User talk:Marshman

Pond

Taro ponds photo look great! Great addition to Wikipedia! --Menchi 09:51, Aug 22, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks. I've had a digital camera for about 3 years now and I have a thousand pictures on all kinds of stuff, but mostly plants and insects. Happy to find a use for them!- Marshman

---

I already moved Composite family. I deleted Fabaceae but didnt move anything there because I wasn't sure what you wanted moved there. Wish you good luck on the nomination... --Jiang 22:33, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I'm surprised! Anyway, I responded there and moved the legume stuff into Fabaceae. Thanks. - Marshman 22:51, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Grass

Hello Marshman -- Im glad to see that someone of your higher level has come to down to our low level to give some treatment to our low level concepts. While ordinarily I might quibble that the colloquial referent is more important than the latin scientific name, I dont seem to care much either way on this particular subject (how much can one argue about grass?) as long as all the redirects work fine. I would suggest keeping grass as a redirect to pho...whatever... and not as a disambiguation page for "grass=pot" -- which is not enough of a reason to maintain a disambig page. --戴&#30505sv 20:14, Aug 27, 2003 (UTC)

Sorry if I came on too strong after you switched grass<>Poaceae. I had just done that one and 3-4 others (fair bit of time and difficulty getting sysop help to clear pages so documentations (=Talk) could move over too) for what I thought were "obvious" (my take, not valid) botanical reasons. I can understand what you are saying about redirect vs. disambiguation, but I submit that grass is a definite for disambiguation. Just so there was no doubt, I fleshed it out this morning beyond the grass as lawn / grass as mary jane. Of course others might be better for redirect, but in plants and animals, common names often refer to different things to different people - Marshman 21:26, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Pointing out the existence of "false" grass is very useful. It'd be informative to say what family each one belongs to (as you've already done for some), since they are obviously not in Poaceae, and most have no articles (for now anyway). --Menchi 09:14, Aug 28, 2003 (UTC)

I agree. And I will, once I find out all the famlies we have articles going for. But I'll keep returning to the non-grass listing - Marshman 09:17, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

sorry but the floating sidebar on elm is no good -- most screens are simply not wide enough to support it. -- Tarquin 18:53, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I realize that I have a high resolution screen and therefore will not encounter that problem. But how does the other sidebar on that page not cause an identical problem? The sidebar I suggest (as presented at Elm) is right justified and will expand as far left as needed to accomodate text. Use of <BR> can control that to keep it from filling across screen. - Marshman 19:00, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

it's best to use tables as little as possible; as for the line, I don't really see how right-aligning it is any better. It's only an extra formatting convention we would now have to replicate throughout wikipedia, and it's ugly markup that confuses the novce editor. Simple is best, in my opinion -- Tarquin 19:16, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

If we do not use table formatting as you suggest, I think a standard <DIV> "right" format with bullets or similar at the top would still be preferable to the current practice of dividing lines and bottom billing for these minor alternatives. Of course a disambiguation page is a better solution, but obviously needs to be used only where there is a clear need to split articles. The problem with the bottom billing once the lead artyicle gets large is that a person looking for the minor word use is not going to scroll down through the text he is not interested in (human nature). - Marshman 19:36, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I agree that bottom billing is no good, but I think right-align is needless clutter -- Tarquin 19:42, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

Poof! You've got sysop rights. Use them well. As your first act, let me suggest that you update Wikipedia:Administrators, Wikipedia:Recently created admins and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to reflect your new status. --Uncle Ed 19:16, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Thank you sir. I will be a credit to the organization %^) - Marshman

---

Hi, I dropped a reply in Talk:Kahoolawe. - Hephaestos 21:08, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

This is a reply to your note on Wikibooks, since you don'y (yet ;) ) have user page over there. There is no problem at all referring to Wikipedia from Wikibooks. I've done it on one or two glosary modules. I'm still treating the use as experimental, hoping to find an easier way to set markup, since right now I use the full URI of the Wikipedia page. A couple of us are lloking for a good method the get this kind of thing into a popup window or frame so that a TOC/Outline as you suggest can be handled better. I'll also post a little different info to Wikibooks. Lou I 19:06, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

