Jump to content

User talk:Sasata/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

WP:FOUR

I was just visiting WP:WBFAN and noticed that you have not nominated any WP:FOURs in a while. Could you please determine if Suillus spraguei, Dendrocollybia, Geastrum quadrifidum or Suillus brevipes is eligible.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment

I have proposed the renaming of a category, and wanted to know if you would consider commenting on the proposed renaming over at that link. ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 04:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Wiley question

Do you get access to [1] or [2]? It's repeatedly saying to me that "Sorry an error has occurred". I already got the full text and am looking for the supplementary info so I can make nice maps. Ucucha 15:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I get the same error message as you whether I clink the links provided or if I access through my university account. Sasata (talk) 15:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks; I'll write to Wiley to let them know. Ucucha 16:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Re:Much mush pics

I noticed how good a photographer he was with your article on Mycena adonis; it's a shame they're that little bit downsampled, which wouldn't go down well at FPC. Definitely agree that more of them on Wikipedia could only be a good thing. That said, I absolutely love this one and this one; it'd be a sad thing if they failed FPC. J Milburn (talk) 22:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Slow loris progress

Let me know when you've got a respectable portion of the "Behavior" section of the Slow Loris article done. I was initially thinking that there wouldn't be enough new information to give us a chance at DYK, but given what I'm hitting with the "Conservation" the "Evolutionary history" sections, I we may be able to pull it off. I was going to just work directly on the article today, but now I'm going to hold off for you. (Please note, Rlendog has also been working on part of that section, and his work can be found here.) I'll post back once I have my Sandbox up and running. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

By the way, Ucucha wasn't able to access this article, so I'm hoping you can. Can you get the following and email it to me at Gmail (same account name)? – VisionHolder « talk » 19:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Osman Hill, W.C. (1953). "Early records of the Slender Loris and its allies". Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London. 123 (1): 43–47. doi:10.1111/j.1096-3642.1953.tb00153.x. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

If you don't mind, that would be great! Thanks! – VisionHolder « talk » 20:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, were you planning to do any work on the Javan Slow Loris article tonight? I'm trying to decide what I should work on. I've got a ton to deal with for the "Conservation" and and "Evolution" sections, but the Javan slow loris needs more attention before it can go DYK (IMO). Just let me know if you plan to work on it or not, if possible. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Ok. I'll take a crack at the Javan after the Bornean is up to speed (i.e., more or less DYK-ready). I'll also prepare a cladogram based on this molecular work that we'll be able to use in all of the species and genus articles. Sasata (talk) 21:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Timm 1991 is chock-full of good info about its history, the molecular paper is worth another paragraph or two, and there's a bunch of other sources from Web of Knowledge as well. I think a 5x expansion is doable ... check in tomorrow! Sasata (talk) 21:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

By the way... what referencing system are we using? No one ever replied to my question on the talk page a while back, so I'm not sure what to use. There's the LDR system that I've traditionally used for the lemur articles. As you know, the benefits are that it keeps the text fairly clean of long citations. The other method I'm trying to adopt is what I have going on in my sandbox, where I list all the journals and books at the bottom, and then use LDR for other refs, while I use {{Harvnb}} to link the notes to the journals and books. Which do we want to go with? Although it's more work, I'm starting to favor the latter because, to be honest, I've historically been lazy about recording which page I got something from, and I probably shouldn't have been. Although it's a lot more confusing, it seems to be the best method... from what I can tell so far. Your thoughts? – VisionHolder « talk » 23:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Personally I really like LDR, and I don't mind your fancy system tl|Harv system. I was just planning to do them "my way" (i.e., LDR, and citing page #'s in short-form for longer articles or book chapters) and let someone like you convert them into the fancy format if you wanted. Sound reasonable? Sasata (talk) 23:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Sure, but it's really not that hard to do yourself. All you have to do is use "last=" and "first=" instead of "author=", as well as add the "ref = harv" parameter in the full citation. (If you use {{cite doi}}, it uses "last=" and "first=" already, but you have to add "ref=harv" to the generated ref.) Then instead of manually typing your note, you use {{Harvnb}}, which is really easy. Just see it's usage documentation. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I'm feeling adventurous, I'll try it out on one of the species articles tonight :) Sasata (talk) 23:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Hold on... I just realized that one issue didn't get resolved here. Are we only putting books in the "Literature cited" sections, or books and journal articles? Given that Ucucha likes to reference specific pages in journal articles, it might be best to do both. Otherwise, let me know what you think after you experiment. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I've thought in the past that citing specific page #'s for shorter journal article was overkill, but I'm willing to have my mind changed. Sasata (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't do it for one- and two-page articles, obviously, but I thought people were doing it for longer articles. That would then raise the question of where do you draw the cut-off on length? – VisionHolder « talk » 00:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

