User talk:Soaringbear

Welcome

Hello, Soaringbear! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Takamaxa (Talk) 04:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Santa Cruz del Quiché

Hi, I think this is not just a question of semantics. After the destruction of Q'umarkaj the Spanish chose the place where they wanted to concentrate the remnants of the population of Q'umarkaj in order to gain long term colonial control over both the population and the region. It is a historical fact that the Spanish founded Santa Cruz del Quiché (the town didn't exist before), and the town's architecture therefore conforms to the Spanish colonial style, with the cathedral and convent erected from the stones mined from the Quiché temples of Q'umarkaj. The Quiché who were forced to leave Q'umarkaj and ordered to resettle in Santa Cruz del Quiché probably would have preferred to continue living in Q'umarkaj. Best regards -- Arjuno (talk 02:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to move this discussion to Talk:Santa Cruz del Quiché. This will allow others interested in the subject to contribute to the discussion and makes it easier to find general consensus. If you want you could copy your comments from my talk page to the article's talk page, and we'll continue there. -- Arjuno (talk 04:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get how these talk pages are organized. I don't see a reply button here so don't know if you get this or where my prior comments went.

Well, changes in an article will normally be discussed in the talk page of that article, in this case Talk:Santa Cruz del Quiché. Just click on this link to start a new discussion topic on that talk page. There is no "reply button" as such. You may notify one or more users you think might be interested in the discussion, by leaving a message on their personal talk pages, referring to the talk page of the article. You'll find your previous comments on my talk page. Please don't forget to "sign" your comments with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your username and the current date when saving the page. -- Arjuno (talk 04:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

Thank you for your edit to the disambiguation page Mocha. However, please note that disambiguation pages are not articles; rather, they are meant to help readers find a specific article quickly and easily. From the disambiguation dos and don'ts, you should:

Be familiar with the guidelines and style
Only list articles that readers might reasonably be looking for
Use short sentence fragment descriptions, with no punctuation at the end
Use exactly one navigable link ("blue link") in each entry
- Only add a "red link" if used in an article, and include the "blue link" to that article
Do not pipe links (unless style requires it) – keep the full title of the article visible
Do not insert external links or references

Thank you. TJRC (talk) 08:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mazatán, Chiapas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cacao (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Kabah (Maya site)

added a link pointing to Merida

Paso de la Amada

added a link pointing to Mazatan

Step pyramid

added a link pointing to Igbo

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anthocyanin

I am a PhD medicinal chemist and in a better position than you on how to use pendant

You don't know anything about my scientific background or education nor does having a PhD make you an expert on chemical side groups. I will agree with you however, that pendant does not fit in this instance. Text was most likely pulled directly form source material which I do not have the ability to access in order to check. (Skoot13 (talk) 16:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]

I don't care what you think after you immaturely told me off instead of admitting you were wrong to have reactively undid my change in the first place.

Angiosperm Phylogeny Group

Your recent editing history at Angiosperm Phylogeny Group shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Rkitko ^(talk) 17:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please take heed of WP:BRD. Another editor has expressed concerns about the material that was added to this article and can be discussed here: Talk:Angiosperm Phylogeny Group#Editorial comment. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 17:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, again. Regarding your comment left on my talk page, you can respond here, if you like. Here's my view of the situation: you added some material, another editor objected and reverted. Instead of moving on and then discussing the text you added or asking about the other editor's objections to it, you continued to add it back. Please refer to WP:BRD -- the cycle of editing is 1) be Bold by adding material, 2) if you're Reverted, move on to 3) Discuss it. If you'd like to clear up what objections there are to your text, please come join the discussion at Talk:Angiosperm Phylogeny Group#Editorial comment. And when writing on talk pages, it would be great if you could sign your comments with ~~~~, which will produce your username and a timestamp -- discussions are easier to follow that way. Thanks! Rkitko ^(talk) 17:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand your system fully. Someone reverting ought to take responsibility to edit the problem or offer specific objections and not put the onus onto me, especially when that person obviously understands your procedures better than I do.

You still didn't say who you are.

