G'day Cas,
I've been frogging over the past few days, and the fungi season has definitely started! I have a coral fungi that I thought you would like for wiki, plus I also have a puff ball which I will upload later, will leave a message here when it is uploaded. Saw lots of fungi over the last few days, but only photographed the really interesting ones as I was using my small memory card, and wanted to leave some space for frogs.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/52507572@N00/465979784/?rotated=1&cb=1177065560324
Thanks. --liquidGhoul 10:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There was another nearby (about half a metre) which was 8cm tall, so I would go with Ramaria lorithamnus. It was taken in rainforest, was very little Eucalypt around. Do you want me to upload it to wiki? Thanks. --liquidGhoul 11:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there. I recently stumbled across an issue of Nova Hedwigia Beheift titled "the genera of fungi" (or was it agaricaceae?). It's filled to the brink with mind-numbing nomenclatural discussions of all the genera ever described (I think, anyway). Would it be any use if I looked up the specific ref or any specific genera? Circeus 00:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be friggin' trés bién. The first one that would be absolutely great to get a clarification on is Agaricus which was called Psalliota in many texts fro many years and I've been mystified as to why. Other articles I intend cleaning up are Amanita muscaria, which is the one I intended taking to FA first but it just didn't come together well, Gyromitra esculenta as a future FA, Agaricus bisporus as a future FA, and cleaning up the destroying angels - Amanita virosa, Amanita bisporiga and Amanita verna. Boletus edulis would be a good one to check too. let me know if anything interesting pops up. I'll see ifd I can think of any other taxonomic quagmires later today. Work just got real busy :( cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 02:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Generally, that's pretty arcane and only relevant to genus articles, or species that were tightly involving in defining them (for example, there seems to be an odd debate over the multiple type species for Amanita). I'll look up Agaricus, Amanita (since A. muscaria's the current type) and Psalliota. I'll also dig up the ref so you can look it up yourself, with any chance. Circeus 04:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool, keen to see what pops up. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 05:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I only quickly thumbed through it and noted the full ref (Donk, M.A. (1962). "The generic names proposed for Agaricaceae". Beiheifte zur Nova Hedwigia. 5: 1–320. ISSN 0078-2238.) because I forgot about it until the last minute. Psalliota looks like a classic synonym case. It shares the same type with Agaricus, and might be older. Circeus 01:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weird! I thought Linnaeus was calling all sorts of things Agaricus so I wonder how it could predate that really....anyway I am curious.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, First thing I have to say is... Damn, 18th-19th century taxonomy and nomenclature of fungi is a right mess. Whose bright idea was it to give fungi 3 starting dates in the ICBN???
LOTS of "per" in citation here. See [1]
- On Agaricus
- Etym.: Possibly "from Agarica of Sarmatica, a district of Russia" (!). Note also Greek ἀγαρικ[1]όν "a sort of tree fungus" (There's been an Agaricon Adans. genus, treated by Donk in Persoonia 1:180)
- Donk says Linnaeus' name is devalidated (so that the proper author citation apparently is "L. per Fr., 1821") because Agaricus was not linked to Tournefort's name (Linnaeus places both Agaricus Dill. and Amanita Dill. in synonymy), but truely a replacement for Amanita Dill., which would require that A. quercinus, not A. campestris be the type. This question compounded by the fact that Fries himself used Agaricus roughly in Linnaeus' sense (which leads to issues with Amanita), and that A. campestris was eventually excluded from Agaricus by Karsten and was apparently in Lepiota at the time Donk wrote this, commenting that a type conservation might become necessary.
- All proposals to conserve Agaricus against Psalliota or vice versa have so far been considered superfluous.
- On Lepiota
- Etym. Probably greek λεπις, "scale"
- Basionym is Agaricus sect. Lepiota Pers. 1797, devalidated by later starting date, so the citation is (Pers.) per S.F.Gray. It was only described, without species, and covered an earlier mentioned, but unnamed group of ringed, non-volvate species, regardless of spore color. Fries restricted the genus to white-spored species, and made into a tribe, which was, like Amanita repeatedly raised to genus rank.
