Talk:Cavicularia

Reverts

OK, so since another reverter joined the gang, lets discuss it here. I don't know why we are fighting over this (spaces or no spaces shouldn't be an issue). That book on algae was relevant if you would allow me to revert your edit, I will be more then happy to show you that it is relevant. Another thing to mention, @EncycloPetey: and @Kevmin: yelling STOP like this, is not polite (that was the main reason, EncycloPetey, why I didn't want to talk to people who have attitude issues). Pinging Boing! said Zebedee to resolve this issue quickly.--Biografer (talk) 03:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

You were asked to explain why you feel the addition is relevant here, I await why it should be included, in light of the information that the book link is to a Korean page not a Japanese page, and the image on that page is not of Cavicularia. Regarding the yelling, it was due to you not responding at all to requests to talk in the first place, and to the removal of the 3RR and editwar notices.--Kevmin § 03:56, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@Kevmin: Per WP:OWNTALK I can remove any type of spam that you solicit my talkpage with. Either way, here is the link. What you gonna say now?--Biografer (talk) 04:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Warning templates about breaching policy are not spam however, and what you consider them is irrelevant to the lack of any discussion that was happening when you were asked to per BRD.--Kevmin § 07:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Books that mention Cavicularia are hardly "further reading" on the topic. "A large part, if not all, of the work should be directly about the subject of the article." See Wikipedia:Further reading for a fuller explanation of the purpose of the section. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I see you've reverted yet again without responding to any of my requests for discussion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:34, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: I know clearly well what the purpose of the section is. If they are describing or comparing Cavicularia to another Bryozoa, it worth the inclusion.--Biografer (talk) 04:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

What? They are doing no such thing. Bryozoa are animals. The "Section" you mention is a scientific article contained in the book that discusses the production of nitrogen by the cyanobacteria Nostoc, and mentions Cavicularia as one location where the Nostoc was located and studied. I refer you again to the quote I gave abive from the MOS. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:43, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: Well, maybe I misspoke. I removed that one book that you mentioned, the other one will stay because it does describes the subject. PS: Sorry for the previous revert (I thought that you came here only after I wrote They are not off-topic. I think I pinged you on the article talkpage. Lets discuss it there shall we?). We will continue our discussion regarding the other book tomorrow, since I need to go to bed now.--Biografer (talk) 05:43, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@Biografer: How does the 2017 book on bacteria "describe the subject"? It's not even about the same biological kingdom as the subject? --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:57, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: pages 259-263

So, there are 4 pages where colonies of bacteria living on the plant are mentioned, and this constitutes "further reading" how exactly? --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Elementary Watson! One of those bacteria's is our subject. I don't see a reason why it should be excluded.--Biografer (talk) 02:00, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

@Biografer: Huh? Cavicularia is not a bacterium, it's a plant. Do you even have the slightest idea what this article is about? --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: My bad. But then explain to me Watson, why are there 4 pages which mention this plant? There is a reason why the publisher decided to do that?--Biografer (talk) 04:03, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

