User talk:Peter G Werner/2009

Lactarius glyciosmus
Hi, I'm a little in over myhead here (I would normally contact Casliber, but he's obviously verybusy at the moment). I've written the article about the above mushroom,but the authority is listed variously as "(Fr. ex Fr.) Fr." (from thecited Phillips book) "(Fr.) Fr." (from encyclopedia) and Phillipsherementions some guy going under the abbreviation Velen., and I've no ideawho he is. I was wondering if you could knock me up a taxonomy sectionfor the article? If you're busy, that's fine, I'll post a request onthe WikiProject Fungi talk page. Thanks. J Milburn(talk) 19:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thegoalposts for the start date of official fungal names was reset to anearlier date, earlier names previously had to be sanctioned to beconserved, but later this was dropped (hence the disappearance of the'ex Fr.' There is a good discussion of this somewhere which Peter Ithink highlighted first time around (now to dig through archives).Casliber (talk ·contribs) 19:29, 15 January 2009(UTC)


 * PS: Peter is much more the expert in theseareas than me, I am merely a hobbyist in this area :)Casliber (talk ·contribs) 19:30, 15 January 2009(UTC)


 * No information to add other than what you'vefound yourself. TheFungorum entry for this species has it as "(Fr) Fr", so lackingother literature, I'd go with that. I'm not clear about which form –"(Fr) Fr", "Fr:Fr", or "Fr ex Fr" – is preferred under the most recentICBN guidelines.


 * In other news, I finally "wentlive" with the candy cap article after sitting on it for the betterpart of two years. I kept meaning to expand it more and add more cites,which I still intend to do at some point, but I figured I'd stop makingthe best the enemy of the good and at least put the article into themain part of Wikipedia. BTW, I really want to make this a "Did youknow?" article. If you want to put together a DYK proposal, go ahead,but otherwise I'll do it in the next few days.


 * Cheers, Peter G Werner (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Great!We will see what we can come up with. Casliber(talk ·contribs) 20:28, 16 January 2009(UTC)
 * Update -->Template_talk:Did_you_know.see how it goes. Casliber (talk ·contribs) 00:48, 19 January 2009(UTC)

Amanita muscaria....now or never
Ihate leaving articles at a non-GA or FA-stage..... I think I need ottake the plunge and get Amanita muscaria to GA and later FACsometime soonish. I am just getting some more info on the whole Somathing, but otherwise please feel free to give it a once- (ortwice-over)...especially the taxonomy etc. and subspecies????) Isuppose this is an informal fungus peer-review (?) :)Casliber (talk ·contribs) 05:43, 27 January 2009(UTC)


 * I'll have a look at it over the next severaldays, but I think its actually in pretty good shape at this point,albeit, you're correct, the "soma" part really needs expansion. Also, Ithink a few of the photographs included are superfluous.


 * Also,I've been actively working on the David Arora bio article over thelast few days. Have a look at it and see if you think it needs any workor whether you have suggestions of where it could use expansion.Peter G Werner (talk) 06:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * OK,will do. The main thing (soma apart) is getting the number ofsubspecies right. I did find some of itconfusing...Casliber (talk· contribs) 07:16, 27 January2009 (UTC)

PS: William Rubel hasinfo to the article. Not often one of the authors chips in tohelp out :) Casliber (talk· contribs) 11:08, 11 February2009 (UTC)

PPS: Funny to think who is looking at theAmanita muscaria article - I have written to Dr Tulloss aboutthe image, the spores, the subspecies and a bunch of other things.Casliber (talk ·contribs) 13:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/Morchella elata asci
Hi,just wanted to let you know that, as part of a current surge to getfungi pictures to featured status, I've nominated one of your images.You're welcome to comment on the proposal at the page above. J Milburn (talk) 14:25, 17 February2009 (UTC)


