Talk:Marijuana Cultivation

This ebook is seriously lacking. Flourescents are highly underrated, and the paragraph on aeroponics is just plain wrong information. airstones? bursting bubbles? That's a description of DWC and NOT aeroponics.

The description in the aeroponic section was correct (bubbles popping forms a nutrient mist and roots hung in air) but is not the spray mist type of system most commonly referred to as aeroponic so it has been rewritten. But the fluorescent section accurately lists the strengths and limitations of fluorescent lighting. If you try to use fluoros in a large space with taller plants through flowering you will get airy buds with little weight where you could have gotten tight solid nuggets. In the future please edit where a correction is needed instead of using the talk page. Edits are always subject to future revision but it saves time and effort. Shaitand (talk) 07:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

If Marijuana Cultivation/Fundamentals/Garden establishment will not be used, please place on it to let me know I can delete it. -- Adrignola talk contribs 03:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Marijuana Cultivation/Fundamentals/Garden establishment will not be used. It is redundant. The entire fundamentals section of the book is a far more in-depth guide to constructing a garden. I didn't delete because I did recommend to the author when I removed it from the outline that he add any appropriate content to the existing chapters of the book. That was some months ago. Marked as you requested. -- Shaitand (talk)

copyrights
Can anyone give me some idea of what the copyright notice is about? How can it be copyrighted and cc-by-sa at the same time? I'm utterly confused. Kayau (talk &#124; email &#124; contribs) 02:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * If I upload a picture to Commons that I took, such as File:Modern Addiator.jpg, I am the copyright holder for that work. As the copyright holder, I can choose how I wish to license my work for others to use.  That license could be GFDL and/or CC-BY-SA.  I can also choose to license it to other people or other places with a more restrictive license.  The only work that does not have a copyright holder is something in the public domain.  That said, I don't think it's amenable to future or past contributors to claim an entire book is copyright by one person.  It's also not clear if the copyright notice was even added by the same person that contributed the majority of the book's content. – Adrignola talk 03:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Claiming ownership's against policy in Wikipedia. I don't think there's an official policy here though, but I THINK this may also not be allowed under CC-BY-SA and the definition of 'wiki'. I'll wait for that IP to comment. Kayau (talk &#124; email &#124; contribs) 06:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * There's a proposal at Ownership. Like most proposals, it will probably stay that way. – Adrignola talk 12:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)