Talk:Drosera trinervia
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
The photograph illustrating Drosera trinervia has been taken from this site. The photographer's credentials are unknown and therefor his ID of the plant is suspect. His note (in Czech) on the page states "This plant has not yet been processed, the data listed here are far from complete". Is this ID original research by the photographer or by Rkitko, or both? and is the photograph representative of the species as a whole or does it illustrate an aberrant form? We have no authoritative support that it is what it says. Paul venter (talk) 12:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Paul, I see that you still don't quite understand the difference between simply illustrating an article, which is what is done here, and relying on an image as a reference or source of information for extrapolation to the entire species as you did at Calappa calappa. As you've been told again and again on multiple pages now, user-generated images are not reliable sources. This is not what's being done here, though. A representative of the species in cultivation is on display in the taxobox with no inference or extrapolation.
- On the ID of the specimen in the photograph: The note at the top of the page for the species is not the photographer's, but the site admin's and is in reference to the data for the species, not the photos. You are welcome to contest the ID of the specimen in the photo, but provide detail, e.g. what leads you to believe it is not D. trinervia? We field photo ID requests fairly regularly at WT:PLANTS - this, I would say, is not original research but categorization of an image to its correct identity. And the photo on display in an article need not be the best or represent the species - no single photo can accomplish that task. Instead we choose the best available photo and link to the remaining ones on Commons. However, this is a neat trick. You've uploaded dozens (hundreds?) of your own photos to Commons and then illustrated articles with them, mostly South African plants. Should I go around posting similar notes questioning your ID as original research? How, indeed, can we trust your judgement as a naturalist or a botanist?
- Perhaps, if you might be so kind, if you ever come across D. trinervia in your travels across South Africa you might think to take a nice photo and replace the inadequate one here with one from the wild? That would be preferable to this ridiculous and completely unnecessary line of questioning. Unless, of course, you truly do question the ID of the specimen photographed with good reason? Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 19:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Verifiability states quite clearly All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Please remove unsourced contentious material about living people immediately. The reason I'm raising this issue is to show you just how ridiculous the situation becomes when an editor such as yourself tries to stick to the letter of the law and dismisses common sense and sound judgement. How, for example, do you know that the "note at the top of the page for the species is not the photographer's, but the site admin's and is in reference to the data for the species, not the photos" - can you cite a reference saying exactly that. At the moment I have to satisfy an editor here about exactly that sort of nonsense. It is a total waste of time and energy and makes a mockery of collaboration or improving Wikipedia. Paul venter (talk) 07:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- I do not need to cite my talk page comments. The note at the Czech website is not listed at the individual photo's page but at the species page, leading to the conclusion that your interpretation was incorrect. You, however, do need to adequately verify the information you want to add to article space. I don't see that you've yet done that at Acacia and edit warring with someone else (It's validating to see that it's not just a pattern of behavior that you have in disputes with me) is not going to fix the problem. WP:BRD: You added something, another editor reverted for some possibly valid reason, now you discuss. Reverts should not continue from there. The other editor is asking for a better source - you can either provide it or try to persuade him that the existing source does satisfy the requirement. Edit warring will not help win the argument. Rkitko (talk) 14:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- You are doing what bad politicians do - if an awkward question is asked then go off at a tangent and answer a question that was never asked. Also throw in a few banal comments and deliver some constructive criticism on points already well-known - it may seem like erudition to some. Paul venter (talk) 15:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'm glad you acknowledge such criticism of your behavior at Acacia as constructive, but perhaps your earlier actions could have done better to reveal that by abstaining from the edit war. If new material is challenged it is your role to persuade others of its merits.
- Now, did you actually have a question regarding this page? Did you have any particular insight into the ID of the specimen in the photo? There are other images on Commons - perhaps you'd like to suggest we use a different image? I chose this one because it was cropped the best but I suppose the other files could be edited in the same way. Rkitko (talk) 18:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- You are doing what bad politicians do - if an awkward question is asked then go off at a tangent and answer a question that was never asked. Also throw in a few banal comments and deliver some constructive criticism on points already well-known - it may seem like erudition to some. Paul venter (talk) 15:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- I do not need to cite my talk page comments. The note at the Czech website is not listed at the individual photo's page but at the species page, leading to the conclusion that your interpretation was incorrect. You, however, do need to adequately verify the information you want to add to article space. I don't see that you've yet done that at Acacia and edit warring with someone else (It's validating to see that it's not just a pattern of behavior that you have in disputes with me) is not going to fix the problem. WP:BRD: You added something, another editor reverted for some possibly valid reason, now you discuss. Reverts should not continue from there. The other editor is asking for a better source - you can either provide it or try to persuade him that the existing source does satisfy the requirement. Edit warring will not help win the argument. Rkitko (talk) 14:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Verifiability states quite clearly All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Please remove unsourced contentious material about living people immediately. The reason I'm raising this issue is to show you just how ridiculous the situation becomes when an editor such as yourself tries to stick to the letter of the law and dismisses common sense and sound judgement. How, for example, do you know that the "note at the top of the page for the species is not the photographer's, but the site admin's and is in reference to the data for the species, not the photos" - can you cite a reference saying exactly that. At the moment I have to satisfy an editor here about exactly that sort of nonsense. It is a total waste of time and energy and makes a mockery of collaboration or improving Wikipedia. Paul venter (talk) 07:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)