User talk:Besieged

Have you remembered to  sign your message

re: marshmallow - sucrose
i have a problem. it involves you. therefore i ask you to read this message and consider the problem. on jan 17 2018 i edited the WP article 'marshmallow'. the edit took three steps: 1. delete two paragraphs from the marshmellow - sucrose section. 2. write an explanation to the marshmallow - talk page about why i thought the deletion made the article better. 3. check back to the article, which contained by this time the twoo paragraphs that needed to be deleted, so i deleted again.

why you are involved - you left a message on my talkpage after another editor did so, about asking me to not delete content in the way i did.

heres the messages left from you: "January 2018

Hello, I'm RA0808. I noticed that in this edit to Marshmallow, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. RA0808 talkcontribs 20:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Marshmallow, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. besiegedtalk 20:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)"

i replied to RA0808 on his/her talkpage but received no answer. no reflection to the arguments laid down at the talk page - marshmallow either.

since i did EXACTLY what i was requested by RA0808 and still got my (second) edit IMMEDIATELY reverted, i do expect RA0808 who seems to have disappeared since then, and to a minor extent in connection of you joining the discussion i also expect you to either give an answer, why my edit is considered unacceptable by you, or an acknowledgement of agreement, so i could go on and delete those two paragraphs without feeling just going into an edit-war a reverting back and forth.

So if you could reflect in some way, it'd be really appreciated. Cheers 80.99.38.199 (talk) 15:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC).


 * 80.99.38.199 From my standpoint, I'm not really involved, except that it looks like I made a mistake. I was on vandalism-patrol at the time and now ~2 days later, I only *vaguely* recall the revert, but not clearly, I'll must admit.


 * Still, on further review of the talk page, I see your edit summary there as "reason: really bad garbled up explanation of something so simple as melting<->crystallization or solid<->liquid phase change. the details belong to the article about crystallization anyway". I'm not saying you're wrong, per se, as I will happily grant it's not necessarily the most clear, well-written, and well-sourced thing in the world, and it could definitely stand for either a serious cleanup or a shorter reference with wiki links to the process/principles involved, but you'll also often find more difficulty on the Wikipedia in outright removing relevant, explanatory, and/or sourced content than you will in otherwise improving it.


 * For example, you could perhaps replace it with something like (don't do exactly this) "While sucrose is a major component of marshmallows, it is rarely if ever used on its own because of its tendency to crystallize due to Le Chatelier's principle during the heating and cooling portions of production, which is undesirable in the production of a foodstuff with a soft, smooth texture." Or something vaguely like that. That's almost good enough, but still needs a little more crafting to be a good summary and substitution for the original text, however it could probably stand for a few more citations and wikilinks, as well as a well placed here or there.


 * Finally, if you don't feel up to the task of improving the article, but also don't think this content belongs, or if you find yourself at odds with another editor or worried about running afoul of Wikipedia's rules, you can use WP:EAR to request help from an un-involved editor, or, use the Help Me template on the article talk page. be siege d talk 16:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, thank you. I should try as you adviced. Though the (unrecommended) summary example provided by you seems to me as good as anything i could come up with. Thx again. 80.99.38.199 (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC).

Grey Parrot
I think I wrote exactly why. They can't be losing 21% of the adult population otherwise the species would be extinct in the wild today .. and there is no citation. Please confirm that I did properly make an anotation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talon bar (talk • contribs) 01:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The cited source, #8: Mcgowan, Phillip (2008). "AFRICAN GREY PARROT PSITTACUS ERITHACUS CASE STUDY" (PDF). Cites.org. Retrieved 1 March 2016, says so:
 * "BirdLife International (2008) report that there have been population declines have been noted in Burundi, Cameroon, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Liberia, Nigeria, Rwanda, São Tomé and Príncipe, Sierra Leone, Togo, Uganda and parts of Congo and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (see AC22 Doc 10.2 Annex 1). In all of these declines, trapping for the wild bird trade has been implicated, with habitat loss also having significant impacts throughout West and East Africa. Data suggest that c. 21 % of the wild population is being harvested annually, and in addition forest loss during 1990-2000 was estimated to be particularly high in Côte d'Ivoire (31%), Sierra Leone (29%), Nigeria (26%), and Liberia (20%)."
 * If you can find a citation from a neutral, 3rd party source that says otherwise, you are free to add that, or discuss removal and appropriate correction with proper citations with other editors on the article talk page. In the future, please do try to check other sources in and around a section you are questioning, and be sure you're not removing sourced material, as well consider first talking with other editors on the article talk page when you question something in an article. Also, just because you think something is or is not correct, it is best to have citations from neutral, reliable 3rd party sources to support your assertions, otherwise it's just opinion, which is not allowed. And remember that outright removing content - especially when you leave typos in the doing - is likely to attract notice - and reverts - from the people who patrol the wikipedia for vandalism, like myself.
 * Oh, and yes, it's an endangered species, and it is totally possible to take 21% of the adult population without it vanishing literally overnight - extinction still takes time. Accordingly, I am reverting. be siege d talk 02:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

nate robinson
nate is my close friend we know each other fam mans not hot rodolfo out — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodolfo444 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)