User talk:Invasive Spices/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Invasive Spices, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Invasive Spices! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like I JethroBT (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Durable Rust Resistance in Wheat (October 1)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Amkgp was: 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:Durable Rust Resistance in Wheat 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:Durable Rust Resistance in Wheat, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" 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, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

~ Amkgp 💬 17:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

• ok thanks Invasive Spices (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Invasive animal species in Africa

A tag has been placed on Category:Invasive animal species in Africa requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Invasive animal species in Asia

A tag has been placed on Category:Invasive animal species in Asia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Ammonium carbonate

added a link pointing to Washington State

Argentine black and white tegu

added a link pointing to Georgia

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:44, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Verticillium dahliae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dieback.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Biological Invasions moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Biological Invasions, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. — Amkgp 💬 13:32, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Biological Invasions has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Biological Invasions. Thanks! — Amkgp 💬 13:42, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pond loach, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Creek.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Do not redirect species to genera

Please do not redirect species to genera, this has caused no end of trouble. Abductive (reasoning) 06:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Abductive: Where did I do that? I can't find it in my Contributions but I only looked quickly. I don't remember doing that at all. Invasive Spices (talk) 16:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Mitrastemon yamamotoi -- If you only did one, don't worry about it. I found this one at WP:PAR. Abductive (reasoning) 02:04, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Abductive: I see. I forgot about that. I did both that and Mitrastemon matudae because those are the only two species, they are understudied, and the genus page thus is pretty informative about the limited information available about both of them. Invasive Spices (talk) 18:29, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• Gotcha. Don't worry about it. Even in such situations, it is better to leave the redlinks, because the genus article could (and should) be split. Also, it is conceivable that taxonomists might come along and split the genus. Anyway, there have been editors in the past who went on redirecting sprees, necessitating mass-AfDs. Abductive (reasoning) 18:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Abductive: I see. Don't worry I won't do that. Invasive Spices (talk) 18:50, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
• @Abductive: On that subject, it seems Obama (genus) has that problem. It looks like only

• Obama nungara
• Obama josefi
• Obama ladislavii
• Obama maculipunctata
• Obama ficki

are real. Invasive Spices (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

There is a long term movement to eventually fix all such instances. Drop by the WikiProject Plants talk page and you'll find a variety of open tasks that editors are working on. I for one am working on creating stubs for plants that are currently for sale at nurseries, but somehow have no Wikipedia article. Abductive (reasoning) 00:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• A little late seeing this, but Abductive was mostly right. The only exception is WP:MONOTYPICFLORA where you actually would redirect a plant species page to a genera page if it was the only species in the genera. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Emerald Ash Borer

The link titled: "APHIS Changes Approach to Fight Emerald Ash Borer EAB" does not work for me - in California USA. Cheers Adakiko (talk) 20:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• @Adakiko:That's very strange. The link works for me but doesn't work if I use an entirely different browser instance. I hope I've figured out why (I think Pest Alerts requires HTTPS and I used a tool that ignores it). Check again now? Invasive Spices (talk) 21:04, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

It works now. Interestingly, I went to the previous version which used http:// and it now works. I then cleared my browsing history and the http:// link stopped working. Firefox. Thanks for the fix! Cheers Adakiko (talk) 21:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Invasive species in Puerto Rico, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page San Juan.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Invasive species in Puerto Rico, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page American Entomologist.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Queenright redirect

Just an FYI, references aren't necessary on redirects. You should probably mention the term Queenright somewhere in the Gyne article, instead. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 22:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• @Elliot321: Ok I understand they aren't required however I'm under the impression they aren't forbidden either. I'd like to reinstate the refs. As with any other use of refs, I hope it will discourage frivolous objections that it's not notable, should be deleted, should be different, etc. Invasive Spices (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

they aren't really forbidden, but they are really almost never used.

what you can do is categorize the redirect with a template like {{R from alternative name}}, so other editors know the purpose of the redirect. it's very unlikely to be deleted, there is no notability policy for redirects and anything nominally useful is kept.

the sources should instead be in the target article, if necessary. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 17:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Spodoptera ornithogalli, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Para.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hi Invasive Spices! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Berek (talk) 20:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Secretariat of Agriculture and Rural Development (Mexico), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Plant pest.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your rapid growth. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Kingofaces43 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

• I nominate User Invasive Spices to be this weeks choice as Editor of the Week. In just a matter of a few months, they have already accumulated over one thousand edits in articles on various topics such as invasive species, entomology, agriculture, and other related science topics. Ug99, Asian giant hornet, and Tsetse fly have all been improved and are topics where we are often sparse for expertise on, so seeing this much activity is more than appreciated and is a benefit to our readers.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Under Construction

Invasive Spices

Editor of the Week for the week beginning February 14, 2021

In just a few months of being an editor Invasive Spices has already accumulated over 1000 edits in areas of interest like invasive species, entomology, agriculture, and other scientific topics. Considering that these topics and articles receive sparse attention and input by editors, it is appreciated to see this much activity.

Recognized for

Ug99, Asian giant hornet, and Tsetse fly

Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 00:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• I'm surprised. Well thank you very much Kingofaces43 and Buster7 Invasive Spices (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 21

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Fusarium verticillioides

added a link pointing to Anti-fungal

Iodine

added a link pointing to Anti-fungal

Physarum polycephalum

added a link pointing to Receptor

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Durable Rust Resistance in Wheat

Hello, Invasive Spices. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Durable Rust Resistance in Wheat, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Directorate of Plant Protection, Quarantine, and Storage

Hello, Invasive Spices. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Directorate of Plant Protection, Quarantine, and Storage, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 04:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Fomesafen

Hi Invasive Spices

This is just to thank you for creating the article Fomesafen recently. It was on my "to-do" list as one of the compounds first invented at Jealott's Hill, where I used to work as a research chemist. I'll now add to the article with further relevant references: let me know if you were planning to do any more on the subject so we don't duplicate our efforts.

