| Revision as of 19:54, 29 November 2006 editJosh Grosse (talk | contribs)8,857 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:51, 29 November 2006 edit undoKP Botany (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,588 edits Apaulogy axcepted.Next edit → | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| You did three things: removed some good though unsourced info, changed the spelling of cryptomonad to a non-standard form, and added some good though unsourced info. I should have left the last, which I will now replace. But I didn't realize that reverting text is a personal insult unless otherwise specified; and I'm sorry for implying your edit was bad-faith. ] | You did three things: removed some good though unsourced info, changed the spelling of cryptomonad to a non-standard form, and added some good though unsourced info. I should have left the last, which I will now replace. But I didn't realize that reverting text is a personal insult unless otherwise specified; and I'm sorry for implying your edit was bad-faith. ] | ||
| Well, that's a good laugh, so I accept your apology. For future reference if you see a "non-standard form" on anything I've submitted, you should just assume I spelled it wrong--I do spell check, but I also have 3 Misplaced Pages editors who check all my major edits and clean them up immediately, please join 'em, as there isn't one for my protist articles, and I'm expanding many articles. The problem with leaving this particular unsourced information in is that it relates to research that has to be discussed in depth in the article. I disagree with it being included in the article without a reference and a discussion of competing theories of classifications. ] 20:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:51, 29 November 2006
Removed what verifiable information? This isn't sourced to anything in particular, there is no reference to this statement, and I really don't appreciate your wholesale removal of my edit and calling it vandalism, as I'm not vandalizing this page. If you're going to call another editor a vandal, just because you disagree with their particular edit, then provide a direct quote. KP Botany 18:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't call you a vandal; the information needs a citation. It doesn't take much verify that our current best guess is that heterokonts have red algal chloroplasts - for instance , , . I was hoping I could find a better reference before fixing the page. Josh
- But you didn't just remove that, you reverted everything I wrote, treating my entire text as if it were vandalism in need of being reverted. And the information as is doesn't have a citations. Let's see, what's better, leave it more general without a specific citation, or go more specific? I think without the citation that it needs to remain more general. But, again, you just wholesale reverted what I did as if it were vandalism, thanks. KP Botany 19:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Do whatever you want with this article, as that tends to be the trend with Misplaced Pages articles anyway. I thought it needed to be general until specific sources were rerenced with competeing theories, but this is just too frustrating. Even with a red-linked editor this morning, whose change I reverted because he/she missed prior vandalism, I was sure to note that I was not reverting his edit, and I put his image bag in the page. I'm not a vandal, I'm not an anon-IP, and I work on algae and protist articles, some more consideration than you decided to show was in order. KP Botany 19:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
You did three things: removed some good though unsourced info, changed the spelling of cryptomonad to a non-standard form, and added some good though unsourced info. I should have left the last, which I will now replace. But I didn't realize that reverting text is a personal insult unless otherwise specified; and I'm sorry for implying your edit was bad-faith. Josh
Well, that's a good laugh, so I accept your apology. For future reference if you see a "non-standard form" on anything I've submitted, you should just assume I spelled it wrong--I do spell check, but I also have 3 Misplaced Pages editors who check all my major edits and clean them up immediately, please join 'em, as there isn't one for my protist articles, and I'm expanding many articles. The problem with leaving this particular unsourced information in is that it relates to research that has to be discussed in depth in the article. I disagree with it being included in the article without a reference and a discussion of competing theories of classifications. KP Botany 20:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)