User talk:WormRunner

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi All,

If you have a comment, please Post a message

Contents

[edit] Previous messages

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them;

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Angela 03:34, Nov 3, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Trillium

Oh, that's a shame. I've replied to your question on how to delete it at Image talk:Trillium.jpg. It wasn't actually my picture by the way. Michael Becker uploaded it for me so he could earn Wikimoney! Angela 18:10, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Well done for finding that Trillium picture! Your new one looks great too. Angela 20:34, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Looks like mav has already reverted it (and added a "What the heck are you doing?" to the user's talk page!). You did the right thing not wanting to get in an edit war though. I'll keep an eye on it in case it happens again, but you could mention on the talk page what your concerns with the previous version were, although probably not necessary unless he comes back to it. Angela 20:53, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)


[edit] Trillium

Thanks for the reminder. I've renamed them now and listed the old ones on WP:IfD. Image deletion was recently re-enabled, so they will be able to be deleted in a week, assuming there are no objections. Angela 21:38, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the note. Just now noticed it.  :) How long ago did you attend Reed (if you don't mind my asking)? Anakolouthon

Ahh, so you know all about "Olde Reed" then? Heh. My friends and I are trying (as annoying freshmen, of course) to perpetuate an image of Nü Reed. Which basically involves not going on about "back in my day, blah blah blah." It is especially annoying to those of us who are trying to enjoy our present Reed experiences when, say, sophomores talk about Olde Reed as if it was some mystical land that will never return, and we just missed it. A lot of people seem pretty annoyed with us, too. Anyway, I only mean this to be anecdotal. Glad to "meet" another Reedie on Wikipedia.  :) --Anakolouthon 07:28, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Headings

Just so you know, =H1= headings are only for the title of pages. It is never appropriate to have them in the article itself. ==H2== is the next level down and is thus the most common. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Headline style. --mav 08:32, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hi WormRunner, nice to meet you.

I agree entirely about Mountain Ash: there are, I think, three different species that share that common name, one in Australia, one in Europe, and one in the New World - and only one of the three is actually an ash! Eucalyptus regnans is much the best title for in, in my view. (Indeed, as you know, that's what I originally created it under, back before I knew about the "always use common names" rule. In this case, of course, the common name is impractical, so we are quite justified in making a disambiguation page at Mountain ash and using the botanical names instead.

In fact, there is a school of thought here that all plants should be listed by botanical name, as plant common names are so chaotic and contradictory. This would require a Wikipedia policy change and a good deal of discussion to push through, but on the whole I am in sympathy with it. In the meantime, I'm using common names, but only where they are sensible and unambiguous. As an example, Corymbia ficifolia, though a very common and much-loved garden plant in Oz, doesn't really have a proper common name. People sometimes call it Red Flowering Gum, but it isn't always red, all 800-odd eucalypts flower, and it isn't a gum at all, it's a bloodwood! So I made that one under the botanical name.

Anyway, go right ahead and make a disambiguation page at Mountain ash, I think it's the best solution, and I doubt that anyone will oppose it. (If you are not sure how to do the page move thing, sing out.)

Best -- Tony (Tannin 06:38, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC))

[edit] Categories

Regarding Categories (just notice the question now that you removed it :), you have to dig in meta for proposals, discussions, etc. For example, see:

and their respective talk pages. There may be other ones, but these are the ones I have come across. There is also talk on some of the mailing lists. Dori | Talk 08:59, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Images for deletion

I saw your question on Angela's page. If you've not already found it, there is indeed an images for deletion page - it's Wikipedia:Images for deletion :) -- Finlay McWalter 19:50, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

That's what I was going to say. :) Angela. 23:13, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] It is not advertising, it is just informations

It is not advertising, it is just informations


When the intent is clearly to get a commercial web site linked, that is not "just information" in any sense that is compatible with wikipedia's goals. If you want to give "information" write a real article about the area. WormRunner 01:31, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Just trying to help!!! lol

If i am trying to provide more info and ressources to th encyclopedia, i am then doing advertising??? anyway, i won't reput the link in aranes, though i should!! :-(

[edit] Araucaria

Duh! missed it! Thanks for pointing it out - I had found a dead link by a slightly different name - I will run round and do the redirects. seglea 07:25, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Red alder