While looking here at your talk page, I noticed that you have been getting automated messages about dab links. I can give you a tip which should help you completely avoid making links to disambiguation pages when you really intended to go to a specific article. Assuming you use a standard browser on a PC, you need to navigate to common.css and add the two lines

.mw-disambig { color: #FF8921 !important; } /* Orange */

and

.mw-redirect {color: green;}

The first line makes dab links appear orange instead of blue when you preview the page you are editing. The second makes re-directs appear green, again instead of blue. These are incredibly helpful tweaks, I find! Best wishes. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Turnbull, glad you're going to jump in. On Fomesafen I have no further plans because I'm not a chemist. While my job requires me to consume pesticide chemistry, I'm not a producer. (I may actually build more on the Resistance section, later.) ... And on CSS, thanks. I'm using that now and hopefully it stops me bouncing off the DAB bot every day. Invasive Spices (talk) 17:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Great: glad the CSS is useful. I've already started adding to Fomesafen and will be mostly done in another couple of days. I certainly don't claim to be any sort of expert on resistance (our collaborator for that used to be the Aussie, S Powles), so hopefully our edits will combine nicely. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Hi again, Invasive Spices. Your name popped up in my list of watched pages today after your edit to cyhalothrin. The addition was very useful but I just wondered why you had put the substantive details of the new reference in the list below the main article rather than at the point in the text where the citation sits. Your new reference is only used once in the article and WP:CITEFOOT would recommend, I think, to have everything available together for any editor in future who wants to tweak that Section alone. I've taken the liberty of re-doing the placement. (I note that WP:ILCLUTTER suggests that placing ALL references in one place can sometimes be preferable but it's a bit late for that article!) Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• Hi @Michael D. Turnbull: I do that because I'm under the impression that the ^[1] should be as near as possible to the relevant text, but the <ref>{{cite}}</ref> can be anywhere. In other words that the presentation to someone who only reads WP should have them close together so they can make use; but for anyone editing WP, things can get more complicated and we may have to go hunt through the wikicode. Looking at WP:CITEFOOT it could be read either way, but I think my guess was correct. (As for WP:ILCLUTTER, same thing. It could also be read two ways, but I imagine it's talking about this^[1][2][3][4] being^[1] better^[2] than^[3] this^[4]. But the <ref>{{cite}}</ref> can be anywhere.) Invasive Spices (talk) 19:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think you are definitely correct that the guidance says that readers should be able to work out at once which reference is backing up what statement, so a pile-up of references at the end of a paragraph can be annoying if the individual references cover different components. The reason I prefer to place the full citation at its first (often only) occurrence in the markup, rather than naming it there and placing it elsewhere is that I find that more convenient when using the source editor as I can see the full citation alongside the text — so for example I can check names and dates as I write. One tip that I find incredibly useful is that I use "Syntax highlighting" in the source editor (icon that looks like a pen, just left of the word "Advanced" at the top of the edit window). Now the main text stays black but the nowiki and ref tags are green, the templates including the cites are purple and the links are blue. That makes it so much easier to tell what is going on when editing and effectively provides error messages from the colours if, for example, you fail to close a [[ bracket. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:37, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Changing colour of template elements

Hi,

I have reverted the changes you made to Template:Acari on 30 Dec 2020 because the brown background colour contrasts poorly with the blue text and as a result causes accessibility issues with the template. Please read the Manual of Style section concerning accessibility and colour (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility#Color), and review any other such changes you may have made.

Thanks. XAM2175 ^(T) 22:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Directorate of Plant Protection, Quarantine, and Storage

Hello, Invasive Spices. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Directorate of Plant Protection".

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 deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Indaziflam and Pubchem as a source

Hi again Invasive Spices

I noted your edit summary on Indaziflam as you made the latest change. I thought I'd explain why some chemists treat Pubchem not as "unreliable" but more as "needs careful interpretation and WP:CIR". It's related to the concept that Wikipedia isn't a reliable source (WP:WINRS). In articles on chemicals, we try to place the Pubchem CID in the Chembox and certainly expect people to look there for more detail than an article can possibly provide. However, editors who lack competence can conclude from Pubchem "facts" that simply reflect their lack of ability to follow up on the references. A classic example is on the Talk Page Talk:1,2,3-Benzothiadiazole, which I'd encourage you to look at. An incompetent editor though that all the references in Pubchem for 1,2,3-Benzothiadiazole under the acronym BTH were for that compound when in fact they refer to the fungicide acibenzolar. It's for these sorts of reasons that DMacks will have tried to replace references about indaziflam in the article with the actual source rather than just its entry on the database. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• @Michael D. Turnbull: Ok thanks for explaining. In this case it was just being used as a ref for "Indaziflam is a pre-emergent" so I thought that would be ok. Invasive Spices (talk) 17:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Crimea, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tree crop.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• For anyone else reading this: It was intentional. As the edit summary explains. Invasive Spices (talk) 16:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 23

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Agriculture in Finland

added a link pointing to Leaf blotch

Setaria faberi

added a link pointing to Broadleaf

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:52, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• Same as above: These are both intentional. See edit summaries. Invasive Spices (talk) 15:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Sources

This is just as advice and not meant to be overly critical since I'm glad to see how active you've been (hence my nomination for EotW above). One thing I noticed is that you're pulling a lot from primary research articles, and sometimes older ones too.

I'm not sure what guidance you've read yet, so I thought I'd drop by. If you haven't seen them, I suggest giving WP:MEDRS and WP:SCIRS a read (and I have my own musings on the subject here). Basically, it's best to avoid primary research articles due to frequent quality issues, and it's essentially a requirement to stick to secondary peer-reviewed sources like meta-analyses or literature reviews in medical subjects. If you're going to the trouble of going through scholarly articles though, you'll usually have an easier time in terms of assessing what research is actually WP:DUE for an article based on what's in reviews even if it isn't a subject where secondary sources are essentially a requirement. Some scholarly search engines even let you filter by review or primary research too. If you are going to use primary sources, it's usually best to stick to a rough guideline of what I mention in my third link of carefully using the introduction, but avoiding results or conclusion from the study itself since those aren't really WP:INDEPENDENT of the study, and if the results are important enough to mention, let someone citing the paper do that for you.

Let me know if you have any questions on all of this. It's a lot different than what us scientists do in the real world since we can evaluate which primary research is valid or current, which sometimes makes editing Wikipedia a harder transition than you'd expect as anonymous expert editors. KoA (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

• Ok. Have read this quickly. Thinking. I'll come back and re-read later. Invasive Spices (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

And again, no worries, I mostly hadn't mentioned this until now because it was mostly uncontroversial stuff I was seeing anyways. KoA (talk) 21:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

• Hi KoA thanks for writing. So... apparently I hadn't read WP:SCIRS. I don't think I'd heard of it. You've noticed correctly that I haven't adjusted myself (my usual way of doing things) to Wikipedia, in a long list of ways. Most significantly going 100% revs+textbooks would feel lazy and incompetent to my usual way of doing things. I just haven't been thinking about how to adjust to the anonymous environment.

“ Some scholarly search engines even let you filter by review or primary research too. ”

Where do I acquire this magic?

In the particular case of the egglaying/neuroendocrine/daylength edit, it is from 1992 yes. I'd hoped that would be ok given 1) It's been cited favorably by a Nat. Hered. (in 2004...), and several other good enough cites since (but that's me making a judgement...), incl an ARS rev in 1995, and 2) There's very little in that particular area, at all. IDK. I take it you think that isn't worth covering, in that case.

