Talk:Sparisoma cretense

Again, Thanks for such a good job and keep up the good work. I see you have been busy. You should try though to keep your personal feelings at bay. Have a great day. I'll just type the four tildes now aeblmr 13:42, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

sequential hermaphrodite

I have made corrections to the description of the development of this fish. As a gonochoristic sequential hermaphrodite, it is the termale phase females of this species that are brightly coloured . The appropriate refs are also indicated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thescarid (talk • contribs) 13:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted a large part of your edits. Make sure your changes match the refs. Examples:

epiphytic (your change) vs. epilithic algae (original). Original is supported by Papoutsoglou & Lyndon (2003) ref. You introduced two other refs to support your change. The problem is that neither says anything about this feeding on epiphytic algae. Your edit summary is peculiar in itself: Yes this species may pass seagrass meadows, but this is certainly not a primary habitat. It is primarily a species of rocky habitats (just do a simple google image search and see how many show the species among seagrass, or check IUCN, FishBase, etc). Further, there is no seagrass called "Posodonia" (I presume you meant Posidonia, but not a primary habitat for this species).
Extensive changes regarding gonochoristic sequential hermaphrodite. However, your changes are not supported by the refs and you removed things that are supported. Please read the refs before making changes. I note that you earlier have suggested incorrect changes to the primary author's name (Talk:Parrotfish#Citation error), which certainly is puzzling if you had read it.
You removed "females average smaller than males". Why you would do that is unclear. It is supported both by the original ref and the additional ref you added.

In summary: Always make sure your changes/additions are supported by the refs. RN1970 (talk) 08:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have now found and added a ref that actually supports epiphytic; also a bit more on adult/juvenile habitat, and breeeding period. Please see WP:BURDEN. RN1970 (talk) 17:14, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good Job. Keep up the good workaeblmr 21:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thescarid (talk • contribs)

Again, if you want to change something, provide a reference that supports the change. See WP:BURDEN. This is a Core Policy on Wikipedia. You are not excempt. Yes, you can expect me to check changes you make here since you repeatedly have shown that your edits and the refs do not match. If they match, excellent. If they don't, I will deal with it. From your latest edits:

"Mediterranean" to "Eastern Mediterranean" — No. See the refs (in the edit summary you even said I should check the refs!). FishBase ref: "Mediterranean Sea: more common in the eastern and southern coasts" (= more common in E. and S., but not absent from W. as you suggest). Otero & Galeote 1996 ref (p. 405) specifically mentions several locations in the W. Mediterranean, including parts of the Med. coast of France (e.g. Nice, Marseilles), Med. Spain (e.g. Baleares, Valencia) and Med. Morocco. If that isn't enougn you can see IUCN, which confirms that it is more common in the E. and S., and only absent from (emphasis mine) "some [=not all] parts of the northwest and most [=not all] of the Adriatic [which is not W. Med]". IUCN also specifically mentions Algeria, Tunisia, France and Baleares (Spain) as part of its range = W. Med.
"it primarily breeds during the summer, from July to September". You changed this to say “in the Mediterranean” — No. The ref does not say that this is specific to the Med, and the ref they provide is a study from Portugal. Portugal has no Med. coast.
Your changes to the "Unlike most other parrotfish..." paragraph — No. Does not match Afonsoa et al 2008 ref. (see page 93 and discussion section) and the first sentence you removed is supported (first page). In fact, your changes are directly contradicted by the ref. For example, you changed "reproductively functioning females do not change to males" to "not all reproductively functioning females change to males". The latter indicates that some do, which is wrong, see the reference.
Changes from "ad." to "terminal" in color description paragraph — No. Debelius 1997 (p. 221) doesn't even use the latter wording anywhere in its section for this species, sticking to male/female vs. juv. You insist on calling the adult female "terminal", but "terminal" has a very specific meaning in parrotfish and is not used for female S. cretense. This is described in Afonsoa et al 2008 too. If you want to describe female S. cretense as such, provide a ref that supports this use.

You appear to suggest that my knowledge on this matter must be limited (so apparently you know who I am? I doubt that). You also claim to be an expert. If that is true, it is puzzling that you apparently were unfamiliar with the primary habitat, unaware of name of the primary author of one of the main studies of this species, repeatedly have added text that did not match the refs, et cetera.

Finally, please sign your comments (~~~~) and only mark truly minor edits with “minor” (this is a minor edit, this and this are not minor edits). RN1970 (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Il ne faut pas en rajouter comme celaAnteRN1970 (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editing War ?

It appears that the user RN1970 has entered into an editing war with the user Thescarid. Why? If you see a missing reference, provide it if you can. If not just add that a citation is required if you think this is the case. I have seen this in many other wiki articles, why not here. Remember Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions. Try not to be mean, it doesn't help any of us when you do this.AnteRN1970 (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Before accusing someone of edit war, check WP:EW.

Furthermore, user:AnteRN1970. A completely new user just finding two talk pages where the first actions were to delete my comments (something user:Thescarid had just been warned about), making unsigned posts (like user:Thescarid), French languaged ([1] vs. language of google books link), evidently a single-purpose account and your user name (AnteRN1970 vs. mine RN1970). All very interesting and rather contradictory to your comment "Try not to be mean, it doesn't help any of us".

Before you continue, please read WP:SOCK and note that this can and often does result in a block of both accounts.

Everyone is free to edit wikipedia. But everyone also has to follow the Core Policies, like providing citations (see WP:BURDEN). I don't take offence in any edits, but I will remove additions that clearly are contradicted by their references. RN1970 (talk) 22:04, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]