User talk:Peter G Werner/2008

United_States v. Baker

You placed a cleanup tag on the page - would you mind adding commentary about what needs work about the article? I'd like to help, (I've had fun working on other court case articles) but am unsure where to begin. -Lciaccio (talk) 02:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for offering to do this! Left a longer answer here. Peter G Werner (talk) 17:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources

You're right that Wikipedia articles are not valid sources for other articles. Often, though, there will be a Wikipedia article about the source. In such a case, we often link the citation to the Wikipedia article about the source. That's what happened here: the information about numerical aperture did not come from the Wikipedia articles about Federal Standard 1037C and MIL-STD-188, but rather from the standards documents themselves.--Srleffler (talk) 04:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I see – there's a different way of citing that. I'll clarify that under "references" at some point. Peter G Werner (talk) 04:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Help with Entoloma sinuatum

Peter, do you have any information on how far this fungus is dirstibuted in North America, the only one I have just says 'widely' but I have no idea in terms of northwards (to canada and alaska) or southwards (mexico and points south). Any ideas? all input appreciated. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No clue – typically the only way to go about answering a question like this is to look at a number of local field guides. This is why many of the articles on species I've contributed simply have vague statements like "widely distributed in temperate and climates", etc. Peter G Werner (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It is amazing how vague fungi guides are compared with australian plant guides I have, and makes writing about them quite a challenge...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Midtown Atlanta

Regarding this edit, can you explain to me where the POV is in "A neighborhood-based nonprofit organization addressing crime issues"? Thanks, AUTiger » talk 21:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The Midtown Ponce Security Alliance is an extremely controversial group; some description of the controversy around this group can be found here and here. Some people view this group as simple "crime-figheters" and others as "vigilantes" and "trasphobes". Quite simply, any description of this group or in-depth discussion of recent neighborhood politics in Midtown Atlanta must cover both sides of the issue in a balanced way as per WP:NPOV and WP:CONTROVERSY. Introducing MPSA as "a neighborhood-based nonprofit organization addressing crime issues" is, from another point of view anyway, a bit like describing Westboro Baptist Church as a "church adhering to the teachings of the bible" or Stormfront as a "forum for discussing issues of race". BTW, in most cases, links listed under "external links" have very little description beyond the name of the site or organization being linked to. Peter G Werner (talk) 22:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Controversy (of which I'm quite aware) notwithstanding, the description was neutral, if a bit wordy. "Extremely controversial" is overstating the case, btw. AUTiger » talk 23:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The description is not neutral and I'm not even sure why it needs to be there. Just so you know, I intend on reverting if that wording is put back in. Peter G Werner (talk) 23:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

newspaper article

Hi, my name is Mary and I'm a reporter working on an article about Wikipedia. I'd like to interview you for my story. Please let me know if you're available. Thanks, Mary Spicuzza Staff Writer SF Weekly (415) 659-2070 phone Mary.Spicuzza@sfweekly.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marynega (talk • contribs) 21:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Would you say this was amanita smithiana?

[1] this is a great photo from the pacific NW. What you reckon? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know – its definitely in the A. smithiana group, but its pretty hard to tell species apart beyond that without pretty thorough fresh notes + microscopy. And as for good photos to be uploaded here, I think Nathan Wilson's photos over here at Mushroom Observer are a lot better, and are CC licensed, meaning we can use them here. Peter G Werner (talk) 05:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic - I'd forgotten about them! cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Harry Delbert Thiers

I made a stub and removed a speedy delete tag, any notable species authored etc. you're welcome to add. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I added a few things and also moved it to Harry D. Thiers following the convention of naming Wiki bio articles after the most common name that that person was known by professionally or authored as. I'll add more later and keep an eye out for uninformed "speedy delete" tags. There are a few editors on "new page patrol" who are extremely overzealous about biographical articles. As a result, its usually best to start an article like this in your own userspace, then move it to the main namespace once the article has some substance and clearly demonstrates the notability of the subject of the article. Peter G Werner (talk) 19:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I debated on where to put the article and how many names to use...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Good Faith