As for MEDRS I hope I haven't done anything in that area? I have no intentions of editing anything in there, have no knowledge/experience, etc. Invasive Spices (talk) 19:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, going with reviews, etc. did feel lazy to me at first too, but that's the nature of an encyclopedia as a tertiary source that mostly leans on secondary sources (as opposed to when we write reviews ourselves in journals). It's kind of the added burden of being an expert editor. There's one concept called WP:NOTJOURNAL that helps give some scope too. It's definitely hard for a lot of academics to switch between a Wikipedia and journal writing hat because the preferences of using primary vs. secondary source are entirely switched. Reviews do help with generating more content at articles than just a single sentence or two though at least.

As for searching by review, do you have access to Web of Science? That's my main one I get through my university, but I also believe Scopus also has similar capabilities (it's been awhile). I'm still surprised Google Scholar hasn't gotten with the times yet on that kind of filtering unfortunately. Another thing in this topic we have going though is Extension is often a good accessible source for pest issues.

For the egg laying bit, I just noticed the year that also reminded me about the primary source issue. I'm not sure myself if it's worth covering, but like I said, I didn't consider it a big deal, otherwise I would have spoke up at the article about something. Looking at the edit again, the first paragraph can work since that description is part of an overview more than anything, so somewhat secondary. The second paragraph is where I'm left wondering if it is really WP:DUE to include in the sense of is this something important enough that secondary sources would cover it? It's not that it's bad information, but a secondary overview source would drive home the point that it belongs in an encyclopedia as opposed to more technical information we could indiscriminately pick out of the many primary sources out there. Hopefully that helps give a little idea of how the thought process can work with that example instead of you finding out in a more controversial area.

And again, don't fret too much over this, I'm just trying to help navigate a topic many have written about in the community, so no chastising or anything like that coming from me. For where you tend to edit, it's best just to remember that secondary sources are the gold standard, while primary resources shouldn't be reached for right away at least. If a primary looks best in a certain situation, that's a call you'll be able to make with experience since you don't seem to wander into the more strict topics like medical ones. Feel free to stop by my talk page if you ever having sourcing questions. KoA (talk) 04:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Biological Invasions

Hello, Invasive Spices. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Biological Invasions, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Viroid, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Agricultural inspection.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Done: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Viroid&diff=prev&oldid=1022453274 . Invasive Spices (talk) 16:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Good editing

I've spotted your efforts around, looks like you are a real editor. Abductive (reasoning) 02:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks very much Abductive. Invasive Spices (talk) 16:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Have a cookie and chill

No need to be so toxic lmao just chill and revert what you don't like , Ciao ;P Youssef Ahmed Mo (talk) 11:01, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

False Removal of My Edit

You removed my Oriental rat flea edit in which I said it was collected in Sudan not in Egypt; And called it " vandalism " , It clearly states in the Charles Rothschild page he collected it in Sudan and not in Egypt , I hope you reply to me soon , Stay well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youssef Ahmed Mo (talk • contribs) 10:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• (Jsharpminor) @Youssef Ahmed Mo: You are correct that the Charles Rothschild page does say that, and (I checked) you didn't add that yourself. That was from this edit back in 2006. If you used edit summaries and used a WP:RS, I would've known where you got that from, and that you aren't just a Sudanese having a game with Egypt. (This was only your second edit, and your first was obvious vandalism.) I'm going to continue at Talk:Oriental rat flea and Talk:Charles Rothschild because this is actually an important question. Invasive Spices (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

Why don't you respond to my questions? Respectfully. Boghog (talk) 17:13, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• Bringing this here is pretty funny, given you deleted this comment chain from your own Talk:. It belongs on your Talk: given it is not about the article but about your widespread obsession with imposing your own preferred citations. Invasive Spices (talk) 17:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• You are conflating two separate issues. I am trying to centralize discussion on one page where the discussion started, but you are not responding. Please respond. Thanks. Boghog (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

User: Youssef Ahmed Mo

Thanks... ugh. He's made like seven contributions to Wikipedia, none of which are particularly useful to our mission. Two were vandalism on two different pages. Two more were grammar "fixes" that only show he doesn't know English. And three were his user page, on which he provides personal details that show he's not yet even an adult. Do feel free to revert and warn people who are just vandalizing, or you can tag me or others to help you.

Thanks for bringing it to my attention. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 12:42, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I've added a welcome template as well as a personal message to his usertalk page. His first edit was obvious vandalism, but he said that it was a test and an accident -- and I can't dispute that based on his continuing edit history (he's not continuing to vandalize the Wiki, even if some of his continuing edits are somewhat less than helpful).I'm going to WP:AGF in his case for now, unless I get reasons to do otherwise. Please check my user talk for my further comments on his behavior on wiki and breakdowns of each articlespace edit he has made -- they're not as bad as I had originally thought. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 16:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

• Ok. Invasive Spices (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

"Hide (pet)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Hide (pet). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 13#Hide (pet) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:58, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

"Business Queensland" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Business Queensland. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 29#Business Queensland until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Article atrazine

Moved to Talk:Atrazine#Syngenta and Hayes ---- Invasive Spices (talk) 18:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Citation filling tool

Hi. Thanks for your contributions. When adding citations to articles where Vancouver style author format has already been established as in STAT4 and TBX21, please use User:Diberri's Wikipedia template filling tool (instructions) to create the templates. This will insure that the newly added citations are consistent with the previously established style. Please also note that I was the first major contributor to the citation style in both articles. In addition, adding orcid and Google Scholar links to an author for which a Wikipedia article already exists (e.g., Vijay Kuchroo) is redundant. Thanks. Boghog (talk) 20:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• Note for any other editors reading this: The above user has a long term habit of removing fields from {{cite}} templates, especially but not limited to authors. He tries to keep it polite and attempts to explain that |vauthors= is the only format allowed. Any new and naive editors even thank him and praise him for letting them know! If anyone points out that that is in fact not true, he escalates and begins throwing wild accusations that anything other than |vauthors= is prohibited by WP:CITEVAR. Obviously that's not true. In fact WP:CITEVAR#Variation_in_citation_methods explicitly and specifically says not to do what he's doing, and points to the WP:RFA/Sortan ArbCom decision. Obviously every article on WP does not coincidentally have |vauthors= as its mandatory format. Of the articles where he's given me this "first major author used |vauthors= so adding citations with any other style is disruptive editing" gobbeldygook, 100% have in fact only had any |vauthors= because the above user has fiddled the cites. Discouraging other editors from adding citations at all, threatening them that they are breaking the rules by doing so, is shocking conduct. This is vandalism, long-term vandalism, and subtle vandalism. As his Talk - and a great many article Talk pages - reflect, this degradation of citations has drawn the objections of a large number of editors. Unfortunately there has not yet been the will on WP to deal with him. Invasive Spices (talk) 20:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

