User talk:Plantsurfer/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Your edit to Cuticle (leaf)

Your recent edit to Cuticle (leaf) (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 13:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

What happened was your redirect was slightly out of syntax, FYI it's #REDIRECT [[NEW PAGE NAME]] - any blanking w/o that syntax will trigger the bot. Let me know if you have any questions -- Tawker 19:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

August 2007

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I've noticed that you've been adding your signature to some of your article contributions, such as you did to oak. This is a simple mistake to make and by now should have been corrected. For future reference, the need to associate edits with users is taken care of by an article's edit history. Therefore, you should use your signature only when contributing to talk pages, the Village Pump, or other such discussion pages. For a better understanding of what distinguishes articles from these type of pages, please see What is an article?. Again, thanks for contributing, and enjoy your Wikipedia experience! Thank you. Bendž|Ť 17:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bendzh, I noticed that had happened, but I honestly don't have a clue how it came about. Hadn't even occurred to me to do it.Plantsurfer 22:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

		The E=mc² Barnstar
		I just wanted to say thanks for all your high-quality contributions to science articles. They are greatly appreciated. --Ed (Edgar181) 18:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Citation Templates

Regards your edits to Toughened glass, consider using citation templates. It's not mandatory, but it's also easy to do and produces a more useful, standardized template that's auto-formatted. There's a bunch of tools that can help, though unfortunately none that I've found for websites (the {{cite web}} template).

• Citation templates (again)
• Reference generator (uses filling fields)
• pubmed/isbn template generator (using a pubmed or isbn, will automatically generate a template for you, very handy!)
• Google scholar autocitation (uses a google-type search engine to find scholarly articles)
• tools (various others)

Also, here is an essay I wrote for new users, you may find it handy. Or not. WLU (talk) 16:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Ar-Ar

I reverted your edits to the Ar-Ar article, as the premise was incorrect, however I may have also eliminated your copy-edits, sorry about that. Please continue to improve the geochronology articles. Cheers, Rickert (talk) 11:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The constant 39K/40K is not strictly an assumption: actual determinations of the terrestrial ratio find it to be constant (within 1% or so), which agrees well with theoretical considerations. Most isotope geochemistry texts will have a concise and readable description of Ar-Ar dating (Dickin's "Radiogenic Isotope Geology" or Faure's "Isotopes: Principles and Applications" come to mind). A comprehensive overview of Ar-Ar dating can be found in Harrison and McDougall's "Geochronology and Thermochronology by the 40Ar/39Ar Method". The presence of constant terrestrial K-isotope abundances is already referred to in the article, albeit in an oblique manner, when the 39K is said to be "present as a known fraction of the total K in the rock". Thanks for working on the geochron articles. Cheers, Rickert (talk) 10:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Oxygen edits

Thanks for all your great edits and additions to the oxygen article! However, please cite your sources when adding new material. We need to have sufficient sources cited in order to get this article through FAC. Edits like this, while certainly an improvement to the article, really need to be backed up by an inline citation because figures are given. Thank you! :) --mav (talk) 21:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Botany template

Please do not plaster this template on every botany-related page. That's not what it's there for. It links the major botany concepts that are listed in the template. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Carbon dioxide

You've reverted edits I've spent a lot of time and thinking on. You did not explain why. You did not edit to improve, you just reverted. I consider this disrespectful. For some reason, I can no longer edit the page, although it does not look like I've been blocked. So here is your opportunity to explain in detail why you think your view of the carbon dioxide entry superceeds in quality that which I have presented. I expect you to talk facts, if you can. I don't have a single clue regarding the nature of your multiple complaints. blackcloak (talk) 01:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I reverted because you did not edit the current page, but an old page earlier than mine, probably the one you last edited on 17 January, 9.28 revision, thus restoring multiple errors that you appear to have introduced yourself at that revision (please correct me if I am wrong), and which had been corrected by user:William M. Connelley. I suggest you look back at the section "Isolation" and the Categories to see what I am talking about. Your revision at 8.35 on 17 Jan is correct, but your 9.28 revision on 17 Jan introduced multiple errors. If you want to restore those edits, I suggest you explain to the community what positive contribution they make to the article. From my perspective they look like vandalism and a waste of the time and energy of other editors. In addition, I tend to agree with user:Raymond arrit that your additions lacked clarity. On the blocking - I don't see any reason for you to have been blocked, but then I don't have administrator privileges, so you will should look elsewhere for an answer to that.Plantsurfer (talk) 08:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I responded to your above comments in my talk section, where you also posted the above. While I disagree with the way you've approached me and my attempts to contribute, I do thank you for taking the effort to respond. blackcloak (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You replied in my talk, and I replied to you in my talk. I'm starting to understand your frustration. Maybe you'll start to understand my frustration. blackcloak (talk) 00:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Monoicous

