User talk:Carcinologist2
Welcome
[edit]
|
Monoporeia
[edit]You must stop making this edit immediately, at least until you have consensus for it. The article very clearly covers the species, not the whole genus. Pages can be moved very easily, so your claim that "the page name is the genus, not the species" is meaningless. Also, contrary to your assertions, we do have a source much more recent than 1989; you cannot simply discount any evidence that you disagree with as "unreliable", as you have tried to do before. That may work on Wikispecies, but not here. I was prepared to tolerate your presence here as long as you weren't being disruptive, but you are skating on very thin ice. The duck test indicates quite clearly that you are a blocked user evading his block in order to edit here. You are in no position to be entering an edit war, and I suggest that you undo your edit immediately. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not self reverting it! WoRMS is ambiguous about the synonymy, as it doesn't list any synonyms on the page for M. affinis, as it should do, i.e.,
Parent Monoporeia Bousfield, 1989 Synonymised taxa Pontoporeia affinis Lindström, 1855 (synonym) Sources basis of record: Bellan-Santini, D.; Costello, M.J. (2001). Amphipoda, in: Costello, M.J. et al. (Ed.) (2001). European register of marine species: a check-list of the marine species in Europe and a bibliography of guides to their identification. Collection Patrimoines Naturels, 50: pp. 295-308 (look up in IMIS) [details]
and the synonymies are indicated on other pages with odd format. Given that this is the only evidence for the synonymy, and WoRMS doesn't point to a primary reference for it, this "evidence" is extremely unreliable prima facie ... Carcinologist2 (talk) 08:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- Once again, you are using your opinions (WP:OR!) to determine which sources to believe, and once again, you refuse to co-operate. Where is your evidence that these other species of Monoporeia are currently accepted? At best, they seem to be treated as subspecies. The fact that the information on WoRMS is (accidentally) not repeated on another page does not cast it into nearly as much doubt as you seem to think. You also ignore the hugely important point about scope; the article is currently written about a species, and is placed at the genus title by convention for monotypic genera. If one wanted to recognise more species in the genus, one would move that page to the species title and write a new article about the genus, rather than over-writing the perfectly valid species-level article with a new one (and without fixing the other linked pages). You have made a mess of this, and you should certainly be self-reverting, much as it may pain you to do so. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- OK, it's better than it was (as was the case with Munididae), even if it is SUCH HARD WORK to get an improvement of an article from you ... Carcinologist2 (talk) 08:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)