With all due respect, your understanding of WP:CITEVAR is fundamentally flawed. What CITEVAR says is that when there is a dispute, defer to the first major contributor. When there is a previously established style, don't attempt to change it unless there is consensus to do so. Finally, per WP:FACR, criteria 2c is consistent citations. In other words, a requirement for the very best articles in Wikipedia is that citations be consistently formatted. Boghog (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• Another new story. Ok explain, what does FACR have to do with anything? Invasive Spices (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• The long term goal for any article is to conform to FACR. Boghog (talk) 21:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

In the STAT4 and TBX21 articles, I established the style, you have fiddled with them. Boghog (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• It is entirely unacceptable to misrepresent adding citations as ever being prohibited. Invasive Spices (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• I never said that. What I said is when in Rome, add citations as the Romans do. Boghog (talk) 21:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• You are not going to be able to WP:WAR |vauthors= onto every {{cite}} on the entire encyclopedia. That's just not possible. Give up. Invasive Spices (talk) 16:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• You are not going to be able to change the citation style in articles where Vancouver style has already been established. That is just not possible Give up. Boghog (talk) 21:32, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Rapeseed

Hi! Great work on adding the Genetics and breeding section in the Rapeseed article. I just wanted to ask if you can add the page numbers to the citations that you've added. It's best to have page numbers in the Sfn for each instance where the cite is used. Ciridae (talk) 16:38, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

• @Ciridae: Ok done. Invasive Spices (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Lessepsian migration

Hi I do not understand your action on this article. The FishBase link works, why does it need verified? Froese, Rainer; Pauly, Daniel (eds.) (2021). "Alosa pseudoharengus" in FishBase. June 2021 version. Quetzal1964 (talk) 17:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• Moved and replied at → Talk:Lessepsian migration § Failed verification

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for making rodent-related edits. I saw you edit rodent articles and medical content related to rodents. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• Glad to be of help, Blue Rasberry. Invasive Spices (talk) 20:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Bold scientific names

Although I disagree with it, WP:WikiProject Animals#Article content says that the original at European hornet was the correct style for animal articles. (WP:PLANTS style differs.) Peter coxhead (talk) 19:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• I didn't know that. Disagree with that also. Invasive Spices (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Class III transposable elements

Hello. I strongly apologise to bother you, but if you do not mind, I would like to ask a question regarding the article Transposable element. I believe it should include some information on the so-called Class III TEs (see: Pierre Capy et al., Dynamics and Evolution of Transposable Elements, 1998).

• E.g. some papers refer to MITEs as Class III: Multigenome analysis implicates miniature inverted-repeat transposable elements (MITEs) in metabolic diversification in eudicots.
• Another example may be Foldback (FB) elements, see e.g.: The transposable elements of the Drosophila melanogaster euchromatin: a genomics perspective.
• John Baez (2017) described Class III TEs as a grab-bag consisting of transposons that don't clearly fit into the other two categories, and added: Examples include the "Foldback" elements in fruit flies, the "Tu" elements in sea urchins, and "MITEs", or "miniature inverted repeat transposable elements", which are found mainly in plants and fungi.

If you find some time, could you briefly describe Class III TEs, please? I was about to do it myself at the end of the Classification section, but I must admit I have difficulty with the correct wording of this paragraph so that it is acceptable according to Wikipedia standards. Since I greatly appreciate your contributions to biology-related articles, I decided to contact you and rely on your knowledge here. Thank you very much. Kind regards, --Pinoczet (talk) 13:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• Hello @Pinoczet: I'm pleased I've been doing a good job. I am sorry to say that in this case I am not sure it is even appropriate to add Class IIIs: From what I can see there is no settled definition of what they are, or if such a category even exists. They seem to be barely mentioned in the literature. Boutanaev and Osbourn 2018 do call MITEs Class III, but Kaminker et al 2002 don't use the term at all, and Baez is a mathematician - although he does correctly say there does not seem to be clarity around the term. I think we should wait until there is a definite meaning. Invasive Spices (talk) 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. Yes, I agree with you. However, I think it would be reasonable to briefly describe, perhaps as a side note, Class III TEs, i.e., define them according to some researchers and give the examples (Foldbacks, TU elements, MITEs), just to let the readers know such a category exists. To my knowledge, this is not a widely accepted view, but I believe it is worth mentioning in a few words. Regards, --Pinoczet (talk) 14:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

European hare

Your edits to European hare were not helpful. It is not formal for wiki images to be frameless. Please don't do that again. LittleJerry (talk) 00:51, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• Frameless is perfectly normal. Edit warring over your personal whims and calling my edits vandalism is unusual and is unacceptable. Invasive Spices (talk) 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I did not know who did it when I reverted and it looked like vandalism. When I looked at the history and found that you did it. I contacted you. And don't accuse me of hounding you because I changed your edits for rodent since I'm one of the users who brought that article to FA. By your own logic, you also hounded me based on this edit. Also, you shouldn't bring your personal issues with me on Talk:Rodent. LittleJerry (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• @LittleJerry: If you continue to revert war removing someone else's comments on a Talk: page you may be blocked. As for the rest of this any history of editing a page is irrelevant when it comes to hounding: You changed the text from what the source says to something the source does not support as a way of continuing a personal dispute from another page. As for Queen angelfish that page is on my watchlist and I was unaware who was involved - if I had been I would have probably not fixed that problem. In any case that was obviously not harassment: I returned the image because the edit summary suggested the removing editor (you) did not understand how WP works. I'm a little surprised if you've contributed to an FA and yet also don't understand basic things like how to deal with a suspicion that something has a copyright problem, or that internet connectivity may temporarily fail. Invasive Spices (talk) 28 November 2021 (UTC)

You changed the text from what the source says to something the source does not support as a way of continuing a personal dispute from another page. No I didn't, I simply reworded it. It had nothing to due with a "personal dispute". LittleJerry (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC)}}

Links to user pages and sandboxes

Please do not introduce links in actual articles to user pages or sandboxes, as you did at Cryptotermes dudleyi and Vespa tropica. Since these pages have not been accepted as articles, user pages, sandboxes and drafts are not suitable for linking in articles. and such links are contrary to the Manual of Style. These links have been deleted, please do not re-add any such links, thank you - Arjayay (talk) 16:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• I was attempting to be nice and credit a new user who had taken the photographs. OK then. Invasive Spices (talk) 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Cactus