So I've been expanding the Nycticebus menagensis article offline, slowly working my way through the literature and have managed to get it up to about 7766 B (1250 words) "readable prose size"... respectable, but not quite enough for a 5x DYK expansion. Then I started checking online sources, and came to the IUCN website. The wiki article was a total copy/paste copyvio! I trimmed the copyvio stuff out, leaving the couple paragraphs I had added already about taxonomy/history. I guess the upshot is that it'll give us more time and make it easier for a DYK. I'll post my new version of the article in a day or two, but I'll have to first rewrite the IUCN sections in my text that were there originally. Now on to Nycticebus javanicus for a change of pace. Sasata (talk) 06:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Sleep time already. I'll add more tomorrow. Sasata (talk) 07:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Once you post your offline work for Nycticebus menagensis, I'll take a stab at it. I'm sure I have something that just might push us over the top. Thanks for your excellent work! – VisionHolder « talk » 19:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
And speaking of copyright violations, I strongly suspect that the "Anatomy and physiology" section of the Slow Loris article was lifted. It was added in one large edit by an anonymous user in 2009. I'm not seeing it in the sources I have, but I'm sure it's out there. If we can catch it, it helps us in two ways: 1) we can delete it, making 5x expansion much easier, and 2) it could act as a source for some of the basic info. I suspect that it was written at a time when the genus was monophyletic, if that helps... – VisionHolder « talk » 21:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
That looks pretty likely, I found zipcodezoo have the same text and don't reference the wikipedia article, which I would hope they would. SmartSE (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Doh! On closer inspection they look to be using our content without citing us... grr! I'll let them know. SmartSE (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't appear to be an online source. I've checked everything Google pulled up, and all of them seem to rip off the whole article as well. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Alternatively, if we can't find the source, could it be deleted since it's been unreferenced for so long... especially since we have a strong suspicion of it being a copyright violation? – VisionHolder « talk » 23:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I have no issues with removing unsourced text as preparation for replacing it with good stuff. Sasata (talk) 04:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
In that case, I'll remove it. (But let's not stop from trying to find the source!) – VisionHolder « talk » 04:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of John Murdoch Mitchison for deletion

The article John Murdoch Mitchison is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Murdoch Mitchison until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Referencing scheme

Since the conversation above is getting a little nested, I thought I would bring this down here for us to wrap up. I wanted to let you know that some things had changed since I had learned to use {{Harvnb}}, and I have since learned that the best route is to use {{Sfn}} instead (per this). Basically, it's the same as using {{Harvnb}}, but does not require reference tags, plus it auto-consolidates identical notes. That, for me, leaves only one lingering issue: Where do you want to cut off the specific page citations? Thanks to the changes {{Sfn}} brings, it no longer affects reference tag names and remains as just a minor detail. However, I would like to be consistent. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the techno-citation update. Tonight I'm going to specific page cite everything I add to the Nycticebus javanicus article (including respecifying the cites I added yesterday). Then we can step back and assess the final product and make adjustments if necessary. Sasata (talk) 02:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Sure, I think the Javan is at or close to GA-level. Give me another day with the Bengal, I'd like to trawl through my sources again and see if I can beef it up a bit. I'm also working on a fungus article in the background too (I seem to get stir crazy if I don't write about fungi for a period of time ... I'm so cool). Then another day or two after that I should be ready to plop down the Bornean. Also, in my travels I found this image of N. cinereus (=bengalensis); if you agree it's worthwhile, I'll screen capture it and clean it up with Photoshop. Sasata (talk) 04:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • It looks like you're doing a good job polishing it up. Also, nice find with the image. (In fact, there are some lemur pics in there, too! If you find more sources like this, please let me know!) I've downloaded the image already and will work on uploading it to Commons now. When I'm done, I will nominate the Javan slow loris article if you haven't already done so. After that, I'm calling it a night. My internet connection sucks this evening, and it's hard to get anything done. – VisionHolder « talk » 05:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Now GAN'ed. I've come across quite a few pics like that (e.g. lorises and other primates) from older texts at Biodiversity Heritage Library in the past few days; I'll start keeping tabs. Sasata (talk) 05:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you! Just keep sending them to me. Otherwise I've uploading the image here. Please look over the licensing, 'cause I'm sure I have it wrong. I also wasn't sure about the "author". Your thoughts? – VisionHolder « talk » 05:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I added some more info about the book, its publication location, and death dates of the authors. I don't think we'd be able to determine the real illustrator unless we find the original source (which I'm looking for, as it's the citation I need for one of those slow loris synonyms), but I think it'll be ok. Sasata (talk) 06:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

dang...

Was jetlagged and sleep deprived yesterday. Will get onto the note tonight. Ping my talkpage in 8 hours if I haven't added a derivation :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - will do! Sasata (talk) 02:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Sasata. You have new messages at Casliber's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DYK for Bengal Slow Loris

The DYK project (nominate) 18:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Ping

Hi, I've emailed you. Tony (talk) 11:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

If I can cash that JSTOR chit? (Please.)