Bear — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soaringbear (talk • contribs)

Any editor who objects to any text only needs to sufficiently explain why the passage is subpar, troublesome, or how it needs improvement. It is not that editor's responsibility to correct the problems, though sometimes they will. User:Peter coxhead did explain his specific objections on the talk page at Talk:Angiosperm Phylogeny Group#Editorial comment and in edit summaries. If you want to include the text you added earlier, you will have to convince him (and me) that it belongs there. The best way to do this is by citing reliable sources that you are paraphrasing. With respect to the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group, the text you added was mostly nonsense and the two sources you added were not reliable, nor did they support your assertions completely.

I don't necessarily need to announce who I am. Primarily, I am another editor on Wikipedia that works on plants and plant systematics and evolution. Some editors, like myself, do describe who we are on our user pages. You can click on my user name for more information, if you like. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 18:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously you are so biased as to be blind to the value of being aware of limits of any science system or method. And your arrogance discourages me from contributing to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soaringbear (talk • contribs)

Explaining the limits of the APG systems would be a highly appropriate addition (a) to pages about the systems, not the group (at least in my view) (b) when sourced using a source meeting the standards of WP:RS. What is "arrogance" in terms of Wikipedia is to add one's own reservations as editorial comments. Here our task is to report what reliable sources say, not express our opinions. For example, I've used Stace's criticisms (see Stace, Clive A. (2010a), "Classification by molecules: What's in it for field botanists?" (PDF), Watsonia, 28: 103–122, retrieved 2010-02-07) in appropriate places. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Smallpox

I undid your edit as you were using Wikipedia as a source. Wikipedia is not considered a wp:reliable source. See WP:CIRCULAR. You state that Inoculation for smallpox began in China around 1000 AD. The Wikipedia article Inoculation#China states texts hint of this but do not describe any procedure and one author states the text describing early Chinese inoculation post-dates Jenner. Please research this better before adding? Also, it appears that anyone can upload papers to [1]? That makes anything there highly suspect. A peer-reviewed paper would be much preferable. BTW: you can copy sources from Inoculation and other Wiki articles. Just verify that they contain what they appear to be supporting. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 05:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Copied from my talk page) - Please keep the conversation on one page. Use {{ping|Jim1138}} to notify me.

You throw out the baby with the bath water to simply delete my edit instead of editing it. You show racist revisionist inclination to simply toss out pre-Jenner and presume that Jenner started the whole thing. History doesn't work that way so you are distorting history in discarding my edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soaringbear (talk • contribs) 18:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was more than just the origin. The sources as well. Anyone can upload a paper to academia.edu, making it wp:self-published and not RS. The one you cited was only viewed 19 times. Jim1138 (talk) 18:24, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can undo my removal of your edit, but it needs work. Jim1138 (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly work that you avoid doing so simply censor by deletion.

take responsibility for your censorship actions and undo your undo instead of making me do it. Everything on wikipedia needs work and you don't help that by sweeping censorship.

I'm not censorship patrol, I'm garbage patrol. See wp:PROVEIT. That's your responsibility. Stop making others clean up your messes. Jim1138 (talk) 09:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Underscores in Wikilinks

You fixed a link and left in the underscores "_". As URLs do not accept spaces " ", underscores are substituted. They are not necessary in wp:wikilinks and should be removed - which I did. El Progreso Department is the same as El_Progreso_Department. Clicking on either goes to the same place without a wp:redirect. Best Jim1138 (talk) 05:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sulforaphane source

The content and reference you used[2] are not confirmed science, as they are preliminary only from in vitro and lab research using mice. According to Wikipedia guidelines for citing medical literature, WP:MEDRS, this source is not sufficiently developed to apply to humans, so is not suitable for the article to imply actual effects. Also, the content is too technical for the majority of encyclopedia users per WP:NOTJOURNAL. --Zefr (talk) 19:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I bet you can find a rule to justify anything you want. I guess scientists like myself will have to quit contributing to wikipedia. Have you considered all the people dying of pancreas cancer who could use this information? In other words, you are both an idiot and uncaring.