Hi Invasive Spices. Looking at the references for citation, I think for conferences you meant to use title for the conference and contribution for the paper name. Also if you use citation rather than one of the specific cite templates (e.g. book, journal, etc), the citation template tries to guess which one you meant to use (that's where the URL error came from, it thought you meant cite web). ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 20:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Yes I did not really use {{citation}} but {{cite conference}}. Some one else changed it saying that CS2 (if I remember correctly) is required on that page and that is a CS2 template. I have suggested on Template talk:Citation that it should accept |conference= and automatically change its type in that case. Invasive Spices (talk) 3 December 2021 (UTC)

The other solution if it's necessary to use the CS2 style (which it is on Cactus) is to use "cite conference |mode=cs2 |..." As far as I know, |mode=cs2 is accepted in all the cite family of templates. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

• Or - fascinating idea - you could just not join in with this "consistent citations" game and thereby not introduce one catastrophic error and several smaller ones on what had been a working page. Invasive Spices (talk) 7 December 2021 (UTC)

A "working page", especially when it's an GA or above, requires all the citations to have a consistent style. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:34, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Impressive. "Consistency of citations requires breaking the citations." The three of you should get tattoos of this together. Invasive Spices (talk) 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't, and no-one would say that. Breaking the citations is even more of an error than making them inconsistent. There's no need to break them when making them consistent, but everyone sometimes makes editing mistakes. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Acetolactate synthase, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Resistance mutation.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

December 2021

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Qwirkle (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Trap crop, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wiley.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

List of radar types

Just by curiosity : what is the purpose of your edition (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_radar_types&curid=1358398&diff=1064134479&oldid=1058749568)?

Pierre cb (talk) 00:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Pierre cb: I have also created redirects [1] & [2]. They redirect to that {{visible anchor}}. Invasive Spices (talk) 7 January 2022 (UTC)

OK. Pierre cb (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Tone on talk pages

Just stopping by as a reminder to watch your tone on talk pages, especially with comments like this. WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior like that is never appropriate.

Keep in mind I nominated you for editor of the week awhile back because you were (and still are) doing a lot of good work when I've been seeing your name pop up on articles in my watchlist. Your attitude lately is as if I've been entirely antagonistic towards you, when in reality that's been very rare that I've disagreed with your edits. Sometimes editors have trouble with their edits not always getting traction and have trouble navigating content disputes, especially if they aren't used to community norms in certain areas. No set of editors will agree all of the time, so you should not be misconstruing the few times I disagree with an edit as anything but very minor (and fairly old) content disagreements like at Talk:Norman_Borlaug#Support_for_pesticide_use.

It's unfortunate to see twice now that "blowing up" like that has made it's way to ANI[3][4] A trend of reacting like that to basic content disputes and being unable to edit collaboratively often leads to a WP:NOTHERE block, even if someone provides good edits in areas where there is no dispute. I'm saying that because I don't want to see you walk off that cliff and head it off now, so please work on the attitude and dealing with times when edits don't work out quite how you want. Others have also given you patient advice on this, including Chiswick Chap, so please heed their advice. KoA (talk) 00:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Anyone making the mistake of taking this seriously should click the links. Prepare to wonder what they have to do with this description. Prepare to wonder about the source of this description. (For the other use of this "tone" tactic, see here. Prepare to be curious again.)

Anyhow. Hello Kingofaces43: First you were [5][6][7][8][9][10][11], culminating in [12] when I refused to take the bait. Then you [13][14]. Then nothing.

Such solid time trends – irrespective of the actual content of my edits – are odd. What is the pattern here? What is causing this timing? Anyone seeing this is very interested in the origin of this text. Invasive Spices (talk) 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Those diffs are mixture of some cases where I was opposed to a few edits, some where I was directed to you a better place to put them, and cases like the last ones where I was overall in support of your edit or comment. In this case I agreed with you and undid the very edit you didn't agree with. That's why this sudden mentality is so odd. Please slow down. If it helps, I would seriously ask you to have someone else read this message you just posted to me and see what they say. KoA (talk) 01:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Over 1 year later — a reply here would be difficult to find. See #Blowup for the continuation of this section.

Category:Invasive agricultural pests has been nominated for merging

Category:Invasive agricultural pests has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 00:16, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Invasive plant species in Africa

A tag has been placed on Category:Invasive plant species in Africa indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Qwerfjkltalk 17:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

"Invasive native" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Invasive native and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 6#Invasive native until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 18:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Disease resistance (disambiguation)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Disease resistance (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:03, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Boy that esculentum quickly. Invasive Spices (talk) 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Australian Magpies. Nz biosecurity email

I hav the email if it helps 119.224.43.155 (talk) 21:27, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

To the guy who thanked me sometimes

	Why?
	Why did you thanked me sometimes? Also, do you thanked other user sometimes? 500yearss (talk) 15:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello @500yearss: I forgot that I had thanked you before and yes I thank any other user I see doing the same. You have done two things I noticed in your 101 edits so far. Two is unusual – some users just break things and cause problems. Invasive Spices (talk) 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Invasive Spices: Thanks for your response. Also, what do you mean when you say "You have done two things I noticed in your 101 edits so far. Two is unusual – some users just break things and cause problems"? 500yearss (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

You I only Watchlist a few pages of the many that WP has. You've done two things I've noticed that I liked. I forgot I had thanked you before – I hope I didn't spam you. Other users Many of the edits of new users are Vandalism. I don't know until I read the edit. Invasive Spices (talk) 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Spikey-cheek crayfish

Thanks for the change in the synonyms part of the "Orconectes limosus" article.

I have a note though. You added "Orconectes limosus" at the beginning at the article in front of "Faxonius limosus". I get that it is a bit confusing if the article is named as Orconectes limosus and the article starts with a different scientific name but the name is outdated, so I would suggest to change the title of the article to the trivial name or the currently accepted scientific name. I would have done that myself but I am not allowed as a new user.

I hope I use this talk function correctly because I am new to wikis. Please tell me, if I used it incorrectly or forgot something and how to converse about such things instead in the future. NotImportant-Biology (talk) 21:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello @NotImportant-Biology: I see this is a taxonomy question and I am not a taxonomist. So we need someone who both understands taxonomy and is allowed to move the page. If you can provide proof at Talk:Orconectes limosus#Page name that this is the correct name and the other is invalid then someone will surely do it. (I will if I understand although that is improbable.) Invasive Spices (talk) 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @Invasive Spices for your reply. Shall I post a link to a paper there which is explaining that all species of the genus "Orconectes" are now considered as "Faxonius" because of the priority rule? In that sense the genus Orconectes is invalid as a whole.

