Jump to content

User talk:Plantsurfer

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 512bits (talk | contribs) at 19:27, 1 September 2013 (→‎Ref Problem: praemontius). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

References

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)[reply]

For Bold, 1970, you say "310pp" but this book only has 190 pages.512bits (talk) 22:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Tks, Proctor is now fixed. 512bits (talk) 00:46, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have tracked down the page number (p7) of the 400,000 figure in Bold 1977. Plantsurfer (talk) 10:53, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

PR

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

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)[reply]
Me too. 512bits (talk) 23:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
OK, thanks, I'll deal with it in the morning. Plantsurfer (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Fixed. What's left to do now? 512bits (talk) 02:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Posted at the bottom of Praemontius' talk page. 512bits (talk) 19:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Plantsurfer&oldid=571119404"