Hi :) Why the cap and tt of the subject area (re Fruit and Cuticle)? Its a bit nonstandard and not really necessary, in my opinion...without the extra formatting the article looks a bit more homogeneous. Thanks :) Dysprosia 09:26, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I discussed this on Village pump recently. In the natural sciences there is a need to distingush different uses of common and technical terms by discipline. This may not be unique to the natural sciences, but is especially "critical" there. I'm searching for a way to do this that can be easily picked up by the reader without being glaring. I find the usual "In Botany, the term blank means ...." to be not entirely satisfactory, and difficult to pick out if not at the very beginning of the first line. My rendering of BOTANY is non-intrusive but used as a discipline marker. Supposedly some new changes in the Wikipedia server may satisfy this, but I have my doubts. I find any suggestion of imposing needed structure through formatting always meets with someone's objection, so I'm trying to be conservative. But there are ways to organize thoughts that make the presentations easier to use.... homogeneity is not necessarily a plus; just means less information is conveyed. I appreciate your input. - Marshman 19:56, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Membrane related

I believe you deleted membrane processes? Some nitpicks...

• Unless there's a good reason for deletion, please redirect rather than delete - see wikipedia:redirect and wikipedia talk:deletion policy/redirects for background.
• You didn't check the backlinks, so you left Membrane Processe as a broken redirect, which was non-ideal. Where deletion is appropriate, it's best to delete all the redirects too. This is an easy thing to forget, I know: maybe there should be a warning, similar to the one you get for deleting a page with page history?
• You didn't check talk pages - Talk:Membrane Processe, in this case. I just moved it to talk:membrane. Such talk pages show up on wikipedia:orphan talk pages, and someone has to come along and tidy them up later. Again, easy to forget.
• You didn't leave it seven days, and the page wasn't a candidate for speedy deletion (wikipedia:deletion policy).

It's no loss: it sounds like there was nothing worth keeping in the page history, and I could create a redirect easily enough, but maybe worth bearing in mind for next time? Sorry to come over all critical and such - just caught my eye... :) Martin 23:17, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC) (insane in the membrane)

No problem Martin. In my defense I did explain my reasoning for not waiting 7 days (my earlier inclination). I did consider Redirect and should have gone that route, at least initially. I did check links and saw Membrane Processe (a misspelled word?) and intended to delete that as well, but -- well forgot. The Talk page went right by me (I'm new at this). Otherwise (that is, forgiving my errors which were errors) I do think it was a candidate for speedy deletion just because it was generated automatically some 18 months ago, had one erroneous edit which caused confusion, and the entire brief contents fit perfectly into an article elsewhere. The history was just this: 1) Automatic Conversion, 2) added "cell" to membrane causing confusion, 3) my initial changes (marking for deletion). I'll continue to learn - Marshman 23:38, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The "automatic conversion" was a conversion between two software versions of Wikipedia - See User:Ryguasu/conversion script AI and Wikipedia:Usemod article histories for more. So it's not really correct to say that it was generated automatically - it was all written by hand. Martin 08:52, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The two lists generated at the site I destroyed and the one I moved stuff to were similar but not identical which indicates hand typing rather than automated machine. Question (you seem to be pretty wise about these things) -I looked for answers but have been unable to locate anything written down: 1) what does the "block" mean after "Talk" (Talk|block) in Recent changes by Wikipedes not logged in? 2) Is there a magic way to revert a page if it is found vandalized or erased (also form of vandalism) or is that done by going back to an older version and cutting/pasting into the edit plate? - Marshman

1. This is your magic IP-blocking ability. You can also access it via the "special pages" link. See wikipedia:dealing with vandalism and wikipedia:vandalism in progress.
2. I think the answer is at wikipedia:revert (or it should be)

Martin 09:33, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

In re Maui Dollar, I will add more. I believe it is of interest. They have been issued since at least 1975. Most visitors to the island are familiar with them. See: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3046265428&category=3455 and other examples by searching.

