Jump to content

User talk:Plantsurfer/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Present for you

See my user page. 512bits (talk) 00:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Things have been changing fast on the article. That's good but I have trouble keeping up HARHAR. I'll focus on modern history section next. Could you go back and work the "modern form is the result of selection from among wild ancestors" part? 512bits (talk) 23:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll take a look.Plantsurfer (talk) 08:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Can you get page numbers for the Simmonds and Zohary refs? Also, please check over what I've now done on modern botany section.512bits (talk) 00:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
On Talk:Botany in the Early Modern Botany part, I would like your input on the statement I just wrote "I would vote for keeping the Germans in, perhaps expand a bit, but if others want them cut, ok. I think I added or expanded the Muslim people. My part was to make the article less European-centric.". Thank you. 512bits (talk) 11:23, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Branches of Botany, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cytology (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Storage

Sorry to bring up this old hat, but same as data, storage IS a mass noun. Per http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/storage Unlike data, its gerundial though, derived from the verb store and not the noun store. Which almost makes it not a noun. But its still a noun. Fortunately for your edit, storage is the WRONG NOUN to describe the function of starch, and store would be the right one. Nothing to revert, and I can't see any point in bringing it to the article talk page. Just a courtesy.--R.S. Peale (talk) 09:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Botany images and the MOS

I very much like your new images in the Botany article. However, MOS:IMAGELOCATION says "avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other, and between an image and an infobox or similar", and we'd better follow this in what will hopefully be an FA article. I think it's best if you sort this, as you have a coherent view on what images to use. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll have time to have a good look at it later in the day. Plantsurfer (talk) 09:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Actually this may be easy - the offending sections are Systematic Botany and Evolution I think. I have already been considering deletion of the Linnaeus table in Systematic Botany not because of notability of the topic, but because the image is frankly illegible. The herbarium botanist is all that is needed. In Evolution it is a straight choice between the Rhynia and the cycad. I tend towards the Rhynia. What do you think? I will remove the cycad for now and see if you miss it! Also, what are your thoughts on the Evolution section's text. I dislike the way it leads off with those comments on cyanobacteria and algae.Plantsurfer (talk) 10:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, I'm biassed! I'm interested in paleobotany and have several pieces of Rhynie chert myself (see File:Rhynie_chert_with_Rhynia_1.png – you need a thin section to get the beautiful image you used). So naturally I vote for the Rhynia. :-)
As I've noted at Talk:Botany#Open, I don't much like the Evolution section. I would like it to explain the importance of evolution as an underpinning concept in botany ("The theory of evolution so permeates botany that frequently it is not mentioned explicitly, but the overwhelming majority of published studies are based upon evolutionary hypotheses" – Botanical Society of America here). How much detail to give after that, I'm not sure – perhaps just some examples, drawn largely from land plants?? Peter coxhead (talk) 15:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
A nice piece of chert, with some good transverse profiles. I would have attributed these to Aglaophyton major rather than Rhynia g-v, judging by the prominent mycorrhizal zone in the middle cortex. Some interesting microfaulting seems to be going on in the central area, with parts of the profiles laterally displaced. The Rhynia pic was my own, taken from one of about half a dozen slides in my possession. There are some good bits on them, including some informative longitudinal sections of Rhynia stem and a diagonal slice through an immature Aglaophyton sporangium in which I am pretty sure the nuclei of the spore mother cells are visible.

Re Evolution, the next sentence in the BSA text is also good, but I would not want to engage with any of that defence of evolutionary science against creationism.

I suggest that the lead of the section is changed to the following, and that you compose some sentences along the lines of those you suggest to end the section and affirm and emphasise the importance of evolutionary theory in botany.

Main article: Evolutionary history of plants

"The chloroplasts of plants have a number of biochemical, structural and genetic similarities to cyanobacteria, (commonly but incorrectly known as "blue-green algae") and are interpreted as being derived from an ancient endosymbiotic relationship between an ancestral eukaryotic cell and a cyanobacterium.[1][2][3][4]

The algae are a polyphyletic group, and are placed in various divisions, some of which are more closely related to plants than others. There are many differences between them in features such as cell wall composition, biochemistry, pigmentation, chloroplast structure and nutrient reserves. The algal division Charophyta, sister to the green algal division Chlorophyta is considered to contain the ancestor of true plants.[5] The Charophyte class Charophyceae and the land plant sub-kingdom Embryophyta together form the monophyletic group or clade Streptophytina.[6]" Plantsurfer (talk) 23:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Your lead seems good to me. I'll look at the ending – no time today.
You obviously know more about Rhynia than me. I've tended to take the word of the person I got the pieces from as to identities. I'll have to look again. The translucency of the material makes surface views somewhat iindistinct when viewed through a microscope – the stuff underneath interferes. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Centriole 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:
  • pages=707–10|doi=10.1083/jcb.200503053|pmc=2171619|journal=The Journal of Cell Biology}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Silflow|first1=CD|last2=Lefebvre|first2=PA|title=Assembly and motility of

