User talk:Plantsurfer/Archive 4

An update from the Sustainability Initiative
Hi, Plantsurfer! Thank you again for supporting the Sustainability Initiative, which aims at reducing the environmental impact of the Wikimedia movement. Over the past two years, more than 200 Wikipedians from all over the world have come together to push the Wikimedia movement towards greater sustainability.

What's new?

We are writing you this message because there is great news: The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has finally passed a resolution stating that the Foundation is committed to seeking ways to reduce the impact of its activities on the environment. Also, we have created a cool logo and found a nice name for the project which you can see on the right :-)

What's next?

Currently, we are working with Wikimedia Foundation staff to make sustainability a key priority for the selection of a new location for Wikimedia servers in Singapore. Also, we have presented the Wikimedia Foundation with a green energy roadmap to have all Wikimedia servers run on renewable energy by 2019.

Please help!

Let's keep this project moving forward – and there are several ways in which you can help: If you have any questions, you can contact us on on Meta. Again, thank you very much for your support! --Aubrey and Gnom (talk) 09:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ask other Wikipedians to sign the project page as well – this way we can show the Wikimedia Foundation that this is an issue that the community really cares about.
 * Talk to Wikimedians you know about the importance of reducing the environmental impact of the Wikimedia movement.
 * Improve and translate the project page on Meta.

Disambiguation link notification for April 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Samara (fruit), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Acer. 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) 09:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

National varieties of English
In a recent edit to the page Boeing 787 Dreamliner, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to India, use Indian English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. BilCat (talk) 23:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Electron microscope
Would you please discuss the specifics of your reversion on Electron microscope on the article talk page. Thanks. --99.185.241.13 (talk) 01:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

tansporation
Could you please answer my question about my updates to the transpiration article on the article's talk page? Thank you (Amc1591 (talk) 05:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC))

Carbon dioxide
You undid my edit with the summary "the carbon of ALL aerobic organisms, not just plants, is derived from carbon dioxide". Are you saying that I get my carbon from breathing in CO2 and not from food? That's ridiculous. Brian Everlasting (talk) 18:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * please look at the complete set of edits that Plantsurfer made. It was wrong before to say that carbon dioxide is vital to plant life as if it weren't equally vital to other organisms. You get your carbon from organic compounds made by plants from CO2. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:04, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It looks to me as if not all (just nearly all) carbon fixation involves carbon dioxide. There are papers reporting bicarbonate ion as an alternative carbon source for photosynthesis, and others reporting the use of methane (which could be of volcanic origin) as a source of carbon (e.g. via the reaction of methane and oxygen to form methanal, which can then by using in further synthesis of organic compounds). Lavateraguy (talk) 13:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Bicarbonate ion vs. carbon dioxide is chemically really not much a difference, given that CO2 in aqueous solution is in equilibrium with H+ and HCO3−. Methane is, I agree, a different matter altogether. However, this wasn't the original issue with the article, which was the implication that CO2 was only vital to plants. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

A new set of eyes
Could you please look at a colloidal gold. I had removed a large contribution about various green or plant-based methods for making colloidal gold. It just seems narrow and esoteric trivia on a topic that has real-world applications. Thanks, --Smokefoot (talk) 17:58, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I completely agree it is trivia, but worse than that it is deliberate pushing of pov and misinformation to a particular kind of audience that is not concerned with facts. Conventional methods for making colloidal gold generally involve non-toxic chemistry (such as reduction of gold chloride by citrate or ascorbate) and involve trivial power inputs (less than one might use making coffee) so the starting concept that there is any need for a "green method" is completely bogus. I will look at the article again when I have a moment, but it is just past Halloween and ghost busting is so exhausting.  Plant surfer  19:23, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Synthetic element
Hello Plantsurfer! I think you can not put an image with colors not described! You should specify all the colors or remove them... What happens to Bi, Th and U, why they are orange or red? With love. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.44.141.72 (talk) 07:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

BOOKSPAM
See user talk:83.215.123.233 Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 20:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the headsup, and my apologies. I have restored your edit Plant surfer  20:58, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No biggie, I probably should have made my ES clearer. But then, there were many instances, got tired and just started rolling them back. Apparently, this has been happening often. Per the talk page ten years, the anon was blocked one year. I just did a search on the ISBNs and there are still a few dozen that need to be gone through. Referred to as WP:REFSPAM... Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Re: Tin
Hi,

Thanks for offering input on Tin. As a general principle, it is usually not considered productive to revert on-going efforts to improve the quality of articles. If a concern is raised about a problem with an article and you disagree with how one editor addresses the concern, it is preferable to offer an alternative rather than just deleting others' edits.