Actually not for Painted turtle, but for Wilmer W. Tanner. Looking for this biography. Not sure how to give you my email, do I have to post it on the site here or is there some feature for private messages?TCO (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Kube

Sorry I couldn't find that for you. I have the full 1989 OED 20 vol. edition at home, and anytime you or Cas wish to access it, just drop me a note. On anything etymological as well. I'm glad to see the OED did resolve your problem. I hasn't resolved mine, which was to work out where kube is employed in Greek. I did a specialist course in Byzantine Greek once, but reading was limited to Procopius. A more refined search today just on the net (which I don't trust much) tells me that the word never survived in Greek except as a gloss in the late Byzantine dictionary the Etymologicum Magnum, though apparently Hesychius, that delightful gleaner of obscure or dialect words, registered it much earlier in the Byzantine era, again as a gloss. These provide the etymology of κυβάζω 'turn upside down' or κυβιστάω 'to sommersault'. It may be a dialect word related ultimately to the Indo-european word for 'pot' cf. Gk κύμβος. There's a κύμβη which has the basic sense of something hollow, a boat, or a cup or wallet., but that word has been suspected of being a loanword from Phoenician. Thanks for asking me, I like nothing mored than a challenge, esp. on things I should know but don't and need to mug up on. CheersNishidani (talk) 07:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much!

Hi there! Thanks for your kind help to me which has resulted into 2 of my articles, namely Amanita thiersii and Amanita ceciliae, are rated C class. I've also created a new template:

Thanks, --Sainsf<^> (talk) 12:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sainsf, sorry to be a drag, but please read WP:Close paraphrasing, and WP:Copyvio. Parts of the thiersii article are much too close to the original source (Tulloss's Amanita website) and really need to be removed or completely rewritten. I noticed the phrase "My collections have been in northern Michigan, under eastern hemlock and quaking aspen." in the ceciliae article... not sure where it's from (that paragraph does not have a source), so also check out WP:Plagiarism to be sure you understand the policies. Sasata (talk) 15:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Sources

Hi Sas, I'm writing about a rather funky bug but there are some sources I can't access that might be useful. Do you think you could take a look at my draft and see if you can access the Hebard, Urban or Roth refs at the bottom? If you can, could you send a copy to smartsewiki [ at ] gmail ? Thanks a lot. SmartSE (talk) 16:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

.com. I got the Urban ref, and am sending it to Smartse now. Ucucha 15:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Ah ok, I've re-sent the other two. Sasata (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks very much to both of you. All received. SmartSE (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Mycena arcangeliana/GA1

The Original Barnstar
For really going above and beyond with Talk:Mycena arcangeliana/GA1. J Milburn (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Aw shucks, was nothing, really... I'm just an agent of the fungi... Sasata (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Javan Slow Loris

Thank you for this contribution to our second decade of wikipedia Victuallers (talk) 06:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for a couple of things: the review you offered of Painted turtle, the support (!!!!), and moving our FAC discussions to the talk page. You really helped us out Sasata!  :-) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

That's three things, but who's counting? You're welcome, and good luck with the FAC (and the Turtle WikiProject)! Sasata (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Yey! NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Auriscalpium vulgare/GA1

Left some thoughts. J Milburn (talk) 00:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Status of species articles

Would you mind filling me in on where you are with the various slow loris species articles? Is Bengal Slow Loris ready for GAN? Is Javan Slow Loris ready for FAC? It looks like Ucucha added some stuff to Bornean Slow Loris about four days ago. Did you have more to add? I haven't touched the article because I thought you said you had a re-write coming. If you want to plop that down today, I'll go through my sources to finish it up, and then submit for DYK tonight. – VisionHolder « talk » 13:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Bengal is close to GAN-ready, I'll work on it throughout the day and it should be ready by tonight. Bornean still needs some additions, maybe ready by later tonight, I'll see how it goes (Ucucha's addition will be incorporated in my expansions). Javan for FAC? Dunno, seems a little thin to me, I'm not positive it's comprehensive yet (criteria 1c). Could you take a look through your sources again for that one, and I'll do the same after I'm done with the other two, and we'll reassess? Sasata (talk) 13:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Ok I'm done with the Bengal for now. It needs lead-lengthening, general copyediting, maybe a bit of reorganization, perhaps some reference-tweaking, and anything else you can think of, but in terms of content I think it's GA-suitable. Have a go and put it up for GAN when you're ready. I'll shift my focus to the Bornean. Sasata (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for clarifying. Technically, the toilet-claw is a nail by anatomy. I'm not sure if it's worth getting into in this article, though. Anyway, I'll submit for GAN shortly. Feel free to review my edits. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Sorry, still need further clarification. In the "Ecology" section you wrote: "(where the thumb and the first and the second toes have claws)". Nekaris sent me the author's proof for this book chapter, and although I see the rest of the material from that sentence, I can't find any mention of the thumb and the first and second toes. Should I just delete it? – VisionHolder « talk » 04:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Saint Croix Macaw withdrawn

Thank you for the comments. I had withdrawn the nomination already before you posted them, sorry about the work you did on it. I will add them anyway as they are good suggestions. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, that's too bad... I hope I didn't scare you off FAC. As I mentioned before, short articles tend to be scrutinized more carefully (well, at least by me), hence all the nitpicks. I hope you'll bring the article back for another go sometime. Sasata (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
No, you were very helpful and the sensible nitpicks are very okay with me. It was the fuss about the image. I am here to make the best article for the users, and currently the article will be better of not having FA because of that. I won't bring the article back, because the same fuss about the image will occur than. Maybe someone else will nominate it, that would be fine with me. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Challenge

