User talk:Fulvipes

Lac Alaotra Gentle Lemur
The current state of the article was made in consultation with R. Mittermeier. Please note the dates of the current sources for the article, versus the dates for the edits you want to make. The more current source should be used, and that's reflected in the current state of the article. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * ALthough in consultation with Mittermeier, your removal of content is wrong as it removed scientific evidence! Mittermeier has not adequately considered genetics. Please read the article I have now cited (Pastorini et al. 2002). It clearly outlines that there is NO genetic evidence for the claimed species status! The dates of current sources is irrelevant because the newer article has not proven that the Pastorini data are wrong or non-representative. Moreover, the Pastorini et al 2002 article is in a peer-reviewed journal whilst Mittermeier's account is not (it's in a book). Moreover, the IUCN Red List of 2006 (same year as Mittermeier) has NOT adopted the species status but lists the taxon as a subspecies. My edit has introduced a qualified discussion on subspecies versus species. It has not removed the claim that the lemur might be a species. However, your (UtherSRG) removing the edit on genetic evidence is removing solid scientific evidence. --Fulvipes (talk) 08:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * My edit stands. I've worked with Groves and Mittermeier to make the list of primate species consistent across the board. - UtherSRG (talk) 09:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems that you do not accept scientific dispute! You can not just brush away scientific data by erasing references to valid data! Whilst my edit accepts that the taxon has been regarded as a full species you continue to delete my addition because it outlines the caveats. I shall also contact the two authors you refer to. [[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|30px|]] You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Fulvipes (talk) 11:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I see you still can not accept that there are different interpretations of the data amongst the scientific community. Otherwise, you would not have reverted the edits again! From Hapalemur alaotrensis or Hapalemur griseus alaotrensis to "'Hapalemur alaotrensis". This is really silly but also sad as it violates the basic rules of academic dispute. Taxonomy and the definition of species is incredibly complex and difficult. It's not helped by simplified approaches and certainly not helped by erasing alternative interpretations. Both of the latter violate everything science is based upon and is against the universal consensus amongst the scientific community! If you do not like the implications of the genetic data, please present your own data in a peer-reviewed journal, where the scientific community can assess its merits.--Fulvipes (talk) 12:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * My edit is a compromise. The lead paragraph states it as it appears in MSW3 and Mittermeier's book, both of which are regarded very highly - MSW3 is the canonical listing of mammalian species. It is appropriate to discuss disputed data in the body of the article, not in the opening sentence. I suggest you cooldown. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)