I saw your newly created article (nicely done, by the way.. love how you worked in the actinomycete) and figured there must be a PD image or two floating around somewhere. The grove picture is somewhat more atmospheric than the usual government fare, so I went ahead and snagged it. Informative and easy on the eyes.. always the best way to go, I say. If only the Canadian government would release its images! Oh and well. :) Hadal 17:23, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Potato vine

I see; sorry for the mixup! - Hephaestos 05:53, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC) Very good job on it. I see from your user page it's in your specialty, I should pay closer attention. :) - Hephaestos 06:18, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Image markup

That works well! Thanks for the tip. - Hephaestos 17:44, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi WR. Actually, I didn't realise what I'd done until afterwards. I happened to glance at the page again (not having edited it since last night) and thought Tannin, you idiot: there is a great big typo in the middle of your shiny new wikicode taxobox. It was only after saving the (minor) change that I paused to wonder where that particular typo had snuck in from and the reality dawned on me.

Having explained that, let's ponder the idea. Currently, none of the animal taxa taxoboxes provide the author (or at least not in the areas I am familiar with, mostly the higher taxa). In fact, I don't recall seeing it around the plant pages either, though I've not spent much time there. So the tree of life "standard" is not a standard, at least not currently. I suspect it was quietly added by someone and no-one has noticed that it's there yet.

Should it be a standard thing? Hmmm .... I can see arguments both ways. The "pro" is obvious, the main "cons" are (a) layout considerations in the already cramped taxoboxes, and (b) readability. My first impression thought it is that if we were to add the author to the taxoboxes we would need, at the very least, to abandon the bold type to help make stuff fit. Possibly the article text is a better place. One to ponder.

Factbox design and standards are very much the topic of the hour right now, so this would be a good time to propose any new addition/deletion/change, and perhaps we should adjourn this discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life .

Best -- Tannin 09:33, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What do you guys mean by "author"? Do you mean the super-ugly ref link? That is what the ==References== section of articles are for. Standard MoS stuff. --mav 09:43, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] List of Genera

On several family pages, I created a separate list of genera because the list was so long that it could interfere with page loading and handling for the main family page (and similarly with lists of species for genus pages). We need to pay attention to limiting the size of Wikipedia article pages. In the case of Araliaceae, this was not yet a problem because there was little under the family itself, but if the family's ever fleshed out, it may become an issue. jaknouse 17:29, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Other than very actively edited pages, I do not see much problem with long pages. For editing purposes, we can create sections, even within a list of genera. Where is the cutoff? and shouldn't we cross that bridge when we come to it, rather than creating a confusing array of subpages? WormRunner 22:31, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)


My book says barberry is used for its high citric acide content and used with mutton after being made into a jelly. Pickled for use with curries and used in rice dishes in Afghanistan. The author says he puts it with apples, like in apple pie. There is also a recipe here for a Persian rice and chicken dish, calls for 4 Tbsp. of barberries. He says it complements: rice pilafs, stewed fruits, especially apples, and jellies to accompany red meats. Goes good with allspice, chili, coriander, ginger, pepper, and turmeric. Please don't copy this word for word into the article. Some of this is right from my book. dave 06:49, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)

It's a grey area, but pepper is also a fruit. My spice book takes the approach that a spice is any other part of a plant (other than leaf) used for flavouring dishes. I think things like raisins, craisins, etc.. don't qualify because they are more sweet and have less spicy notes to them. dave 14:04, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)

No I couldn't find woodruff anywhere? But then I typed "woodruff spice" in google right now and I found it. It wasn't on Gernot Katzer's page anywhere, nor in my spice bible.... dave 08:11, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

Sassafras: synergistic effect of (Cut-and-paste disease) + Altzheimers...sorry Pollinator 00:26, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I knew about the self-referential whisk fern link. I'm going to redo the whisk fern as a legitimate article in its own right . . . soon. . . anon . . . someday. jaknouse 06:23, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "butter and eggs"

What's the justification for this being important? - it is not a name with any formal validity, not found in any floristic or scientific texts. I've no objection to its being mentioned, but I can't see why it deserves bold text to compete with the standard name - MPF 16:36, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Frankly, I don't see why you insist on reducing its importance."

Partly because it conveys no information as to the species' botanical relationships; partly because it comes over as a foreign attempt to impose a new (and rather trite) name on one of our native plants

"It is a very widely used name and is in the references I can find. Which ones is it missing in?"