This is the doi of the article: https://doi.org/10.2307/2420820 NotImportant-Biology (talk) 06:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Acacia decurrens

Hi, thanks for getting back to me. What do you mean by 'publicly known'? I provided a second source from Western Sydney University about the sisters' story which further discusses the use of the acacia as a seasonal indicator. [15] There is also a book published by the authors of the website compiling their stories. [16] It is held by 32 libraries Australia-wide, so the use of the website over a hardcopy of their book is purely a matter of convenience. The authors of the website are also published in the Griffith Review about Aboriginal storytelling here, so they could be considered experts on the subject. Other articles on natural features, such as the constellation Orion, include information about the stories people told about them alongside their physical characteristics, so I do not believe that WP:NOTE is relevant here. --159.196.100.171 (talk) 21:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I have moved this to the species Talk page [17]. Invasive Spices (talk) 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Clusia rosea

Hi, I get what you are saying about using the source's terminology, "strangles". My feeling is that the general public, Wikipedia's audience, is often woefully misinformed when it comes to science, and this includes botany. I'd guess we'd both agree that Clusia rosea is, basically, a science article. I was once (1970s) "knowledgeably" informed by a gardener friend of mine that the roots of Hedera helix "strangle" the roots of other plants as part of, apparently, some perfidious underground strategy; this evil compulsion was why I should not be helping such an 'immoral' species by propagating grape ivy (in pots, no less).

If a quotation were to be pulled from PIER's source and used as such, that would be fine, although some mention of what constitutes "strangulation" would be quite helpful. The WP article on strangling doesn't mention the plant world. I find that some older sources for scientific articles either are misinformed or else contain misleading, confusing or antiquated language. The original source of the PIER statement may have been working from a British Raj point of view!

In any case, I feel that WP could use an article on the plant survival strategy of "strangling", which it currently seems to lack. I've just tweaked your version of the paragraph for additional clarity; I hope it pleases both of us. Thanks for your ongoing, indefatigable efforts and clear communication. PS: "Scotch attorney???" --Quisqualis (talk) 00:03, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Clusia rosea#Strangler. Invasive Spices (talk) 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Paclobutrazol rewrite?

Hi Invasive Spices

I took a look at paclobutrazol yesterday and found it to be in a sorry state, particularly in the way citations have been included and how emphasis has been given to obscure uses in, for example, Ophiopogon japonicus while ignoring the main uses of this PGR in cereal crops and ornamental plants. Like you, I noticed that two editors CazimirXVII and Convolvulus sepium had expanded the article on March 17: these edits are the only ones from either of those accounts. I'm not sure what to do now and seek your advice/assistance. Should we revert back to the earlier stub and work forward again to improve the article, or just start tidying up from where it is now? I'd be grateful for your help in the re-write. I can start easily enough with the chemistry, which has clearly confused all previous editors since the material as licensed and sold has always been a mixture of the (2R,3R) and (2S,3S) isomers (which are enantiomers of one another) BUT has never contained the other (2R,3S) / (2S,3R) diastereoisomer pair, in contrast to the drawing at the top of the article and the IUPAC name shown, which imply all four isomers to be present. Thoughts? Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes that was hard to read. Whence my very limited welcome to the user "You have lengthened the page". File:Asd.gif I see Storchy is deep into improvements so radical stub reversion averted! Your improvements to the racemate/synth paragraphs are a good next step. I will verify & add to the MOA, physiology and gene interaction parts. Some of it is entirely uncited. Invasive Spices (talk) 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I had to smile when I read the WP article Convolvulus sepium, especially the section on eradication.. Talk about nominative determinism! Fortunately it seems they have disappeared without trace. Mike Turnbull (talk) 19:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I couldn't recognise the name but I guess I have seen it before. That is funny but remember it was 3 weeks between sprouts the first time, and only 1 week so far, and it may resprout for 30 years. Really though hopefully he/she will become more communicative and maybe a little more familiar with English, and return to work with us. There are lots of vandals out there and at least this wasn't one of them. Invasive Spices (talk) 15 April 2022 (UTC)

List of aquaria

I believe that's more than apparent to most reasonable people. But thanks for the reminder. 1.64.46.233 (talk) 12:17, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Tauros Programme and Taurus cattle article

Dear Invasive Spices,

you reverted most of my edits on the Tauros Programme. I just want to inform you that Justlettersandnumbers deleted entire passages in the Taurus cattle article because he diagnosed a lack of independent reliable sources which are needed for Wikipedia. The problem with the Tauros Programme article is that it relies heavily on press releases from the Stichting Taurus, which is the foundation who runs the project, so not an independent reliable source either. I assume that what is not OK in one article is not OK in the other article as well, or is it? BTW, I don't think the Tauros Programme and Taurus cattle are competing, rather they run parallel and they even made a conference together in 2015. Furthermore, you didn't tell me what exactly suggests (in my edits) that I am in any shape or form affiliated with Taurus cattle. You should ask the same to those who put unreliable information in the Tauros Programme article the same question. Thanks, DFoidl (talk) 16:19, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

⇨ Talk:Tauros Programme#Tauros Programme and Taurus cattle article

California Agriculture, San Jose scale

Hi Invasive Spices, Thanks for all of your additions to Agriculture in California. The new information is a definite improvement. I ran across the San Jose scale article which seems relevant to this area, but the references are weak. I wonder if you have any thoughts on how to include / better source this content. That article also states that the ladybird was introduced to the United States in order to control the San Jose scale, which is an interesting historical point (very early IPM?), but also poorly referenced.Dialectric (talk) 17:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

• Hi @Dialectric: I found this which cites Marlatt 1902 and agrees with his claims. I think this supplies the necessary referencing for all of that. Invasive Spices (talk) 2 June 2022 (UTC)
• I have added this to [18], [19], and [20]. Invasive Spices (talk) 2 June 2022 (UTC)

References

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for your hard work on expanding the agriculture section of Economy of Florida! I love seeing it pop up on my watchlist. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Discussion regarding your conduct

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Benchijiguando (talk) 13:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

In the interest of clarity and regarding the edits of Benchijiguando, let me repeat something I said in the ANI thread: As is noted at WP:NOTVANDALISM, Edit warring is not vandalism. —C.Fred (talk) 14:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Repeating my reply at ANI: Yes I am and was aware that they are not the same thing. I did not make that report on the basis that they are the same. I have now explained my motives for that report at the ANI. Invasive Spices (talk) 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Benchijiguando has been blocked as a sock of someone named BKFIP. Invasive Spices (talk) 13 June 2022 (UTC)

June 2022

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lindane. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 14:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

What on earth? I appear to be doing no such thing. Are you really warning me to stop edit warring for something from 4 days ago? 3 reversions when the opposing editor 4rr? Invasive Spices (talk) 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Would you have preferred I block you as well as them? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 15:06, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

This flippant incommunicative response is not useful. You are ABF. You appear to be convinced that this is obviously not vandalism and I have been reverting in bad faith. I reported this at AIV because to me it is obvious vandalism. Are you really threatening to block me because you disagree with my interpretation of what kind of edit Benchijiguando made? Invasive Spices (talk) 13 June 2022 (UTC)

No I'm not threatening to block you. However, Benchijiguando's edit is not Wikipedia:Vandalism as you were told in the section above. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 15:54, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

While 3RR is a brightline rule, it is not the definition of a blockable offence for edit warring. The warning is in order, particularly with the now-repeated reminder that the other party was not vandalizing the article.