---

Well, I think I misread the article Plantae then. I also have a misunderstanding then algae can't be bacteria and bacteria can't be algae! Luckily I have an excuse of poor high school education for biology :P -wshun 23:23, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hey, Marshman, Highway 50 IS a US highway, but 99 is a state highway. RickK 03:25, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Boy, you could be right, but that would be a surprise to me. I lived and traveled that highway for many years between Stockton and Sacramento (and as a kid between Sacramento and LA). It is in sequence with (east of) US 101 at the coast. I just checked my atlas and it does have it as a State Route. My suspicion is (and I'm not a Transportation expert) that US 99 was removed from federal authority sometime after Interstate 5 was built and given to CalTrans. We shoud have someone who knows the history weigh in. But I'll concede, it is now State route 99. - Marshman 04:10, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Indeed, when I look, I see the same thing happened in Oregon - Marshman

---

Re: Hawaii and the UN in 1999.

You mentioned on User_talk:Xamian:

That is a wierd factoid; What is UN Article 73? - Marshman 04:30, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Yeah ... I thought it was interesting too ... it was mentioned a few places on the Internet:

• http://www.hawaii-nation.org/art73.html
• http://www.alohaquest.com/archive/archive.htm
• http://www.hawaiischoolreports.com/history/statehood.htm

and a few others. I thought it should be mentioned in the article ... I never knew myself.

Xamian 05:09, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

Re: Groin/Groyne - I believe it's wikipedia policy to name pages in international English, not American English. -- Steinsky 12:30, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Not correct. The policy is to be liberal (easy going) where British and American English differ and not push one or the other (International English? No such animal). - Marshman 17:04, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Marsh photo

Dear Marshman, yes, the Image:Bride-Brook-Salt-Marsh-vs.jpg photo is mine. I took it on July 17, 2003. Actually it is part of a much larger photo (the actual photo is over 5,000 pixels wide). I made the larger version because of the amount of detail. I use a high resolution screen and it pops up fine on mine. I am not quite sure if you are having a problem with the smaller image or the the larger image, Image:Bride-Brook-Salt-Marsh-s.jpg. I tried to make the smaller version something like 800 pixels large which is within the standard limit but I guess it is still too large for some browsers. If you want to reduce that one, maybe that is the one to go ahead and reduce and leave the detailed one so someone can study the details of the image? That was my intention in uploading such a large image. Alex756 02:09, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that reformating of the marsh photo. The smaller version works for me, but Stan is still having problems with the size of the image. I have a hi-res 1024 screen so any version looks great to me, I defer to those who use 800x600 browser windows to determine compatability. You should see the 3000x1000 px image that I got printed on a 8 x 22 epson six ink photo printer. I can almost hear the frogs in that photo! Alex756 03:32, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I bet! Amazing how far that technology has come. I reduced it to still a little large, so it could go down if making problems on low-res browsers. It is 600 wide and max recommended is 400. - Marshman 05:34, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

I took the formatting off on purpose. See the talk page. Angela 17:42, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Actually, now I'm confused. Did you try and put the subheaders back in? When I looked at the diff, that is what it looked like, but I just checked and now I can't tell what you did. Angela 17:44, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I changed the formatting to be consistent with the way it has been on that page. It was (before I made changes) subheaders for each article listed for deletion. I'll go check the discussion (missed that?). Anyway, thought I was helping out; I've no stake in how it should be laid out on that page, and will help put it back how you want. - Marshman 17:56, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC) There was an edit conflict when I did my changes, so we may have both been doing the same correction. I still casn't get up eaerly enough to stay ahead of youu 8^).

