Archives

Archive 1

Hello, I'm Plandu. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Cottage cheese— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Plandu (talk) 16:42, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies to you. Please excuse my zeal. There's a trend on Wikipedia of adding "could have" or "is believed to be" to facts in articles just for fun. My lack of attention to the details of your edits caused me to place them in that category. I shall be more diligent in the future. Plandu (talk) 17:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, let me thank you for being humble, prompt and polite! I know nothing of trends. I have some free time on my hands and an interest in the history of agriculture, there is much in that article that makes me winch. I don't want to provide a complete history of cheese at the article, just get rid of (for me) obvious untruths/conflations/jingoism and incorrect readings of sources. Editors such as yourself often slow me down, but if the exchange is pleasant then all is well -Wikipedia is just mental fun/practice for me anyway. Cheers, Leo 86.83.56.115 (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dan arndt was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Fails requirements of WP:NORG - requires significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. Centro Nacional de Conservação da Flora's website is a primary source.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Centro Nacional de Conservação da Flora and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Centro Nacional de Conservação da Flora, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the , on the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Dan arndt (talk) 08:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 86.83.56.115! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Dan arndt (talk) 08:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But one more easily avoided if you put proper edit summaries in.Bledwith (talk) 18:06, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right, apology with a qualifier. If your modus operandi is to delete all edits by a user by virtue of the last one not having a "proper" edit summary... seems recipe for false positives. In any case no battle over style or content. All good. Cheers, Leo 86.83.56.115 (talk) 19:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, such as the ones you made to Talk:Intensive farming. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some links to pages you may find useful:

• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• Simplified Manual of Style

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply create a named account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:

• Create new pages and rename pages
• Edit semi-protected pages
• Upload images
• Have your own watchlist, which shows when articles you are interested in have changed

Note that in order for the first three features to be available, you must have had an account for a certain number of days and made a certain number of edits.

If you edit without using a named account, your IP address (86.83.56.115) is used to identify you instead.

I think you've noticed already that Wikipedia editors come in different flavours. I'm a "content editor", i.e. I write articles and improve others; other editors variously fight vandalism or go about making many small "gnomish" fixes, e.g. removing woolly phrases like "it is believed that" by the thousand. Many such editors necessarily make quick judgements about the skill level and intentions of other editors, and unfortunately they are often less than kind to anonymous (IP) editors. That might be a good reason for you to log in with your own account and user name... you would be very welcome on the Agriculture team (I brought several articles on that theme to "Good article" status, i.e. through a review process). There are of course dozens of other topics that could do with improvement...

I hope that you, as a Wikipedian, decide to continue contributing to our project: an encyclopedia of human knowledge that anyone can edit. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~).

Happy editing! Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why, thank you for the welcome, Chiswick Chap! You comprende that I am also Leo Breman? I've seen your edits around, you seem like a solid resource. I usually edit as an IP because I think content should trump everything, not appurtenances of silly handles, hehe. Actually, I forgot my password and user name for 6 years and only just recently found myself and guessed the password correctly -so I've been so used to being an IP I generally only sign in for uploading pictures. I even made a talk archive for this IP. There are I think one or two other dead versions of me out there, but I just can't remember the names I used. Also my browser keeps crashing.

I've been editing on and off for quite a while now (my plants take precedence in Spring which means long times away), but mostly uncontroversial background stuff on obscure botany articles no one reads, also other biology related stuff. I joined the agriculture group as my first Wikipedia group because agriculture and plants are basically what I've dedicated my life to and still have ancient student debt to prove it (and a vast plant collection, yay). But all the people here going on about permaculture... eh, that's not the type of agriculture I know. I want to bring my perspective to some of these subjects.