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Your refs

Books need isbn and page numbers. Only two of the new ones had both elements so I did those. If you could find the pages of the others, I=ll fix them. 512bits (talk) 21:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

For Bold, 1970, you say "310pp" but this book only has 190 pages.512bits (talk) 22:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
There are multiple editions. The 1970 3rd edition has 190 pp, the 1977 4th edition has 310pp, the 1987 5th edition has 309 pp etc. Plantsurfer (talk) 23:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
But you listed the 1970 one, with only 190 pages, and if it was ed 4 with 310, you can't cite the whole book. And the isbn for Proctor and Yeo is invalid. 512bits (talk) 23:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
OK, I won't have access to Bold for a while, so I can't check it at the moment. The ISBN for Proctor and Yeo I am quoting from my book as printed: 0 00 219504 6. The publishers quote 978-0-00-730835-4 for a print on demand version.Plantsurfer (talk) 00:28, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Tks, Proctor is now fixed. 512bits (talk) 00:46, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Have tracked down the page number (p7) of the 400,000 figure in Bold 1977. Plantsurfer (talk) 10:53, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Peer review

I have nominated Botany at peer review. I think it's in pretty good shape and hope we get good ideas for more improvement there. 512bits (talk) 01:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

About your deletion of the page "Evolution"

Hi, I'm cdh31211811. I understand why you deleted what you deleted. but I am really not a "anti-scientist". I am a person who supports science. But in this world, a lot of people don't know what REAL science is. I was only trying to make people know a little about what's wrong with the "science" most people know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CDH31211811 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Please discuss this on Talk:Evolution - not here. Plantsurfer (talk) 00:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Botanical Society of Scotland may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"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:
  • * [https://www.facebook.com/groups/botsocscot/ Facebook group]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

PR

I will need help to finish this: Wikipedia:Peer review/Botany/archive1. Can you help? 512bits (talk) 02:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, of course. I have been busy recently, but will get onto it. I thought the comments were very fair and constructive. Plantsurfer (talk) 07:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Me too. 512bits (talk) 23:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I just answered the last Peer Review item. Thanks for your great help there. I'm not sure how long we should let that run. Some have mentioned getting this to "featured" status. 512bits (talk) 23:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
That's great. I am keen to move forward too, but I think it would be worth checking with Praemonitus that the changes we have made to the article are sufficient. Apart from his specific points he made a general comment about MOS:JARGON - "...dense technical text. A more even comprehension level would be preferable, and would perhaps make the text more engaging." Plantsurfer (talk) 00:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
He added a point about epigenetics being in the lead but not body. I added a section on it but it's rough and not my area (mostly copied from the article on that topic). I'd appreciate it if you'd look it over. The points I see left are: 1) the "too technical" stuff, 2) smooth epigenetics, and 3) smooth plant biochem. 512bits (talk) 21:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that. I think I may have been the perpetrator! It's not my topic either, but I will have a look at it. It appears I have created some controversy over the biochem bit, for which I apologise. We don't need that at this time. Plantsurfer (talk) 21:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I have a few more refs to fix, then please look at the epigenetics part. As for biochem, no worries, why don't you take the input given so far, tweak your first draft, and overwrite the biochem section accordingly? 512bits (talk) 21:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
OK, thanks, I'll deal with it in the morning. Plantsurfer (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Ref Problem

I can't tell if this is a book or journal nor find a few details about it. can you help out: Kolattukudy, P. E. (1996). "Biosynthetic Pathways of Cutin and Waxes, and Their Sensitivity to Environmental Stresses". Chapter 3, pp83-108 In: Plant Cuticles. Ed. by G. Kerstiens. (Oxford: BIOS Scientific Publishers Ltd). :512bits (talk) 20:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