Sorry, I got confused. Seems like we were actually tying to do the same thing. Thanks for helping. Angela 18:13, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

So the great debate upon the Lib. of T.B. is now archived. Seems to have been considered as having some vague relevance, best not to identify too personally with the fate of a single page . Abandon hope all ye who contribute here should be inscribed on front page of wiki perhaps. . You are quite right of course, just no use whatsoever ranting when in the long scheme of things ALL will be erased. Just intellectual pride, but thanks for your concern over my blood pressure. Sir T.B.'s particular interest in botany appears to have been fungus and the microscopic in nature. He made many sharp-eyed botanical notes which were last reprinted in 1905. Norwikian 10:19, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Not like I have not been there more than once myself, and defending is certainly called for in many instances. It just looked like you were making it a do or die proposition — not a stand (at that point) worth taking. Best to look for work arounds. Otherwise the change you defended to the death just gets made against your wishes next yerar or next decade. Have fun is more important 8^). A botanist? I should have been on TB's side (actually, I think I was)! - Marshman

---

My comment "AKFD" on VfD refers to the ongoing "AIDS kills fags dead" controversy. Your comment that the title "stupid multiplex" was inherently problematic, even before we start on the article, struck me as yet another reason why we shouldn't have 4 or 5 redirects to the article Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead'. Onebyone 16:43, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I was able to figure that out after I did some searches. I'm still unsure if you are agreeing or disagreeing that starting an article with the word "stuped", in most cases, indicates it is POV (my point), in that calling something stupid usually really means: "in my opinion that is pretty dumb" Anyway, no bigee either way. Thanks for explaining AKFD; sounds like we agree - Marshman 16:54, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Image format

Nice tweak on island, can you do islet too please? --Uncle Ed 19:49, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I went straight there! - Marshman 20:05, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

Just a minor query re Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary. My Birder's Guide to Florida, purchased for a trip to Nova Scotia and southern Florida last autumn gives the area as 10,720 acres, don't know which is correct. Jim

My numbers come off the booklet sold at the sanctuary, but could be dated (acreage may have been added). I'll see if the web site gives more correct numbers. I have Florida's Birds but it gives the location w/o details - Marshman 16:47, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC) I emailed the director and he responded: 11,000 acres - Marshman 18:17, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

Photo replacement

It was a good choice to replace the photo at Mushroom with one with a more common morphology. I for one have never seen any fungus that remotely look like that fan-shaped one. And I even used to go out of my way in forests to look for fungi (no...not for psychedelic experience or even for any ingestion). Photos that are representative are better than, admittedly, very beautiful and exotic ones.

Btw, another great photo from you!? Stop already! (No... please don't stop!) --Menchi (Talk)â 19:51, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouraging words. My thoughts exactly. I really liked that photo of the cacao infecting fungus fruiiting body. It just was too odd for the article. I've got a number more to illustrate different types of fungi, so I'm not done contributing yet %^) - Marshman 17:30, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Are you a mycologist?

I see your beautiful bracket fungus photos and wonder if you are into mycology? I have MANY mushroom photos, many of them very beautiful. I cannot identify them, and right now I'm kind of swamped; learning about them is not my first priority. I've taken the photos simply because they were there, and unique and beautiful, thinking to use them later when I have more time to study them. They are all from eastern USA and Canada. But I'd be glad to put them up now, if you or someone knowledgeable would like to identify them and do the write-ups. Pollinator 03:41, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'm afraid my pictures were similary obtained. But I have a good local guide that allows me to identify many of the species. I'd suggest we set up a mushroom photographs page, and as you upload the images (with whatever location information you can provide) we can have them out there for someone to identify — at which point we can move them into appropriate articles. Start with some of your favorites that you want to release and put them here: Mushroom album. I can help with page formatting if needed - Marshman 04:00, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

You are quite right about List of introduced species. I've half a mind to list it for deletion, but someone would only create it again. Cheers, Tannin 21:35, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

earthworms

"becomes a pest in the new location, threatening the local biodiversity."

