User:KP Botany/RfC Born2cycle

The purpose of this user page is to work on collecting diffs to make an argument to the Wikipedia community to put a stop to User:Born2cycle's tendentious editing of Wikipedia.

User:Born2cycle has been attempting to force a change in flora naming policies for over two months now. In spite of no support, in spite of declarations that show no attempt at understanding plant naming conventions, or even plants, this user continues to disrupt plant article creation, editing, and maintenance. It is time to stop listening to this user and to get on to editing plant articles. An editor this tenditious, this unwilling and unable to engage in dialogue should be banned by the community from editing Wikipedia articles unless and until they are willing to have actual dialogues when they continue to bring up an issue that has received no support.

An example is below my signature, please add more below, with diffs, specific points, especially the repetitious, and tendentious, bolded for ease of viewing.

Please read the previous section entitled "for the topic".

First, it should be remembered that the changes being discussed only apply when the terminology used by specialists with each other differs from
 * a) the terminology used by non-specialists for referring to the same topics, and
 * b) the terminology used by specialists when communicating with non-specialists about these topics.

Therefore, for all cases where both specialists and non-specialists use the same terminology, this entire discussion is moot.

We are discussing only those cases where specialists use a different terminology when communicating with each other about certain topics than are used by non-specialists when communicating about those same topics.

The net result of the addition of the for the topic words (coupled with the revert of the when addressing non-specialists in the given field amendment) means that examples from specialists, including jargon used among specialists with each other, should be given preference over the language used by non-specialists, and that used by specialists when communicating with non-specialists, when determining the names for articles. This flies in the face of what any reasonable interpretation of Use the most easily recognized name can possibly mean. I can't believe that there can be real consensus for such a self-contradictory policy among any significant number of editors who genuinely try to understand the true implications here. As such, I'm going to ask for a strawpoll. Please indicate:


 * 1) I support the addition of the for the topic wording, but not the when addressing non-specialists in the given field amendment (see above).
 * 2) I support the addition of the for the topic wording, but only in conjuction with the when addressing non-specialists in the given field amendment (see above).
 * 3) I support the revert of both of the changes above, and the addition of clarification that the language used by non-specialists, and language used by specialists when communicating with non-specialists, should be given precedence over language used by specialists with each other, when determining names for articles.
 * 4) I do not support any of these changes - neither should be in there.
 * 5) Other (please explain).

Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Survey

 * 1) Boycott time-wasting polls created solely to prevent the enactment of clear consensus. Hesperian 04:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Per Hesp.  Guettarda (talk) 05:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Per Guet.  --KP Botany (talk) 06:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Per KPB.  --Jwinius (talk) 08:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Per Jaap. -- cygnis insignis 12:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Per Cyg. --First Light (talk) 15:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Per common sense. -- SB_Johnny  | talk  16:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Diffs
Please provide diffs here, please quote and bold specifics, and please add dates so it is clear how long this has been going on. --KP Botany (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)