It is a chapter in an edited book, ISBN 1 85996 130 4. BIOS Scientific Publishers Ltd., Oxford, UK Environmental Plant Biology Series. The article cited is Chapter 3, pages 83-108. http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Plant_cuticles.html?id=x3TwAAAAMAAJ&redir_esc=y Hope this helps. Plantsurfer (talk) 20:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Fixed. What's left to do now? 512bits (talk) 02:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Posted at the bottom of Praemontius' talk page. 512bits (talk) 19:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Great. I'll back off the editing for a bit until he replies. Plantsurfer (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
On Sep 1 he said "It should close automatically. I'd leave it open until then in case anybody else wants to comment". So i guess he's done. I'd suggest wrapping up whatever you have left and we move on. 512bits (talk) 21:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
That's good! I have a couple of things to do, but I will try to be quick and limit my enthusiasm! One task is to find a way to properly acknowledge the major advances that were made in 19th century plant anatomy. At present, it reads as though Katherine Esau did it all, but the descriptive anatomical work of people like Haberlandt and de Bary 50 years or more earlier was extraordinary. Another issue I would like to deal with is repeat links. What are your views on linking a topic more than once in the article. The article has reached the size where it becomes hard to find the first instances of a link, and repeat links may help the reader. Once these things are done, what is the next move? Plantsurfer (talk) 23:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
You always think of something to add, wink wink. I think you're only supposed to link the first occurrence of a word, but I don't know how hard and fast that is. After this it's get it to featured status but that's not something I have experience at. I asked MarshalN20 to answer here.512bits (talk) 02:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Botany's FA Review (procedure)

I'm amazed at the fantastic improvement that has been done on the botany article. With regards to your questions...

  1. You need to provide credit where it's due, but also have nominators who can be of help during the review. First analyze the contributors page (see [1]), there you will find Plantsurfer & 512bits as the major contributors (so, the two of you can and should co-nominate the article). Traditionally, FA reviews have as much as 3 nominators, but you can include as many as you need (just make sure to make a good case for each of the nominators if you decide to include more than 3).
  2. Lastly, go to WP:FAC and follow the "Nomination procedure" (I can't explain it better than they have done it).
  3. Also, remember that major contributors and nominators cannot "support" article FA candidacies. A nominator's task is simply to edit the article based on the suggestions made by reviewers (or make a case as to why you do not want to follow the suggestion). So, there is a balance you must have in mind with regards to nominators. Also, do make sure to ask users you think might be interested in reviewing the article (such as me) to review it; however, only do this after having made the actual nomination.

I hope this helps. Best of luck!--MarshalN20 | Talk 14:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes, big help, especially about who and how many nominate it. Peter would be next in line on edit counts but he's only a little above the next guy.512bits (talk) 22:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, I am very pleased at your reaction to the improvement in the article. So, do I read this right - we wait for the peer review to close - I guess that would be on 13th Sept. - and then the two of us nominate it? Plantsurfer (talk) 23:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
The instructions a PR say we can close it if we feel our issues are met. I'm ok with closing it if you feel ready to move on. 512bits (talk) 14:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Great, I am certainly ready to move on. Go for it. Plantsurfer (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Done. See WP:FAC for the FAC listings page and Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Botany/archive1, you may want to set a watch on both. This will probably work better if you focus on the technical stuff and I focus on formats, refs, etc. If you want to notify individual users, feel free. The notice on the botany talk page done as part of the nomination process will let anyone know who's seriously watchlisted the botany article. 512bits (talk) 22:38, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Haberlandt is all in German. Can you make sure I got the title, volume, issue, etc correct? 512bits (talk) 01:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
We got two opposes right off the bat. There seems to be a fundamental disagreement about what the article should cover. One is from you know who. 512bits (talk) 17:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Yep, a major downer, but it ain't over until the fat lady sings. I am not interested in listening to further purely negative comment, but indopug's comments have weight, and will in due course need an answer, because he is a senior editor with a track record of constructive peer review at FA level over many years. I think we should take up MarshalN20's offer - he wrote above " Also, do make sure to ask users you think might be interested in reviewing the article (such as me) to review it". We should ask him to contribute a review. Peter would be eligible to comment as well. He is a knowledgeable professional botanist, so he knows what he is talking about. Kelvinsong too. I would also like to hear the views of EncycloPetey. He was a motive force behind many botany articles, but hasn't contributed recently. But I think he watches and remains in touch. Anyway it wouldn't hurt to ask him. Plantsurfer (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Please go ahead and ask them. But doing what they want would be an almost total rewrite. I didn't put in all these months and over 1000 edits just to chuck it to get a little star on the page. Sure it can still be improved, but I think it's an excellent article as it stands. It does not need to be gutted.512bits (talk) 18:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Exactly. I totally agree - I don't want a rewrite either. This is a core article from my pov, but I would have to consider how long to defend my FA ambitions when there are other botanical articles in need of attention. I agree it is excellent as it stands. OK, let's take it a step at a time. I'll contact Peter, Kelvinsong, EncycloPetey and MarshallN20 ans see if they are willing to support. Are there any others you can think of who might be willing to help? Plantsurfer (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I personally think that some of the reviewers are unfairly taunting the article (and, thereby, its editors). All of the information the two of you (and others) have arduously researched is worthy of praise (not mockery). If the reviewers disagree with it, then they should present source-backed arguments to back their case (but that is a different matter).


