This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Josh Grosse (talk | contribs) at 19:54, 29 November 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 19:54, 29 November 2006 by Josh Grosse (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)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