- The type is unclear. L. procera is considered the type (by Earle, 1909). Agaricus columbrinus (L. clypeolarus) was also suggested (by Singer, 1946) to avoid the many combination involved otherwise in splitting Macrolepiota, which include L. procera. Since both species had been placed into different genera prior to their selection (in Leucocoprinus and Mastocephalus respectively), Donk observes that a conservation will probably be needed, expressing support for Singer's emendation.
- On Psalliota
- Etym.: ψάλιον, "ring"
- Psalliota was first published by Fries (1821) as trib. Psalliota. The type is Agaricus campestris (widely accepted, except by Earle, who proposed A. cretaceus). Kummer (not Quélet, who merely excluded Stropharia) was the first to elevate the tribe to a genus. Basically, Psalliota was the tribe containing the type of Agaricus, so when separated, it should have caused the rest of the genus to be renamed, not what happened. It seems to be currently not considered valid, or a junior homotypic synonym, anyway the explanation is that it was raised by (in retrospect) erroneously maintaining the tribe name.
- On Amanita
- Etym.: Possibly from Amanon,a mountain in Cilicia.
A first incarnation from Tentamen dispositionis methodicae Fungorum 65. 1797 is cited as devalidated: "Introduced to cover three groups already previously distinguished by Persoon (in [...] Tent. 18. 1797) under Agaricus L., but at that time not named. It is worth stressing that [The species now known as Amanita caesarea] was not mentioned."
- With Agaricus L. in use, Amanita was a nomen nudum per modern standard, so Persoon gave it a new life unrelated to its previous incarnations, and that is finally published after a starting date by Hooker (the citation is Pers. per Hook., 1821). He reuses Withering's 1801 definition (A botanical arrangement of British plants, 4th ed.). "The name Amnita has been considered validly published on different occasions, depending on various considerations." Proposed types include (given as Amanita. Sometimes they were selected as Agarici):
- A. livida Pers. (By Earle, in 1909). Had been excluded in Vaginata or Amanitopsis and could not be chosen.
- A. muscaria Pers. (By Clemens & Shear, 1931) for the genus (1801) from Synopsis fungorum, was generally transferred to the one from Hooker's Flora of Scotland, which is currently considered the valid publication of Amanita (or was in the 50s).
- A. phalloides (by Singer, 1936) for the 1801 genus.
- A.bulbosa (by Singer & Smith, 1946) for Gray's republication. This is incorrect as Gray's A. bulbosa is a synonym of A. citrina. Some authors consider Gray to be the first valid republisher.
- A. caeserea (by Gilbert, 1940). Troublesome because not known personally to Persoon or Fries.
Donk concludes the earliest valid type is A. muscaria, the species in Hooker, adding that he'd personally favor A. citrina.
- The name has been republished three times in 1821: in Hooker, Roques and Gray (in that order). Roques maintained Persoon's circumscription, including Amanitopsis and Volvaria. Gray excluded Amanitopsis and Volvariella into Vaginata. Right after, Fries reset the name by reducing the genus to a tribe of Agaricus, minus pink-spored Volvariella. This tribe became a subgenus, than genus via various authors, Quélet, altough not the first, often being attributed the change. Sometimes it was used in a Persoonian sense (whether that is a correct use according to ICBN is not clear to me).
- Homonyms of Amanita Pers. are Amanita adans. (1763, devalidated) and Amanita (Dill) Rafin. (1830)
- On Boletus
- Not including (Not in Agaricaceae, sorry).
