Talk:Araujia sericifera
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Is this a joke?
[edit]Because if it is, it's a bad one. Look: "Although called Arauji aserifera by Wikipedia, no such plant variety is known and no images or search results for such a species can be found through any of the popular search engines and searhing for "moth vine", leads to the proper name of the species, being 'Araujia sericifera'." . Can someone rewrite the article? My English is not good enough in order to do that. Ybk33 21:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Copyright violation
[edit]Please do not copy and paste text verbatim from websites. This is a clear copyright violation. (original source: http://www.weeds.org.au/cgi-bin/weedident.cgi?tpl=plant.tpl&state=&s=&ibra=all&card=V06). Reverted to last non-violating revision. 121.222.4.158 03:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Araujia sericifera. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927221124/http://www.eppo.org/QUARANTINE/Alert_List/invasive_plants/Araujia_sericifera.htm to http://www.eppo.org/QUARANTINE/Alert_List/invasive_plants/Araujia_sericifera.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Comment: I happened on this page by accident while making another change to the article. When I entered the source text for contacting the URL, it failed, but when I clicked on the external link in the article's user text it worked as far as I can tell. Accordingly I altered sourcecheck to checked=true. Looks OK to me FWIW. JonRichfield (talk) 16:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC)