I answered your question in Talk:Molecular biology. maveric149

So I saw ;-) Actually, it was a tongue-in-cheek definition of research in molecular biology. In the same vein as "Pharmacology is when you inject a drug into an animal and out comes a journal article." -- Marj Tiefert

Thanks for your halophyte heads up. I'll keep this in mind when I get around to making the C4 etc articles. --maveric149

Marj
I'm troubled about your move from bioprospection to bioprospection. Especially if you did it because you considered bioprospection was not an english word.

Please, check "bioprospection diversity" on google. What do you get ?

You can find lots of misspellings of lots of words on Google. Google merely records what it finds, it doesn't indicate whether it's right or wrong. You can find "prospecting" in a dictionary, but not "prospection". If you need a word that ends in "ion", then how about "bioexploration" or "bioexploitation".

true. But, in this case, it is not a misspelling. Basically, 90% of my sources were english-speaking. And, all of them said bioprospection, not bioprospecting. Did you check ?

I forget the exact numbers, but googling for "bioprospecting" gave about 10 times as many hits as "bioprospection", FWIW. -- Marj

possible. Both exist. They have the same root. But, it seems they are not necessary used in the same context. The fact one is giving more hits that the other doesn't mean it should replace the other. I must stress out the fact that if I did an article on bioprospection (and not bioprospecting), it is precisely because bioprospection is a fuzzy term, that has different meaning depending on the person who read it and use it. For a corporation looking for biological resource, it is probable bioprospection and bioprospecting have the same meaning. But for indigenous people, and NGO, I believe the word bioprospection has an additional political and sociological meaning. So, by confusing both words, you just pick up the view of one group of people. I don't understand FWIW

Also, I feel there is a small difference between both terms (but, it's my feeling, I might be wrong). Bioprospecting mostly referring to a simple action (collection of sample, here I agree it better fit to indicate bioprospecting in biodiversity), whereas bioprospection is more about a concept, or even a bunch of conceptions upon which people don't necessary agree. For example, it sounds very weird to me to refer to "bioprospecting of people knowledge". And as the article is now (with all its imperfections), it looks weird that the subject switchs, just after the definition, from bioprospecting to bioprospection. What do you think ? user:anthere

It was late at night and I didn't have time for editing this one after starting on the biodiversity article (after correcting its link to this page) - all I did was change the name. If it turns out to be more of a political article than a scientific article, I won't edit it. Cheers, Marj Tiefert 11:13 Aug 29, 2002 (PDT)

I thank you for your editing. And I would be honored if you edited it more, for I know it is not proper english. But, hey, it is a field that is rather empty here! And I intend to help fill it a bit. Mostly in french, but I would also like to have a few articles in english as well. That is, unless somebody is interested in translating them for me :-) We did that for some of you on the french wiki.

I am a scientific first of all, but, yes, you could probably say that it is not intended to be a scientific article. I'll add another article later, to make it more obvious maybe, and I'll post some links later on. I would appreciate very much if you would agree to move it back. user:anthere

Maybe we should ask Mav or somebody what they think. -- Marj

Okay. I'll look for further evidence and links this week-end, and we'll ask. It may be that you are right :-), but I would appreciate if anybody else knowing a little bit on that matter could really tell if both words can be "switched". There's only one word in french, it makes things easier. Thanks user:anthere

As a person who has done some of this activity, I say we use "bioprospecting". That is the word I've always used and heard. "Bioprospection" seems a bit pedantic to my ears. --mav

--- Hello Marj, thanks for the note about [[cereal crop]. I had already amended the link on the Straw page from cereal crop to cereal. But, being a newbie, I don't know how to get rid of cereal crop again. Cereal is a good article. I also noticed there are oats and oat.

Thanks also for sorting out my Assisi embroidery mess! I hadn't even realised that I had started two pages!! It's a steep learning curve :-) but I'm becoming more careful. When I uploaded one of the images (Assisi butterfly), it was listed as a Bad file. I'll try again.... Renata

Hey Marj; I've started a new thread over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements about a concept for nav bars and locator maps for the chemical elements (there is a prototype example at Lithium). Join in if you are interested. --mav

Re your Q on my talk page: The best and easiest way to revert is to bring up the article's history, click on the date of the last "good" version, and from there click on "Edit this page". You can then save the old version without making any edits to it. Very handy. It took me a while to find out how to do this as well - I have a feeling it's in a help page somewhere, but I don't know which one. Hope this helps. --Camembert

Marj, Thank you for your grammatical corrections to my article Africanized bees. You are providing an important service! David 21:28 Dec 26, 2002 (UTC)

Marj, I appreciate the editing you did on Gene. After you edited one person suggested a revert, and another reverted the article to a stage prior to your editing. Personally, I think that your version was the last, well-edited version and I reverted -- and someone reverted back. Rather than get into a revert war, I spent some time trying to tighten up the prose again. I stopped work at 22:52 on Jan 19th. If anyone reverts, I will revert back to where I left off -- but I would appreciate it if you would take a look and make changes again as you think appropriate. By the way, I tried explaining my objections to the earlier version in the talk section, but was discounted -- if you make changes, you may need to explain them in the talk section too to prevent further reversions, Slrubenstein