Talk:Cavicularia

Plants Start‑class Low‑importance

	Plants portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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.--Kev min § 03:56, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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.--Kev min § 07:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]