Please do not change this article into a duplicate of Plant sexuality. The Monoicous article was specifically designed to address issues of gametophyte sexuality. References to monoecious and dioecious only exist there to clarify the differences in terminology and biology between gametophytes and sporophytes. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Monoicous is a long way from being a duplicate of Plant sexuality, and making it so is not part of my plan.Plantsurfer (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yet you edited the page to be primarily about the term monecious and added "synonyms" based solely on seed plant sexuality. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

When I started editing the article the introductory statements (in Revision as of 20:08, 17 January 2008) were about monoecy and dioecy, despite the title. Your recent edits have successfully corrected that problem. My objective was to attempt to clarify the meanings and usage of the words. If I didn't quite succeed, and introduced another issue with the use of the word synonym then hey, that's all part of the give and take of Wikipedia editing, but I assure you I edited in good faith, and have no agenda to undermine the article by presenting a seed-plant-ist point of view.Plantsurfer (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I do believe you, and have assumed good faith. Sorry if I sounded accusatory. My experience is that most botanists present a seed-plant-ist point of view, but not through deliberate agenda. Rather, they are often unaware of the differences presented by bryophytes and pteridophyte gametophytes solely as a result of the low profile these organisms have in the literature. My goal was simply to ensure that you were cognizant of the differences, not to question your motives. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply

No, I don't think the expert tage on Monoicous is necessary anymore. The article still needs work, but not as badly as when the template was added. As far as Plant cell not having the template, yes that is a mistake. Nice catch! --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Timelines

Hi,

The upgrade to the new preprocessor broke many templates, this timeline is half-way to being fixed but nearly there. Suggest it remains in article so is easily replaced when fixed. Header could also be commented out if it bothers you. Thanks Verisimilus T 10:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

And now I've fixed it. Verisimilus T 12:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Carbon dioxide (again)

Regarding this revert, I was somewhat harsh in calling it a "hoax", which perhaps has some connotations in Wikipedia that I did not intend to imply. However, this is still an unsourced statement, and another user has edited it to be somewhat more accurate. Carbon dioxide on its own does not, as far as I know, have an effect on litmus. In aqueous solution, it forms carbonic acid, which does have an effect. As the original edit could, at least to me, mean that the gas itself had a perceptible effect on litmus, I would propose leaving the current line about its classification as an acid oxide, but removing any mention of litmus. Of course, I am not a chemist, but a technical translator, so if there is a reliable source that states carbon dioxide does have an effect on litmus, then it should be cited. --Albert Tellier (talk) 18:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Airborne fraction

I'm puzzled by your revert. I'd be grateful if you'd explain at Talk:Greenhouse gas William M. Connolley (talk) 22:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Careful

You overwrote my comment at the GHG talk page.[1] I'm sure it was an accident, but I was really hoping he'd respond to that question. Please be a little more careful about this. Thanks. Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Didn't notice that. My apologies. Plantsurfer (talk) 19:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:UTM

When you undo vandalism, be sure to give the editor a warning using our standardized warning templates at the link above. That way, we can report them to WP:AIV when they get past level four. Thank'ee, 21655 ^τalk/ _ʃign 20:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Also....

Hello, Plantsurfer! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! 21655 τalk/ ʃign 20:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Bacterial chromosomes

This is the normal term for their genomes, see PMID 18365861 and PMID 15797198 for examples. All the best Tim Vickers (talk) 17:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hottstuffbaby

Take them to WP:AIV.

Of course, you don't have to do it MANUALLY. Read this: WP:TW.

And I took care of the AIV report, no worries. 21655 ^τalk/ _ʃign 15:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Liverwort

That is not correct. Liverwort points to a separate disambiguation page. Plantsurfer (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

My mistake. I guess that has changed since the last time I looked at it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Evolution comment

Hi there, I've replied on the talk page. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Ye Olde Wolframe

Sorry about removing that section. I didn't intend to take out content, I must have been distracted and not paying attention. I'll be more careful from now on. Ziggy Sawdust 18:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, about the section on uses you expanded... although I appreciate yor rewrite (and it looks a hell of a lot better), I'm trying to nuke all the unsourced material from the article, and if I can't find any sources for the uses, they're going to have to go. Of course if you find anything on them, feel free to add it and whatnot. Hopefully I won't have to remove much, but I might, so... Ziggy Sawdust 18:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted. But I think you are (IMHO) in danger of being too obsessive about sources for most of that stuff. Citations are only required when the content is contentious. We don't need to cite a source for the use of tungsten for circular saw teeth, or light bulb filaments. Wikipedia:Verifiability which is policy, says that attribution is required for "direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." There is also a process here, of allowing time for citations to be added. I don't see you raising the fact that citations are lacking with the active editors. I suggest if you have a problem with a statement you should not immediately remove it but tag it and allow time for a response from other editors. Plantsurfer (talk) 19:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Andreaeaceae

The genus Andreaeobryum is no longer in this family, but is in its own family now. Please refer to the reference in the article. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Red rain in Kerala GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" articles. I have reviewed Red rain in Kerala and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left this message on your talk page since you have significantly edited the article (based on using this article history tool). Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix with the assistance of multiple editors. I have also left messages on the talk pages for other editors and related WikiProjects to spread the workload around some. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Spores from space

I wonder if you have any ideas about how to quietly sink the Red Rain article? I rather lost interest after a paragraph I'd added was removed (though it remains in the schools version of Wikipedia, http://schools-wikipedia.org/wp/r/Red_rain_in_Kerala.htm ) and the panspermia mob took hold again.