Thanks.

-- MC 141.131.2.3 (talk) 18:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit war in Papaver Somniferum, including the destruction of an entire section, with sources from the New York Times and Washington Post
Your recent editing history at Papaver somniferum shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.192.209 (talk) 03:03, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 21
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ranunculaceae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Actaea ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Ranunculaceae check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Ranunculaceae?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Help with Hypericum
Thank you for your edits on Hypericum androsaemum and Hypericum. I work a lot in that genus, and if you're interested in helping out, check out List of Hypericum species. It's a comprehensive list that's under construction that I've been working on for a while now, and any assistance from other editors on it would really be a big help. If you like making species articles, there are also a lot of redlinks there that need to be filled in. Thanks for your contributions, and if you're interested at all just let me know!

Your fellow editor, Fritzmann2002 19:59, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Poppy seed images
Could you evaluate and comment on this, please? Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 16:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Inappropriate revert
I did not write the word "word". I just inserted a missing interval/space between the existing word "word" and the word "epidermis" (written: 'epidermis'). Please, check who wrote before me. Thanks in advance. Look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Epidermis_%28botany%29&type=revision&diff=848691510&oldid=847181912 Xakepxakep (talk) 20:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Removing my Edit
Hello, I'm not sure how to cite to wikipedia. All of said statements about said species on the IUCN redlist were stated elsewhere on the wiki, on their respective page. I can link to them if you wish? 86.183.211.16 (talk) 21:56, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Or are you just going to remove my edit whilst referring me to your talk page and ignore me? 86.183.211.16 (talk) 22:02, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, hello?

You asked me to discuss your censorship of wikipedia on your talk page. 86.183.211.16 (talk) 22:30, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

How can we make the following more acceptable?

"Whilst the assumption holds true that genetically modified organisms may reduce the use of pesticides, herbicides and fungicides, others think that the introduction of radically different organisms could have a detrimental effect on the food web, and could lead towards us into an even greater state of mass extinction. Out of the two most threatened categories on the IUCN red list, that is 'Extinct in the Wild (EW)' and 'Critically Endangered (CR)', it could be said that at least eleven species were drawn closer to extinction by the introduction of new species, including: The Guam Kingfisher and Guam Rail, by the introduction of the Brown Tree Snake, the Socorro Dove by the introduction of Cats, the Asiatic Cheetah by the introduction of domestic animals, the Axolotl by the introduction of both the African Tilapia and the Asian Carp, the Hawaiian Monk Seal by the spread of Leptospirosis (from humans), the Tristan Albatross by the introduction of Rats, Cats and Pigs, the Amsterdam Albatross by the introduction of Rats and Cats, the Northern Hairy-Nosed Wombat by the introduction of African buffel grass (used for the grazing of cows), the Red Wolf by the introduction of Nutria and the Spix's Macaw by the introduction of Rats, Cats, Mongooses, Marmosets, Goats, Cows and Sheep. Furthermore, the threat of bioterrorism and biological warfare has been greatly increased, that is from the moment of the discovery of genetic engineering through to the subsequent use and accessibility of the technologies as a whole. If genetically modified organisms have the ability to reproduce, native and existing non-man made species may gradually disappear. Without a clear plan on how to deal with this, the doomsday clock may tick ever closer."