I work on earthworms. There are large stretches of the world where introduced species (in the temperate zone mostly Lumbricidae) are eliminating the local species. One of the notable native earthworms of Oregon (Driloleirus macelfreshi) is probably extinct due to competition. Lumbricids have fundamentally changed the soil characteristics in areas they invade. If this does not fit the definition of "invasive", then perhaps we are speaking different languages. WormRunner 03:36, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes we are. Because virtually any introduced species, if naturalized, will likely result in some kind of eciological change in the place where it is introduced, the term "invasive" has really little meaning (cannot be defined as different from introduced species), and for this reason tends not to be used by ecologists. However, there is a government definition (read the article) that states invasive species cause economic harm, and indeed there are (USDA, for example) web sites that list "officially declared" invasive species. If the earthworm you speak of is listed as having caused economic damage, then it is an invasive species, otherwise it is an introduced species. This whole subject was discussed on the talk pages at invasive species and introduced species. Unfortunately this is a subject that most biologists will tell you "well I know what an invasive species is" only to run headlong into other biologists declaring they are wrong. The reason, IMHO, is that few biologists have actually tried to define "invasive" in any precise way. For example, you state: "...where introduced species (in the temperate zone mostly Lumbricidae) are eliminating the local species" I can assure that that is the situation for virtually every naturalized species on earth -- they replace native species -- with perhaps the rare exceptions of species introductioon to a place where their niche was completely absent. What you have, I believe is an intyroduced species and not an invasive species by the definitions (taken from the literature) presented on the Wiukipedia pages covereing those subjects - Marshman 00:12, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, I did read the article, beforehand, and think that what the lumbricids do qualifies as environmental harm (in the definitions given). Now that you have changed the page to state that economics is the only real test, they may not qualify since that has never been quantified AFAIK. WormRunner 01:12, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm not out to eliminate the worms from the list. I AM on your side. I fight introduced stuff all the time here in Hawaii, probably more than anyone at Wikipedia since I'm involved in actually destroying invasives and replacing them with natives (plants) on my weekends. But think about the definition: You know what is happening with the lumbricid fauna, but you are biased, because you have interest and knowledge. And that would be true for any biologist seeing their speciality over-run by introduced species. So if it is always true ecologically, then "invasive" and "introduced" are basically describing the same thing. But when that point was raised a month or so ago, there was an outcry (to wit: "I and every other biologist know what invasive is, and it is not the same as introduced"). Environmentalists use "invasive" because it has greater emotional appeal than "introduced". But when it comes down to actually defining the difference, the only thing I could find that made much sense is the "economic" issue. If USDA (or some other gov't entity) says the introduced species is causing great harm (usually measured in dollars somehow) then it is invasive; otherwise it is introduced. - Marshman 19:05, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Hi Marshman. Could you look at my flag entry on Talk:Hawaii. I would fix it but I don't have veriafiable info. Moriori 20:08, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

---

Origin of Algae

Josh – Your recent changes to Alga have removed the idea that eukaryotic algae had their origin(s) in endosymbiotic event(s). You have not replaced that "theory", just eliminated it. Was that your intention? Can you cite some sources? - Marshman 17:53, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sorry! I was changing the note about the possibility of origin in several separate endosymbiotic events, because newer research makes it unlikely. I'll try to add some references later, but there's a good bit of the Protista that needs changing. I didn't mean to take out the bit about endosymbiosis altogether, and have replaced it. Thanks for keeping watch. - Josh

fire department alert

We're having trouble tonight with a vandal, see Wikipedia:Block log. Some suspect it is the same user as User:Bird....if you have any way to help us stop this individual, it would be much appreciated. We are in IRC. Kingturtle 08:19, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sorry I was out of town and just got back. Unable to do much until later today - Marshman 17:21, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Flowering plants