WP:TPNO. --Zefr (talk) 01:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Belizean–Guatemalan territorial dispute, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Maya. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, fixed it to maya peoples

Disambiguation link notification for October 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rafael Carrera, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Maya. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Soaringbear. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Gynura japonica

Hello Soaringbear,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Gynura japonica for deletion, because it doesn't appear to contain any encyclopedic content. Take a look at our suggestions for essential content in short articles to learn what should be included.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Meatsgains (talk) 19:40, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Gynura japonica

Hello Soaringbear,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Gynura japonica for deletion, because it's too short to identify the subject of the article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Meatsgains (talk) 19:41, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

speedy deletion?? what for? that was destructive of you - losing significant information - I leave it for you to repair by renewing it

Edit war warning

Your recent editing history at Pan-assay interference compounds shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

As I already told you, I posted a note on the Talk page after I removed this. Please respond there per WP:BRD. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The essence of this project is talking through things when there is a dispute. Please come to the talk page and talk. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

moved comment here, which was left on my talk page in this diff Jytdog (talk) 13:19, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

talk page?? I don't know where the fuck you're talking about but you keep destructively reverting useful information which violates everything about wikipedis— Preceding unsigned comment added by Soaringbear (talk • contribs) 11:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Here: Talk:Pan-assay_interference_compounds. Jytdog (talk) 13:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please listen

Disagreements are common as dirt here. You need to learn to use Talk pages and simply talk through differences. Please read the WP:TPG and learn how to use them.

Looking at your edit count you have made 617 edits to Wikipedia. You have used an article talk page only 3 times, and user talk pages 29 times. Almost all of those talk page remarks have been abusive.

If you cannot do adapt to this basic requirement of working here, you are going to find your privileges (and they are privileges, not a right) to edit Wikipedia restricted or completely removed. I am providing a set of diffs below, showing that you have been failing to work collaboratively with others thus far.

Please take this as an unambiguous warning, that you need to change your approach to working with others.

In December 2015, at Sulforaphane:

22:57, 4 December 2015 dif, you added content sourced to primary source to an article about a drug, and it was reverted
13:29, 8 December 2015 diff insult at user talk page: why would you possibly revert science referenced research? If you didn't like it then edit it, don't just delete (censor) it.
13:33, 8 December 2015 diff reverted with no edit note, which was again reverted
19:19, 8 December 2015 diff I don't know if I'm dealing with Alexbrn or Zephr but the overly brief and meaningless comment of "poorly sourced" hardly applies to peer reviewed medical literature that I referenced. Edit what I did instead of reverting (censoring?) it.

In November 2016 about Miguel Ydígoras Fuentes

17:44, 13 November 2016 diff you added some detail to an article, and it was reverted.
15:28, 16 November 2016 diff you restored your remark at the top I don't know how this talk page works but for you to say my few words of clarification "does not fit well" is senseless, which was misplaced, inappropriate, and was reverted.
13:58, 18 November 2016 diff at the top of a user talk page, don't know how this talk page works but for you to say my few words of clarification "does not fit well" is senseless. I am still waiting for response; this was moved to the bottom of the page, per convention.
diff - you were given a very long response to your note, to which you never replied.
14:40, 19 November 2016 diff you again wrote at the top of the page I don't know how this talk page works but for you to say my few words of clarification "does not fit well" is vague and senseless - I am still waiting for clarification what specifically you mean? What wording would you find acceptable for adding that little bit of information?
16:48, 26 November 2016 diff you restored the content to the article, writing "does not fit" is hardly a reason

in December 2016 you created Gynura japonica, and your response to the nomination was:

00:02, 27 December 2016 diff "speedy" deletion of Gynura was un-necessary and DESTRUCTIVE by you
00:05, 27 December 2016 diff speedy deletion?? what for? that was destructive of you - losing significant information - I leave it for you to repair by renewing it

This month at Pan-assay interference compounds:

13:57, 17 July 2017 dif initial edit
16:51, 19 July 2017 diff comment left in the middle of someone else's section at my talk page. PANS page requests pharmacology expert and as PhD in that subject I added something. What is your expertise for reverting?
17:55, 19 July 2017 dif, edit warring restoration with edit note: I am pharmacology expert providing useful info and citation - your edit would be appreciated but undo is NOT
18:32, 19 July 2017 at talk diff insult at the article Talk page section I opened.
22:22, 20 July 2017 diff, revert with no edit note
17:42, 21 July 2017 diff revert, edit note Revert destruction instead of edit is unacceptable behavior
11:37, 22 July 2017 diff, comment at my talk page in someone else's section: talk page?? I don't know where the fuck you're talking about but you keep destructively reverting useful information which violates everything about wikipedis
13:34, 23 July 2017 at talk dif, insult

-- Jytdog (talk) 22:36, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You replied here

You have made some progress, in actually following up on a conversation. But this was also just more personal attack. I have warned you, which is all I can do. I wish you well and hope you mend your ways.