Phew! Circeus 18:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope you intend to clean that prose ASAP? It's definitely not article-worthy as is. Circeus 01:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm working on it. Got distracted this morning...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cas, I don't suppose you can dig up a photo of B. victoriae? The article has two images, but both are intrinsic to the taxonomic history narrative, and I am loathe to remove either into the taxobox. By the way, you might like to have a read of the taxonomy section there; there's an interesting story there that you won't have read in anything of George's. Hesperian 13:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought the same (re: baxteri). But Bentham gives them both as victoriae in Flora Australiensis, and if I trust anyone, I trust him. Hesperian 23:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Curiouser and curiouser! I misread those sources - it is only the later seed that is attributed to Drummond. To be flowering in 1835 that seed must have reached England by 1832 at the latest. But Drummond didn't start sending plants and seed back to England until conscripted by Mangles to do so in 1835, and B. speciosa is not in Meissner's 1852 list of species collected by Drummond. As far as I know, Baxter only visited the south coast. I don't think Fraser went further north than the Swan River. Molloy never strayed far from Augusta. Hügel didn't reach Australia until the end of 1833; too late. Where oh where did those seeds come from? Perhaps they were B. baxteri; maybe that's why George has ignored the whole episode. Gosh this is exciting. Hesperian 00:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
HTML ndashes suck. If you're on a Windows box, you can get a real ndash (i.e. unicode) by holding down the ALT key and typing 0150 on the numeric keypad. Hesperian 11:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm...thanks for the tip. I'll try that next. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for indulging me, dude. :-) Hesperian 00:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If, like me, you're stuck with a laptop without a numeric pad with ALT functionality, n- and m-dashes are the two firsts characters after "insert" in the list placed under the edit window. Circeus 22:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, I've edited my keyboard layout for "easy" dashes with a little Microsoft utility (yes, I use Windows). It takes a while to set up, but now I can add en and em dashes with only two keystrokes—quite an improvement for WP editing :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I add shortkeys all the time on various programs. If i used a reallot of weird characters, I'd totally do that to have across windows. Circeus 16:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, I love your sense of humour. Maimonedes is a good reference. The reality is that Islam takes food restrictions from Judaism; and Christianity doesn't have any restriction (courtesy of three references in the New Testament). The reason why pork should be restricted (along with many other things) is not given explicitly in the Hebrew Bible, hence Bible commentators have been offering guesses since ancient times. My own favourite, however, is Mary Douglas, wife of Louis Leakey, daughter of a Lutheran pastor. Her theory is excellent, based on her cultural anthropological observations, with a decent feel for how Biblical text works. It's rather an abstract theory though.
Anyway, I'll see if I can manage a literature review of dietry restrictions in the ANE, especially if there's anything explicit about pork. Don't think I'll find a reference for "why" the pork taboo is in place, though, if it's documented, I'd have read about that in commentaries.
Perhaps a clay tablet with the answer has been destroyed in only the last few years during the "troubles" in Iraq. :( Alastair Haines (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the great thing about uncertainty. Lacking an answer, the reports of Maimonides, Mary Douglas and the other guy mentioned are fascinating.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Scotish pork taboo is a remarkable article! Thanks for that, lol. Alastair Haines (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Spotted this. I'll look for a ref to the Maimonides comment. The normal teaching is that pork is no more or less offensive to Jews than any other forbidden meat (dog, horse etc) or forbidden part of kosher animal (blood, Gid Hanasheh etc). The pig (NB pig, not pork - an important distinction which is relevant for the Maimonides comment too, I note) is "singled out" because it alone of the animals that have one of the two "signs" (it has split hooves but doesn't chew the cud) lies down with its legs sticking out. Most quarapeds have their legs folded under them. There's a midrashic lesson to be learned there, apparently, that the pig is immodestly and falsely proclaiming its religious cleanliness, when it is not. Anyway, that said, I'll look into the M comment - he was quite ahead of his time in terms of medical knowledge (check his biog). And NB my OR/POV antennae buzzed when I read that little section. --Dweller (talk) 22:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone has tagged the Religious restrictions on the consumption of pork for OR, though the talk page seems to indicate it is for a different reason....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm... makes me more dubious, but I'll check. btw... I'm not Alastair! --Dweller (talk) 23:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have found good stuff, including online version of Maimonides text. I'll dump it here for you to use as you wish.