The standard floras in the species' native area - Blamey & Grey-Wilson; Clapham, Tutin & Warburg; Dandy; Druce; Jalas & Suominen; Kent; Perring & Walters; Polunin; Stace; Tutin et al.

"Interestingly, a google search for Linaria "common toadflax" produces 710 results. A search for Linaria "butter-and-eggs" produces 3,490 hits"

All that proves is the agressive dominance of the US on the web! Also that the 'common' is a somewhat optional qualifier, it is often just called 'Toadflax' - MPF 17:18, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I made a general topics sidebar for biology - at Mediawiki:biology - use {{msg:biology}} tag to put it on articles as needed. Sub-field article sidebars like psychology can be worked on as well. -SV(talk) 18:14, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Old Growth

You probably didn't notice, but I offered WikiMoney for anyone who started an article on old growth. So I paid ya in your WikiMoney account. Just for fun! Elf | Talk 04:01, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your help re:Kohlrabi - renamed and added to the article. Secretlondon 18:49, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The consensus seems to be white eggplant, so that's what I've gone with. Thanks. Secretlondon 20:29, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Allium

Hi, I noticed you've worked some on the Allium list. There seem to be some confusions: A. diabolense is given the common name "wild onion", which links to an article about A. ursinum (I'm going to fix this one now by moving the wild onion article to Ramsons); A. ascalonicum links to Shallot which refers to Allium oschaninii and Allium cepa var. aggregatum and so on. I'd like to do some sorting on this, but don't want to muck it up! What would you say is the best source for matching up species with their common names? http://hortiplex.gardenweb.com/plants/ and http://plants.usda.gov/ seem useful, are there other sites you would recommend? Thanks for any advice. -- sannse (talk) 12:08, 16 May 2004 (UTC)


[edit] ToL and Categories

Please weigh in: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#MW_1.3_categories

[edit] Red Valerian

Hi... I have now redeemed my error about Valerian by writing a page about Red Valerian to go with the image. I haven't done redirects from any of the innumerable other common names for it - you may like to do so if your experience suggests they are better known. You may be able to improve the page, too, it's only a potboiler from standard sources. seglea 04:44, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You must be a writer of some sort ! Wonderful languaging at chickenpox. Jay 15:31, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Blush

[edit] Vietnamese coriander

Re: Vietnamese Coriander, why do you insist on capitalizing the name? "Coriander" is not a proper noun and should not be capitalized; see also all other herbs in List of herbs. Jpatokal 15:57, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, I hadn't seen the discussion in Tree of Life... and while I still think All Caps looks butt-ugly, I hesitate to go stir up that particular nest of hornets. But since no consensus has been achieved, and you don't seem to hold any strong opinions about the matter yourself, I'd appreciate it if you could move V.C. back to the grammatically correct non-caps version. Jpatokal 02:55, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
For the record, I prefer the capitalized form. WormRunner | Talk 03:10, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

[edit] January 15 Seattle meetup

Just wanted to let you know we are planning another Seattle meetup on January 15, 2005. We're trying to get a sense of who will attend, so please drop by that page & leave a note. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:51, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Squash (fruit) → Squash

Hi WormRunner,

You wrote "I cannot make the move myself". Actually, you could have moved Squash to Squash (disambiguation), then changed Squash to redirect to Squash (fruit), which would have been nearly as good. But I guess it's too late now.

Cheers, dbenbenn | talk 01:15, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You are right. I should have done that. Well, next time.... -- WormRunner | Talk 01:59, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Wintergreen