Additional notes -- on the practical aspects of discussing things on Talk pages, which are essential for everything that happens here.

New comments go at the bottom of the page; and of course once a thread is started, we reply at the bottom of the thread.
Generally it is good to read responses, and reply, basing things not on how you ffeel, but on the reliable sources (as defined in RS and MEDRS) and the policies and guidelines. They form the foundation for everything that happens here. I have laid out how this place works in a single page - please see User:Jytdog/How.
In Talk page discussions, we "thread" comments by indenting - when you reply to someone, you put a colon ":" in front of your comment, and the WP software converts that into an indent; if the other person has indented once, then you indent twice by putting two colons "::" which the WP software converts into two indents, and when that gets ridiculous you reset back to the margin (or "outdent") by putting this {{od}} in front of your comment. This also allows you to make it clear if you are also responding to something that someone else responded to if there are more than two people in the discussion; in that case you would indent the same amount as the person just above you in the thread. I hope that all makes sense.
And at the end of the comment, please "sign" by typing exactly four (not 3 or 5) tildas "~~~~" which the WP software converts into a date stamp and links to your talk and user pages. That is how we know who said what.

I know the last two things are insanely archaic and unwieldy, but this is the software environment we have to work on. Sorry about that. Jytdog (talk) 18:53, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DON'T shrink me. I gave you NO authority to examine my editing record to psychoanalyze me. You abused your position.

It is obvious now that you were perfectly capable of editing my edit WITHOUT reverting, and the fact that you reverted repeatedly proves that YOU instigated this edit war, not I. YOU are the abuser, and I am disgusted with your abusive manipulative behavior.

Please do see above, about indenting and signing your posts. Jytdog (talk) 14:53, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While indenting is so super important, Soaringbear does have a point, I see abuse by valuing formalism over common sense & accurate information, and I see a hothead who is not doing any actual harm to Wikipedia 84.154.194.93 (talk) 22:37, 28 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

References

Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:36, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you can't kill an idea no matter how theoretical and new; you could have edited this instead of reverting

Please do not edit war your desired edits into the vitiligo page. If you disagree with the reversions, please discuss why this material should be included on the article's talk page. That is the most appropriate next step. Thanks! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 16:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

so why am I seeing an increase of lazy numb-headed reverts in place of editing to improve things??

The onus is on you, as the one who proposed the initial addition of this material based on unreliable sources, to justify why this should be included in the article. This is best done on the [talk page]. Also, for future reference, I wouldn't recommend characterizing others' edits as "lazy numb-headed reverts" since it's unlikely to be well-received by other editors and Wikipedia is a collaborative effort (see more at WP:5P. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see the same quote over and over: "disruptive editing. this does not belong here. unncessary anyway. Undid revision" That makes it lazy and numb-headed; also autocratic and impossible to talk-reason with. Reflects descent and degeneration and bureaucratization of the whole management and idea of wikipedia.

Well, I've said my piece. It's up to you how you want to interact with others on Wikipedia but I think you'll find collaborative editing difficult with that mindset. I never said anything about disruptive editing but you do need to abide by Wikipedia guidelines (we have them for a reason) and discuss the changes you've proposed on the article's talk page. It's not an unreasonable request. If you disagree with Wikipedia policy, that's okay, but instead of bemoaning the imperfect process, I would recommend going to the proper forums and proposing specific changes instead to improve the system as a whole. Regardless, if you don't engage other editors in a constructive manner and use high-quality sources for citations, that material won't be included without adequate justification. Also, please be sure to sign your comments with four tilde signs (~) at the end of your comments. Thanks! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