The main problem with the Botany article has to be, as many have pointed out, the need for it to focus more on the "concept" of Botany as a science rather than the science itself. In other words, the article should be more of a "reference book" of sorts that points readers to more specific (and detailed) topics.
What does this mean? Well, first it does not mean your contributions should be deleted. In fact, the main solution here is to rethink the structure and move some of the information into more specific articles. Think of it in positive light, as planting seeds into future featured articles which the two of you could soon be working on.
Second, this does not mean you have to devote more research to the article. In fact, my view is that (after moving things around), the featured content is already in it. Remember, "Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."
I will bring in a much closer look on the structure in days to come. In the meantime, I simply request that you avoid falling for any of the unwarranted taunts. FAC reviews are not easy stuff and having a thick skin is important.
Best wishes.--MarshalN20 | Talk 06:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for those words of support - they are very greatly appreciated right now. I will have a close look at the structure. Plantsurfer (talk) 08:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Microtubule organizing center 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:
  • gametes, and they are entirely absent in the [[Pinophyta|conifers]] and Angiosperm|flowering plants]].<ref>Marshall, W.F. (2009) Centriole Evolution. Current Opinion in Cell Biology 21(1), 14–19. doi:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Mistletoe

For info, I re-did most of your undo on Viscum album, as it seemed OK to me. – Fayenatic London 21:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Reversion of my added comma in article Plastid

I added a comma to the article Plastid, and you reverted my edit.

But the sentence as you left it is incorrect. Here is the version I modified:

For example, the components of the plant cuticle and its epicuticular wax, are synthesized by the epidermal cells from palmitic acid

This sentence has an awkward, incorrect comma after the word "wax". That could be fixed in one of two ways. First possible fix: remove the comma. Then we have

For example, the components of the plant cuticle and its epicuticular wax are synthesized by the epidermal cells from palmitic acid

Second possible fix: add a matching comma, so that the phrase "and its epicuticular wax" is both preceded by and followed by a comma.

I chose the second method of fixing the problem because I thought it best matched the existing sentence. But since you did not like the added comma, I suggest you instead remove the extra comma, that is, the comma after the word "wax".

I leave this suggestion for you to either carry out or ignore. Dratman (talk) 02:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Bromus interruptus flowers.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Ordovician article

I did not add a reference because the hyperlink I added contain the required references. I assumed that would be sufficient. 2A02:FE0:C900:1:ADC4:D2C2:F604:A44D (talk) 11:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Please take this to the article's talk page. Plantsurfer (talk) 12:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Charophyta, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mesotrophic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

For dedication to Natural History...

The Natural History Shield
I'd like to award you this Natural History Shield for your many excellent contributions to botany on Wikipedia, most recently on Charophyta. Great work! Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, very much appreciated. Still a lot to do however . . . Plantsurfer (talk) 13:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Several steps

Hi, on the Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere I put a link to sucrose, you reverted it and wrote something like "several steps away". I am curious what these steps are. I thought photosynthesis was the process of turning carbon dioxide(gas) and sunlight(energy) into sugar(solid) and other forms of solid carbon like wood. ? Is it too complicated to write what these steps are , or is there a link you can send me to , to educate me? Thank you --Mark v1.0 (talk) 11:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, of course, I am a bit tied up just at the moment, but will send you some stuff later on. Plantsurfer (talk) 16:38, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
It is commonly, but erroneously, stated that photosynthesis fixes CO2 into glucose or sucrose. The situation is better described in these terms, that sucrose is synthesized in a complex series of reactions from 3-carbon compounds produced by photosynthesis. The process of carbon fixation by RuBisCo in the Calvin cycle makes glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate (G3P) not glucose or sucrose. See the comment made in the last paragraph of the article Light-independent reactions#Calvin cycle. Most of the G3P produced by photosynthesis is recycled through the Calvin cycle, but a proportion is exported out of the chloroplast into the cytosol, where a highly complex metabolic sequence uses it to synthesize sucrose. The process is discussed in Chapter 8 of Taig and Zeiger's 2002 book "Plant Physiology" ISBN 0-87893-823-0, and the series of reactions are summarized in Table 8.6 of that chapter.

