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)

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)