I was in a bit of a quandary yesterday. 1. Editor RockingGeo annoyed me with his sneaky unreferenced bias, but do I really want to dedicate so much time in attacking a guy? 2. I'm more drawn to work on the Intensive agriculture article as in my opinion it is a confusing mix-up of terminology that needs splitting -I tried that at Decline in insect populations, just to see everything reverted by the 'owner' of that dump. Second time a charm. 3. And I also have an almost finished article in wait on an obscure frog species from Costa Rica -maybe take a stab at a "good article" if I can collate the data.86.83.56.115 (talk) 09:02, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It dawned on me yesterday that you were also LB ... took me a little time to make the connection! I edited a bit of agriculture as it seemed both neglected and half-taken over by some citation-free bunny-lovers. I think we can together sort out Intensive agric. without too much trouble. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Um, why are you editing as an IP again? I know it can happen by accident, but it could get you blocked as a sock, I do advise against it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Um, sorry, browser crashed twice just now, too much stuff open. Forgotish. Yes, but if I was a sock puppet I'm not being too sneaky about it! Maybe Leo Breman is my sock! I'm off for a bit, will sign in when I get back. Just getting some stuff done while it rains/I'm procrastinating.86.83.56.115 (talk) 15:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 86.83.56.115. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Rheum spiciforme".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! CptViraj (📧) 14:19, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Naw, you guys can get rid of those old Rheum articles, I'm no longer happy with them, they need almost complete rewrites, and the taxonomy situation with those species is difficult to work with (no monograph & different species delimitations between Chinese & Russian floras). If I ever revisit the genus I'll just restart the species from scratch. Sorry for the extra work. 86.83.56.115 (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Rheum moorcroftianum, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:23, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 86.83.56.115. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Rheum moorcroftianum".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! HasteurBot (talk) 04:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Centro Nacional de Conservação da Flora, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the .
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Primefac (talk) 16:56, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

finally!86.83.56.115 (talk) 19:10, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you take a long, hard look at yourself mate. Ego and arrogance will only get you so far in life.

Sure thing anonymous person! Back at you! If you would like to discuss an edit, please go ahead. 86.83.56.115 (talk) 13:07, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! You deleted my archives, silly defender of ... the rights of birds' to have common names in English which you don't find politically or socially offensive... Matt from Western Australia. Eh, if you are too stupid to understand my argument, I understand why you would prefer to remain anonymous. But again, the bird can't speak English, common names are those names used commonly. You can't speak a word of any Aborigine language, and for all you know some of those names may mean exactly what you say you don't want. Get some education, kid.86.83.56.115 (talk) 19:10, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, in this edit of about a year ago, you gave a history of the names for Peganum harmala, with a focus on Bauhin's treatment. In the list of synonyms cited by Bauhin (1623), which you more or less copied, Bauhin gives, as usual, only the abbreviated names of authors and, if necessary, of a work. He also is so thoughtful as to give an index to these abbreviations in the introduction to his work, see: Explicatio nominum authorum citatorum. For 'Ang.' he names 'Anguillara' (Louis or Aloysius Anguillara, first prefect of the Orto botanico di Padova), for 'Camer.' he names 'Camerarius', with the additions 'horto' and 'epitome', and for 'Cast.' he names 'Castor(e) Durante(s)'. It's very peculiar then how you could come up with 'William Turner' for 'Ang.', with 'Antonius Castor' for 'Cast.', and with Rudolf Jakob Camerarius (born in 1665, but apparently already cited in 1623?), where in fact Joachim Camerarius the Younger (1534–1598) was meant. The latter indeed has a 'Ruta sylvestris altera' (see: Hortus medicus (1588): 150). William Turner has a lemma on 'Ruta', even on the 'Wilde Rue' (which we may take for Peganum harmala) in his New herbal, but he has no 'Ruta sylvestris' (see: The new herbal (1551): 122 v^o). Antonius Castor did not even leave botanical works, so Bauhin cannot have cited him as the author of a name. Castore Durante on the other hand has a Ruta sylvestris seconda (see: Herbario novo (1617): 404).