So there I am, editing List of Agaricaceae genera, when I come across the fact that Bovista was originally described with only one species, B. nigrescens. However, everybody treats B. plumbea as the type, but I cannot find any nomenclatural reason for that no matter how hard I search... Circéus (talk) 06:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassadors

I saw the quality of your contributions at DYK and clicked on over to your user page and was pretty impressed. Would you be interested in helping with the WP:Online_Ambassadors program? It's really a great opportunity to help university students become Wikipedia contributers. I hope you apply to become an ambassador, Sadads (talk) 16:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Rhodocene FAC

Hi Sasata... in your original comments at the FAC for rhodocene, you indicated "more later". I am wondering if you might have any further comments on the article, thoughts on the changes made since the FAC started, or if you have made any decision to support or oppose the nomination. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ed, I'll have a look later tonight. Sasata (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Many Thanks. EdChem (talk) 20:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I think I have responded to all your comments at the FAC - thanks for your input. EdChem (talk) 14:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Bornean Slow Loris

Hello. This is a heads up that I nominated this article for a WP:DYK due to the expansion fivefold. Here is a link Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_created.2Fexpanded_on_January_22.--v/r - TP 02:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Re:Your opinion requested

The line "Re-publishing the full resolution version of the graphics (high-quality png and pdf), un-modified, as digital files for download requires approval from UNEP/GRID-Arendal (use this form)." worries me. I think this is one of those cases where the site would be completely happy with our use, but that doesn't technically release their content under a "free" license. Perhaps it would be worth contacting them and asking if they would be willing to release their content under CC-by-sa-3.0? They don't explicitly mention commercial usage (though it is implied) and they don't seem to like modification. J Milburn (talk) 08:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. That was exactly what I was thinking. I've sent a lot of emails over the past few days, and I think I've already emailed them. If not, I'll do it again. – VisionHolder « talk » 13:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Auriscalpium vulgare

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Myotis alcathoe

Hi, could you have a look whether you have access to any of the sources listed at Talk:Myotis alcathoe (except those already struck)? It's all obscure German journals, but perhaps you're lucky. Otherwise I'll have to write around to a few more of the authors. Any other comments on the article (which I'll submit to FAC as soon as I've seen all the sources) would also be appreciated, if you have time. Thanks, Ucucha 01:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Nope, no luck whatsoever, seems my access to obscure foreign-language journals is rather limited. I'll have a readthrough sometime this week and see if I can drop some nitpicks on the talkpage. Sasata (talk) 03:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Try asking User:Thgoiter, he's German and a regular over at WP:REX so I'm sure he would be willing to have a look for you. SmartSE (talk) 09:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you; I'll ask Thgoiter. Ucucha 14:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks again; I've received all the papers I needed. Sasata, are you still planning to take a look at the article? Ucucha 22:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I had forgotten... have added some comments to the talk page. Sasata (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Ucucha 00:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Four Awards (emphasis on the 's')

Here goes...

Four Award
Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Suillus spraguei.
Four Award
Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Suillus brevipes.
Four Award
Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Dendrocollybia.
Four Award
Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Geastrum quadrifidum.
Four Award
Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Sarcoscypha coccinea.
Four Award
Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Armillaria luteobubalina.

Impressive! (Especially Geastrum quadrifidum... new to FA in 14 days?!?) LittleMountain5 00:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Just had a lucky run with the reviewers on that one. Sasata (talk) 00:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's for 12 more FOUR awards. Cheers! GamerPro64 (talk) 02:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

And he plans on eating some of them on a big old honkin' salad while he works on the monkeys! ;) Rcej (Robert) - talk 04:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Mephedrone

Hi Sas, thanks for the pointers on mephedrone. I completely missed it on my watchlist when you posted it but will check your points out later. SmartSE (talk) 12:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh and congrats ↑. I might try to get onto that with Simarouba amara at some point. SmartSE (talk) 12:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Bornean Slow Loris

Thank you for your contribution to the wiki Victuallers (talk) 00:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Armillaria species

