User talk:John Moss

Sometimes a simple cut is a big improvement, nice edit. [1] Regards, Cygnis insignis 23:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome, it is good to get a few contacts. If you have a particular interest, such as Australia or Plants, there are some good projects around. I can point out a couple if you like, let me know. If you find anything here mystifying, I may be able to help. I can certainly recommend someone if I'm unable to provide an answer. You found my talk page (I forgot to point it out), so if you need something - edit it! :-) Cheers, Cygnis insignis 00:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really that universal outside of oz in production? I am about to tag it for australian project - please also understand i find the format a bit skew away from standard mos - trust you can cope with some tweaks :) SatuSuro 03:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your positive response - It makes the day in between some other things that go on. It could do with some more regular citations - even if they from the items at the bottom. I had a very strong interest some years back about the gum that exudes from euc marri - it was used as a stomach complaint remedy - it too was utilised at times of difficulty (ww2) and then dissapears off the radar -cheers SatuSuro 04:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey if you have info refs and material for exudate art - go for it as a new art and let me know when you do it - great! SatuSuro 04:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sorry - shorthand is bad at times - euc marri gum - i assume is exudate - and art - article - sorry SatuSuro 04:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sorry again - embroiled with reality and various issues - will get back to the question you posed tommorow - cheers - i hope :| SatuSuro 14:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This image looks to be Eucalyptus nitens and not Eucalyptus dives. Bidgee (talk) 13:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Dennis Considen, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.  Ravenswing  16:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Maybe you want to have a word with Yiloslime? Your edit summary did accuse him of vandalism, which did not happen. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 15:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John,

I don't think we're communicating in the same language, and the problem is likely my reliance on jargon.

As part of your campaign to have essential oils supported by WikiProject Medicine, I have repeatedly requested that you demonstrate that eucalyptus oil is regulated as a pharmaceutical drug. Regulation is a matter of government action. In the US, all current and recently past regulated pharmaceutical drugs are listed in the FDA's Orange Book -- not the USP. In Europe, regulated pharmaceutical drugs are approved by the EMEA -- not the BP. (You can find links to these things on my user page.)

BP (like the USP) is a "chemical cookbook". It specifies industry-accepted levels for purity and other ingredients. It is not a statement of marketing authorizations and is not a reliable source for that regulatory information. It covers all regulated pharmaceutical drugs, hundreds of biologics, and hundreds of other substances. The mere fact something is listed somewhere or another in BP does not mean that the substance is, or could be, a pharmaceutical drug. Consider, for example, volume 3, which describes surgical materials. I'm sure that you would never describe surgical materials, such as sutures, as pharmaceutical drugs -- and yet they are certainly listed in BP.

However, the reason I pushed for you to find out more information than merely that 'eucalyptus is mentioned somewhere or another in BP' is because BP tends to divide itself into sections that line up fairly well with the regulatory status of the chemical. If eucalyptus oil had been listed in volume 1 or 2 of BP, then I think that would have strengthened your case with the members of WPMED. It appears that you don't have access to the information, and were (are?) just hoping that it's in the "medicinal substances" volumes instead of, say, in the homeopathic section (also volume 3) or veterinary medicines (volume 5).

Fundamentally, it's too late now. WPMED members looked at the limited information you provided and their own information and experiences, and rejected your case. But if you want to bring it up someday in the future, I urge you to learn more about the difference between the USP and the Orange Book, and about the difference between the BP and EMEA's EPARs. In practice, WPMED cares much more about the latter items than the former ones. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basically I just decided to walk away from this discussion because WhatamIdoing seemed obstructionist.

For a discussion to take place the other party needs to acknowledge what is being presented. This is how rational discussion takes place. Also, my understanding is that wiki parrallels academia in that it is evidence based requiring citations and references, and is not simply opinion based.

Of course there are references to Eucalyptus oil being used as a pharmaceutical in BP. Also, opposite to what WhatIamdoing says, in actual fact there is a substantial number of conventional medical research references supporting Eucalyptus oils efficacy.[2] [3] [4][5][6]. Clearly this pharmacological research indicates that Eucalyptus oil is an active ingredient - and not like a bandage or homeopathic ingredient.

Similarly, essential oils not being included on the WPMED is totally inconsistence with the evidence and citations. For example, consider Methyl salicylate which is widely used as a topical analgesic in conventional medicinal products - indeed a volatile form of conventional Salicylic acid - common Aspirin! Could one get more conventional than that?

Also, there was no consensus of opinion opposing essential oils on WPMED. In fact, there were very few people willing to get involved in the discussion, and I hardly blame them. But I did come away from this discussion with a disappointed feeling because I feel that this niche of the Wiki community were not adhering to the standards of recognizing references and citations. And it left me wondering how vulnerable wikipedia is to ill-informed opinion. For example in this case the other party doesn't even know the difference between a terpene and a homeopathic product, and yet is trying to present themselves as being 'informed'!

But most telling is that Wikipedia Pharmacology rated as "high" the Eucalyptus oil article. Why would they do that if eucalyptus oil wasn't recognized as an important medicinal product?

These terpenes are in fact just another type of chemical like any other medicine, and the reality is that there are many citations for terpene type compounds in various pharmacopoeias - especially Menthol, Methyl salicylate, and Eucalyptol.

But like I say, what is the point of discussing this with the other party if they don't even acknowledge the reference material being presented?

So it just sits there, but I'm happy to keep on editing articles rather than engage in anymore time wasting discussion with someone who ignores evidence based reference material.

Cheers.John Moss (talk) 08:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Spiral didgeridoo, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spiral didgeridoo. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Didgebox, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Didgebox. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Travel didgeridoo, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Travel didgeridoo. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I closed all three as "no consensus" and you can merge them into a single article about modern didgeridoos whenever you want, I guess, provided there are more sources to indicate notability. —fetch·comms 02:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, I'm glad we're in agreement. A separate article about modern didgeridoo designs sounds like a good idea to me as well. Graham87 15:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

—fetch·comms 19:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied there. —fetch·comms 01:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Solanum nigrum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fatal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Solanum nigrum, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Tonic and Ulcer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Solanum scabrum (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Corolla and Stellate

Solanum villosum (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Corolla

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[7]

I've removed the space here as this is nonstandard.Curb Chain (talk) 04:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Solanidine, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Synthesis and Precursor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Would you be interested in having your photo included in my book that I am self-publishing, which is going to be called Alternative Crops for Drylands?

Here is the photo I would like to use: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Santalum_acuminatum_fruit1.JPG Do you have a higher quality version?

What is your full name that you would like me to include in the credits? Also, where was this picture taken?

Please respond to me at my email address: acfdrylands@hushmail.com

Thanks, Scott O’Bar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.187.182.2 (talk) 00:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Rumex brownii may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• aid seed dispersal via attaching to animal fur and hair, and also human clothing.<ref>''Docks (Rumex sp.'', Department of Agriculture and Food, Western Australia. [http://www.agric.wa.gov.au/PC_

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Solanum americanum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Esophageal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Solanum americanum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Antiviral (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]