I maintain that the food which is forbidden by the Law is unwholesome. There is nothing among the forbidden kinds of food whose injurious character is doubted, except pork (Lev. xi. 7), and fat (ibid. vii. 23). But also in these cases the doubt is not justified. For pork contains more moisture than necessary [for human food], and too much of superfluous matter. The principal reason why the Law forbids swine's flesh is to be found in the circumstance that its habits and its food are very dirty and loathsome. It has already been pointed out how emphatically the Law enjoins the removal of the sight of loathsome objects, even in the field and in the camp; how much more objectionable is such a sight in towns. But if it were allowed to eat swine's flesh, the streets and houses would be more dirty than any cesspool, as may be seen at present in the country of the Franks.[2]
So, Maimonides argues "pork contains more moisture than necessary [for human food], and too much of superfluous matter", whatever that means! More importantly, the "principal reason" is that if you keep pigs, you end up with a dirty and unhealthy environment. Important note: Maimonides was writing from Islamic Egypt at the time, which is why he mentions "as may be seen at present in the country of the Franks." (ie France)
The comments about the pig's habit of lying with its legs outstretched come from Midrash Vayikra Rabba (ch 13) where it is mentioned as part of an elaborate metaphor, but not in connection with any reason for particularly abhorring the creature.
Hope that helps. --Dweller (talk) 09:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As requested.
NB Gosh - has no-one dropped you a line since my musings about Pork?!?!?! --Dweller (talk) 09:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Erm...check the last archive....which I just did today. I kept the above couple of threads as they are still active and still need me to do stuff. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I was joking. Plenty of talk about Pork following yesterday's dirty dealings at the UK Parliament. Commentators are calling it the arrival of Pork Barrel politics in the UK. --Dweller (talk) 10:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here you go: check out Commons:Category:Gyromitra esculenta. Sorry for the delay — I took these already more than a week ago, but had some trouble deciding which ones to upload. These could probably still use some exposure and white balance adjustment, but I figured I'll just upload the best originals now and leave any editing for later. I think I'll upload the full set of originals to my own web site and post a link there, in case anyone else wants to have a go at it. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Brillliant!! much appreciated..Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind looking over my corrections and see if you'll keep on hold for the moment or promote? bibliomaniac15 22:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doing a great job with these bird submissions. Not only do we desperately need the variety, but the pics are brilliant! --
Gatoclass (
talk)
20:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After 10 days of RfC there is clear evidence that Fiction does not have the support of the community. Thus I've marked it with the Failed tag. But the proponents are not going to let this die. While not disputing their failure they are already fussing with tags which willl perpetuate this festering corpse. A little help? --Kevin Murray (talk) 01:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. You would be interested in participating in the peer review of the Priory of Sion article? --Loremaster (talk) 11:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to find more on the sleep effects of mirtazapine, and came upon an interesting polemic in JCP (PMID: 15323610).
"In the study, mirtazapine not surprisingly helped depressed
patients fall asleep more quickly and stay asleep longer. In other
words, the patients showed a decrease in sleep latency, increased
total sleep time, and thus improved sleep efficiency
throughout the 8 weeks. The fact that most of these changes
were statistically significant as early as week 1 seems merely to
reflect mirtazapine’s well-known sedative side effect; there was
no basis for linking this effect to the more slowly developing
improvement in sleep quality associated with antidepressant
benefit. Indeed, the authors liken sleep alterations with mirtazapine
to those produced by the hypnotic compounds zolpidem
and zaleplon, two drugs with no claim to antidepressant
efficacy."