Your caption read "Photosynthesis changes sunlight into chemical energy, splits water to liberate O2, and fixes CO2 into sugar." A possible correction would be "Photosynthesis changes sunlight into chemical energy, splits water to liberate O2, and fixes CO2 into glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate that is used in the synthesis of more complex sugars such as Sucrose." Does this help?? Plantsurfer (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes your explination does help to educate me , thank you. I just know you or I can taste the sugar if we eat a pea pod, so there is sugar there.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC) CORRECTION not sugar, the sweetness--Mark v1.0 (talk) 19:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I would like to resubmit the message but edit it so that it is neutral. Can you give me back the quote of the message i sent earlier?

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Prunus padus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Britain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit conflict

Hi Plantsurfer: Please check your edit on the Hardwood page; I think it was an edit conflict with mine. Regards, Pinethicket (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit conflict

Hi Plantsurfer: Please check your edit on the Liquid Nitrogen page. You have removed a specific reference to the scientifically renowned term 'Dewar'. Perhaps you are unaware of the Scottish scientist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Dewar) the Dewar's inventor and as the term is also now part of the English language, how are you defining its need for a citation?

Your point is adequately covered by the earlier link to vacuum flasks. FYI your use of the term edit conflict in the section heading above is inappropriate. Please take any further discussion of your points about the liquid nitrogen article to the article's Talk page. Plantsurfer (talk) 11:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Streptophytina may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"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:
  • is an unranked [[clade]] of [[plant]]s that includes the land plant division [[Embryophyta]], (which contains the [[land plants]] ([[bryophytes]], and [[vascular plants]])<ref>[http://tolweb.org/

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:59, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

dear plantsurfer

I have http://lifeofplant.blogspot.nl/2011/05/charophyceae.html which appears to invalidate you statement that my edits are incorrect information. Bear with me while I'm trying to find more information on this.

Thanks, Jmv2009

Dear Plantsurfer: In the article I referred to it states: Furthermore, several recent analyses support the notion that a member of the Charophyceae gave rise to embryophytes. Which appears to render your impossibility possible. -Jmv2009. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmv2009 (talk • contribs) 09:35, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear Plantsurfer, what was wrong with the green algae edit?

Thanks, jmv2009 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmv2009 (talk • contribs) 09:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

The comments on the talk page of another user on charophyceae indicate the same. I'm reverting your reversion with some references. Please advise me with your wiseness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmv2009 (talk • contribs) 10:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Papaver somniferum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stigma (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Evolution talk

Hi professor, I believe you have said that i am being disruptive on the evolutionary talk page. You have also labelled me as a "creationist cladtrap". So I respectfully fail to see how it is me who is being unprofessional. I need to emphasize that I am not trying to create a shift in credibility between evolution and creationism or religion, but I honestly and sincerely cannot accept that Wikipedia is being professional or unbiased on the subject of evolution. I can see evidence of political motivation and distorting facts in your article by stating things as facts without any citation and then making excuses that this is a paraphrase of the article. This is clearly misleading and I can see a pattern of hypocrisy.

To quote you - "Wikipedia doesn't decide anything, it simply presents the state of current scholarship".

In that case this needs to be made clear in wikipedia's webpage. And not just the homepage but on every single article that has contraversey. This will attract less crowd to the "talk page".

Constantly banning people and labeling them as "disruptive" is in it self childish and unprofessional. Think of all those people that were burned at the stake for dis agreeing with the catholic church in the middle ages. Can you say without doubt that this is a less dramatic version of muting people who disagree with you but not just on the facts but in the way facts are processed?

Do you honestly think my motive is to be disruptive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.224.200.34 (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Simply because you think your motive is pure does not mean that you are not disruptive, after all, "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions." In fact, you are being disruptive right now in that you are badgering people, as well as misusing talkpages as forum threads to whine about how Wikipedia should abandon its intellectual integrity and replace it with anti-scientific religious propaganda that places unreasonable and inappropriate doubt on science. Banning people for being disruptive is nothing like being put to death for heresy. Your mother should be humiliated by such arrogant stupidity. Among other things, being stripped of your privilege to edit at a website because you are incapable of obeying the website's rules of behavior does not compare to being captured by Church officials and then tortured into confessing crimes you have been implicated in through hearsay, gossip and pained rantings, and then summarily executed in public. So, please desist in bothering people with your inane rants and expoundings on your moronic martyr-wannabe complex, because doing that is, in fact, disruptive.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cirsium heterophyllum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Petiole (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Reversion of Selaginella edit

Dear Plantsurfer, in the article Selaginella, you reverted my edit --- which consisted of changing "and its" to "whose" --- on the grounds "Not a person."