Why revert?
Hi. I see the reasons you provided in the edit summary for the revert in Triglochin maritima, but are you sure that isn't pertinent information? The plant's alternate scientific name is already a redirect to that page, so i don't see why we wouldn't leave that information in. If you want, i can add the other names like Trigloghin maritimus for the sake of granularity. As for the cyanide production, i can't see how a single phrase mentioning the fact is undue weight. I know many plants produce that, but this is no reason to not include it in the article. Information is information, and that is a toxic plant with no information about that fact on its article. Can we discuss this? Regards, YuriNikolai (talk) 03:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Understood! I'll leave further messages in the article's talk page instead. YuriNikolai (talk) 16:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Reversion of short description
Hi Plantsurfer, You reverted my short description at White with the edit summary "nonsensical" Would you mind explaining exactly what you are dismissing as nonsensical so that it can be addressed? Please ping with reply. Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:37, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Laurus nobilis
Proper nouns require capital letters. That is a basic rule of English grammar. Perhaps you would have the courtesy to explain your reversions. 82.27.90.157 (talk) 16:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The common, vernacular names of plants are not proper nouns. Plant surfer  16:12, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter whether the vernacular names of plants are defined as proper names or proper nouns - both require capital letters. Are you saying that they are neither proper names or proper nouns? Your profile page states that you are a member of WikiProject Grammar so I am sure that you will explain your reasoning in this regard. 82.27.90.157 (talk) 16:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Please study the naming conventions for plant articles given here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Plants#Plant_article_naming_conventions  Plant surfer  16:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reference. As stated in the discursive matter to which you referred me there is - unlike the Latin binomial convention - no similar standardized recognized convention in the common or vernacular naming of plants. The consensus, however, is that since common vernacular names are classified as either proper names or proper nouns they should at the very least begin with a capital letter. 82.27.90.157 (talk) 16:54, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * whose consensus is that?? If you wish to extend this discussion further, please do so on the talk page, not here, so that other interested editors can make input if they wish.  Plant surfer  17:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * All the principal manuals of style in the English speaking world (Chicago, Oxford; Cambridge, for example) assert that both proper names and proper nouns require capitalization. Presumably you are claiming that common plant names constitute neither proper names or proper nouns? You have avoided pronouncing your opinion on this matter. 82.27.90.157 (talk) 18:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Correct. Common names of plants are not proper nouns. Plant surfer  18:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 82.27.90.157, like it or not, it is a settled guideline here that the English names of organisms are styled in sentence case, as per MOS:COMMONNAMES. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Rhynia image
Hi, I assume you're the same "Plantsurfer" as on Wikimedia Commons. I was looking again at File:Rhynia_stem.jpg. What a fantastic image! The reason I was looking is that I acquired a new gadget that firmly fixes my compact digital camera to my binocular microscope, making it easier to take photos, so I uploaded a close-up of the rock specimen at File:Rhynie chert with Rhynia 1.png – see File:Rhynia stem – superficial view with scale.jpg. I really must see if I can find someone who can cut thin slices for me. The Horneophyton at File:Rhynie chert with Horneophyton 2.jpg would be interesting to see if prepared in this way. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you Peter. Yes that is me! Your photos are impressive. I don't have any hand specimens of the chert, but I do have a few well-made sections, and File:Rhynia_stem.jpg was from one of them. There is also a nice diagonal section of a sporangium, which I think is probably of Aglaophyton, which shows nuclei visible in spore mother cells. I would like to get hold of more material, but it is rare as hen's teeth.  It is possible the Rhynie research group at Aberdeen might help you with sectioning.  Plant surfer  14:58, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

January 2019
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:03, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

taxon parameter in automated taxoboxes
Hi, although automated taxoboxes can pick up the taxon by default from the page name, this is deprecated. It doesn't always work correctly in complicated cases (e.g. disambiguated names, monotypic taxa sharing an article). It breaks if pages are moved. It isn't self-documenting. among others has been assiduously fixing many such taxoboxes; I've done some. There's a tracking category for Speciesboxes (Category:Speciesboxes relying on page title) and they have all been fixed. Future versions of the other templates may not support this feature. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:50, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Nygella
Hi. what are you know about the Arabian cuisine or the Syrian cuisine ?. Shaimosmos (talk) 06:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Rheum
Hi there. My name is Leo. I've been squatting on the Rheum pages the past month or two. I saw your edit yesterday and immediately rewrote your sentence a bit to qualify it, and added sources as to why there are disagreements. I went over my taxonomy last night and my opinion of TPL has sunken further, so I'm thinking of reverting more of your changes (for example plant names = taxa, but not everything, your sentence was somehow nicer put -I need to preserve that structure & I like the single column list better -I can add more pics like this), and just getting rid of that confusing TPL reference.