"More plausibly, the suggestion has been made that the red raindust was the result of incomplete incineration of chemical waste at the Eloor industrial zone, the particles being formed from microparticles of fly-ash or clay which coalesced around an aerosol of partly burnt organics as the incinerator plume cooled. The chemical composition of the raindust matches that of burnt organics plus clay; the fallout pattern matches with the prevailing winds; and various organic chemicals will form cellular structures which replicate in the presence of clay."

A chum had mentioned the story to me in late 2005, before it was widely publicised, so I read the three papers by Louis & Kumar, the CESS paper and a whole load of stuff off the net. It seems to me that part of the reason why 'spores from space' took off was that besides being marketable as pop-sci there was also something of a cover-up going on in India (not unlike the recent announcement that there is "no causal link" between high use of pesticides and insecticides and cancer). Maybe it's for the best that the 'official' explanation shouldn't be exposed, and that the incident should be forgotten, but it seems to me that the Wikipedia red rain page doesn't deserve FA status. Davy p (talk) 05:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

My edit in "Greenhouse Gas"

Though marked as such, my edit (done under my home IP, not realizing I was not logged in) to "Greenhouse Gas" was NOT vandalism, and I would appreciate the fact that you read the edit before you marked my IP as such. (http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:71.234.149.48) The text that YOU reverted back to reads as follows: "Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is increasing at an increasing rate..."

Let me say this again: "Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is increasing at an increasing rate..." Now, I am going to change "increasing" to "greater" once more, and if you see that as vandalism I will continue this discourse, but in a much more angry manner. Dothefandango (talk) 18:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I did read the edit, and the edit was incorrect - you wrote "increasing at an greater rate" having preceded it with another incorrect statement. I therefore believed I was dealing with simple IP vandalism. Clearly I was mistaken, and I apologise if this has offended you. Plantsurfer (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I've re-reverted it. Increasing at greater rate makes no sense William M. Connolley (talk) 19:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and best wishes

Plantsurfer (talk) 21:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

How does "increasing at a greater rate" make less sense than "increasing at an increasing rate"? Should I find another word in the thesaurus for this blatant misuse of the English language? Dothefandango (talk) 22:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Petunia

Hi
You accused User:155.69.176.190 of vandalism because of his edit to Petunia. He removed the second petunia picture in that article which is placed below the references and, IMHO, doesn't add to the article. I had assumed good faith there, and really don't think it was vandalism.
Please don't bite the newbies. ;-)
Cheers, Amalthea (talk) 23:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I won't oppose re-removal if a reason for removal is specified. IMHO I don't think I am biting newbies. Removal of a substantive item from a page without good reason is either vandalism or wide open to interpretation as such. Plantsurfer (talk) 11:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Right, wide open to interpretation, and as I said, I had assumed good faith when I saw the edit - the second vandalism template just sounded a bit harsh to me where a simple undo would have IMHO done it.

Anyway, happy editing - Amalthea (talk) 12:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Evolution

Hey Plantsurfer, I hope I didn't offend you with any of my comments. I was teasing Tim and not making fun of you-nor at your expense. I apologize if I came across in an insulting manner. I appreciate your concerns and efforts to improve the Evolution article. It is a fascinating subject, and often I will mention literature that really isn't appropriate for an encyclopedic article (like heritable phenotypic plasticity). I do need to Get A Grip, hence my moniker. Regards GetAgrippa (talk) 17:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Relax, no offense taken. Best wishes, Plantsurfer (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi

You seem like a really smart scientist, that's really cool. I myself was never really good at science at school and went on to study business and economics at university (zzz), but now i'm really keen to learn about science and thanks to WP I can. I wish I had stuck with the subject at school now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.252.95 (talk) 19:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

SEM

Please discuss the issue on the talk page. In particular, your source that says formaldehyde is used in EM at all would be interesting. I have created a talk section for this. --Blechnic (talk) 02:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Blechnic, you are completely up the creek about this I am afraid. Paraformaldehyde is a polymerized form of formaldehyde that is used to make very pure formaldehyde solutions by heating in water to 60^oC with a small amount of KOH or NaOH. I repeat, paraformaldehyde (=polyacetal) is INSOLUBLE in pure water at STP. It decomposes very slowly to formaldehyde, hence a slight formaldehyde smell, but will not fix specimens as paraformaldehyde. To be effective as a fixative, paraformaldehyde needs to be decomposed completely to formaldehyde, HCHO. To be pedantic, in the words of formaldehyde dissolves in water to form methylene hydrate HO-CH
₂-OH.

