User talk:Plantsurfer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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).

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 Image:Signature icon.png 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
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Evolution comment

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.wikipedia.org/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)