The article looks pretty sound, and it will probably mostly fly smoothly over at FLC. However, I can see a couple issues (mostly in the references, I can take care of those). One that I think ought to be addressed is finding a source addressing dichupella as a valid species: Volk takes no stand on it, and cites two authorities that both synonymize it under different Armillaria names. Circéus (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I had let that one live when I was thinning the invalid species because a 2010 publication used the name... then I read that pub closer and realized they were just summarizing Berkeley's finds! Thanks for making those ref fixes, I'll be sending it to FLC shortly. Sasata (talk) 02:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Since I'm in the process of editing it, I'll nuke your changes when I'm done and reapply them in a separate edit, okay? Also, I noticed a conceptual problem with the A. gallica, so please remind me to tell you about it later. Circéus (talk) 01:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, scratch that. I just noticed we are missing at least a mention of NABS X...Circéus (talk) 01:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I took out the small font size, but don't really like the look. Did we decide if the {{small}} template was acceptable? I didn't think NABS X had been officially named yet?! Sasata (talk) 01:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Since it's a well-known entity, mentioning it (as an undescribed species, of course) would be appropriate IMHO. Circéus (talk) 02:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Good catch on the misspelling of jezoensis... I had to stare at the two for 15 seconds before I could see the difference! Sasata (talk) 03:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually, MycoBank only has the spelling with a diaeresis, but without is accepted automatically IIRC. The issue I needed to note is that if you define A. lutea and A. gallica as synonyms (MycoBank has decided to lean that way too, treat lutea as the correct name), then by definition the name must be lutea. If lutea is a nomen ambiguum that cannot be definitely associated with a well-accepted name, then it is NOT a synonym of A. gallica (or, in fact, any other heterotypic name). As a result, our current A. gallica has a severe nomenclatural flaw by stating these two names to be synonyms. A better wording might be that most historical uses of A. lutea refer to A. gallica ("sensu" synonyms as one often finds them in the litterature), but the exact identity of the species actually corresponding to that name is virtually impossible to ascertain. Circéus (talk) 03:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, interesting. I wonder why MycoBank went with Jean-Sébastien Girard's opinion (based on his 1987 "Quelques remarques complémentaires sur les Armillaires annelées", rather than the 1992 Marxmüller publication, which claimed the original material of A. lutea was insufficient, making it a nomen ambiguum. So MycoBank's claim of synonymy is incorrect? I see Volk (1995) and Index Fungorum don't give lutea as a synonym for gallica ... Sasata (talk) 03:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

[undent, weeee!] Actually, "Jean-Sébastien Girard" is, uh, me. It's because I sent in the data to complete the bibliographic reference (I do that whenever I can). I didn't "provide an opinion": it was already like that! Circéus (talk) 04:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, lol! Please amend A. gallica as you see fit, taxonomy makes my head hurt... I'm glad you're here watching my back! Sasata (talk) 04:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Apologies regarding the argument that broke in the nomination. As I said ther, I'll ultimately respect your resolution of the problem, regardless whether you think the accessibility is improved, or you just want to put a end to it. It won't change how I work tables on my own, but I'll edit other FLCs accordingly. Circéus (talk) 18:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Putting an end to it sounds like a good solution to me :) I have no idea about accessibility issues, the end result looks the same, and I'm happy to accept the advice of those who know better than me. Sasata (talk) 18:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The mysterious case of Mr Robert G. Benedict...

who authored a book stating that Entoloma sinuatum caused deaths - I've not seen this book, which bugs me as it is the source of information on fatalities which contrasts with other authorities who question its deadliness. J Milburn has asked about it and I think it'd be good to get more info on it once and for all...but I can't find any....all ideas appreciated... :( Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't have access to that book. I've looked around myself, and haven't found any confirmation that the mushroom causes fatalities. The Bresinsky & Besl citation cites a paper that suggested the presence of vinylglycine in the mushroom (and which might be a further source of info about toxicity), but the Google books preview doesn't show me the page which lists the citation. Web of Science search for "vinylglycine + Entoloma" turns up zilch. Last-ditch tries: perhaps Ucucha has access to the book at his big library? Fire off an email to Noordeloos and cross fingers? (these world-famous mycologist types tend to be busy, but you never know...) Otherwise, you'll probably have to downgrade from deadly to run-of-the-mill(er) poisonous. Sasata (talk) 05:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
The book appears to be available at my uni, though in storage. I do not know how long a retrieval request will take. Circéus (talk) 05:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Wow, it'd be nice to clear this up (thx Circeus :)) - all sources I have read either deny it is deadly or cite Benedict. I agree that an email to Machiel Noordeloos sounds good... :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
What's the name of the Benedict book? It's a long shot, but I have access to a library too. J Milburn (talk) 10:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
It's this one --> Benedict, Robert G. (1972). "Mushroom toxins other than Amanita". In Kadis, S.; Ciegler, Alex; Ajl, S.J. (eds) (ed.). Microbial Toxins: A Comprehensive Treatise. Volume VIII. Fungal Toxins. New York, New York: Academic Press. pp. 281–320. {{cite book}}: |editor-last= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link) - the plot thickens (mwahahaha) Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Nope, sadly not it would seem. J Milburn (talk) 11:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Is it this? It looks similar but is 1970. I was going to go and copy some of this in a couple of weeks so could try (that's the right word!) and find that as well. I only have reading rights, but I should be able to get a copy of anything relevant. SmartSE (talk) 11:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't have access to that book, unfortunately. Ucucha 14:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I assume the date difference is because the volumes were not issued simultaneously. Circéus (talk) 20:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Got it. Turned out to be a misleading location. It's not in storage. Will get back to you on the contents. Circéus (talk) 20:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

(Undent) HE WON'T *insert senseless raving and ranting here* This promises to be a long bibliographic hunt, and this is my initial contribution. Benedict (1972) is a literature review, the relevant paragraph (on p. 309, BTW) is as follow:

[Taxonmic fluff about Rhodophyllus] Tyler (1963) lists six species extracts of which are toxic to Guinea pigs. One species is particularly dangerous, R. sinuatus (Bull. ex Fr.) Sing., and is said to produce severe abdominal pain, vomiting and diarrhea, and to incapacitate an individual for several days after symptoms begin. The agent in this fungus causes liver damage and has not been isolated. Deaths from this fungus are infrequent in adults, but children have been known to succumb.