Watching the new article scroll, I'm about 99.9% accurate in tagging for speedy. If I miss one because the article was uploaded without meeting guidelines, a hangon tag grabs my attention as I watchlist all articles I nom for speedy. It's important to upload at least a stubs' worth of article when creating, otherwise, it may get tagged by newpage patrollers. Wait-and-See for one sentence articles would bring new page patrol to a screeching halt, and wikipedia would be populated by huge number of speediable articles, impossible to monitor. No harm meant, but good faith doesn't enter into tagging new articles as speediable when, in the form they are uploaded, they ARE speediable. - superβεεcat  19:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I see. I've also had articles hit with a "speedy delete" tag after 30 seconds and its kind of ticked me off as well. As a result, now I typically start new articles in my own userspace so I don't have to worry about that. Peter G Werner (talk) 22:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:FEcover372.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:FEcover372.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:GuestHostGhost.ogg

Thanks for uploading Image:GuestHostGhost.ogg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Boletus satanas/eastwoodiae/pulcherrimus....

I noted this sometime after sprucing up Boletus satanas and Boletus pulcherrimus...was wondering if anything had been published and how widely this view was held. If nothing publihsed was tempted to put something in (with weblink/cite) though with proviso that it had not been published in peer-reviewed journal....Also, interesting waht to put in Boletus eastwoodiae redirect and where it should go...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Mushroom Observer notes are a valid source for Wikipedia, since its the equivalent of citing a message board or email list. The people on that list might know what they're talking about, but still. I'm not sure if when it comes to publication the name Boletus eastwoodiae will be accepted for California B. aff. satanas or whether because of its prior history it will be rejected as a "nomen confusum". Boletus eastwoodiae should redirect to Boletus satanas, though, since in the published literature, the former is treated as a synonym for the latter, if I'm not mistaken. Peter G Werner (talk) 01:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

So me interesting article sizes.....

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fungi/fungus_articles_by_size - interesting.....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

RE:

Your welcome :) Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 01:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Page move on the cards then??

Have a look at this... Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

So what do you want to redirect based on that?

Erm..not sure. I think I'd need to figure out which author's description equates to the common description in the mushroom books, and look for a paper on it somewhere. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs)

Also, do you recall seeing anything on the synonymy (or otherwise) between Tricholoma pardinum, T. tigrinum and T. pardalotum...? Also a reference for their mycorrhizal status. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know this species well.

PS: The candy caps looks good and should fall over WP:GAN...Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks – I just need to add some distribution info and probably more on Lactarius rufulus (which actually is treated as a true candy cap in California) and the article should be ready to go. Peter G Werner (talk) 08:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

How about a psychoactive fungus then...

I did quite a bit of work on Amanita muscaria a while ago, though wading through Wasson's Soma book is heavy going....Any input appreciated. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Off our backs.gif

Thank you for uploading Image:Off our backs.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Pigeon Point

We had a discussion, way back when, on the Lighthouses WikiProject about that, and we decided, via consensus, that "Light" was the proper terminology to use. It's in common parlance - all of my books refer to "Such-and-such Light" and not "Such-and-such light station". Furthermore, the official Light List from the Coast Guard has always, so far as I have seen evidence, used the same terminology. "Light Station" doesn't seem to be standard, except with historic preservation organizations at times. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 14:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Just thought you may like to see this - went on a fungi survey with the Sydney Fungal Studies Group - had some Hygrophoraceae experts which was cool, and saw some great species -

e.g. Humidicutis lewelliniae etc.

Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Admin

Hi. I just wondered if you've considered becoming an admin. You seem experienced enough, so I'd be happy to nominate you if you're interested. Regards. Epbr123 (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hummus

I wonder if you could look in on Hummus. There are claims of great antiquity for this food based on what seem to be very poor sources. I have tried to discuss this on Talk:Hummus, but another editor insists they're just fine. Could you help? Thanks, --Macrakis (talk) 23:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BFfourbars.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BFfourbars.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 15:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Microscopy

I added a comment to your WikiProject Microscopy proposal. GregManninLB (talk) 06:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the feedback – I've replied over on the Proposals page. Peter G Werner (talk) 07:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter June 2008

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter June 2008

--Chef Tanner (talk) 16:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter July 2008

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter July 2008

--Chef Tanner (talk) 15:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Deposit feeder and Saprotroph into Detritivore

Willl this work from your view? Discussion and example. --Paleorthid (talk) 18:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

No, definitely not. Detritivores are a subset of saprotrophs, not the other way around. The saprotroph article needs to be greatly expanded, actually. Peter G Werner (talk) 07:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject San Francisco Bay Area roll call

Hello from WikiProject San Francisco Bay Area!