Thanks for re-bolding and tidying this, looks a lot better now! - I for one am much happer to see the formal scientific names emphasized, I don't understand what JG had against it. I certainly find all this invalid pseudo-Latin stuff like euro-sids one and two is confusing and unhelpful MPF 23:06, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I could see a bit of controversy developing there, but tried to just tidy up things as I saw it. The bolding IS justified because the terms fit (I think) a reasonable definition of technical terms in that paragraph. I also think the idea that "common terms are better" was quite well-meaning when it was established by early Wikipedians, but is a poor way to present technical information that can only get worse with time. For example, clicking on Magnoliopsida right now brings up Dicotyledon, a term that is becoming archaic to those knowledgeable about plant taxonomy. What the term means is a valid topic, perhaps even deserving of its own article; but most people persuing information here would be better served by going straight to Magnoliopsida. Of course scientific terminology changes all the time; that is the beauty of this encyclopedia that the paper ones cannot handle: our terms can follow the changes. To stand by old terms because they are "well known" among the average non-scientific user becomes a disservice to both the project and the user. I learned my plant taxonomy when it was Dicotyledones; should I insist we stick to that article name when the rest of the botany has moved on? I don't think so. I say dump the common names when they cease to really mean what the article intends to cover. Have a short article on why the term has passed out of fashion, then link to the modern equivalents for those seeking an education here. - Marshman 23:24, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

New pages

Marshman: I don't "follow editors around," but I do often keep a close eye on Special:Newpages. It's been my experience that most (>95%) of new articles are not edited soon after their creation, so I have no qualms about editing brand-new articles. Besides, you can always replace my edits if yours are better... it's a Wiki, after all! ;) -- Seth Ilys 04:38, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Like I said no problem really. I had just created that article, made the first save and went on to flesh it out a bit and ran into an editing conflict. It was more the shock of it than anything else! I have never visited Special:Newpages, so I'm not sure what it presents. Anyway, I think the article can still be considered a stub, even with my further work on it. - Marshman 04:58, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

I'm editing out the links because the articles no longer exist. They're all redirects to scientific classification, except for genus and species. jaknouse 01:34, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Good enough reason for me. And nice to know. I suppose I would have noticed at some point - Marshman 01:37, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Dear Marshman,

I have started adding to the Botany book you created at wikibooks, and wrote you a message on your talk page there. Please have a look, best wishes, Aletta 21:52, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I noticed! But did not see the message. I'll check it out and respond over there. And Welcome! - Marshman 01:44, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Supposed Redundancies re HI

I was about to just put back all of the portion of the following:

Hawaii's distinctions among U.S. states include being

• the one with the southernmost point,
• the only one with any part in the tropical zone,
• one of two outside the contiguous U.S.,
• the only one with no territory on the mainland of any continent,
• the one most recently admitted to statehood, and
• the one whose territory was most recently annexed by the U.S.

It also has all of its permanently inhabited area both in the tropics, and (thus) south of all other states.

that's been removed, when i realized that you almost certainly have all the relevant facts at hand, and were not simply editing out of ignorance. So let's talk abt this.

I think you will find that the appearance of redundancy merely reflects imprecise reading. For instance, "the tropics", tho it has a precise meaning presumably given by the article, also has another common meaning (suggested by the description of Florida as having a "semi-tropical climate") that is imprecise. One reference to the "tropic zone" rather than just "the tropics" is needed to draw attention to the fact that the statement is far from being a matter of mere opinion abt the difference between FL's & HI's climates being enough to call that a distinction.

"Southernmost" is also imprecise, with at least 3 meanings:

• having the southernmost point
• being entirely south of all the others (not the case w/ HI, as i assume you know)
• having its centroid farthest south (In this sense, NV is farther north than CA, even tho their northermost points are equally far north.)

(Note that the first sense has the surprising consequence that there is no logical contradiction in the possibility of the same state being both northernmost and southernmost; in fact, in this sense, MI is both more northerly and more southerly than WI (a thought which leaves me queasy, even though i am clear about why my intuitive expectation is wrong).)

Finally, i'm sure you're aware that HI is not in the tropics, but rather part of it is and part is in the N temperate zone; i can't imagine why you would accept that (since i see that someone else made the change).

