User talk:84.208.233.134

Welcome!
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions&#32;so far. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some links to pages you may find useful:
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles* Simplified Manual of Style

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply  [ create a named account] . It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:
 * Create new pages and rename pages
 * Edit semi-protected pages
 * Upload images
 * Have your own watchlist, which shows when articles you are interested in have changed

Note that in order for the first three features to be available, you must have had an account for a certain number of days and made a certain number of edits.

If you edit without using a named account, your IP address (84.208.233.134) is used to identify you instead.

I hope that you, as a Wikipedian, decide to continue contributing to our project: an encyclopedia of human knowledge that anyone can edit. If you need help, check out Questions, or you can  to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;).

Happy editing! Aspening (talk) 22:22, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * May I repeat the welcome. I would like to mention that for scientific articles, we need to take special care with sources. News flashes are interesting but not ideal; better is to cite the original paper that the news flash is publicising. However, there is a deeper problem here, which is that a paper describing new scientific research is primary, i.e. it's new, original, and is the only source describing that new thing ... and so, might be wrong. What we want on the encyclopedia is reliable secondary sources, e.g. textbooks or review papers that look back over many primary papers and assess more objectively what the situation is.


 * So, 1) please cite real journal papers not news flashes; and 2) the papers we need to cite are not brand-new hot-off-the-press discoveries (sorry!) but solid, meat-and-potatoes, review articles that themselves cite dozens of primary papers and compare them. Hope this is clear. Good luck! Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:30, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * OK. If there is a possibility to find and access the journal papers, I'll give it a go.84.208.233.134 (talk) 17:11, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Red Algae
Thanks for your comment on my talk page. I reverted because you did not specify which seaweeds were being referred to. Perhaps you could edit the sentence to specify red algae, without using the generic term seaweed, which covers various sorts of organisms, not all of which are closely related. Plant surfer 18:59, 18 May 2019 (UTC)