User:Redeemer079/B3 misc

B3 domain

Hi there. I just wanted to drop by and let you know the reason Category:Plants was not appropriate on the article B3 domain, which you reinstated in this edit. Even if the B3 Domain is only found in plants, it shouldn't be categorized in Cat:Plants because it, itself, is not a plant or major plant topic. It shouldn't even be categorized in a similar category, Cat:Botany because these high-level categories are mostly for organizing the structure of subcategories and the most important topics, such as the other items in Cat:Plants. When I was new to Wikipedia, I too was confused about the purpose of categories and how articles fit in them. My advice would be to peruse a particular category and see if the article that you're editing would be suitable based on the other categories or the description of what the category is supposed to contain. If we threw every binding domain and plant protein into Cat:Plants, it would become overpopulated very quickly! I hope that helps. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 23:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you try discussing your reason for removing the category on the talk page instead of wholesale reverting, after I offered a reason? Discussion can lead to understanding and agreement, thereby improving an article, rather than needlessly reverting and editing. Thanks. I put this note here in case you don't notice it is also on the article's talk page where the discussion should be had. I'm new at this, and it seems articles are highly owned and operated by a few editors, making constructive editing difficult. Nonetheless, discussing the edit is the way to go. --Blechnic (talk) 23:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems our messages crossed paths here. Yes, sorry about that. I didn't see the discussion on the talk page. But as you can see from my explanation above, categorization is a simple process and this article really does not belong in Cat:Plants. No discussion is necessary on that point. --Rkitko (talk) 23:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not every binding domain, it's one plant binding domain, and it is currently extremely important to plants because of major funding for researching B3 domains and B3-like domains in plants. It's one of the hottest current talks in plant cellular biology to come up in ages. Are you saying that plants doesn't include any subcellular plant topics? --Blechnic (talk) 23:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it doesn't belong in that category. I'm not very familiar with the plant molecular biology articles on Wikipedia, but a better place for this and other articles like it would be some sort of category for plant molecular biology. Consider creating one and making it a subcategory of Cat:Plants. --Rkitko (talk) 23:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, sure, but then you'd come back and revert all my edits without discussion and declare that the category plants cannot have a subcategory of plant molecular biology. If it can be in a subcategory of the category, it belongs in that category until a subcategory is created. However, I'm certain you will do whatever you want with whatever articles and categories you want, which seems to be the Wikipedia trend. In particular, not discussing issues on article talk pages where possibly disinterested editors could weigh in with information. I give you your article. I'll be glad to send you the PDFs of the dozen or so articles I obtained to edit the article with if you don't have access to plant cell and genetics journals. Let me know, as I hate to see an important subject down in stub/start land when it could be made better by someone willing and able to edit it. --Blechnic (talk) 23:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Please respond in a civil manner. Your tone is not appreciated, nor are your insinuations. I have no illusions that this is my article. I have no desire to own this article. I was simply cleaning up Cat:Plants as I occasionally do, making sure all articles belong. Please continue your constructive edits, but ditch the attitude. Regardless, the articles still does not belong. I think a category for plant molecular biology would be very useful and no, I would not "declare that the category plants cannot have a subcategory of plant molecular biology." Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 00:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

My tone? You're the one who won't discuss your edits in the edit summary after I questioned it or on the talk page, but just revert mine, after I explained why I thought it was there in the first place. Please, if you want a civil conversation focus on that by conducting one, rather than changing the focus to the other person's behavior, after you have decided not to conduct an appropriate conversation. --Blechnic (talk) 00:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You're mistaken. This is, for the most part, a civil discussion regarding the category placement. I have thoroughly explained why the article does not belong. If you have forgotten, you were the one that initially reverted without discussion of my good faith edit. After removing the category again per my explanation above, not seeing your notice on the talk page, you again reverted not only the category, but a misplaced heading for a template. As per your request, let's get back to the category. Do you see any other "hottest current talks in plant cellular biology" articles in Cat:Plants? Categorization guidelines suggest using the most specific category. In this case, I think creating one and populating it with similar articles would be instructive and useful. Rkitko (talk) 00:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Reverted without discussion? Then you include a link to the diff which includes this comment of mine: "It's exclusive to plants, if this has changed with research, add info to article." This is not a reversion without discussion--it's an invitation to discuss the change, or edit the article to reflect what is going on. It is also an attempt to understand what is going on, something that seems to raise hackles on Wikipedia. Nonetheless, you've had a friend join and edit, so it's a two against one now, and it's clear that I have no say in the matter. I'd hate to have more people reverting a category on an article that I'm no longer the least interested in editing. My offer for recent journal articles still stands though, if either you or your friend would like to write the article. --Blechnic (talk) 00:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstand. Reverting with a comment in the edit summary is indeed reverting without discussion. If you would have liked to invite me to discuss my edit, you could have edited my talk page much earlier. EncycloPetey probably saw the activity on my talk page and investigated. I have not discussed this page with him in any manner. Instead of giving up on constructive edits as you seem to have done when challenged on a simple matter, why not remain civil, take advice from seasoned editors, and continue your excellent constructive contributions? I also wanted to mention that simply removing a discussion thread on your talk page as you did here without archiving isn't usually appreciated. If you need help archiving, see WP:ARCHIVE. --Rkitko (talk) 01:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)