Karnovsky first published the use of a glutaraldehyde/formaldehyde fixative in 1965 made by depolymerization of paraformaldehyde and plant scientists around the world use this, or variants of it with different buffers, concentrations of GA, FA routinely. My lab uses it as the standard fix, and I have used it routinely all my working life for SEM, TEM, LM, you name it.

see also and the following link and Karnovsky's original paper for more background

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/HISTHTML/MANUALS/KARNOV.PDF Kiernan's paper is reproduced at: http://publish.uwo.ca/~jkiernan/formglut.htm

For a bit of background on properties of paraformaldehyde please look at the Wikipedia page on it. Plantsurfer (talk) 09:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

HTML note on wood

I wish you had tried to compromise rather than simply reverting me here. I have now changed the wording to include the threat of immediate blocking--since it seems so important to people--while also explaining why we would make such an unusual threat. Hopefully you will find this satisfactory; if not, I look forward to hearing from you why not. -- SCZenz (talk) 19:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I already replied on Talk:Wood. I wish I knew who created this special "zero tolerance stance" for the particular article in question, and under what Wikipedia policy I, as an admin, can justify enforcing it... perhaps you can explain on the page there? -- SCZenz (talk) 09:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

There are lots of precedents for situations like this, and a standard way to lay down the law. I don't think you even disagree substantially with the usual approach about how to do it; the issue I've had is mostly a narrow one of the tone that's taken in the HTML message. I think it's important to be clear how "laying down the law" is in accordance with policies, not an exception decided on by a small group of people--and all that requires is explaining why adding a particular section would be automatically considered vandalism. -- SCZenz (talk) 14:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

An example

By the way, I didn't block this guy. The reason is that blocks are to prevent disruption, and that person probably has a dynamic IP and won't try to edit from that particular IP again. Thus the risk of collateral (to another user of the same ISP) damage is high, and the likely benefit low. Now, normally, admins are doing that kind of analysis all the time, and you wouldn't have to worry about that... but it might explain why I don't like saying "you will be blocked," because it's not necessarily true. -- SCZenz (talk) 14:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Teak

Hi, I think Teak should redirect to Tectona grandis (the taxobox for the teak article was originally for that species in particular [2] and that Tectona be started as a new article. Melburnian (talk) 10:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Carbon Dioxide Again, and again...

Concerning the section "Interesting Facts" on the Carbon Dioxide page (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#Interesting_facts): I made some corrections that you have been reverting. Please read the reference [37] (available here: http://www.tufts.edu/tie/tci/sequestration.htm). The quote from the source is: "...average of 2.52 lbs of CO2 per tree per year (rounded to 3 lbs)". That is not per day. Perhaps the source is wrong, but as stated, and with that reference, the numbers are correct.

And they do add up, though perhaps I could have been a little more precise. 2.52 lbs is about 1150 grams as asserted. Taking the human respiratory output as 900 grams per day, or 328.5Kg/year, it would require 285 trees worth of absorbtion to balance one human. The source assumes a standard forest density rate of 700 trees per acre. Thus, we would require 40% of 1 acre of forest (of 25yr old Birch/Beech/Maple). I apologise for rounding this to a half - I have been more concise in the current edit.

Hoping this helps... —Preceding unsigned comment added by EnglishEd (talk • contribs) 04:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Osmium

Can you please take a look at osmium again? Apparently there was some confusion in the statement about density (whether the stated number was the density, or the difference between two densities). I have reworded the sentence. Is it clearer now? -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is better. The previous wording was ambiguous. -- Plantsurfer (talk) 13:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Beeswax

Thanks! Butler sounds about right for this reference but I left my beekeeping library behind about ten or twelve house-moves ago... __Just plain Bill (talk) 14:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Question

How and why was my undoing my own edit, moving images, adding an image, and adding a picture gallery considered disruptive and vandalizing? How do you undo several edits at one time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twinsday (talk • contribs) 17:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Clades

The changes haven't all been in response to Envall; cleaning up the mess of articles we have around the cladistic theme might be quite a big project and I'm trying to address it bit my bit. To clear up the 'polyphyletic' problem, the last common ancestor of "warm blooded animals" wasn't itself a "warm blooded animal", so the group is polyphyletic. Contrast with "reptiles" whose nearest common ancestor would itself be considered a "reptile" (so the group's paraphyletic). Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 16:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Re Mats / Consist, I think WP:DNFT is the right policy - I don't think any amount of evidence or logic will ever be enough for Mats / Consist, who is prepared to carry on until the end of time, at consderable length on each occasion. --Philcha (talk) 09:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he should direct his efforts elsewhere - he has science to do. He must be one tough guy to be around. I intend to try to forget he exists. Anyway, I hope you have a consistent and peaceful New Year. Plantsurfer (talk) 12:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

