (talk) 16:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Cantharellus zangii

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Red fox

The article Red fox you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Red fox for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 14:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Red fox

The article Red fox you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Red fox for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 18:12, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Japanese serow

Thanks again for the very thorough review of Japanese serow, and the pointers to more sources. I'll likely be knocking on your door for more help, especially for PubMed sources etc. that I can't access (or understand!). Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Louis Charles Christopher Krieger

Gatoclass (talk) 00:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Cabbages and things

In an odd coincidence, just 10 minutes after I supported Cabbage at the FAC discussion, my coworker came in and handed me a cabbage. He'd grown a ton in his garden, and was giving them away. A gustatory celebration? Don't mind if I do. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 12:56, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

That is an unusual coincidence; perhaps the universe is repaying you, balancing karma, by rewarding you with an appropriate gift for your reviewing efforts? Speaking of which, thank-you very much for your thorough review, it's much appreciated. Let me know if I can repay the favor sometime by reviewing one of "your" articles. Sasata (talk) 15:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Boletus subluridellus

The DYK project (nominate) 16:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Help test better mass message delivery

Hi. You're being contacted as you've previously used global message delivery (or its English Wikipedia counterpart). It doesn't feel so great to be spammed, does it? ;-)

For the past few months, Legoktm has built a replacement to the current message delivery system called MassMessage. MassMessage uses a proper user interface form (no more editing a /Spam subpage), works faster (it can complete a large delivery in minutes), and no longer requires being on an access list (any local administrator can use it). In addition, many tiny annoyances with the old system have been addressed. It's a real improvement! :-)

You can test out MassMessage here: testwiki:Special:MassMessage. The biggest difference you'll likely notice is that any input list must use a new {{#target:}} parser function. For example, {{#target:User talk:Jimbo Wales}} or {{#target:User talk:Jimbo Wales|test2.wikipedia.org}}. For detailed instructions, check out mw:Help:Extension:MassMessage.

If you find any bugs, have suggestions for additional features, or have any other feedback, drop a note at m:Talk:MassMessage. Thanks for spamming! --MZMcBride (talk) 05:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bothia

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bothia you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Reid,iain james -- Reid,iain james (talk) 14:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pulveroboletus ravenelii

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Pulveroboletus ravenelii you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 22:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)