Not very useful is it? Tyler (1963, PMID 14094714), it turns out, is cited almost verbatim (the relevant content is in table XIV, pp. 378-379, an extract: "Some liver damage may result. Death is infrequent, but has been observed in children."), and as this is also a literature review, I will stop at listing the citations for the content in Tyler:

  • Ford, W.W. J. Pharmacol. Exptl. Therap. 2, 285 (1911)
  • Jahn, H. Pilze Rundum OCLC 4358724 (1949)
  • Kauffman CH. (1918). The Agaricaceae of Michigan, vol. I & II. Wynkoop Hallenbeck Crawford Co., State Printers, Lansing, MI. 924 pp.
  • Michael & Hennig, Hanbuch für Pilzfreunde, vols I & II, (1958-1960)
  • Pilát & Ušát, Mushrooms (1954)
  • Romagnesi Nouvel Atlas des Champignons (1958-1960)
  • Smith, A.H. Mushrooms in their Natural Habitats (1949)

So, little, if any first-hand reporting, and it's not entirely clear to me whether the taxonomic knowledge of the time would have been accurate. Personally I say we treat the source as too outdated and unconfirmed by modern reference material. Circéus (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow, thanks guys - I sent Dr Noordeloos an email but it bounced :( I tend to agree with Circeus about sourcing as many modern sources have the benfit of more rigorous observation and deny observed lethality...so time to reedit methinks. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
PS: This is one of those feelgood moments where I feel we've actually acheived something not really clarified in the mycological literature to date (well, gotten a handle on all sources so far anyways). I need to sit down with all sources side by side and clarify whch says what to come up with the best consensus (should be straightforward but just nice to double check when I get all the books together in a few hours...). Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
That reminds me, we should make that List of deadly fungi a FL sometime this year... Sasata (talk) 03:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Wiley papers

Hi Sas (and stalkers) can anyone help Obsidian Soul out and provide copies of this and this for them to use in Belemnotheutis? If you email them to me (smartsewiki [at] gmail.com) I'll get them forwarded to Obsidian Soul. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 11:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you anonymous stalker :D SmartSE (talk) 12:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

FAC

Not sure what happened here? Somehow you added spaces between all the noms. --Andy Walsh (talk) 14:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed that too, it wasn't intentional! Sorry for the hassle. Sasata (talk) 14:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

This is why I link to botanists via their author abbreviation whenever possible :)Circéus (talk) 19:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm beginning to see the advantages of doing it that way (also saves space and effort too)... only took me a couple of years to figure it out. That Armillaria list worked out quite nicely, thanks in large part to your fine attention to detail. Would you like to collaborate "officially" on another list I've got on the backburner... List of Tulostoma species? I'm not even particularly interested in the genus, I just happened to sign out Jorge E. Wright's monograph last year and figured I should type up all the info before I had to return the book. It's quite a bit larger than the Armillaria list (over 100 species), but most of the grunt work is done, just needs fine tuning. Sasata (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Always up for doing what I can, but warning: these days I'm focusing (or trying to, anyway) on the botanical terms list in my sandbox (and possibly enlarging the mycologist stubs I just created for Armillaria). Circéus (talk) 20:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I've been watching what you're doing with that list, as I'm thinking about doing something similar for mycological terms someday. Anyway, I'll drop that Tulostoma list down in a sandbox sometime soon and we can tweak it as we please with no time pressure; I've got a multi-DYK hook in mind with several of the species anyways, and will need time to work on those. Also am planning a multi-hook with Greta Stevenson and some of the cool-looking New Zealand mushrooms that she described (...but otherwise aren't really interesting enough for DYK hooks by themselves!). And GA reviews to finish, and Slow Loris collaboration and and ... Sasata (talk) 20:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Good work on Stevenson! I skipped her because I couldn't find the appropriate sources ^_^;;;; Circéus (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Mantra-Rock_Dance/archive1

Sasata, thanks for your comment and suggestions on the FAC. I have tried to address them. Please see if you have any further comments. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Replied. Cinosaur (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Sasata, I've tried to include most, if not all, of your suggestions there. Please see if it is better now. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 20:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Sasata, these are the overall changes following your suggestions. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 01:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
And some more. Cinosaur (talk) 07:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Sasata, many thanks for your support following all your fine and valuable comments, which helped improve the article in ways I'd have never thought of myself. Left a comment there. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 03:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again, Sasata, for your review and suggestions leading to the FA promotion. Your input and eventual support were very much appreciated. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 00:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
No problem, glad to help out. Hope to see you around with further submissions at FAC. Sasata (talk) 00:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