It seems quite obvious that you interpreted Bauhin's abbreviations yourself, without having any detailed knowledge of his work, and without checking your solutions (finding a work of the author you think was cited, where the synonym as mentioned by Bauhin was to be found). A contribution containing that many errors is not very helpful when it comes to 'making knowledge freely accessible' as this was no knowledge at all. I just want to let you know that I accidentally stumbled upon this, and I want to express my hope that this was not standard procedure. 77.164.133.132 (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Good research 77.164.133.132. No sarcasm. To be honest I can't remember, but I may have gotten the abbreviations from a German site, which admittedly focusses on Linnaeus' abbreviations. I sort of doubt I would have interpreted "Ang." as William Turner without a prompt. So I got 2 out of the 7 wrong? That's not bad. "A contribution containing that many errors is not very helpful when it comes to 'making knowledge freely accessible' as this was no knowledge at all." Lighten up, dude, or quit using Wikipedia, is my advice to you, because if you think that's bad, then you're in for a nasty surprise in other articles. I see you corrected what was necessary, that's commendable. Remember that most people around here are not professionals with detailed knowledge of Bauhin. I am content enough with the work I put in advancing the article, if you don't like an aspect, you are welcome to change it. But thanks anyway for pointing these issues out, perhaps next time I use Bauhin I will do even better!

Cheers, Leo 86.83.56.115 (talk) 21:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that your edits on Bauhin's treatment of Peganum harmala are Original Research, not contributions based on reliable literature. Your only reference is Bauhin's Pinax itself. That's what I hoped to be 'not standard procedure'. And it's 3 out of 7 wrong. 77.164.133.132 (talk) 11:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. --Buzles (talk) 00:06, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am trying to improve the article, it is you who childishly continues to revert it, you hypocrite. Because you are being so difficult, let me add the same template to your talk page! 86.83.56.115 (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, he has been blocked, Sadads (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a good thing to be happy that it had to come to this, but unfortunately it serves him right. I've never sought administrative help with an editor in the 10 or so years I've been around, but his behaviour was beyond the pale and there was no other option. I've frankly never had to deal with such a difficult vexatious litigator. I've also never been warned with a template by anyone about anything, until yesterday. Lord knows I am contentious, too arrogantly sure of my facts, and quick to disagree, but I have tried to follow the rules of conflict resolution, be friendly and talk things out, and it has always worked. Take C.J. Griffin, he's the guy I argued with earlier about overpopulation -that argument got heated, and I continue not to agree with him, but he clearly knows how the talk page works, didn't delete the sourced content I was adding, and backed down instead of letting things get too ornery, even deleting an angry comment and saying sorry (I never deleted my angry comment, so I am the prick here). It never even crossed my mind to start throwing templates around -just a heated argument between two very different viewpoints, no litigation or lawyering required.