RFC on " Astobiological Potential "

Is what is happening here what I think is happening here? 198.163.53.11 (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It's IP canvassing spam from a City of Winnipeg network. Make what you will of that. . dave souza, talk 12:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The work of deleting IP vandalism on chem element pages

Since you're involved, I wonder if you'd like to comment on this discussion on semi-protection for element articles: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements Thanks! SBHarris 00:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Vacuole

Hi, Thanks for the edit to vacuole. Could you provide any help in the following discussion? [3] Thanks Smartse (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Smartse. Thanks - I'll consider this. Plantsurfer (talk) 17:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Taxonomy and weasel words

In March, you identified "weasel words" in the "Military taxonomy" section at Taxonomy. I can't grasp what you mean. Perhaps your perspective gives you insight which I'm simply failing to see? --Tenmei (talk) 21:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies

Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change (survey described here). If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Marram Grass Edit

Hey,

Saw you reverted the version on the Marram Grass article? I don't mind at all - with Wikipedia what else can you expect - but I wanted to know how it was wrong? I am looking into it at the moment and my textbook reads it as I wrote, but seeing your credentials it's clear I'm not in a position to put myself over you!

Was it incorrect and/or rookie? Ha, thanks KhoousesWiki (talk) 08:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)KhoousesWiki

I don't think I have reverted anything you contributed! User 188.39.46.202 had inserted a few words of nonsense, which I reverted, but your edit came later and still stands. Have another look at the history. Plantsurfer (talk) 08:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems to have come back! When I checked the other day it seemed to have disappeared.. Oh well! Thanks anyway. I'm glad it is still there. One note on pictures - I have found a picture for the section I want to add, but its online and the whole copyright thing really scares me! I played cautious and left it, but what must I do to "legally" add a picture? Thanks, KhoousesWiki (talk) 17:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)KhoousesWiki

Current sea level rise

You recently reverted two pieces of data which I had corrected in Current sea level rise. In both cases I had consulted the original research that was already cited in the article.

Firstly the data in the article cites some CSIRO research of the sea level rise trend being 3.2mm/yr. The original research shows 3.1mm/yr.

Secondly, later in the same sentence, other research by CSIRO shows longer term sea level rises to be 1.6mm/yr, while the article states 1.7,mm/yr.

In both case I was simply putting the correct, original data figures in the article. In both cases the research provides levels and and estimates of error. There is no need to round these figures up, or round them down for that matter.

I am therefore intrigued as to why you reverted both these figures to numbers that are not in the original research.

60.242.197.14 (talk) 13:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I reverted because the change was exactly the sort of change that vandals tend to make on WP articles, and because it came from an anonymous user who offered no comment or justification for it. Since you have now provided the explanation I will not contest the correction if you make it again, and offer my apology. Might I suggest that you become a registered user? Plantsurfer (talk) 14:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Contributions at Evolution

I hope you don't take my reversion of your recent edit of the evolution article as a personal offense. It happens to a lot of editors (myself included) who edit that page. While I support your suggestion in principle, I know someone somewhere may dispute it. The potential back and forth can be acrimonious, which is why I encourage you to bring it up on the Talk page first. You will find that good ideas and suggestions will ultimately see the light of day, no matter how slow or painful. danielkueh (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Danielkueh, no offence taken. I have taken up the discussion on the Talk page, and will make further suggestions in due course.Plantsurfer (talk) 17:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Straw poll on fate of Evolutionary Biology article

Hi, this is to notify you that I have started a more indept discussion about whether the Evolutionary Biology article should be restored and in what form exactly. Please see Talk:Evolutionary_biology#Restoration_of_Evolutionary_biology for the discussion. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Science Citations index

Is there a free database in which you can type in a scientists name and retrieve a numerical value for the number of citations attributed to them? I've dug around in the Thomson-Reuters site and found it's a paid subscription which is problematic for use at Wikipedia. --Alatari (talk) 13:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Not that I know of, but I have forwarded your question to our IT/computer support people, who may know.Plantsurfer (talk) 14:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Baragwanathia

Good to see these paleobotany articles being worked on! You wrote "the graptolite species Monograptus" – of course this is a genus, not a species. See Yarravia#Source_of_fossils for a note on the species involved, but this may not be up-to-date as per the Rickards (2000) ref. you used (which, annoyingly, I can't access at present). Peter coxhead (talk) 11:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are right! My mistake. The monograptus article itself is woefully thin, but I am a botanist and have no expertise in this group :-(. The Rickards article can be viewed at http://geolmag.geoscienceworld.org/content/137/2/207.abstract, but I cannot access the full text or pdf, unfortunately. The referencing of the Baragwanathia article is a bit of a mess - can you tell me where I can find an inline citation template to deal with the Hao and Gensel reference, which is a chapter in an edited book?? Plantsurfer (talk) 11:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I can only view the abstract too. My institution had a subscription to this journal, but it seems to have expired in Dec. 2011; I'm trying to find out if it was a mistake or an economy. If the former and I get access, I'll let you know.