Although the pronoun "whose" is in many, perhaps even in most cases used in respect to a person, nevertheless, personhood is not a requirement for its use. See, for example, the second sense in the definition of "whose" at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/whose. Use of "whose" in this non-person context is allowed, perhaps, because there is no equivalent specifically non-personal word in English that can be used in this situation. Admittedly in this case the grammar detail might be easy to misunderstand, since, for example, "who" and "whom" in fact must always be used in respect to a person. Nevertheless, "whose" has no such restriction.

In this particular context, some alternative two-word equivalents would be "for which" or "of which."

I see that a short time after reverting my edit you replaced "and its" with a sentence break. That solution seems quite adequate to me, but under such circumstances I would have preferred that, rather than reverting my (not only good faith but also useful) edit, you had simply gone on to re-edit the phrase with whatever change you believed represented a further improvement.

Thank you for your attention. Dratman (talk) 17:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

.

Yes, the title is incorrect. But what are those things? Hafspajen (talk) 22:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

there's a little explanation here [2]. Plantsurfer (talk) 00:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
... for your heroic efforts to make sense out of the article Alcohol (drug). MelanieN (talk) 01:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of botany journals, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Springer. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Canarina canariensis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chiffchaff. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Corn poppy distribution

Hi. I'm writing about your reversion of my recent edit to the distribution of the Papaver rhoeas article with your comment 'It is native to Europe, widely naturalized outside Europe'. Both statements are technically correct - it is native to Europe, and it is widely naturalised elsewhere. And I see that you are a botanist. However you did not deal with the matter raised in my editing comment 'implies it is not native elsewhere'. Its distribution in western Asia and north Africa is not due to introduction, it is native there as well as in Europe. The wider distribution is given later in the article, and in one of the three references present in the article when you made the alteration, the Flora of Malta. It is given in the majority of sources elsewhere, e.g. I see it in print in my copy of the European Garden Flora, and on the web on the Kew website. Hence the statement that you returned is both redundant and conflicts with the distribution given later and the sources quoted in this document, and thus is misleading in its own right. If you have evidence that it is only native to Europe, that should be added with references to the article, but not in the lead, as it is now contentious. Thanks. Imc (talk) 16:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Glossary of botanical terms, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Sucker and Bryophyta. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

green algea reverts

You wrote in the revert: Streptophyta is a perfect monophyletic clade, and includes Charophytes but is in no way synonymous with that group)

What is the delta between Streptophyta and Charphytes, except a "small" land plants branch further in the tree? In Viridiplantae there is no difference in the cladogram.

The difference is that Streptophyta includes land plants (Embryophyta) but Charophyta does not. They cannot therefore be synonyms. Viridiplantae includes Chlorophyta and Streptophyta (Charophyta + Embryophyta). Plantsurfer (talk) 20:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Jmv2009 (talk) 20:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome, glad to help! Plantsurfer (talk) 20:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Please note that the stance that land plants are not algae was criticized in [3] as "artificial".Jmv2009 (talk) 19:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, different people have different viewpoints. Personally I don't find the argument helpful. It's a bit like calling birds dinosaurs. If you think this has any traction as a consensus view, and can be supported by secondary sources then you should make a case for it on the talk page, not here. Plantsurfer 20:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

We are (for any consistent definition of these words, including for all extinct specimens) Bacteria, Animals, Worms, Fish, Mammals, Monkeys, Apes, despite the well documented historical squeamishness.Jmv2009 (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC) And of course birds are dinosaurs. That's the first thing one learns about birds these days. Of course no all Dinosaurs were birds, but that's another statement.

Only if you choose, arbitrarily, to define "consistent" in this context in a particular way. Bacteria, for example, are prokaryotes, humans are not. Monkeys, as the word is used by most people, are a paraphyletic group, excluding apes. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Just one question

Why was it not an improvement? Is it not better to avoid informal names? You know, they taste badly, sounding like a baby-talk, and they contribute little sense to any new reader. Better to avoid both slang & jargon. - 91.122.8.150 (talk) 19:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Please raise any discussion of this on the article's talk page, not here.Plantsurfer 19:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, you told me to ask you here why you undid the change. So I am. - 91.122.8.150 (talk) 19:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Glossary of botanical terms
added links pointing to Acer and Fig
Plantago coronopus
added a link pointing to Annual

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Scottish Fairground Culture Editathon, May 2015

Hey there! As a Wikipedian in Scotland I thought you might be interested in the Scottish Fairground Culture editathon taking place on 7 May at the Riverside Museum - drop me a line if you'd like to know more, or if you'd be interested in taking part remotely! Lirazelf (talk) 12:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear, linkfail! Here's the correct one... Scottish Fairground Culture Editathon Lirazelf (talk) 09:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Salvia hispanica