"Moreover, the study seems to draw an unfair comparison,
since the doses of the two drugs were not comparable. While 45
mg of mirtazapine at bedtime is appropriate, the fluoxetine subjects
were moved up to 40 mg daily—twice what the package
insert2 states is sufficient for most patients and, in my opinion,
actually 4 times what is usually necessary. With this excessive
dose comes increased risk for at least 2 adverse effects that can
unfavorably impact the parameters of this study. Subjects who
experience activation with fluoxetine will, of course, have
greater trouble falling asleep at bedtime. On the other hand,
there are some individuals who feel somnolence with a fluoxetine
dose this high; presumably, they will be more inclined to
take daytime naps (apparently not prohibited in the study), and
this, in turn, could prolong sleep latency at bedtime. The incidence
of these two side effects, excessive activation and daytime
somnolence, was not noted."
"Bearing out these concerns, the authors’ data indicate that
sleep latency in the fluoxetine group was actually slightly improved
at week 1, when the dose was 20 mg and there had not
yet been much accumulation of this slowly metabolized drug.
It is only after week 8 that we see worsening in sleep latency,
reflecting the high drug levels accumulated during 4 weeks of
taking a daily dose of 40 mg."
Paul Gene (talk) 11:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting. I am amused sometimes at the doses they treat as equivalent, and I wouldn't have picked 45mg mirtaz.=40mg fluoxetine, more like 60 mg of mirtazepine. Anyway, I have seen many more studies like these with some odd comparisons used...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--
Maxim(talk) 21:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
hey man, look, ive been working on the article for the madeira buzzard, and so far i have this to show: User:Tobi4242/Sandbox so, anyway, i have this page for my resources, and maby you can help me creat an article. http://www.madeirabirds.com/buzzard. i could really use your help man. thanks Tobi4242 (talk) 01:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay, I took a few days off due to a annoying cold. Anyway, you read my mind, most of the issues presented in the peer review have been attended and asking for a copyeditor to do a final cleanup was the next logical step. As a side note this will be my sixth FAC overall, two biographies and four video games have been worked on and nominated by me, this will be my first bird/animal/other FAC but I am a seasoned vet, just thought you should know ;-) cheers. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- D'oh! my bad. I should have checked. Anyway, I'll have another look myself as it has been awhile. Circeus is good though. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems like we only need a reference for the "one of the ten most endangered birds in the world" statement and Joel's distribution map to finally go to FAC, any idea where to find the first one? - Caribbean~H.Q. 10:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I may have an idea where to look. Frustrating ain't it? I really need someone with a Finnish Cookbook for Gyromitra esculenta..somewhat hard to find in Australia...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done and in the article, I didnt include a key though I can if you want Gnangarra 02:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mission 4, a series of articles on the Everglades, could do with help from the FA-Team! Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 12:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's plural; must have been changed back again. Looks fine as plural. TONY (talk) 13:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "The highly organised colony" is a bit strange here. "A highly organised colony" would be OK, or the plural of "a", which is the "blank" article, "Highly organised colonies". I think, on balance, the plural indefinite (my last example here) is most comfortable, although "A" would be OK. You might find that the text has to switch between them a few times during the article; this is best minimised—at least so that there's no "bump" for the reader. TONY (talk) 13:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To split hairs a bit - Highly organised colonies may consist of millions of ants; - colonies can actually be as small as a dozen ants and still be highly organized. Shyamal (talk) 14:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- True, though I did say 'may'...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't propose a merge on my behalf. I just want a flat-out redirect. WillOakland (talk) 00:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. Take a look at the first bulletpoint. What do you think about the comments re ref3? --Dweller (talk) 09:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah. I can see the criticism and concern over glowing praise, but then again it is a remarkable record. I have to think some more on this. This is more of a 'placeholder' comment really. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WT:CRIC agrees to an extent with Tony. It is a thorny one, alright. --Dweller (talk) 10:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cas, do you need a reasonable pic of a WWFW? [2] I know the photographer and may be able to get him to upload to commons. Let me know and I will ask Aviceda talk 10:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes please. I haven't received a reply on the others after some initial interest. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very useful; I've copied the list and may use bits of it after it's deleted. I voted delete (OR, unsuitable, many examples problematic). Thanks! TONY (talk) 13:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have started a follow up at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tottering Blotspurs. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've nominated Kertesz for the mainpage - [3]. JSYK. It looks like my work here is complete. Would you be a pal and keep an eye on it over its main page stint to make sure it doesn't get too trashed? Cheers 203.97.171.7 (talk) 22:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC) (AKA Spawn Man) : )[reply]