Sorry if my mid-edit caught you unawares , but it is completed now with all links re-fixed and history intact. It was just getting late and I coundn't get the hamsters to peddle their wheel any more so the generator went down and the connection was lost. Hope this looks OK for you now. I guess I was also probably a little hacked off because I had found so much material written as if the USA was the only place on the planet - not your fault but the enthusiasm just ran out for a time.
Velela 11:08, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, almost intact if you count a re-direct. I'll do a neater job next time- apologies.
Velela 20:12, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi WormRunner - cc of what I've done, and suggested to Velela; any thoughts?:
Hi Velela - just come in on this one after looking at recent changes, and thought I'd better update you on one or two things. Gaultheria is far more than just G. procumbens (about 170 species, in Asia, Australasia, N & S America; e.g. Salal G. shallon), so I've reverted your last edit on List of garden plants and started a new page for the whole genus Gaultheria.
I'm not convinced the current setup with wintergreen as a disambig page is best; Pyrolaceae is 'wintergreen' everywhere, America as well as UK, whereas G. procumbens has 'wintergreen' as just one minor name of several names, with the USDA listing Eastern Teaberry as its main 'official' name. My suggestion would be to (1) move Wintergreen (Gaultheria) to Eastern Teaberry, and (2) return Wintergreen (Pyrolaceae) back to Wintergreen as a page just about Pyrola, but with a brief one-liner at the top with a link to Eastern Teaberry. Another option would be to move the Pyrola account to Pyrola, as other genera in the Pyrolaceae (Moneses, Orthilia, Chimaphila) are also called 'wintergreen'. Let me know if you'd be happy with these suggestions, and if you have any preferences. Doing this may need admin assistance, though, as a page once moved isn't easy to move back (cc to WormRunner). - MPF 00:51, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • as above , my response to MPF- Velela
    I would be very happy to go along with your proposal. My propblem was that I knew the Pyrolas very well but had little knowldge of Gultheria other than knowing that there was more than just G. procumbens. I didn't want to swim against a great tide of American opinion if Wintergreen was the common name for Gaultheria procumbens whilst, in truth, Pyrola Wintergreens are not exactly the best known plants in Europe.
    There is already a re-direct page at Pyrola and another at Gaultheria procumbens. There's the fag of reverting all the odd links fromSasparilla, Root beer, etc. WormRunner was concerned to retain the histories through the moves, something that I signally failed to do but hopefully your editing skils are better than mine !
    Velela 08:48, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Hi WormRunner - thanks; I'll work on something tomorrow. I'll probably leave wintergreen as a disambig after all, as there's also Trientalis (Primulaceae), as well as the several genera of Pyrolaceae and I'd not want to move the existing Pyrolaceae page to wintergreen (nor just make it a redirect to Pyrolaceae). And 'wintergreen' can also be a synonym of 'evergreen' (this is probably the original meaning). Commercial oil of wintergreen, as far as I know, is extracted mainly from Betula lenta if it is still of natural origin at all (rather than synthesized in a factory). - MPF 02:12, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sage removal?

Hello

Yep you got rid of my history on sage, I wrote that originally and so could not see the problem. I am new to wikipedia, can you not use your own text even if you reference it?

Sorry, I seem to have been too quick on the trigger. If you would note in the Edit Summary when you cut and paste your own work it would help avoid that. I have reverted my reversion -- WormRunner | Talk 20:30, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Cool, Was pretty well researched too mate ;) no feathers ruffled, just thought I had broken a rule. Will also try to be a bit clearer that its my own work in future.

[edit] Earthworms

I appreciate your notes on my earthworm paper. It's not quite up to Wikipedia snuff, because it wasn't designed for the wiki, but I can work with it in the future. The reasons for the assortment of Lumbricus-specific information is because that is the one we are studying, but I did not realize the differences between Lumbricus and earthworms in general. Thanks for enlightening me.

Stellertony the Bookcrosser 05:46, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

p.s. Your work on the worm-related articles is amazing - it was very helpful to my research, unlike some of the other pages (such as grasshopper) Stellertony the Bookcrosser 05:48, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Lavender.jpg

Thanks for adding the ifd tag at Image:Lavender.jpg. Any idea what the plant is? - it is a good pic and worth using, if it can be identified correctly and re-uploaded under its correct name - MPF 11:29, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Solanum

Hello. I have added poroporo back as one of the names for Solunum americanum on the Solanum article. It appears to be native to more than one country. See Talk:Solanum for further discussion. Alan Liefting 06:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Rau răm

I'll try to get the article translated, although it's a bit Vietnam-centric. DHN 29 June 2005 18:32 (UTC)

Thanks -- WormRunner | Talk 29 June 2005 18:44 (UTC)
Article mostly translated. I'm no chemistry expert so I'm not sure if the chemical components are spelled correctly (they were Vietnamized in the Vietnamese article). You can bring over the infobox if you want. You can also use the pic vi:Image:Cay rau ram.jpg for another picture of the herb that I took (a bit blurry though). DHN 29 June 2005 19:49 (UTC)