Citations: well, I personally always use the {{Citation}} template unless forced to use the Cite family. I know how to do it using this template, but I see that the only templates used in the article are "Cite journal" and one isn't supposed to change the style without consensus... I think that although it looks illogical, you use {{Cite encyclopedia}} for any kind of contribution. If you are happy to change to the {{Citation}} template, then you could use this tool which I do. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Sister to all others means close to ancestral, no?

Thanks, yes, the text is clearer with the link to clade, but (avoiding the tech. language as far as possible), being sister to all others does imply - which is the reason for the statement, is it not? - that the sister family is of great interest precisely because it is close to whatever was the common ancestor, and so its features such as leaf-like petals are highly suggestive of the ancestral features? It certainly feels as if all that is the implication - excuse me for being a bit persistent, but it would be nice to have it stated directly in the article. And if it doesn't mean that, then I have no idea at all why it's being said.

(When the PC engineer says "Your hard drive fan is within 5% of its wear limit", what I want to know is "you better replace it before it fails": I don't doubt the tech. details, but I need to hear what it means for me.) Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I made another edit to the article, after the above was written, which I think actually deals with the point made, so I'll comment here. Just because a clade is the sister of all other clades in a given group doesn't mean that any specific feature (e.g. leaf-like petals in Amborella) is inherited from the group's last common ancestor. It's a common error to assume that features of the first diverging clade are necessarily ancestral: they may be, but equally they may not be. The platypus is a good example: a few of its features (e.g. egg-laying) are considered inherited from the LCA of all mammals, but most (e.g. electroreception, poison claws) are considered highly derived. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, my concern was to avoid the implication that one is ancestral to the other. Amborella may appear more simple, but it is now maybe 130m years since the divergence of Amborella and the other flowering plants from the common ancestor, and both sister clades are probably somewhat derived compared with it. Clearly Amborella's simplicity points in the direction of the ancestral condition, but it does not represent the state of the common ancestor. User:Peter Coxhead's subsequent edit helps emphasise that I think. Plantsurfer (talk) 10:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks both, the section is clearer and more informative now. Very nice to hear from both of you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

John Abbot

He belongs on the list. Please see here; and he is credited as an author for Quercus lobulata. Thanks, Hamamelis (talk) 00:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the feedback. Plantsurfer (talk) 09:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Ruthenium

Thanks! Nice work.--Stone (talk) 19:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Hedera canariensis

Hi, seeing your very welcome edits to improve the text on this page, I wondered if you are aware that it is one of quite a few pages added from (at least) two signons that are now blocked (Monotoideae is one that was added from the other signon). There is a troublesome pattern with much of the unsourced material that was added to these pages, and to others that were not newly created pages, that has to do with automatic translations and with copying material from one page indiscriminately to others, e.g., from one plant family to another, or from one geographic location to another. Untangling the resulting mess is a lot of work, and I wanted to be sure you are aware of this before you possibly waste time cleaning up text that turns out to be a falsehood. One particular pattern I've been noticing is that a group of plants is quite often said to be dioecious and monoecious on the same page, but on checking, it turns out that the flowers are bisexual, but there's really no limit to the ingenuity of these apparently good-faith but disruptive edits. Solidarity in frustration! Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi again, saw your response. Beats me too. Possibly comes under a general heading of "excess enthusiasm". Best wishes, Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

"Non-constructive editing on protoplasm"?

Hi: I made a small edit to the protoplasm article, which was flagged as vandalism by RibotBOT, and was reverted by you with the tag "non-constructive edit." It was rather minor and mainly made a sentence conform to standard grammar. If I shouldn't make such revisions in the future, please let me know. Thank you. --Scyldscefing (talk) 20:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Admiring your forbearance

on Terrestrial plant. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Raspberry

What do you mean raspberry is not a berry? And pumpkin is a "berry"?

That is correct. The botanical definition of berry is a fruit derived from a single ovary (as stated in the article).

Raspberry is a compound fruit composed of several drupelets and is therefore not derived from a single ovary. And yes, pumpkins, melons and cucumbers are all berries, fruits derived from a single ovary. Hope this helps. Plantsurfer (talk) 16:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Burying my edits

Why are you burying my edits? I wrote some good stuff in and you just deleted it after I had made a credible contribution.