@Biografer: My name is not Watson, and it is not my responsibility to explain why publishers decide to publish things. That is beyond the scope of what WP does, and would violate WP:NOR. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:30, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Biografer- I suggest you do some policy reading as well as reexamine your own "attitude issues" as per 'not a battleground' and your past arguments such as at 'Warning Vandals'. In regard to "further reading", I suggest you add more content and reputable sources to the article rather than leave the research to the article reader through book links, and, even then, as per Wikipedia:Further reading, if you choose to add further reading, add books that have sufficient coverage of the topic rather than a passing remark in one section. Lastly, Wikipedia is a group effort. Try to allow others to assist you in editing, and try to conduct civil discussion when an edit occurs that you don't agree with rather than reverting it. Thanks, Pagliaccious (talk) 12:45, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@Pagliaccious: Thanks, but the thing is, is that I reverted edit that was in my opinion viewed as removal of sources, which is contradictory to our policy. As for Try to allow others to assist you in editing, and try to conduct civil discussion when an edit occurs that you don't agree with rather than reverting it., are you calling his actions on book removals as helpful? I'm calling it edit warring. Keep in mind I added a source, and for a non-human subject it is more then reliable. As for your suggestions, while I wont argue over it, let me add those reputable sources. But no, user EncycloPetey removes the sources, as I try to search for more. As I said earlier, stop removing sources and I will stop reverting, simple as that.--Biografer (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@Biografer: Alright, I think I understand the situation a bit better now. An edit war has to have two sides, both reverting the other, meaning that both you and the reverters of your edit are "edit warring". If you want the other side to stop reverting your edits, just as the other side wants you to stop reverting theirs, come to a compromise. You want a book in the further reading section, and your reverters want a book that satisfies the further reading policies. I suggest you find a new, policy-fulfilling book, then add it to the further reading section. Pagliaccious (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: to quote Biografer "As I said earlier, stop removing sources and I will stop reverting, simple as that" clearly more help is needed to work with this editor. Refusal to talk over the edits that were reverted and open admission that they are not going to obey WIKI policy is not acceptable.--Kevmin § 20:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: I don't think I said anything about refusal to obey the policy, let alone refusal to talk over the issue. Me and Pagliaccious are discussing it just fine. I don't think its appropriate for Kevmin to stir a pot.--Biografer (talk) 20:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@Biografer: The issue is not whether your added sources are reputable, but whether they are relevant to the degree required by the MOS. As pointed out before, the books you have linked are collections of articles about algae and bacteria, which mention the plant Cavicularia as a place where the algae live, but are not at all major sources of information about Cavicularia, nor do they cover information about that plant as a significant fraction of the book. You have nowhere responded to this problem; you have merely reverted others' changes, deleted discussion, deleted warnings, and made accusations. To reiterate: the 2017 "further reading" you insist on adding does not meet the requirements of the MOS for inclusion in that section, and you have nowhere demonstrated that it meets those requirements. The same is true of the article in Korean, which violates the MOS on several points and adds nothing to what is currently in the article.--EncycloPetey (talk) 00:19, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: Don't be WP:POINTy. Well, maybe you know Korean? I don't. Maybe instead of accusing me violating MOS you would rather focus on translating it? I think Nihlus already mentioned to you that on my talkpage I can delete any type of spam you will post. Do I really need to point you to WP:OWNTALK every time I will delete your message? As for accusations, are you referring my explanation of events as accusation? I think I said it before, we just got into an edit conflict. Yes, I admit that I removed portion of a text OK, everybody makes mistakes, but every time I tried to put it back in, you ended up already doing your revert, resulting in an edit conflict. Does that make an sense? Either way, the best thing to do right now is to add more reliable sources, etc. and wait for @Boing! said Zebedee: to arrive and give a fair justification of this long tirade.--Biografer (talk) 02:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

@Biografer: Yes, I remember you claiming that every one of your multiple reverts (where you deleted my additions) was an "edit conflict". And you still have not justified your changes, and are dodging the issue. Why did you link to an article in Korean, at a news website, with a blurry misidentified picture, and several other misidentified picture? What is the benefit to linking it here on Wikipedia?--EncycloPetey (talk) 02:08, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: Well, I have just went over translation of the Korean source: It says that Cavicularia densa Steph, known to be native to Japan, was found to be native to Jeju Island, which in term contradicts with the fact that its endemic to Japan. And yes, that proves why it should be included. Does this explains at least the external links part?--Biografer (talk) 04:03, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

@Biografer: Only if the site is reputable and reliable, which has not been demonstrated. The fact that the images have been egregiously misidentified speaks against the second point at least. If the plant has indeed been found there, that fact should have been published in a scientific journal subject to peer review, and can be sourced from there. Without corroboration from a reliable source, the claim is no better than a blog post. Also, do not edit my posts. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:30, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