[edit] Apple

Hi Wormrunner, I've got to disagree over the huge TOC at apple, it shifts all of the text completely out of view and leaves a huge area of white space. It looks absolutely awful. I don't see any need for those subheaders, either, they're superfluous - MPF 3 July 2005 16:56 (UTC)

I have copied this over to Talk:Apple. Hopefully there will be more than two of us talking. -- WormRunner | Talk 4 July 2005 00:50 (UTC)

[edit] Stubs

The criteria I've been applying, roughly, is that if an article has multiple paragraphs of content, it's not a stub any more. The inclusion of a photo and external references along with multiple paragraphs of content are even stronger signs that the article is not a stub. Of course, even articles that are not stubs can always be expanded further.  :-) I've also been trying to pay attention to whether the articles are intelligibly written and adequately explain their topic before de-categorizing them as stubs. Dr.frog 21:45, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Amenorrhoea

This edit could seriously do with a source. Does it have a historical or geographical context? What abortifacients were used? JFW | T@lk 08:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User Categorization

You were listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Oregon page as living in or being associated with Oregon. As part of the Wikipedia:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Wikipedians in Oregon for instructions. Rmky87 07:00, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Freshwater Invertebrates & Marine Invertebrates

Thank you for answering my question. I was wondering if you knew any good sites that could break it down further for different species? Once again, THANK YOU for the help!

[edit] Soybean

I'm anxious to avoid a fight with you about this category issue, but since I am following the advice of the Wikipedia manual of style, as I quoted on the talk page of soybean, I put the categories back as they were after my edit. I hope you'll agree that not including these categories on the soybean page is the correct way to go. --DannyWilde 01:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Garry Oak

Thanks for the note - agreed, and done; I've also expanded the article and added some references - MPF 09:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oil (disambiguation) → Oil

Hello. In the interest of building a consensus, I would appreciate any input you would have regarding the request to move Oil (disambiguation) back to Oil. Thank you, --Kralizec! (talk) 17:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Turmeric.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Turmeric.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link Farm

Hi WormRunner, You have recently deleted a number of my recipe sites as you consider them 'link farms'. I just read the Wikipedia article on link farming and I don't believe that's what I have. I spent a lot of time collecting the recipes for the various sites and I included the links simply to help interested users. Nothing was automated. I thought this was what the web is all about; making a network of accessable information.

Anyways, I think Wikipedia is a great tool and I hope you are a person not a program.

[edit] Systematic name

Thanks, William, for the clarification. I should have looked it up. Anthon.Eff 11:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grapefruit Article.

Good morning WormRunner,

~ I have shortened the last paragraph as short as I could possibly make it. This is exciting to work on grapefruit with you. Back and forth and push and pull. This is a draw. We both win this round.

Less equals more. The information is shorter, however, all the facts are still there without duplicate sentences as you prefer! I am moving on to other articles now but I will check back later to make sure those shorter sentences remain intact.

Good Day. Peace!

note to any readers. a quick look at the history of the above comment will show that the anonymous writer's comments have been cleaned up retroactively to hide a series of personal attacks. Further, I consider the last statement a threat to maintain an edit war.
note to the anonymous editor. your behavior is cowardly and duplicitous. I see that you are continuing your poor behavior to other editors. You would do much better to get an account and behave in a civilized manner. Continuing in your current manner only makes you look bad. The grapefruit article is in good shape now, but you have no right to expect that you can prevent others from altering it.

-- WormRunner 06:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CAMPHOR FOR LIPS -

Dear readers,

I get feverblister from the sun and the only thing that realy works is clean camphor. If you feel one coming you just put some on and it disappear. But I can't find a supplier for this product, because the one that I baught is of the market. -- anon

Can any body help?

I would suggest googling for "camphor lip balm" or "camphor supplier". You are more likely to get a good answer there. -- WormRunner 19:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ancient Forest

Hi, a while ago you started the "Old growth" article. It was moved last year to Old growth forest and has done some evolving. I'm proposing to redirect the current article to Ancient forest. If you have an opinion on the matter would stop by at Talk:Old growth forest, thanks. - Steve3849 talk 03:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ephedra

Hi, thought you might want to participate in a discussion at Talk:Ephedra regarding whether the genus article or medicine article should be at Ephedra, and what to call the medicine article if there is a switch.--Eloil 04:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)