- Erm...ok...any reason why you have edited from an IP and not logged in? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A few weeks out, but you may want to watch Wikipedia:FCDW/June 30, 2008. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have been pretty delinquent, but I did appreciate your assistance. Even though you were the reviewer, your edits were helpful and your review advice was as well. You may want to add this somewhere:
--
TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Erm, ok...thanks :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent job you have done on B.radicans. That's the perfect template for fungi. Why do we all do it different? My name is 'luridiformis' because i'm red and fat. I'm going for B.legaliae, or Russula claroflava next...not decided yet. Thanks again for helping . Luridiformis (talk) 07:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for providing all the great pic articles for DYK! --
Gatoclass (
talk)
10:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The spirituality section is accurate, although I agree that it needs some more info/citations. Keep in mind that psychology/psychiatry is a new science, underdeveloped. I am sure that a vast, ample amount of information is available, but do not regard this as not important, which may raise some concerns for articles regarding spirituality in Wikipedia articles. Prowikipedians (talk) 08:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- this sentence was vague to the point that is unclear what it is supposed to mean. this is how I commented on the talk page. If something specific, meaningful and notable is found in a peer-reviewed journal, we can see if and how it can be incorporated. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, Casliber. I will look into that.
- There's no need to go to the library. I am a subscriber and avid reader of Rolling Stone (a 12 year old! Imagine that!). I will look at the most recent issues and see what i can add. Thank you, from Shapiros10 contact meMy work 10:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fantastic! (I know who to nag next time I write a rock article....hehehe) Here's an idea - A while ago Anonymous Dissident was trying to polish Linkin Park for FAC, which failed to pass as can be seen here - Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Linkin_Park/archive2 - I commented that there may be some more material in a magazine like Rolling Stone, from some interviews etc. happy hunting, after all this is a volunteer project and supposed to be fun...I have had a bit of experience in the FA and GA process so feel free to ask questions. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a WikiProject Rock Music that I can join? Are you a member? Shapiros10 contact meMy work 11:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's Wikipedia:WikiProject_Rock_music, which I had not seen until about 10 seconds before I wrote this. The only thing I have done with Rock music to date is help polish up Oasis (band) with Scarian. I did have an idea I wanted to buff up Beastie Boys at some stage but have never gotten 'round to it...
- Looking at the talk page, it does look a little quiet, but you never know, show some interest and some folks may turn up. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- May I help you "buff up" Beastie Boys? School's out, so I have a lot of free time. Shapiros10 contact meMy work 16:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All done, I think. --Dweller (talk) 13:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Spore print conflict in Russula claroflava. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luridiformis (talk • contribs) 13:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
forgot to sign it.Luridiformis (talk) 13:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i have tried to correct this. Colour calibration between my photographs, my monitor, and wiki, can be hit and miss....Is this better?????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luridiformis (talk • contribs) 14:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe a little bit, but definitely still looks a bit greenish. Try doing whatever alteration you did one more time and let me know. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i forgot to sign it again....kick me.
Luridiformis (talk) 15:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although I know way much than the average reader, the one you want to ask is User:Maunus, who is an actual linguist knowledgeable in Mexican native languages, as actually pushed Nahuatl language through FAC. Circeus (talk) 23:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, thanks. I'll ask him. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I could push it, but I am overstretched at the moment. I'd rather get Procellariiformes to GA, because then it is a hop-skip and jump to getting Diving-petrel done and knocking off a topic. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have fun with people who edit like this. People like you and me. 78.34.137.178 (talk) 01:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