I am not burying your edits. I reverted a number of examples you added to the Botanical berries list of fruits that do not fit the article's definition of a botanical berry. Mulberries, for example, are not botanical berries (despite their name) but multiple fruits. It already says that in the article and in the article on mulberry. Plantsurfer (talk) 08:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Alternation of generations edit

Hi, as I've repeatedly discovered, different sources use different terminology and approaches in discussing the morphology of spermatophytes, particularly angiosperms. Some sources do consider the "generative cell" of a binucleate pollen grain to be homologous to the multicellular antheridium of a much larger male gametophyte. It does seem to be a bit ridiculous to equate one cell to the "body" of a microgametophyte and the other cell to the "antheridium", so I haven't used this language but have tried to re-word your edit so that it's consistent with a range of uses. (You might also like to look at Plant reproductive morphology which I've been working on in conjunction with Sminthopsis84. It needs quite a bit of copy-editing.) Peter coxhead (talk) 15:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that is a considerable improvement. Plantsurfer (talk) 17:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Short Ton edit

Hi Plantsurfer

I edited the long tonne value which was incorrectly listed as 2240 pounds. It is actually 2204 pounds. I'm an engineer and 1000 kilograms does not equal 2240 pounds. If you agree please leave my edits intact. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.98.244.55 (talk) 16:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I do disagree, please check your facts. There is no such thing as a long tonne. Please refer to the Long ton article. Long ton is not 1000 kilograms but 1016 kilograms, 2240 pounds. Plantsurfer (talk) 19:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Monoecious edit

I put back the original statement because I think there are sources which argue that hornwort sporophytes are significantly nutritionally independent. I'll check on my sources, because I may have remembered wrongly. If you're sure, please restore your edit. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Peter, the concensus is that both moss and hornwort sporophytes have some competence in photosynthesis, but not enough to sustain sporophyte growth and spore production independently. There is also the supply of water and other nutrients such as nitrogen to consider. A relevant citation is Thomas et al. (1978) Physiological evaluation of the nutritional autonomy of a hornwort sporophyte. Botanical Gazette 139, 306-311, and there is a nice discussion here http://www.bryoecol.mtu.edu/chapters/5-9Sporophyte.pdf Plantsurfer (talk) 10:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this seems very clear. I think that some of those arguing for hornworts as the sister to "higher" land plants use language which overestimates the nutritional independence of the hornwort sporophyte (e.g. "the persistently chlorophyllous and nutritionally largely independent sporophyte" here), which may be why I didn't remember the situation correctly. The Thomas et al. paper demonstrates that it's not really "largely independent".

On the other hand, just saying "The sporophyte in bryophytes is nutritionally dependent on the gametophyte ..." doesn't suggest to me that hornwort sporophytes do photosynthesise sufficiently to maintain themselves, although not to grow and produce spores. How about "Even when capable of photosynthesis, the sporophyte in bryophytes is nutritionally dependent on the gametophyte ..."? Peter coxhead (talk) 12:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds about right, but only covers photosynthate - there is dependency also for water supply and so for mineral nutrients, and also nitrogen from cyanobacterial symbionts of the gametophyte may be supplied to the gametophyte. Can we add this in just a few words? e.g. Even when capable of photosynthesis the sporophyte in bryophytes requires additional photosynthate from the gametophyte and is dependent on it for of its water supply, mineral nutrients and nitrogen. Plantsurfer (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure, sound fine to me (extra "of" in your words). Go ahead and fix it. Thanks for the lesson in bryology! Peter coxhead (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Many digits divided into groups of three, NOT by commas

Hi, Plantsurfer

See these.

1. SI custom

http://www.bipm.org/utils/common/pdf/si_brochure_8_en.pdf

p.133

5.3.4 Formatting numbers, and the decimal marker

Following the 9th CGPM (1948, Resolution 7) and the 22nd CGPM (2003, Resolution 10), for numbers with many digits the digits may be divided into groups of three by a thin space, in order to facilitate reading. Neither dots nor commas are inserted in the spaces between groups of three. However, when there are only four digits before or after the decimal marker, it is customary not to use a space to isolate a single digit.

sample

43 279.168 29,

but not 43,279.168,29

2. also in UK

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1985/72/pdfs/ukpga_19850072_en.pdf

p.75

METRE is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second.

p.76

GALLON = 4.546 09 cubic decimetres.

POUND = 0.453 592 37 kilogram.

219.126.218.131 (talk) 12:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

reason parameter with "fact" tag

Hi, Plantsurfer. I noticed this edit. When supplying a reason to the {{citation needed}} (aka {{fact}}) template, please use "reason=" before supplying a reason. This does two things: A) uses your reason as part of the tooltip so the reader can see it and B) prevents the article from appearing in Category:Pages containing citation needed template with deprecated parameters. PS Cool to see Whiskey fan on Wikipedia! :-) Jason Quinn (talk) 19:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jason, thanks for the tip! Naturally we drink little but whisky here! Note the spelling btw! With an e it refers to the counterfeit Irish stuff. Best wishes Plantsurfer (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi!