Hi Plantsurfer, I've addressed your concerns with respect to the bit about the DV percentages not being self-explanatory. It seemed like a pretty easy conclusion to make honestly with the chart right there but it now explicitly spells that out. In the future, please consider improving the current content rather than reverting. It's much more productive and produces fewer conflicts. Thanks. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Plantsurfer, you've been mentioned on this talk page. Check it out when you have the time. :) 5.12.155.176 (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Africanized bee

Hi Plantsurfer I took that quote from this paragraph in the source article:

State agricultural officials won the first round with Africanized bees. In June, 1985, a colony was discovered in an oil field about 45 miles northwest of Bakersfield. Bee experts theorized the the colony had arrived hidden in a load of oil-drilling pipe shipped from South America.

Evenrød (talk) 21:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

cell history Video

Hello Plantsurfer, What would need to be added to add the education video or any education video to wikipedia?

You reversed an education video edit stating it was unsourced : http://ed.ted.com/lessons/the-wacky-history-of-cell-theory#review Video History of Cell Theory The creator is: educator Lauren Royal-Woods. The video is a summary of history of cell discoveries. Thank you,Jcardazzi (talk) 16:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi

Reference errors on 6 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you again

Thanks again for the Mimosa pudica reply. Would you please be a dear and fix your signature so it links here? Many thanks. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Welcome, but I don't understand about the signature. How does that work? Plantsurfer 13:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I do not know. But, you could read this for clues. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Per WP:SIGLINK, your signature must contain a link to your user page, your user talk page or your contributions (more than one such link is also acceptable, of course). Your customized signature doesn't contain such a link, making it unnecessarily complicated for other editors to locate your talk page (particularly so for new and unexperienced editors). Please modify your signature among your preferences and add such a link. The code for adding a link to your signature is just the same as for any other link. Huon (talk) 23:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

ReEdit

Information iconHello Plantsurfer, If your concern is about "promotional" its not an issue at all. The linked site is not a commercial one, there are all tool listed that are available to deploy the scientific method in question (e.g. FIB), no company is featured or receives any kind of advantage. If one talks about scientific methods it should, must, be possible to share information about instruments that support the methods in questions. This is all about wiki. And this is by the way what you find within every scientific publication. I studied wiki rules about external link placing and can surely say that the content sticks to the rules. If you need further proof , search for, e.g. car manufactures, and you will find a list of models. If this is not promotional I wonder why it should be true for FIB or whatever.--Thomas M Bernhard (talk) 23:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Hallucigenia edit

Hi! This regards my edit to the Hallucigenia page. Since Canadia is a valid genus (as far as I know) only that should be a link, with the species name (sparsa) not as part of the link as that combination (Canadia sparsa) is a synomym of Hallucigenia. As it is, all of "Canadia sparsa" being a link suggests the page it links to is Canadia sparsa when it's actually the genus Canadia (Canadia spinosa). 90.201.190.75 (talk) 15:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

You said: "OK, well if that is what you were trying to do, you were going about it the wrong way. The link to the genus Canadia is not Canadia but Canadia (genus). The form of the piped link before you edited it was entirely correct."
My edit made clicking "Canadia" on the Hallucigenia page link to Canadia (genus) which is what it should do. The link before my edit made "Canadia sparsa" link to the Canadia genus page which isn't correct, as Canadia sparsa is a synonym of Hallucigenia. This was my edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hallucigenia&diff=prev&oldid=668610269 If the genus is valid but the species is a synonym only the valid genus should contain a link. An example of this can be seen on this page in the synonyms section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantellisaurus "Iguanodon" is a valid genus so it contains a link, but since the species Iguanodon atherfieldensis is a synonym of Mantellisaurus, "atherfieldensis" doesn't contain a link. Another example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suchomimus "Baryonyx" contains a link, "tenerensis" doesn't. 90.201.190.75 (talk) 17:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Introducing the new WikiProject Evolutionary biology!

Greetings!

A photograph of Charles Darwin

I am happy to introduce you to the new WikiProject Evolutionary biology! The newly designed WikiProject features automatically updated work lists, article quality class predictions, and a feed that tracks discussions on the 663 talk pages tagged by the WikiProject. Our hope is that these new tools will help you as a Wikipedia editor interested in evolutionary biology.