I will explain: The TPL version 1.1 you linked to is built up of two insecurely melded lists, the unavailable preliminary WCPF Polygonaceae database and the TROPICOS database. In the case of the WCPF only the synonymy for R. rhaponticum, R. x. hybridum and R. rhabarbarum was truly worked out; the other taxa were just added from the Index Kewensis to the database without judging the validity of the species. The TROPICOS data was imported in 2012; if you look at the taxa validated and synonymised, compared to those labelled 'unresolved' then it is clear that the 'unresolved' category is for taxa which do not occur within the remit of the projects of the MOBOT; i.e. Nepal, Pakistan, China. In other words, species which have a distribution outside of those three countries are 'unresolved'. TPL version 1.0 differs in a way which I assume means it was downloaded from TROPICOS before the FoC was completed (2003). Furthermore, taxa for the Flora Iranica (some possibly dubious) and the Middle East are not present in either database.

Earlier, the species list was made by Peter Coxhead & referenced to POWO. I removed that and started modifying, as the PoWO is many ways worse than the TPL. Most annoyingly it is unsourced, but judging by the pattern of synonymity they are following the Checklist of (former) USSR 1995. This was itself citing Borodina in 1989 Plants of Central Asia, who built her very lumpy species interpretation from a number of obscure floras from 1930s to 1960s Mongolia, Uzbekistan, Tibet and Xinjiang. These are not in agreement with each other, different taxa are being synonymised left and right, so Borodina basically lumps all these taxa into one superspecies. The USSR checklist peels a number of species off that complex again. In the 2003 FoC, the author is the same Borodina (along with Bao Bojian), but after 14 years she has changed her mind and split up all of her earlier synonymies. Besides this problem with PoWO, I also noted a number of other problems, like missing or double taxa.

So. I am going with the 2017 plant species checklist of China as source for validity there, and the other regional floras with the newest having highest priority, which is how synonymy in taxonomy is actually supposed to be done, no? I can happily explain why I feel certain individual taxa should be included. I also just recently found a place where you can download much Russian stuff, should you need to verify.

Also, I do think the synonym R. undulatum should be mentioned; due to historical (pre-2008 abouts) misapplication of the name R. rhabarbarum, researching (and using pictures of) R. undulatum is really the only way to be certain you're researching R. rhabarbarum. R. emodi was moved less recently, it looks like it has to do with the names attached to Wallich's specimens in the East India Herbarium. I'm not sure how significant that name is yet. Peter Coxhead added them, I think, but I personally saw some use in them

Sorry for all this, but I feel I am a bit more engaged in the subject. I started on a few of the other red-linked taxa but realised I really needed to get the taxonomy sorted first, and the present list appears the most valid to me at this time. I would like to be faster at doing all this, and getting rid of the red, but alas. I will be working on R. maximowiczii for a bit, wait for response, yes?

Should you happen to know how, could you take a look at Talk:Rheum_lhasaense. If someone could get that picture in there that article is done, I can't find anything left to cite. And in general I would welcome prose or content suggestions.