Hi Plantsurfer, I would like to thank you for correcting that mistake. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pejosu (talk • contribs) 22:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

User talk:98.249.207.46

Your report at AIV was effectively declined for "not vandalism". I read through all of the comments the IP has left on your talk page since April 5 (when James left the IP a message). I can understand why you find them harassing. To solve that, I have a suggestion. Rather than just remove them, tell the IP they are not welcome to post on your talk page. If they wish to discuss the content of an article, they can do so on the article talk page, but instruct them clearly to leave you alone. If they persist, feel free to come to my talk page and ask me for assistance.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedian in Residence at the National Library of Scotland

I'm just dropping you a quick note about a new Wikipedian in Residence job that's opened up at the National Library of Scotland. There're more details at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland#Wikimedian in Residence at the National Library of Scotland. Richard Symonds (WMUK) (talk) 15:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Paeonia tomentosa

I'm contacting three editors who have recently contributed to Paeonia (plant)

A contributor sent in two images for Commons. They are claimed to be Paeonia tomentosa, but I do not know the field well enough to know. I see that Paeonia tomentosa is a redlink, perhaps the existence of image will prompt someone to start the article.

• File:Paeonia_tomentosa_(flower).jpg
• File:Paeonia tomentosa (leaves).jpg--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

tomentosa appears to be a synonym for Paeonia witmanniana ssp. tomentosa, which I think I am right in saying is aka P. daurica ssp. tomentosa. There are WM images of this at File:Paeonia daurica ssp. tomentosa.jpg and File:Paeonia_daurica_subsp._tomentosa_Bot._Mag._155._9249._1931.jpg for comparison I am no expert though, it may not be possible to identify from the photographs alone and this probably needs specialist advice. It might be helpful to seek clarification from the contributor. Plantsurfer (talk) 18:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Tungsten melting point

Hello, tungsten has the second highest melting point of all elements after carbon, that's why the change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.188.120.242 (talk) 16:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

That is incorrect. Check your facts. Boiling point of Tungsten is 5828 K, Carbon is 4300 K. Plantsurfer (talk) 17:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

You know the difference between boiling and melting, right? Please do not spread false facts on this website. Melting point Tungsten: 3410 K, Melting point carbon: 3500 K— Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.188.120.242 (talk) 11:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Carbon is not a metal. If you wish to continue this discussion, please do so on Tungsten's talk page. Your comments are not welcome here. Plantsurfer (talk) 12:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Nitrogen

I will put the text back in the history section is lacking this part of the history.--Stone (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Natural gas

Good afternoon sir! I just wanted to talk about the edits to natural gas. Obviously I agree with you on the wording of after ten years, it doesn't happen suddenly, the reactions are a slow process. Unfortunately I didn't think to make that edit myself, (after whomever inputted it, I havn't checked yet), as I was focusing on the horrendous gramatical errors which needed repairing. I do however think listing oxidation as a chemical reaction is important. It may be obvious to you I, but it seems to me the article should be accessible for everyone with or without a specified prerequisite level of knowledge . . . but I want to hear your take on it as well . . .what do you think?
Thank you for your time,
EzPz (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Botany may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"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:

• of plants, such as [[Joseph Banks]], [[John Tradescant the elder]], John Tradescant the younger]], [[Joel Roberts Poinsett]], and [[George Forrest (botanist)|George Forrest]].

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Potential mud-wrestling pit

Poinsett as a key botanist? Of course, this is a very slippery area, debate about who warrants inclusion could be endless. I'll leave your additions in place. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I have no special brief to promote Poinsett, to make the point that many botanists have been honoured by having their names immortalized in the names of plants. I don't object to your adding / deleting names from the list if you think there are more worthy examples, but would like the basic point to remain if possible. Plantsurfer (talk) 18:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I can't argue that Poinsett wasn't a botanist, but I think the naming of Poinsettia has more to do with his status as a wealthy diplomat whose intentions were good. It's difficult to come up with a list of "key" botanists, for example, I would argue that E. B. Babcock was actually more influential that G. Ledyard Stebbins, but it was Stebbins who was younger, wrote up the work, and continued writing lots of popular books (in which he contradicts his earlier statements). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you should look at some reference works that refer to Blakeslee before pooh-poohing him. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 01:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sminthopsis84, I am not making any judgement about him at all. The fact is that I had never heard of him, which is my loss, not his. Plantsurfer (talk) 09:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, sorry. (Grumble: don't they teach anything about the foundations of botany to students any more? grumble, grumble. Sophie Satina seems to have been short-changed by the botany textbooks, anyway, probably because she gave so much credit to Blakeslee.) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Data

re edit reversal.....in my dictionary data is in modern usage treated as a mass noun similar to information, 'which cannot normally have a plural and which takes a singular verb' e.g. data was collected....widely accepted as standard English.O.D.E.2005. Iztwoz (talk) 21:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

If you wish to discuss this, please do so on the article's talk page. Not here. Plantsurfer (talk) 22:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)