 * Cool. Its also a nominee for WikiMediaPicture of the Year in thePlantsand Fungi category. Peter G Werner (talk) 15:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Galerina GAR
Galerinahas been nominated for a goodarticle reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week.Please leave your comments and help us to return the article togood article quality. If concernsare not addressed during the review period, the good article statuswill be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns arehere.
 * You have had plenty oftime. This serves as notice that if you have no objections and give noindication of intent to improve the article I will delist itsoon.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:41, 11 April2009 (UTC)

New York Radical Feminists
Discussionmoved here. Peter G Werner (talk) 16:58,22 July 2009 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Template:Uncited-article
Ihave nominated for discussion. Your opinions onthe matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by addingyour comments at the discussion page. Thank you.–Drilnoth (T • C • L)03:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

BCE
HiPeter, I noticed you changed the era notation in a number of articlessuch that they used BCE instaed of BC. I've reversed these changes.Wikipedia policy states that either notation is acceptable and a changefrom one to the other should only be made with broad consensus. A"scientific article" is not a reason to change notation.LevenBoy (talk) 22:02, 26October 2009 (UTC)


 * That was totally uncalled for andI've reverted your changes. You assume there's broad consensus for yourversion of historical dating. Scientific style strongly favors the useof BCE or BP over the more anachronistic BC. I would suggest that yourefrain from further changes until an RFD can be put forward to getother opinions on this. Peter G Werner (talk) 23:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Tryreading Wikipedia policy on this matter at WP:MOS.In particular I would draw your attention to the statement "Do notchange from one style to another unless there is substantial reason forthe change, and consensus for the change with other editors." Neitherof these apply in the cases you've changed. You've changed formatsimply becuase of your own opinion in this matter. The articles inquestion all used BC notation and here at Wikipedia that is acceptable,scientific article ar not. You changed from the stable version usingBC. If you wish to use BCE in these, or any other, articles, then theonus is on you to obtain consensus to do so. In the mean time, untilyou achieve consensus, I'm reverting to the stable versions. I wouldalso point out that BC to BCE (and vice versa) changes are one of thebiggest areas of dispute in Wikipedia and for that reason alone shouldbe avoided. LevenBoy (talk)12:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * So basically, you'redemanding that scientific articles use a pre-scientific form ofnotation simply because those who authored the articles (who may or maynot be conversant in scientific style and format) happen to put itthere first? Ridiculous. All I have to say is that I guess I'm not oneof those editors with limitless amounts of free time to mess with otherpeople's edits in pursuit of an agenda, so I really don't have time topursue an edit war with you over this. However, expect to be challengedon these edits in the next week or so, as well as a challenge to thisstupid bit of Wikipedia instruction creep. PeterG Werner (talk) 12:27, 27 October2009 (UTC)


 * There is no definition of a scientificarticle at Wikipedia, at least so far as I know, and I'm not sure whatyou mean by instruction creep. LevenBoy (talk) 12:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Nodefinition of a scientific article. I would say articles who's primarysources would refer to academic works in the hard sciences would easilyfall into that category. They should therefore fall into the stylisticnorms of scientific style and format. The use of "BC" is considered ananachronism in modern scientific writing and BCE or BP are stronglyprefered. I'd really like to know what the hell is your beef withBCE and BP is, such that you'd go back and revert a number of articlesafter several months and threaten an edit war just to get your way.
 * What'smy beef with BP? Nothing. It's not controversial so I don't have aproblem with it. What's my beef with CE/BCE? Plenty. Its use amounts topolitical correctness gone mad, it adds nothing to anything, it's notwell understood outside the USA and its use is antagonistic. Whoconsiders it an anachronism? Much scientific writing outside the USAuses BC/AD, and BCE is certainly not "strongly preferred". Whenever Ifind an article using BCE I check out the edit history and nine timesout of ten the article started as BC then some POV warrior came alongand changed it; thereby infuriating numerous other editors including me- so I change it back (if it started as BCE or there was agreement tochange, I leave it). Exchanging era formats is much the same aschanging American English to British English or vice versa; it addsnothing to the text, winds up loads of editors and causes edit wars.LevenBoy (talk) 17:59, 27October 2009 (UTC)


