User talk:Paul144

Image of Wolfberries

I am seeking written permission to use the photos Wolfberries_Ningxia_7-04.JPG and Wolfberries_on_vine.jpg in an upcoming publication of Popular Farming Series (Bowtie Inc.). Am I free to use these images in our publications and how would you like for the image to be attributed in the magazine?

Please contact me at [e-mail] with attribution and permission information.

Thank you.

Sstaton80 19:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit McFredit

		The Original Barnstar
		For your improvements to Guarana. My writing sucks when I'm forced to write it piecemeal. MessedRocker (talk) 16:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Life Science Barnstar
		For working so hard on plant related articles I User Swirlex award Paul144 this Barnstar.

About Twinkle

To install Twinkle, go to your monobook.js (click here), click edit, and add the following code: importScript('User:AzaToth/twinkle.js'); . Then, save. You'll have to clear your cache by holding Shift and clicking Refresh. Then you should see the extra tabs TW gives you. If you don't, give me a poke. Jonathan talk - contribs - review me! 21:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To revert, get a diff. See this for more info. You should see these big, bold ROLLBACK buttons above the revision time. If it's vandalism, click [ROLLBACK (VANDAL]. It'll do the reversion for you, and then it'll open the talk page of the vandal. Click the "warn" tab and choose the appropriate warning. Jonathan talk - contribs - review me! 21:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mangos and pigment?

I note, in mango, you removed the section about the pigment Indian yellow; presumably, this is because its connection to mango has been shown to be spurious.

The point is, though, this is a misconception that's fairly widespread. If we omit it entirely, someone may (with the best of intentions) add it to the article. To this end, I feel it's a better idea to (briefly) mention the pigment myth, and then refute it, quickly and decisively.

So, are you okay with putting that section back? DS (talk) 15:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DS -- as long as it has a citation to reputable literature, I'm ok with it. Thanks. --Paul144 (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

accurate information on mangosteen

Hey Paul - you reversed some edits about mangosteen. There are two key points that could be considered misleading to someone who is honestly seeking accurate information. These statements are not inaccurate, but could use some greater illumination.

First is the statement: "Among six exotic fruits, the unpigmented, white fruit of the mangosteen was ranked lowest overall for these qualities." This is accurate, but for someone seeking to determine whether a mangosteen supplement is worth trying, he or she may not realize that some of the mangosteen supplements include outer, pigmented, dark skin is included. perhaps you would agree to add a statement like, "This test did not include the outer shell of the mangosteen, which is included in some mangosteen supplements."

The article is about the fruit as a whole and the parts of interest to mankind -- the edible arils. No human would eat the exocarp -- just like no human would eat a coconut shell -- so I don't see the issue about an artificial process making juice from the puree is relevant. I've drunk Xango, and I don't detect any fibrous elements in it so this argument you make about the puree having noteworthy properties (which I believe are physiologically trivial anyway) is beside the point of the article.--Paul144 (talk) 18:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... you are certaily assuming some things about my motives for creating an accurate article on mangosteen. That's okay. I think we both want the same thing - a non-bias, accurate article that only offers relevant information, right? - So to say that humans are not interested in the exocarp is short sighted at best. In fact, when it comes to anything related to the history of medicinal use of the mangosteen fruit, the exocarp is the only thing people have used as a medicine. Most commonly, the rind has been ground up and used like tea leaves to create a drinkable liquid often used to treat gastro-intestinal disease, fatigue and headaches. I do not think it is paramount that this is stated in the article, but it does seem fair to mention, at a minimum, that the skin of the fruit was not a part of the testing of any of the fruits. It should also be noted that the peel of an orange or a banana are not typically consumed by most humans, but both have medicinal applications.

Second is the case study about lactic acidosis. The article clearly states which brand is used - a cheap product that is manufactured by agrolabs and routinely sold at COSTCO. This is not a quality preparation of mangosteen juice and it should not be compared to whole food, whole fruit preparations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.130.145 (talk) 15:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find this type of analysis pertinent at all to an article about the natural mangosteen. You can try to make your case on the Xango article. I monitor that one too.--Paul144 (talk) 18:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. If you really want to keep the article about the natural mangosteen fruit, then the entire case study about lactic acidosis would be irrelevant also, correct? The person in the case study did not eat mangosteen fruit, he drank a manufactured and processed juice. In fact, after re-reading the article which is well done, by the way, there really is no need to mention anything about any processed juices. Perhaps you will agree and make the changes?

See mangosteen discussion page.--Paul144 (talk) 00:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Links

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by some search engines, including Google. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. [1] [2] --Ronz (talk) 23:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA reassessment of Vitamin C

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Vitamin C/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Acai Berries.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Acai Berries.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 20:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lycium barbarum

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:Wolfberries_China_7-05.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: [e-mail]

Thanks, Scott O’Bar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.187.182.2 (talk) 01:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion for Superfruit

An article that you have been involved in editing, Superfruit, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. 0x0077BE ^(talk · contrib) 20:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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]