Regards, Leo. 86.83.56.115 (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


 * You need to put this case to all interested editors on the article's talk page, not here. Plant surfer  19:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Sure, I can do that. But I'm addressing you, in response to your recent edits.86.83.56.115 (talk) 11:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Claytonia perfoliata
Could you tell me the reason why the picture was reverted? Thanks. Affandy Murad (talk) 03:17, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * because the plant in your picture is not Claytonia perfoliata. Plant surfer  10:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Red algae
Regarding reverting the edit, you wrote "Rv imprecise statement not supported by cited source". But the source writes: "Red algae are usually ≤50-cm long and only a few species reach 2 m in length". 84.208.233.134 (talk) 17:53, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Quartz article edit
Hi Plantsurfer, please could you be more specific about why my language sounded promotional? Ageetaindia (talk) 16:53, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Progymnosperm cladogram
I've been concerned over the cladogram in the Progymnosperm article for some time as well as the parallel one in Euphyllophyte. I can't really see how the cladograms in the sources given yield the ones in the article – and even if they did, there would be too much synthesis, in my view. There should be cladograms, but they needs properly sourcing. The relevance to your change re Pertica is that it should be clear from the source whether it included this taxon in the progymnosperms or not, but it isn't. Um... Peter coxhead (talk) 21:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Pertica has Trimerophyte characters - protostelic and homosporous, while Progymnosperms such as Tetraxylopteris/Aneuropteris/Archaeopteris are beginning to produce wood, more planated fronds and evolving heterospory and their steles are becoming lobed, actinostelic. I think the consensus remains that Oocampsa might be intermediate between the two groups, but last time I looked it was still treated as a Trimerophyte (as it is in the WP article Trimerophytopsida). I have not looked at Euphyllophyte recently, but will check it out when I have a moment. Plant surfer  21:37, 1 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The whole Euphyllophyte article needs work. I'm not sure how best to discuss properly the evolution of microphylls and megaphylls, since it's relevant to several articles; e.g. there's the article Microphylls and megaphylls. I added a bit to Lycophyte, because it's relevant there; it could be expanded. Terminology is an issue too, because now it's agreed that the "microphylls" of Equisetum are reduced megaphylls, sources have started to use "lycophylls" for 'true' microphylls. Um... Peter coxhead (talk) 12:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

International Society for Plant Pathology

 * Would you be willing to create a page for the International Society for Plant Pathology (https://www.isppweb.org/)? Thanks in advance Kandymotownie ν ) 15:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Why are you asking me? I have no special interest in this area, and no knowledge of the ISPP.  Plant surfer  13:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Never mind, it's already been created. Thanks. Histohob 20:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Unexplained reverts
When reverting people's non-vandalism edits, please give a rationale. Just saying "Rv" (e.g., ) doesn't explain anything. It's one thing to revert vandalism without explaining it; but if someone makes an edit giving a reason and you don't like it, the least you can do is explain why. 152.208.24.217 (talk) 13:53, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Cyanobacteria
Hi, Plantsurfer isn’t cyanobacteria a plural word, singular = cyanobacterium as in https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cyanobacterium which is why I corrected the wording of the Cyanobacteria page. ??? Robertwhyteus (talk) 20:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It is, but Cyanobacteria is also the name of the Phylum, while a cyanobacterium refers to a single cell. Similarly, Bacteria is the name of the Phylum, while a bacterium is a single cell. Plant surfer  20:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Note on: Shortdesc Helper
I've noticed you add a lot (hundreds) of short descriptions. If you want, I suggest you use the Shortdesc helper which is a gadget that speeds up adding short descriptions. You can find it in your preferences under gadgets. Using this tool, you will not need to type out the template every time and make edit summaries because the tool will add those for you. Happy editing! Tridwoxi (talk) 01:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * cool, thanks - that makes life easier. Plant surfer  11:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Salutations Plantsurfer-
I apologize for using this as a method to reach out to you, but I am in an unfortunate situation regarding some content you have published on Wikipedia and I was wondering if there was any way you could grant me written permission to your work. I would be happy to go into more detail about it and myself via email, but I am not using your work for any personal gain or as my own ideas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fidlarrr (talk • contribs) 18:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * What work are you referring to and what are you proposing to do with it? Plant surfer  01:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Is it really such a poor image?
Hi Plantsurfer,

I have just noticed your edit on Plaster, I feel to ask you if you really believe that the image that I linked is really so poor: it is showing the dry bandage and at the same time the artist while he is applying it, explaining exactly what the text is telling ( "Plaster of Paris can be used to impregnate gauze bandages to make a sculpting material called plaster bandages. It is used similarly to clay, as it is easily shaped when wet, yet sets into a resilient and lightweight structure. This is the material that was (and sometimes still is) used to make classic plaster orthopedic casts to protect limbs with broken bones, the artistic use having been partly inspired by the medical use..." ). The background is dark since it was a public exibition. I think that it is not easy to find a more synthetic image. Nevertheless, I haven't found a better one on Commons yet, that's why I uploaded it, otherwise I would be happy to use it.