So phew, glad it's over with! Such wild travails of an online encyclopaedia! Writing an article completely out of my comfort zone now about black history/slavery to get this out of my system -shaping up nicely... I wish you the best, and see you around, Leo 86.83.56.115 (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any opinions on the Anoa split? See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mammals#Anoa? —  Jts1882 | talk  15:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do! The split was dumb when Groves did it in the 1960s, the only reason there are still two 'species' is that no one has convincingly argued they don't exist, although no one has convincingly argued they do exist, Groves' taxonomy is still the current one. Lumping is not hip in mammalogy. But I'm only up to date up to the 2005 review. I'll write something at WikiProject Mammals. 86.83.56.115 (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm CommanderWaterford. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Marc van Roosmalen—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommanderWaterford, this is a bit annoying. The Huggle program you are using flags my edit, likely because of the amount of text I moved to the talk page, and you thus accuse me of not being constructive, but do not explain why, and then do not reply. I reverted you. Please try and be more clear in what it is about an edit that you deem unconstructive, or do your due diligence! Years of this barely happening, and then three in short succession, maybe the Huggle program is not working well? At least the last guy was more of a gentleman. 86.83.56.115 (talk) 15:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Annoying are IP Editors who are not even able to greet, adding completely unsourced defamatory content to Biographies of living people and removing content without explaining why. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Marc van Roosmalen, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. You are constantly adding unsourced content to a Biography of a living people and removing content without adequately explaining why in your edit summaries. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:39, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, feisty. Ok, "adding completely unsourced defamatory content" -what are you talking about? That he was fired? I read the two main sources, his prison sentence and woes appear to be the main reason he was notable. Templates? I didn't remove any templates that I know of. I also shuffled the sections around to standard for biologist articles, added his most famous book, moved all those recent self-published works to talk. And I left an edit summary. "Constantly"? I made 1 edit, dude, quit exaggerating! 86.83.56.115 (talk) 16:01, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The editor is trying to assist you with your edits that appear to be unnecessary and not neutral. If an agreement cannot be reached please find consensus on the article's talk. Thanks! --Nemov (talk) 16:29, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I already added a new thing to talk before the editor above got involved. It would be nice if the assistance was more specific, instead of vague accusations. The text I removed are recent self-published, print-on-demand books apparently added to wikipedia by his editor last year. He was a famous scientist right? I own his first book, which is still a classic (both main sources mention it). None of his 'real' works are in there. 86.83.56.115 (talk) 16:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see much assistance going on. Looking at the history of Marc van Roosmalen, we have 86.83.56.115 removing content with a reasonable explanation, and being reverted twice without explanation (with the first being an out-of-policy use of rollback). And here, we have unhelpful/irrelevant template messages (86.83.56.115 used edit summaries; CommanderWaterford didn't). @CommanderWaterford: Can you please at least make an attempt to assume good faith here and engage with 86.83.56.115's objection to the disputed content? – Joe (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe There is no obligation to explain anything in an edit summary if I the revert is explained on the editors talk page as it was did. "(this needs to go at the back... jeez, these are all self-published print-on-demand works... moving them to talk... adding 1st and most notable work & rming dead external link)" is a reasonable, comprehensible explanation for you and since when are we removing dead links from articles? Adding "He was fired by INPA in 2007, due to his alleged criminal activities." w/o a reference for it is further adding defamatory content without given a source. So what the IP Editor needs to do is a) remove the self-published sources b) mark the External link as a dead link w/o removing it and c) adding a Wikipedia:Inline citation for the above mentioned sentence. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finally being more specific. 1). What's the point of having a dead external link? 2). Am I wrong to move those self-published things to talk? 3). The text I added about his career troubles: look, this and going to jail is the most pertinent thing about this guy outside of the scientific community -it's sourced to the two main sources: Wired & Smithsonian Magazine. It's really why this article exists at all. I thought it was odd that nothing was mentioned about that in the section about his career. The article is even a bit tame compared to how this person was treated by the Brazilian media. We don't even mention the third 'biopiracy' judgement against him, that he sold taxonomic naming rights of Brazilian biodiversity for personal gain. So I thought that it would at least be more balanced to add some of the critical notes in the main sources. 86.83.56.115 (talk) 17:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly the edit summary was too cryptic: "this needs to go at the back" was me moving the bibliography to the back of the article, I then noticed all the 'books' weren't really notable. 86.83.56.115 (talk) 17:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Marc van Roosmalen, you may be blocked from editing. -- DaxServer (talk) 18:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DaxServer, please! Read what it says at my talk page, what I left at the talk page of the article, my edits and my edit comments. I am just trying to improve the article, as I couldn't get a straight answer from anyone, I thought I'd try to edit it in blocks so that you could individually pick out edits, but you rolled back everything again. It should be possible to constructively delete things from articles, no? 86.83.56.115 (talk) 19:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From what I read from the thread above, I understand that you added content, but has not provided any reliable sources. Any content added to Wikipedia must be verifiable. Please read these policies: Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. -- DaxServer (talk) 19:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for engaging in a content discussion! I did not add anything that was not verifiable from the source, as alleged above, as I explained here and in the edit summaries. Sure, it's not cool that a popular scientist was charged and went to jail, which is the sentence referred to above, but that's why this Wikipedia article initially existed, and that's why Smithsonian Magazine & Wired wrote the articles we're using as main source. It's all verifiable to the citation given!