Personally, in similar situations, I will put the following in the edit summary and/or a warning to the user I am reverting: "You have repeatedly made the same edits. You need to (more fully) explain why you're making the edits on the talk page. If you do not explain, your edits are likely to be dealt with as disruption." —C.Fred (talk) 17:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

CambridgeBayWeather I wasn't questioning whether you were threatening to block me for asking. I have no difficulty understanding Would you have preferred I block you as well as them? is a flippant threat. I am pleased to know you won't do so. Invasive Spices (talk) 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Benchijiguando has been blocked as a sock of someone named BKFIP. Invasive Spices (talk) 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Agriculture in California, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Carlsbad and Contra Costa.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

About Novius cardinalis

"(User:Shirt58 I don't think this is correct. I don't find the string "endem" anywhere in the reference. Am I unable to find it? (+archive. Modern <ref> syntax.))" Context: cleaning up my un-replied talk page messages following WP:ADMINACCT Shirt58 (talk) 10:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I replied at Talk:Novius cardinalis#Endemism. (I'm not sure why this is ADMINACCT.) Invasive Spices (talk) 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Your edit to New South Wales

Hello Invasive Spices

I reverted your edit to New South Wales because it was a promotion of a private business: Wikipedia:PROMOTION. Also the information is not sufficiently notable to be included in a general article on NSW. There are hundreds of thousands of businesses operating in NSW and their presence in the state is not sufficient reason to include them in the article or provide a link to their commercial website. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

• That's not PROMOTION. See Talk:New South Wales#Notability. Invasive Spices (talk) 14 July 2022 (UTC)

please stop adding ORCID identifiers as authors in cs1|2 templates

I've begun trolling through Category:CS1 errors: external links and have encountered several articles where you added ORCID identifiers as separate authors to cs1|2 citation templates as you did here. Please don't do that. ORCID identifiers are not author names.

This search finds about 20 articles that have |author<n>= with [[ORCID]] as an assigned value. These are a pain to fix because all subsequent |last<n>= / |first<n>= / |author<n>= parameters must be renumbered. I would appreciate it if you would fix these so that I (or other editors) don't have to.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• I haven't done that for some time. The histories suggest I did that in July and August last year. I will correct them. Invasive Spices (talk) 21 July 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you.

  —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:07, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• Job complete. — Invasive Spices (talk) 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Economy of Florida

I'm thinking about splitting the agriculture portion of the article out to Agriculture in Florida, mainly because there is so much of it compared to the rest of the industries (not a bad thing!). I'd leave an executive summary in the economy article, of course. Since you're the primary engine for the content there I figured I'd run it by you in case you had any objections. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• I'm glad I've been able to contribute. It's not necessary yet but I won't object. It will need to be done at some point and there is no "necessary" date. Invasive Spices (talk) 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• I mean, just because it isn't strictly "necessary" quite yet doesn't mean it's not a good idea. Doing it now means fewer future redirects to correct, for example. I'll try to get to it tonight if it's not busy. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Puerto Rico, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page PPQ.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Agriculture in California, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hmong.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Economy of Texas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Armyworm.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

"Insect pest of grape" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Insect pest of grape and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 2#Insect pest of grape until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:04, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Reply button

I think the issue with your signature may be that it includes only the date and not the time. Perhaps the signature-detecting code expects a time stamp and doesn't acknowledge signatures without one. This might be an issue to raise with the people responsible for the reply system if you want to avoid having the time included in your signature, but still want the reply system to function properly. Unfortunately, I don't know who those people are. Perhaps you could report it as a bug. – Scyrme (talk) 02:23, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Agriculture in New South Wales

Hello

I have moved some of the information you have added to this article to the Economy of New South Wales article. The level of detail about crop diseases etc is more appropriate for the latter article. I see that another editor has suggested that the level of detail you provide about agricultural diseases might be more appropriate for a specific article about agriculture in NSW or crop diseases in NSW. I agree with this suggestion and would encourage you to develop such articles. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 01:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, more specific pages are certainly the place for the specific information I keep adding. (Note however that in this particular case that anonymous IP editor blanked two sections Special:Contributions/134.53.89.25 on two unrelated pages.) Invasive Spices (talk) 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Stop restoring pointless parenthesis

As explained several times now, you do not have consensus for these pointless restorations. We do not mix full names and abbreviated names in citations. No style guide supports that. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:06, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I have explained several times now that you are engaged in long term harassment and stalking for several years and I will not have any dealings with you. I have told you several times over the past few years to just go away and stop. You have suddenly developed this obsession with my edits on one particular page at one particular time for troubling reasons. You still have not cited any such style guide or given any reason other than personal preference. Randykitty has also cited only personal preference. Worse in neither case is personal preference the real reason: I am well aware of the reason for your resumption of harassment behaviours and the timing for your resumption.

Headbomb do you know why you have resumed harassing me?

Headbomb do you know why you are harassing me on only one article and no others?

Headbomb do you know why you resumed harassing me at the time that you did?

Invasive Spices (talk) 14 September 2022 (UTC)

As explained before these questions are simply invalid because it presumes I'm harassing you, which I am not. See also WP:AGF. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

September 2022 unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Invasive Spices (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Blocking admin Randykitty refuses to explain block. WP:EXPLAINBLOCK. Invasive Spices (talk) 14 September 2022 (UTC) 16:09, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Nothing here convinces me you'd be less disruptive if I lifted the block early. Indeed, it looks likely you'll end up getting blocked indefinitely. I sincerely hope that isn't the case. Yamla (talk) 17:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

September 2022

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Randykitty (talk) 07:49, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@Randykitty: Yes the creator of almost 100% of the article has been dealing with obviously WP:NOTHERE behavior by a long term harasser and stalker, specifically Headbomb. You have been helping a disruptive troll to continue. Stop. Invasive Spices (talk) 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Randykitty what purportedly disruptive edit or edits does this block pertain to? I wrote the above assuming I was certain but I'm not. Invasive Spices (talk) 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• The disruptive editor here is you. If you don't see that, the next block will be longer. --Randykitty (talk) 15:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@Randykitty: You have refused to provide even a basic explanation of your block. WP:EXPLAINBLOCK — Invasive Spices (talk) 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• If you don't see that you were being disruptive, that's your problem, it has been explained to you multiple times. --Randykitty (talk) 16:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

You must either do what WP:BLOCKPOL requires you to do or unblock me. Invasive Spices (talk) 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• I'll unblock you as soon as it is clear that you understand that you were being disruptive. --Randykitty (talk) 16:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@Randykitty: That's not how blocking a user works. WP:BLOCKPOL requires clarity for several reasons. One of them is to distinguish between WP:OPTIONS appropriate and inappropriate uses of Sitewide blocks and Partial blocks.