List of Lactarius species

The hit-and-run editor strikes again! I tentatively grouped the three classifications columns into one, since I figured they wasted some space for little gain (they all work together, and a small summary of the "tree" will almost certainly be in the intro.). I suspect that working with 400+ species, we'll want to split it according to subgenera anyway, so it's more manageable. I'm mixed on the "common name" column. if we don't have enough, maybe a separate section would be good enough to give that specific data... Circéus (talk) 15:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Good idea on grouping the infrageneric classification into 1 column... why didn't I think of that? You're probably right about splitting into subgenera (especially if we're following the "give the protologue" format from the Armillaria list). Sometime today I'm gonna add all of the species from "Milk Mushrooms of North America", then it'll have a nice North American bias :) Then I'll probably lose interest and move on to something else. I've been thinking about getting some European literature, so will revisit in the future when the mood strikes. Sasata (talk) 15:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Should I implement section breaks immediately? Would make it much simpler to slip in the year and author columns. Assuming, that is, that you want to work those in too. Circéus (talk) 15:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Here are two useful quick sources for non-NorthAm species: Key to the European species of Lactarius sect. Deliciosi, Lactarius subgenus Plinthogalus of Malaysia. Circéus (talk) 16:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I added the NA species. Later tonight I'll start filling in some missing info (including authority/year), and add more species from those two sources. Sasata (talk) 16:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Johnstown Inclined Plane

Thought I'd let you know that I've finish replying to your comments at the Johnstown Inclined Plane FAC. Please let me know if I forgot anything. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 16:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I've fixed a few more things, as well as responded to more of your comments. Thanks, ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 01:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
More responses, added the footnote. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 16:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
More. Also, thanks for being patient and continually providing helpful comments at the FAC. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 18:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Re:Opinion

I'd vote in support- people may oppose because of the muted colours and the fact it's cool to hate mushrooms, but I'd say it certainly has a chance. J Milburn (talk) 00:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Cool to hate mushrooms?! What petty, unfulfilled lives. I'll write up an article sometime this week and give it a whirl. Sasata (talk) 00:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Amanita australis

Materialscientist (talk) 06:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Amanita nothofagi

Materialscientist (talk) 06:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Entoloma haastii

Materialscientist (talk) 06:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Mycena cystidiosa

Materialscientist (talk) 06:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Mycena minirubra

Materialscientist (talk) 06:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Oudemansiella australis

Materialscientist (talk) 06:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Greta Stevenson

Materialscientist (talk) 06:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

More on Osman Hill

I don't know if you're up for a hunt at the library, but we may find more about Osman Hill if we can track down one of the old copies of the Who's Who (UK). The article has the ISBN numbers. I suspect either the one from the 60's or 70's would mention him. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Could you give me that ISBN? I don't think it's in the WP article. Ucucha 00:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
It's in the references. It could be any one of these, although I suspect the latter:
Also, if anyone has access to this book, it might confirm that Jane Goodall studied under him: Ancestral Passions: The Leakey Family and the Quest for Humankind's Beginnings by Virginia Morell, 1995, ISBN: 978-0684824703 (apparently around Chapter 17, according to Leakey's Angels). – VisionHolder « talk » 00:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I can have a look at that one (link) tomorrow. No luck with the Who's Who ones, though. Ucucha 00:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! – VisionHolder « talk » 01:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I've added the information to the article. Quote: "So certain was Louis that he would eventually find the money [to have Goodall study chimps] that he had already sent Jane to England in mid-1958 to study primate behavior at the London Zoo under Professor Osman Hill, and to take informal primate anatomy courses from John Napier, the anatomist at the Royal Free Hospital." It goes on to talk about how Leakey was in love with Goodall, but was rejected. Ucucha 19:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Interesting—thanks for adding that! Did it say she was a doctoral student (as Jane's infobox implies)? If so, I'll add her to his infobox. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
No; this is all it said about Osman Hill and about Goodall's studies in England. Ucucha 22:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Also, Goodall's article says that she only got her PhD in Cambridge several years later. (Sasata, sorry for hijacking your talk page.) Ucucha 22:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't have access to the UK who's who books either. Sasata (talk) 02:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I assume the universities can't get it through an interlibrary loan? – VisionHolder « talk » 02:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
They probably can, but most libraries can do that. Sasata (talk) 03:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Most of the ones I know charge a fee, but I wasn't sure about universities. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

More mephedrone

Hey again. I'm almost ready for FAC now I think, but I found a couple of other papers which it would be useful to have a look at if you (or anyone) can access them. Glad you found that ref last week btw, I'm afraid I don't have access to anything anymore so wouldn't have been much use :(

  • Namera, A.; Nakamoto, A.; Saito, T.; Nagao, M. (2011). "Colorimetric detection and chromatographic analyses of designer drugs in biological materials: a comprehensive review". Forensic Toxicology. 29: 1. doi:10.1007/s11419-010-0107-9.
  • Wood, D. M.; Davies, S.; Greene, S. L.; Button, J.; Holt, D. W.; Ramsey, J.; Dargan, P. I. (2010). "Case series of individuals with analytically confirmed acute mephedrone toxicity". Clinical Toxicology. 48 (9): 924–7. doi:10.3109/15563650.2010.531021. PMID 21171849.