Perhaps my language counted too much on readers' careful attention; do you think the kind of precision i see as required is more acceptable if points like these are made explicitly in the next 'graph? --Jerzy(t) 05:04, 2004 Apr 3 (UTC)

Again, you make my head spin. Agreed, I accepted the two statements, southernmost point to be inclusive with southernmost state; but I see first that the Florida Keys are as far south as some parts of Hawai'i; so southernmost point can be the only real distinction. Yes, our climate is actually subtropical, although we technically overlap the "Tropic". Tropical zone is better, although I thought it a bit stilted. I vote for restoration to they way it was before—except, I'd drop the last free sentence as causing some confusion in people's minds (because of the need to otherwise get more precise about defining these things). - Marshman 17:12, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, M, i'm afraid i'm a precision junkie. (I apologized to the guy at the register this evening, who thot i'd given him exact change, for "quibbling over a nickel", and really i was quibbling over his ability to add 75 +20 + 1 and get 91.) So i'd love to keep the "free sentence" but add enough to make its precision clear. But i realize that's a weakness on my part.

So let's just both watch for anyone who's confused, and i spot the confusion, i'll propose a fix to you rather than add another paragraph and a half that i fantasize will make it perfectly clear. [smile]. --Jerzy(t) 23:55, 2004 Apr 4 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I abhor misinformation, so in that sense I'm like you - Marshman 02:56, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Marshman, thanks for your letter. I have written something for you and Heidimo about the article on traditional Chinese medicine; the comments are on User:Heidimo's page. RK 14:31, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)

---

hey

I do agree with you both sides in the RK, MNH both violated the 3 revert rule i just want to keep the peace here i think a cease-fire form both sides is a start. Comrade Nick

Vocabulary Project

Hi there! I saw you contributed to the german wikibook, so I thought you might be interested in this. I have written a program for learning vocabulary. It is based on the belief that it is best to learn foreign words by learning typical sentences. The program can also be used for learning other stuff that works with the question/answer scheme, e.g. the theory for the driving licence or anatomy. Unfortunately I wrote it in qbasic, which can be downloaded here. It also uses images and sound files for alternation and in order to work on the pronunciation. Let me know what you think about it. I currently have files in English, French (with sound), and Spanish. Catalan and Portuguese are in the planning. Corrections or additions are very welcome. The easiest thing to start with for improvements would be adding new vocabulary, sound files or images. A guide to the program will follow soon, although I think it is rather self-explanatory. In the long run the program should be rewritten in a better language like Visual Basic. Afterwards it should be possible to switch languages within the program. Up to now there is a different version of the program for each language. Get-back-world-respect 23:12, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Endemic Species in Hawaii

Hi Mr. M! I noticed Bulbaboy's recent edit on the Hawaii article regarding the po'ouli and it came to me that, with all the verbiage we've written about Hawaii, there's not one word about how we've got so many endemic species here. I've started a stub article on endemic species of the Hawaiian Islands and added pointers to it from the Hawaii and Hawaiian Islands articles (I figure there's probably enough info and studies on them to justify its own article, if only for the probably humongous list). With your expertise on biology, I think you'd probably be the best person to add to it. What do you think? KeithH 01:19, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I missed this Keith; I was off-island (and away from the wiki) for a couple of weeks. Let me check out what you are talking about and get back to you. But I like the idea! A friend of mine has recently completed a book on the subject, and I'm reviewing it for the publisher. - Marshman 20:19, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Header/formatting

Marshman: Yes, I'm aware of that bug in MediaWiki. When we move over to 1.3 in the near future, I believe that problem will be resolved entirely. It's a fairly widespread problem, but it's also an extremely minor problem as well; in many articles, the first paragraph is similarly indented. I'm not terribly concerned about it. :) -- Seth Ilys 18:17, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Good replacement photos

Thanks for replacing those Horsetail] photos with ones containg specimen in wild. My indoor lighting was just absolutely horrid. It's like the documentary photos some sort of torture chamber-morgue for dying plants! :-O I had no idea it looks so dreadful until I replaced my LCD a few weeks ago. Thanks for the lively improvement! Keep it up! --Menchi 19:40, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Although I had some problems with the upload function (I always have problems that seem to relate to delays in the way the Wiki handles such things), I was able to resurrect your photo that was labeled after putting it through PhotoShop. - Marshman 20:19, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Camera

Marshman, are you close to wanting to get rid of that camera of yours? I am moving out of the country shortly and if I was going to buy it off you should do so now. Thanks sir! - karlwick