If you accuse me of misconduct on only one page you must not impose a Sitewide block. On the other hand if you accuse me of sitewide misconduct you claim something you have not even accused me of before.

Because you refuse to satisfy the requirement of an explanation WP:EXPLAINBLOCK for this block no one can evaluate its appropriateness. Blocks are not meant to be incomprehensible and unreviewable by others. Invasive Spices (talk) 14 September 2022 (UTC)

A point of order - there is absolutely nothing in policy that requires an admin to impose a partial block instead of a site-wide block. It is entirely up to the discretion of the blocking admin and there are many admins who choose never to use the partial block option.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:04, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ponyo: OK. Is Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability required? It certainly is. Invasive Spices (talk) 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Admin accountability requires an admin to provide a response when questioned regarding their use of their tools; there is no requirement that the the response meet the satisfaction of the agrieved editor. If you believe there has been abuse of tools, you are free to dispute their actions. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:06, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

So you agree with what I said below: Refusal to respond is not good. Invasive Spices (talk) 16 September 2022 (UTC)

• You're quite the Wikilawyer, aren't you? --Randykitty (talk) 17:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

? Invasive Spices (talk) 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Let's be explicit then.

1. You have stealth reverted edits multiple times with the specific goals to restore pointless acronyms/abbreviations. These stealth reverts also undid various other fixes, like restoring an incorrect CAB Review from a corrected CABI Reviews and missing article identifiers.
2. You have, on multiple occasions, falsely claimed (or at least falsely implied) to have made use of Talk:Agriculture in California to have sought consensus only to be ignored/bullied, etc, when in fact you have never made a post that talk page related to the use of acronyms/full names. You then went on a very unclear diatribe about unrelated users' interactions with you on unrelated topics as to why you aren't seeking consensus.
3. Multiple users have explained to you that in citations, you either use the acronym, or the full name, but not both. This did not give you any pause.
4. You have on multiple occasions (including right above) accused me of harassing/stalking/bullying you and of lying, which is demonstrably false. You have kept making these false accusations after this was pointed to you.
5. You have yet to demonstrate to understand that the above behaviour is disruptive/not acceptable.

That should about cover it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:51, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I hate to dignify this with a response however:

CABI Reviews is incorrect.[21][22] Although automated tools may change it to CABI Reviews an examination of the source shows it is CAB Reviews. CABI has little staff and little funding and so cannot correct everything.

Billard → Billiard is incorrect.[23][24] Another user also did that and I reverted. I then restored their prefered punctuation and other changes which I had also accidentally reverted because those are perfectly normal edits. There is a difference between those and your edits. That user thanked me for the reversion.

you have never made a post that talk page related to the use of acronyms/full names. Have you? You have not.[25] I used your Talk: which is perfectly normal. What point are you trying to make?

These examples remind us that:

Listening to the creator of almost all of the article is necessary. That user is myself in this case.

Automated edit warring is undesirable either with AWB or your bot.[26]

edits made using this software are the responsibility of the editor using it.[27] Invasive Spices (talk) 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Interaction with User:Butlerblog

Hi I see you recently had some interaction with Butlerblog on their user talk page. Did you find that they seem to be a little bit arrant with their edits to say the least? I had placed something on their talk page and you came with a similar concern. They seem to become very offended when anyone criticizes their work and what’s interesting is that now they’ve completely edited their talk page to make it seem like the whole interaction/topic was different than it really was. My comments were removed for example, making the topic seem different than it really is. Seems rather disingenuous. Do you concur?

Cheers! 98.103.253.178 (talk) 04:27, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I concur that that is disingenuous. I think that user removes comments inappropriately. Invasive Spices (talk) 4 September 2022 (UTC)

For the record, there is nothing inherently wrong with removing comments from your own personal talk page. With the exception of certain administrative block templates, removal is acceptable per WP:BLANKING: Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. If a user removes material from their talk page, it is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents. There is no need to keep them on display.

Not that I'm required to share the reasons for doing so, but with regards to the specific comments mentioned here, they were removed because the user was trolling and wikihounding and the comments served no other useful purpose. ButlerBlog (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

@Butlerblog: I don't know about that and that may be true. Certainly I agree you may remove comments from your Talk: no matter what I think. I refered to your removal of comments on article Talk: pages which I think was inappropriate. I am not involved in those discussions however and know nothing about them so won't say anything more about it. Invasive Spices (talk) 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, if you're referring to the talk page at Twelve Tribes communities, then another FTR... Ordinarily, I would agree with you, and removal should be avoided. However, like everything else, it has to be looked at in context. That was the result of a user who was indeffed and was committing block evasion through numerous sock puppets (which the above IP also has turned out to be). The user had a history of posting personal information of living persons (that had to be scrubbed by WP:OVERSIGHT) as well as persistent vandalism and personal attacks across several articles, much of which was on talk pages - all of which warrant removal per WP:TPO. Comments that were block evasion, vandalism, personal attacks, or trolling were the ones removed. Others were handled by strikethrough, if warranted. It was a fairly extensive cleanup. It all went through AN/I and SPI and wasn't some random deletion just because someone (me) didn't like it. You're welcome to your opinion on the matter which you've stated clearly, and I don't expect my comments to change it, but you simply don't have the full picture of what happened. ButlerBlog (talk) 19:50, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Yuma County, Arizona, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page KAWC.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Pleistocene rewilding

Both of Delete-boy's talk page interventions were out of process and against policy, since if you nuke someone else's comments which are not obvious vandalism (and are not on your own user talk page), and you don't offer any explanation, then your actions are always automatically out of process and against policy. However, Delete-boy has convinced me that he's a 100% malicious little individual, so Delete-boy can go on leading his wretched miserable little life, and I don't want to be involved in it any manner. AnonMoos (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I can't agree with that because WP:NOTFORUM. Apokryltaros should have said that. If you have sources then it should be added. I'm just repeating what I said on Talk:Pleistocene rewilding. — Invasive Spices (talk) 19 September 2022 (UTC)