I did notice that when I added his most famous book to his bibliography, it was flagged as "possible unreferenced addition to BLP" -I guess because it's not behind a cite, but none of the books are...

As for the removal of the weird self-published books to talk. Hey! Maybe I'm wrong here! Please someone just be straight what the rule is... it looks silly to me, that's all, to have that there and not the numerous species he published or his books on monkeys, which is why he's famous. Right? 86.83.56.115 (talk) 19:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The primary reason why I reverted your latest edits is because you have removed a lot of content under Publications. Surely, some content you added in the middle of those edits might already have citations. Unfortunately they are tagged as BLP violations. I am not aware of the subject and cannot evaluate them. Given that these edits are from an IP user and are tagged BLP violations, and content is removed; I have reverted them.

I would suggest you to create an account, and start a discussion on the talk page of the article. Explain why your additions are correct and provide citations. Then make the edits to the article with the citations. If someone reverts again, ping them on the article talk page where you started the discussion and ask them why. Also, take a quick look at Wikipedia:Deprecated sources to check if the sources you are citing have any red flags. Also check out the archives in this page, probably there might already be a discussion about it. Or maybe not.

This might be too much information in short time, but if you need any help, just ask. Welcome to Wikipedia! -- DaxServer (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, thank you for your time and suggestion. Look, I've been around a while, I understand that automation must happen to make things go faster for you guys, but the edit's tagged as "possible violation". You guys are shoot-first-(maybe)-look-later. I saw the tag, and followed the link to the source. It says, well read it here. I also explained all this in my edit summary.

Regarding the removal: before all this started I added a thing to talk -see my edit history. I also went to Biographies group and posed a question as to if it was kosher. I explained why I removed it in my answer to you above. None of what I removed is sourced either, btw, although that's not the reason.

Can I just get on with it? Or do you have some concrete objections to any of the specific edits I made between the last revert and you? Please, let us actually be collaborative and constructive, instead of just throwing those terms around like speech accessories. You want me to cite the book I added to his bibliography, I can do it. You think his self-published books should stay, they can stay. 86.83.56.115 (talk) 19:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is this happening because of the clause "alleged criminal acts"? But this is probably the only famous scientist who went to jail for biopiracy, that's an elephant in the room. 86.83.56.115 (talk) 20:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Serols. I am trying to do something constructive here! The problem with that article is that almost all the sources are about topi (Damaliscus lunatus) in general, not the subspecies Damaliscus lunatus lunatus. I want to carefully go through the sources, to make sure that the correct taxon is being described. The first part for example, is cited to the book by Kingdon, which is describing the species in general, not the subspecies. Hence sizes, even in a behaviour is incorrect. 86.83.56.115 (talk) 15:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Serols, I am using the sources already in the text. What I am writing is sourced. Check it yourself! I cannot believe you actually checked them in the short time it took you to revert me, in the meantime, however, I will add another reference for the vernacular names. Please be more specific so I can better respond to your concerns. 86.83.56.115 (talk) 15:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Serols, you good? I have raised this issue here. I will now add a taxonomy section to explain all the recent back and forth, with names for one.