Hope to see you join! Harej (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Dandelion leaves and fasciolosis

Plantsurfer, as I read the Properties section of the Taraxacum article, the mention that consumption of unprepared dandelion leaves has also been implicated in occurrences of fasciolosis does seem to me to be relevant given that the latter article links back to dandelion. Though not an intrinsic property of the plant, the fact that dandelion can serve as a vehicle of fluke transmission is biologically important and directly speaks to the intent of this section of the article. I would not think this the case if the fact being cited were a general property of herbaceous plants which in this case it seems not to be. Medmyco (talk) 13:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Botanical taxonomy question

I am glad to have a PhD Botanist to ask this question, rather than a general Biologist or Microbiologist! This is a two part taxonomy/phylogeny question. I have received conflicting views from both professors and textbooks on the subject of plant taxonomy I thought that the kingdoms of Animalia and Plantae consisted of only multicellular organisms by definition, and yet it seems that algae are included on all pages of wikipedia. I was wondering, taxonomically, what are the rules of inclusion for an organism in Plantae? I realize that phyla/divisions are in a state of flux, but there must be basic requirements? Similar to the requirements that exclude the Actinomycetes from kingdom Fungi?

My other question may simply be that I need to study cladistics further. I was wondering if the families of plants, such as Solanaceae, Rosaceae, etc. are based purely on morphology or if they are as genetically disparate as the different families of mammals in a given order, such as Felidae and Ursidae. Or is it a matter of taxonomy being mostly arbitrary, and created for the ease of people?

Thank you! Chaquarius (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

@Chaquarius: The taxonomy of these organisms, like the organisms themselves, is still evolving, but what has been clear for some time is that "algae" are not one single group of related organisms but a bunch of disparate groups with some things in common (chiefly their general morphology) but a good deal of unrelatedness in their origins, cell structure and biochemistry, etc. For example, some green algae look a bit like some brown algae, but they have chloroplasts which were obtained in totally different ways, and therefore cannot be the same. Green algae have chloroplasts that appear to have been acquired by a common ancestor of green algae and land plants, by forming a permanent symbiotic relationship with a cyanobacterium. They use the same pigments and accessory pigments, and they have the same number of membranes. Those of brown algae have different pigments and more enclosing membranes, and did not acquire their chloroplasts directly from cyanobacterium, but probably by forming an endosymbiotic relationship with a photosynthetic eukaryote. Green algae are therefore now regarded by many taxonomists as members of the clade Viridiplantae, together with land plants, and red and brown algae are excluded. I suggest you read the article Viridiplantae for more information on that. Synonymy of Viridiplantae and Plantae is beginning to be the consensus, although you will also see from the cited literature that there is still some residual controversy about the way these groups should be regarded. Modern taxonomists are also moving away from the traditional hierarchical taxonomy, and usually prefer not to call the Viridiplantae a Kingdom but treat it as a clade. Whether or not it is a group hierarchically equivalent to Animalia is of little importance - modern taxonomy attempts to understand relatedness not in terms of a series of fixed levels but in terms of phylogeny. And no, families of plants are being constantly restructured as new data comes to hand, not on the basis of morphology at all, but on the basis of genetic and phylogenetic relatedness, derived from molecular analysis of their nuclear and chloroplast DNA. Definitely not arbitrary and definitely not created for the ease of people. It will remain in a state of flux for some time as the quantity of new data that is pouring in from molecular analysis continues to upset people's applecarts. Hope this helps. Plantsurfer 22:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
@Plantsurfer: this is a clear explanation – better than some of our articles. You should seriously consider editing the relevant ones to try achieve equal clarity! Peter coxhead (talk) 07:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
@Peter Coxhead: Thanks Peter. Now there's a challenge! Plantsurfer 09:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

"Macro"

I'm not sure if your edit comment "neither a micro moth or a macro moth (whatever that is))" was meant seriously, but in my experience lepidopterists constantly use the terms "micro" and "macro". In the UK, there are definitions in terms of the families involved; see e.g. this checklist. Which isn't to say that the term "macro" is helpful to non-specialists. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I am unrepentant, I am afraid. I am aware of Macrolepidoptera, but macro moth is undefined and an article on Senecio jacobaea is not the place to introduce the term. Plantsurfer 08:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Ah, no, I wasn't criticizing your removal (the term isn't helpful to non-specialists, as I wrote above), merely noticing your edit comment. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  1. ^ Mauseth 2003, pp. 552–581.
  2. ^ Copeland 1938, pp. 383–420.
  3. ^ Woese et al. 1977, pp. 305–311.
  4. ^ Cavalier-Smith 2004, pp. 1251–1262.
  5. ^ Mauseth 2003, pp. 617–654.
  6. ^ Becker & Marin 2009, pp. 999–1004.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Plantsurfer/Archive_2&oldid=1139284843"