 * If the use is "antagonistic"and "politically correct", then why is it in use in scientificjournals? If we can at least agree on the BP part, I'm going to convertseveral articles over to that. The use of "BC" for paleontologicalwriting discussing prehistory prior to 5000 years old is ananachronism. Peter G Werner (talk) 18:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I thinkit's a good idea to use BP in the circumstances you note. It oftenmakes more sense, is not controversial, and if it can be used to removeBC/BCE then even better. LevenBoy (talk) 18:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK,we can at least agree on that. I'll refrain from making date changes inarticles on ancient Egypt, etc, since I'm not as familiar with thenorms of publications in archaeology as I am in biological sciences.I'm aware that "BP" means before 1950, but in practice, often meansadding 2000 years to the BC or BCE date, since the dates in questiontypically have a margin or error that's much larger than 50 years.Peter G Werner (talk) 18:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And here isa definition of instruction creep. Its endemic on Wikipedia at thispoint, with the accumulation of sometimes really bad, hidden minorpolicies, such as the one you're citing. Its my intention to challengethis stupid policy once I get some time – it is absolutely idiotic thatin order to create stylistic consistency between articles andconformity to broader academic style that one needs to fight"consensus" over each and every freaking article. Ridiculous!Peter G Werner (talk) 13:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks forthat. I'm familiar with function creep but haven't come acrossinstruction creep. I like it; my company (employs 100,000 worldwide) isfull of it! LevenBoy (talk)17:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

External link in Ant-fungus mutualism
First,I want to point out that Science definitely provides full textarticles online. I read Science online all the time, and I can readthe article in question just by following the link and clicking "fulltext". You need a subscription, but even if you're not affiliated witha university there's probably a public library near you that has one.

Second,this is just my opinion, but I think that citations to relevant,peer-reviewed journal articles are one of the few things Wikipediacan't really have too many of. Of course, it's better if they're citedas references and their topics described in the article than if they'rejust tacked on as external links, and I tried to do that just now.

Soif you think other journal articles are more relevant, then by allmeans add them, but I feel like we don't need to start pruning thecitations until there are like 50 or 100. — KeenanPepper 03:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * First,"external links" sections don't contain links that are behind any kindof subscription gate; in fact, I believe that is specifically mentionedas policy under WP:EL. Second, the choice of this article out ofmany hundreds seems odd, though actually, now that I look at what thearticle describes, that is indeed a key paper. Finally, even underreferences, there's no need to link directly to abstracts – articlecitations optimally include DOI numbers now, which if double bracketinternal links are put around the number, now automatically links tothe abstract/article link page in question. The only time the articleitself should actually be hotlinked is if there's actually a full textor PDF of the article available to all readers, especially if the fulltext is somewhere other than where the DOI resolves to. Peter G Werner (talk) 04:08,27 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Mary Lou Sapone
An editor has nominated one or more articleswhich you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Mary Lou Sapone. Weappreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe thatthe article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and hasexplained why in his/her nomination (see also Notabilityand "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinionson whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be donewith the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s)by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Mary LouSapone. Please be sure to sign your comments with fourtildes ( ~ ).

You mayalso edit the article during the discussion to improve it but shouldnot remove the articles for deletion template from the topof the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Pleasenote: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I havenothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can'tdo anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Conservation of Psilocybe
FYI:

http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/11535257/fpart/all/vc/1

BTW, what is your new email address?

Alan Rockefeller (Talk -contribs) 18:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Cowbell2.jpg
 Thanks for uploadingFile:Cowbell2.jpg. The image description page currentlyspecifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipediaunder a claim of fair use. However, the image is currentlyorphaned, meaning that it is not used in anyarticles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article,please go to the article and see why it was removed. You mayadd it back if you think that that will be useful. However, pleasenote that images for which a replacement could be created are notacceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Ifyou have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they'reused in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages youhave edited by clicking on the "mycontributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipediapage when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from thedropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described oncriteria forspeedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk ) 07:34, 10 December2009 (UTC)