Hello, is ok for me. Regards --Serols (talk) 17:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear and thanks for getting back to me about the issues! Regards, 86.83.56.115 (talk) 17:52, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I just made a change prompted by your note at Talk:Cluster munition. I can't ping you, so here's a heads up! Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Super Cyclonic Storm Corona. I noticed that you recently removed content from Siberian chipmunk without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. ~~ 🌀𝚂𝙲𝚂 𝙲𝙾𝚁𝙾𝙽𝙰🌀 12:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have explained why. Please read the talk page of the article and all the edit summaries of what you roll back! Based on the speed on which you reverted everything, it's obvious you didn't! 86.83.56.115 (talk) 12:21, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Asartea. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Maya codices—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 17:43, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No? Nothing? You are not being very constructive, Asartea! It took you less than a few seconds to revert all my edits, on the basis of 1 edit, which means that you clearly did not read any of the edit commentaries, nor looked at the edits, and probably have no idea what you're doing. I don't see anything wrong with the edit. And when I try to find out exactly what your issue is, you ignore me! 86.83.56.115 (talk) 18:11, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, I'm going to revert your edits at Calystegia sepium (hist) and Convolvulus arvensis (hist) again unless you can explain what is going on with you. You have insulted other editors in several of these edits, removed cited information based on your personal certainty that someone else is "confusing C. sepium with C. arvensis", repeatedly changed longstanding text saying "I have the book right here" (and I don't have these books, so I have to believe others knew what they were doing), etc, and most egregiously you changed "toxic" to "pharmaceutical". I have verified that some of this information is correct, so I can tell your edits are not entirely disruptive but the majority is. Also if you are User:Leo Breman then you need to do this while logged in or at least verify that with the LB account. Invasive Spices (talk) 18:44, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Invasive Spices. You need to calm down and look at the content, guy. Let me answer all your questions in bullet form.

• I am Leo Breman, as I am not trying to hide. I do not need to log in to do all these things. Sorry, there are no rules in that regard. Also, you are basically reverting good, cited content, because you have decided you don't like my attitude -that's not constructive when it comes to building an encyclopaedia! I don't need to verify who I am, all I need to do is add cited content, or remove uncited nonsense; what you need to do is check my sources and judge content or edit prose, that's all.
• Regarding content. I did not insult DavidAntiss, but I am quite disappointed at his work in these two species. As far as I can tell, he incorrectly confused information from the 1900 book with the Reader's Digest book - i.e. cited to the wrong book. Not only that, he's also gotten the info from both species muddled up. I don't need to be polite about adding stupid misinformation and mis-citing stuff. I'll just assume he hadn't slept or something.
• You are confusing "long-standing" text with stuff recently added, like the "almond" scent story.
• DavidAntiss cited the entire environmental invasive (long-standing) text to an agricultural supply company, which only partially cited the last sentence, and removed citation needed tags. When I researched the text to verify it, it turned out wrong, so I rewrote it. Just because text is long-standing doesn't make it correct.
• The blog about glyphosate called the plant Convolvulus, but the pictures were clearly of Calystegia. He didn't ID it down to species. But Convolvulus is an old synonym for Calystegia, perhaps that explains it. I'm going to re-add info about glyphosate, there's already a better source pertaining to that in the article.
• Regarding that 1900 book. It's antiquated and full of mistakes, it shouldn't be used. Flowers don't open and close repeatedly, the moths don't visit the flowers.
• Lastly, yes, I changed "toxic to mice" (which is not "long-standing", smarty-pants, I first added that) to "pharmaceutically active". It's not super important to me, but it seemed as more neutral, better prose. Any alkaloid (anything) is toxic, depending on the amount. And I briefly looked at the compounds mentioned, a few are taken regularly by humans. You wanna call it toxic instead, I can live with that.

So I hope that answers all your questions. I'll now go see what you've done at the articles. 86.83.56.115 (talk) 08:23, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, good, nothing yet. I have a bunch of other text floating around. 86.83.56.115 (talk) 08:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Sakura emad. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Ficus aspera have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 23:27, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

too fast! See talk page you already opened! 86.83.56.115 (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Food Race, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Food Race until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you're still on, please take a look at the split I did. So much of what you added to this article was about the species, not this subspecies. Dicklyon (talk) 01:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]