As part of a recent update to our project main page we are conducting a roll call to check which members are still active and interested in working on bay area related content. If you are still interested in participating, simply move your username from the inactive section of the participant list to the active section. I hope you will find the redesigned project pages helpful, and I wanted to welcome you back to the project. If you want you can take a look at the newly redesigned:

• Main Page
  
• Talk page
  
• Cleanup listing
  
• Template list
  

As well as the existing pages:

• Assessment
  
• Article Worklist
  
• Watchlist
  
• Deletion sorting (California)
  

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page, and add it to your watchlist, if it isn't already.

Again, hi!  -Optigan13 (talk) 07:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Lactarius piperatus help

Now I am not good at mycological taxonomic history - but was hoping you may know why Lactarius piperatus was listed with Linnaeus as original describer in some places and Scopoli in others? Also, have you seen this and do you know any more about the whole reclassification etc. fascinating...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

That's because of a revision of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature only a few years ago that changed the rules that changed the starting date and primary work for names of fungi to bring it line for the rules on plants. Fungal names can now be considered valid as far back as Linneaus Species Plantarum. Until a few years ago, it was one of Elias Fries works that was treated as the starting work/date, and anything published before then, including by Linneaus, simply had no official status. This is how Amanita calyptrata became Amanita lanei, BTW, because this change in rules brought an extremely obscure use of the name Amanita calyptrata by Lamarck (yes, that Lamarck) back to life as a valid name, and since that described a completely different mushroom (I forget which, but its something that isn't even remotely an Amanita), this meant that Murrill's Amanita lanei became the oldest available name for this species. In the case of L. piperatus, like a number of "old" species, the species name didn't change, but the sanctioning author did.

Speaking of taxonomy and nomenclature, at the moment, I'm actually working on a piece on taxonomy and nomenclature of Psilocybe and Weraroa for my local mycological newsletter. There's some interesting stuff going on there, though I probably won't be able to incorporate much of it back into Wikipedia due to rules on original research, etc. Peter G Werner (talk) 22:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Ahaaa, fascinating. Do you have a reference for the starting date change as I would love to incorporate that onto L. piperatus and other species affected. There is virtually nothing online about it and would be good to have. Good luck on getting the other published. I can awalys add it to avoid COI once published ;) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

As a source, you can list pages 181 and 182 of this book (clicking on "Preview this book", then doing a search for "1753" will bring the page right up). The changes took place in 1981 and 1987, so it was actually a few years earlier than I had thought. Here are a couple of other web pages that discuss the rule change:

http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/wong/BOT135/Lect04.HTM

http://botit.botany.wisc.edu/toms_fungi/oct2004.html (Tom Volk gets some levity from this, naturally)

Move of colorfulness

Please don't move pages without discussion, esp. when there's a history of controversy about the naming. Dicklyon (talk) 05:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Psilocybe montana

Hi, I recently expanded this page would appreciate any comments or corrections you might have. Thanks!

Sasata (talk) 05:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth

While discussing something with a user named Collect, I saw that he had tried to convince you that guidelines for Biographies of Living Persons (BLPs) prohibit the referencing of any material which is conjectural in nature. For what it may be worth to you, I wanted to point out that this was a false claim on his part. BLP guidelines prohibit material which is a "conjectural interpretation of a source", i.e., if you take a source, and make your own conjectural claims or conclusions based on it, that will constitute original research, and will be inappropriate. However, if the reliable source itself makes the conjecture, it can be legitimate provided it's not inappropriate for some other reason.

I'm not taking a position on the material you were trying to add, merely saying that Collect's insistence that it was automatically disqualified for being "conjectural" is plainly false. I'm guessing you probably knew that, but in case you are a new user and took his statements as being authoritative, or even correct -- they're not. Regards. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)