If you agree I would leave it.

Thank you! sNappy (talk) 09:53, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Fennel gives euphoria?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_psychoactive_plants <-- its the reference but I don't know how to add citation. Search foenicum vulgare in that page Machinexa (talk) 12:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC) I added recreation in fennel right, remember? Machinexa (talk) 12:56, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

And u archived that right Machinexa (talk) 13:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Conium maculatum
''Hello, I'm Plantsurfer. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Conium maculatum, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Plantsurfer 20:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)''

I removed the claim that "Hemlock is, as the main root or whole word, the same in all Germanic and Nordic languages, also with some alternates.". because it not true and does not come with a reliable source! In Danish Conium maculatum is called "skarntyde", not hemlock or anything sounding anything like that. The Danish word hemlock means hemlock TREE = Tsuga species. Sources: https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skarntyde https://www.naturbasen.dk/art?id=2855 https://ordnet.dk/ddo_en/dict?query=skarntyde

https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemlock — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.126.61.209 (talk) 22:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Fagaceae edit
Responding to your comment, "Hello, I'm Plantsurfer. I noticed that you recently removed content from Fagaceae without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Plantsurfer 16:14, 16 December 2020 (UTC)"

I definitely left a comment in the Edit summary text box (as I will do on this site as well), but I didn't check to see whether my comment was saved. The comment is still valid, and basically consisted of the point that "evergreen or deciduous" is a self-contradictory statement. (See the Wikipedia pages for those terms.)

Conceivably the Fagaceae include BOTH evergreen and deciduous plants -- I'm not a botanist, but that strikes me as highly unlikely. But if it is the case, it should be made much clearer.

If this seems reasonable to you, you might restore my edit, by deleting "evergreen or" from the Fagaceae page. If you could explain what happened to my explanation of the edit, on the Fagaceae page, I would very much appreciate knowing how to leave explanations correctly. Thanks!


 * Thanks. Fagaceae does indeed include both deciduous and evergreen species. In future please sign any messages by typing four tildes.  Plant surfer  16:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1000620009/1000724263
Hi there. Are you sure to have inserted the tag at the right place. It seems that the addition by the previous user was inbetween of two referenced sentences. --Leyo 20:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Bryophyte
I wonder if it's worth explicitly saying at Moss that although Bryophyta is the formal name for mosses, "bryophyte" now refers to the informal group of liverworts, mosses and hornworts? Peter coxhead (talk) 16:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think those very words should be in there. Plant surfer 17:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I added "Bryophyta is now the formal name for mosses alone, whereas "bryophyte" refers to the informal group of liverworts, mosses and hornworts", and made a few consequent changes. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

re. Sex
You have a good eye for finding and editing instances of WP:MOS hyperbole. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 12:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks Kent Dominic. It probably comes from decades of practise in editing scientific papers to be strictly objective. I should get a life. Plant surfer  13:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey I’m sorry about somethings at sex
Hey I’m very sorry for not properly communicating at sex and saying somethings at you. I overreacted and I was immature, you don’t have to respond to this just felt like I needed to say something .CycoMa (talk) 02:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 12
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Conifer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cell.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