People like you, should be thankful that I decided to fix a typo in your post, but since you are proud of your typo I wont touch it, be a laughing stock for what I care. Either way, I need to head to bed.--Biografer (talk) 04:39, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• Folks, I saw a couple of pings here yesterday, took a quick look and saw you were starting to discuss the issue, and I thought I'd leave it and see where it went. Although some sort of resolution appears to be happening, I have to say I'm disappointed with the tone of the discussion all round. Firstly, I'm not a fan of templated messages between editors who already know each other through previous interactions - I think a simple friendly personal message is almost always more effective. But at the same time, a templated message is not "spam". And the AGF sort of started to get lost at that point, leading to the undertone of personal sniping and sarcasm that really isn't helping. I always think the best approach to a disagreement like this is for everyone to genuinely listen and try to understand the other folks' opinions, and then treat them with respect no matter how much you disagree with them. If I disagree with someone, I find it helps to imagine that they're here in the room with me, and I try to speak to them as if they actually are - this internet medium is notorious for leading people to interact far more confrontationally than they would in real life. Anyway, I hope these words might help a little - have a good (and relaxed) weekend :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @Boing! said Zebedee: Not when an editor sends the same message twice (even if its a different editor). Look at 1 and 2, they are almost within an hour from each other.--Biografer (talk) 15:46, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: The trolling and damage that Biografer is doing here is now spilling over into related articles. [1]. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:39, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: Trolling? And you are telling me that I accuse you of something? Wow, nice conduct mate. As for that edit I think it was in good faith. Firstly you are the one that breaching 3RR rule now. So, don't do anything stupid, OK?--Biografer (talk) 15:53, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: The revert that followed contradicts with WP:3RR.--Biografer (talk) 16:45, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

He has made one revert on that article, so I don't see how that can be 3RR. *Both of you* need to stop the personal feud - Biografer, don't make false accusations of 3RR, EncycloPetey, don't accuse another editor of trolling. If you two don't stop arguing like this and start discussing your differences in a collegial manner, you're both likely to end up being blocked. Now, I don't want the rest of my weekend dealing with your arguments - so please take that on board too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: On that article, yes, he made one revert. But look here, here, here and adding user talkpage revert here. I count 5. Our policy regarding reverts doesn't necessarily mean reverts on one page. So, no, there are no false accusations.--Biografer (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes it does mean reverts on one page. See WP:3RR where it says "The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period" (my emphasis). Also, no need to ping me with every response - I have this page watched now.

Biografer is now requesting that other editors do his reverts for him [2] and "warning" them about me. Truly uncivil behavior. Fin. If Biografer wants to ruin Wikipedia and drive others away, and nothing is to be done about it but fiddle while Rome burns, then so be it. If have enough stress without dealing with malicious trolls. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:22, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I've issued a 24 hour block for edit warring (and for continuing it by canvasing). But you too, EncycloPetey, need to talk about this - I see not one word from either of you at Talk:Franz Stephani. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:30, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

You won't. Wikipedia is troll-infested. I hoped things had gotten better since I was last here, and thought to return to article writing. But what should have been a simple article expansion over a few hours has dragged into several days of dealing with an edit-pusher troll who has insulted me, called me name, edit warred, etc., and it's taken three days for even a 24 hour block. It may be years before I try editing here again. I don't care for the hostile environment here. Ta. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:35, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

That's both of you blocked now - you either edit here collaboratively or you do not edit at all. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:44, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee: you can perhaps argue that EncycloPetey should have been more tactful, but to equate his behaviour with that of Biografer seems to me to be downright absurd. He provided clear arguments as to why the addition was not useful. So now we risk losing a competent, knowledgeable editor, who I was delighted to see back, and for what? No wonder Wikipedia keeps losing editors. Sigh... Peter coxhead (talk) 20:01, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I am not 'equating' anything, and who is right or wrong about the content is of no relevance - both were acting unacceptably and refused to heed my warnings. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:22, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Peter coxhead, Blocking EncycloPetey, who has a very long history of article generation and content expansion, and who provided specific reasons when interacting here (see the edit summaries, and the talk page history of Biografer dismissed and deleted by Biografer with no responce other then accusation of spamming) was not at any point warranted. Yes this may have messed up your weekend plans, but its NOT a reason for blocking EncycloPetey, and Biografer should have been dealt with the first time he posted that he planned to break wiki policy, something that he was already brought to Arbcom for!--Kevmin § 22:55, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

It isn't clear why we should list a book on prokaryotes in an article about a eukaryotic plant. I've therefore removed it as obviously irrelevant here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:58, 2 November 2017 (UTC)