I'm not sure the article is well-written, but I've spent so long looking at it that I need some pointers! Thanks SmartSE (talk) 20:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done Both articles sent. I'll try to have another look through the prose in the next day; good luck in the snakepit! Sasata (talk)
Cheers! SmartSE (talk) 20:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you online?

Speak up quickly if you don't think Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Johnstown Inclined Plane/archive1 is close enough-- I need to get some cleared off the page, and there are only three that are close to ready. I'm thinking that one is good enough. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Whew, I'm back! Lots of trudging through for very few promotions, but I want to thank you (as always) for diving in on that one, which needed additional help. I didn't want to cut off your review, but neither did I get the sense the outstanding issues were serious enough for me to keep it running longer-- it seems like over a month is becoming the new norm. Thanks again for all you do! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
No problem Sandy, glad to help out (especially when I've got one of my own in the queue !) Sasata (talk) 16:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Suillus salmonicolor

FYI, I've nominated Suillus salmonicolor for DYK. Good work on such a solid article! Nyttend (talk) 04:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I've offered an alt along the lines of what you suggested, but using the common name. Sasata (talk) 05:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Alt jiggy, peeps! ;-) Rcej (Robert) - talk 09:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

March 2011 GAN backlog elimination drive a week away

WikiProject Good Articles will be running a GAN backlog elimination drive for the entire month of March. The goal of this drive is to bring the number of outstanding Good Article nominations down to below 50. This will help editors in restoring confidence to the GAN process as well as actively improving, polishing, and rewarding good content. If you are interested in participating in the drive, please place your name here. Awards will be given out to those who review certain numbers of GANs as well as to those who review the most. On behalf of my co-coordinator Wizardman, we hope we can see you in March. MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 00:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Re:List of Armillaria species

Nice work! The mushroom flag now adorns a new frontier :) J Milburn (talk) 14:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Thanks, but lots of credit should also go to Circeus and his fine eye for details. There some more lists in the pipe too, so if things go according to plan we'll have a few more this year. Not to mention the featured topics on Mycena and Lactarius by about, oh, 2025 :) Sasata (talk) 15:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Cortinarius vanduzerensis

The DYK project (nominate) 18:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Irresistible (Jessica Simpson song)

Hello Sasata! I have nominated the above article for a FA. Feel free to check it out, and if possible drop your comments on its archive. Thank you :) – Novice7 (talk) 12:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Review

Sorry to bother you, but did you have any more concerns on the Marojejy review? I don't have any more changes planned for the article, and I think Erik is mostly happy with it, minus the issue of the video (which has been removed). – VisionHolder « talk » 14:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me, I'll be back with strikethroughs later today. Sasata (talk) 14:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you again about it, but I was wanting to know if you were going to make it back to the article today. I'm not feeling well today, so my time on Wiki will be limited. But I am making an effort to visit my FAC and GAN today... that way I feel like I've gotten something done and the day wasn't a complete waste. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I'll try, but there's some other things I want to get done, and other reviews I have to revisit too, so don't wait up for me. I tend not to support at FAC these days unless I've really checked the prose closely a couple of times, gone through formatting with a fine-tooth comb, proofed refs, performed a lit review, etc., but this all takes time. And I get antsy if I don't have one of my own submissions at FAC too :) Sasata (talk) 18:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
No problem. I appreciate the thorough review! – VisionHolder « talk » 19:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Calabozos

Thanks a lot for your review. I think I've gotten to all of your suggestions, including adding information from one source and fixing all those reference problems. Could you revisit the article? ceranthor 14:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll be back later tonight. Sasata (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Gymnopilus maritimus again

I never did get hold of the Italian article, despite emailing various people. I even got a reply, but, though I was told it would be (and despite light poking some weeks later) it was never sent to me. Do you think it's worth another nomination, or do you reckon the fact there may be more info in the other article makes it a lost cause? J Milburn (talk) 21:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the fact that the species is mentioned in two journal articles, but the wiki article only references one, makes it hard for people (including me) to support (based on criteria 1b/1c), especially since this is an "envelope-pushing" case for FA. In my opinion, you need to get a hold of that other article to cover your bases. Can you try an interlibrary loan? Sasata (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree; you really need to find that article. If it was a well-studied species, I wouldn't insist on such an obscure source, but since it's one of only two sources discussing it, you really need it. Ucucha 22:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I understand, and I assumed this would be the case. I've sent out some more emails- I'd be willing to try an interlibrary loan if that failed, but not until next term. Right now, my "irritate the librarians" quota is filled up with stuff actually related to my course :) J Milburn (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Suillus salmonicolor

The DYK project (nominate) 18:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Partial veil

The DYK project (nominate) 18:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sasata/Archive_11&oldid=1146522002"