my edit was right 🤬😡
🤬😡
 * There are two issues with 's edits to Nasturtium. Firstly, it's clearly wrong to have the wikitext perennial as in their first edit, and adding colour, etc. is equally wrong. Secondly, is Tropaeolum majus an annual or a tender perennial? It's definitely cultivated as an annual in temperate countries, but elsewhere there are apparently reliable sources that say that it is a short-lived perennial, e.g. here. So I think that their edits weren't just vandalism. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:50, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * My very old Sanders' Encyclopedia of Gardening (22nd edition, 1966) says of T. majus and some cultivars/varieties of it: "strictly perennials but are best grown as annuals". Peter coxhead (talk) 13:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think there is some confusion here. Tropaeolum speciosum is clearly a perennial, but T. peregrinum is a frost-tender perennial. RHS states that the genus is annual or perennial, but that the species Tropaeolum majus is annual. Plant surfer  13:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * So the question is whether the two sources I've indicated above are wrong. The PIER statement is sourced to this work, which I haven't found online, but I see no reason to consider it unreliable. It's plausible that T. majus is a short lived perennial in Hawaii, although not in the UK. It could also be speculated that the old cultigens were potentially perennial, but more recent cultivars are not, which is why older sources differ from recent ones. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:55, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think either T. majus or T. peregrinum can overwinter in Britain. In my experience T. majus does not survive -4 C, let alone freezing. However, that is just my personal observation of the plants in my own garden. More to the point, Stace 4 describes both as annuals. RHS also describes them as annuals, on their gardening website here or their Encyclopedia of Garden Plants and their Encyclopedia of Perennials omits those species but includes T. polyphyllum, T. tuberosum and T. speciosum.
 * However, I concede that all these sources are writing for the UK market, and possibly a more nuanced view of the performance of the plant in other climates may be desirable here. Ideally it would be a reliable source from within the native range of the species. Stace says that T. majus is +/- naturalised in Sark, that it is of garden origin. So it is presumably without a native range in South America, raising the possibility that the Hawaiian and British taxa are not actually the same. Stace 4 comments : "T. majus probably arose as the spontaneous hybrid T. ferreyae Sparre x T. minus. Some of our garden plants might also have some T. peltophorum Benth. in their parentage." Plant surfer  21:53, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * A recent reliable source, which I've only just found, seems to be this 2012 article (I can access a PDF via a Google Scholar search, but the URL I get is time-limited). Christenhusz gives the same origin as Stace and says "Garden nasturtiums are usually grown from seed as half-hardy annuals, although when kept free of frost the plants may survive the winter." Christenhusz references Sparre, B. & Andersson, L. (1991), "A taxonomic revision of the Tropaeolaceae", Opera Botanica 108: 5–139, which is where I think the origin involving the new species T. ferreyae comes from; however I can't find it online. This might also be relevant. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sending the link to Christenhusz excellent article. I wonder how much variability in hardiness there is among the cultivars, but I would be quite happy with a version of Christenhusz's statement. Plant surfer  10:41, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem. A moan: I find it very annoying that I can't access most of the papers in Taxon, like the phylogeny of Tropaeolaceae one. Unfortunately my institution is very weak on botany. Sigh... Peter coxhead (talk) 18:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I can email it to you if you wish. Plant surfer  20:05, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, please! Peter coxhead (talk) 06:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Sex
Hi Plantsurfer, I can vouch for TrueQuantum being a non-troll. I disagree with the way they joined the talk page discussion and I'll be posting at their user talk to register my disapproval of being called an activist (at least I think I was lumped into that). That said, I think you took it a bit too far with "don't troll us with your nonsense". No one has responded yet, so you could edit it out if you get to it fast enough. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:04, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Plantsurfer, I think the comment you made was out of line and personally attacked me far out of proportion to what I said that wasn't even directed towards you. I am trying to contribute to Wikipedia in a good faith, positive way and really don't appreciate how you responded to my comment. TrueQuantum (talk) 23:06, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Boris Johnson
Hello. You have recently contributed to this article or its talk page. Please see this discussion on the talk page. You are welcome to take part if you are interested. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:07, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Capsella
Capsella bursa-pastoris: thanks for your corrections - the entry of references is somewhat different to what I was used to. However perhaps you could add - the title of the plate is on p.96 while the actual figure is on p.97. How should this be entered? with thanks.Morton1945 (talk) 12:40, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @User:Morton1945 I have edited the page numbers and added a link to the image on Internet Archive. Is the image itself available in a form that is suitable for use here?  Plant surfer  14:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Simultaneous hermaphroditism
Hey you wanna help me expand on the section for plants on the article Simultaneous hermaphroditism?