reverting is not collaborative - THEY start off with abuse on the first indication of conflict, instead of talking to me or editing it. THEY need to set the tone and abide by Wiki guidelines. Soaringbear (talk) 20:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reversion is appropriate. As I said above, it is your responsibility to justify why the poorly sourced material belongs in the article. Reverting to the status quo was the right thing to do. It's not abuse or antagonistic toward you. I'm really unsure why you seem to be making yourself out to be a victim. Why do you refuse to discuss these changes on the article's talk page? It's not difficult. From my review of other sections on your talk page, it looks like this has been explained to you many times so I'll stop belaboring the point. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse permeates the wikipedia people apparently, which discourages me from continuing to contribute. Soaringbear (talk) 02:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please use high quality secondary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:54, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was a high quality PRIMARY source. You are mistaken in calling it secondary. Your reversions are NON collaborative. The wiki way is FIXING things instead of ERASING. So I expect you to put my peer reviewed reference back in. EDIT if you want but no more blunt reversions.

Speedy deletion nomination of Erythrina berteroana

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.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Erythrina berteroana requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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 removed 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 01:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Perymenium grande

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.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Perymenium grande requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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 removed 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 01:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Citharexylum donelli-smith

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.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Citharexylum donelli-smith requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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 removed 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 01:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Clethra mexicana

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.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Clethra mexicana requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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 removed 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 01:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Vernonanthura patens

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.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Vernonanthura patens requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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 removed 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 01:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Jytdog (talk) 13:34, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Insert your reason to be unblocked here Your rudeness and disrespect and failure to follow your own wikipedia policies on conflict resolution, blocks any further discussion. Starting with my edit being called "nonsense", continuing with editors voting to block me before understanding the situation, and ending with some stranger called "Alex Shih" suddenly appearing to inform me without any discussion that I had been suspended. None of these behaviors have been examples of civility nor collaborative. I see no purpose in communicating with duplicitous people.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. See also WP:NOTTHEM. Huon (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

October 2017

Hi, I have temporarily suspended the editing privilege of this account based on the report here, particularly in reflection of your latest comment. I don't think we are asking too much, but simply if you could 1) use high quality secondary sources 2) improve their civility / sign their posts. Once you accept these simple terms, any patrolling administrator are free to lift this block at any time. This is a collaborative project, and abusive comments/editing behaviours are not going to be very helpful in the long term. Thank you for your understanding. Alex Shih (talk) 03:05, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not want to accept the terms outlined in the report, and would like to appeal the block, please follow the procedures at Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks, or edit this page with {{unblock|1=Insert your reason to be unblocked here}}. Alex Shih (talk) 03:07, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

The citation I added, that was reverted by Doc James which began this proceeding, has now subsequently been re-added by QuackGuru, proving that source quality/MEDRS was not a substantive issue. My reactions were all about the rudeness by Doc James and other representatives of Wikipedia.

Insert your reason to be unblocked here

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 21:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Insert your reason to be unblocked here push button automated reply demonstrates rudeness

Decline reason:

The consensus for a block at the WP:N discussion is clear, and you have now posted three unblock requests which make no attempt to address the reasons for the block as described in that discussion. To prevent further waste of valuable time, I have revoked your ability to edit this talk page.

I suggest you take some time to re-read that discussion and think about the suggestion (made by several people) that you need to agree to use high quality secondary sources, improve your civility and sign your posts. When you feel you can move in that direction, please contact WP:UTRS to ask for your talk page access to be restored. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:52, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This is the third unblock request which fails to discuss your own conduct. You're not blocked for what Doc James did or for what QuackGuru did, but for your own actions. Wasting admins' time by such spurious non-requests is at least as "rude" as getting a standardized reply that tells you what you need to do. I was considering whether I should revoke talk page access and decided not to do so right now. I strongly advise you to either amend that unblock request or to retract it until you can write one that actually discusses the problem at hand. Huon (talk) 23:47, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soaringbear, I recommend you take a month off. Wikipedia is the most disruptive place on the Internet. Larry Sanger explained that "The other problem was the community had essentially been taken over by trolls to a great extent. That was a real problem, and Jimmy Wales absolutely refused to do anything about it."[47] QuackGuru (talk) 00:49, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]