You don’t have to if you don’t want to.CycoMa (talk) 13:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @CycoMa By all means start if you wish to attempt it. To make sense it will need to be framed against an evolutionary background, since the implications for gametophytic plants and cryptogams are not the same as for seed plants. In flowering plants, for example, the gametophytes are *always* dioicous, irrespective of whether the flowers are regarded as hermaphrodites or not. That is the consequence of the evolution of Heterospory in seed plants and their close ancestors. The distinction therefore needs to be made between hermaphrodite bryophytes, in which each gametophyte has gametangia of both sexes and seed plants in which each sporophyte has both sexes of gametophytes, but those gametophytes are always one sex only, either male only producing microspores or female only producing megaspores. In sequential hermaphrodite bryophytes the male and female gametangia mature at different times (usually male first) but in seed plants the gametophytes mature or become receptive at different times.  Plant surfer  14:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 8
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Plant reproduction, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Stigma and Kerria.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * check out https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/cadmium#section=Solubility. The statement is correct. It refers to the metal, not to its compounds. Plant surfer 12:22, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Please return/respond.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:50.201.195.170&diff=prev&oldid=1059192724 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.201.195.170 (talk) 06:50, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Reply about Glutaraldehyde
I'm not a Wikipedia expert, but I am presenting new, correct, and cited info.

When I first made that post as it shows in the history i cited the product page of the manufacturer. Some idiot edited my addition to include uncited information, and another person then removed the whole section. Which was unfortunate but understandable.

So this time around i grabbed a picture of the ingredient list of the bottle of Aquion leafy green where it says "Water, Glutaraldehyde", i included the UPC12 code for the product and reuploaded the information about its use in these products.

I freely admit that my citations my not be to the community standards, but it is NOT debatable that I have included more that enough information to back up the data I provided. If you as a more veteran member of the community wish to alter the citation format, and correct me on it, fine. But removing demonstrably true data because you didn't like the format seems the incorrect course of action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheAuthoritativeSource (talk • contribs) 16:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Part 2.

Look, im not trying to sell shit, i dont even work in the aquarium industry im in the medical space. Im not promoting or trying to sell anything. I am pointing out a use for Glutaraldehyde. It is a common use, and more companies than just Aqueon sell it. However as I only have a bottle of Aqueon in my drawer, and their webpage has the picture with the ingredient list visible what was i supposed to do?!?!?! (run on sentence and poor grammar intended to express exasperation)

We have a FACT Glutaraldehyde IS COMMONLY USED in the aquarium hobby, its carried at every petco and aquarium shop in the nation. The question is how do you want to post that information on this page. You want a source? i gave you a source, people wanted a different source, i posted a photo. You want a less branded source? then remove the references to cidex first.
 * What you personally claim as a fact is irrelevant. The fact that something is commonly used is irrelevant. Make your case on the talk page, not here. The first rule in Wikipedia is that claims of any kind need to be supported by a reliable source. A company's website advertising snake oil is not a reliable source. There is no reliable source that provides evidence that aquatic plants can use glutaraldehyde as a carbon source for photosynthesis. In future please sign your comments. Plant surfer  18:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I didn't publish anything about efficacy or effect. I posted about a USE, it is USED for that purpose and sold for that purpose.

if you think my position is not a valid one go edit this article into non-existence because magic isnt real. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poppet TheAuthoritativeSource (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Part 3

Why don't you explain what source I should post. Im curious as to what exists that fits your standard on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheAuthoritativeSource (talk • contribs) 20:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not my standard, it is Wikipedia's standard that you have to meet. Before you make further edits, please read the following page: WP:RS. Plant surfer  20:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

There is ZERO standard for the citation of the contents of an ingredient list on that page. I have asked in the talk section there for input. While we wait, how would you cite an ingredients list? TheAuthoritativeSource (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

My error i asked how to cite on THIS PAGE WP:CITENEED Let me go ask about the authoritative source for ingredients. In particular if the legally required ingredients list is authoritative on the subject of ingredients. TheAuthoritativeSource (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)