User talk:Gustav Rammelsberg

July 2015
Please stop replacing "Recent" with "present" in taxoboxes. It's not helpful.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Putting recent implies the taxa recently went extinct. Gustav Rammelsberg (talk) 00:10, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It does not, furthermore do not replace "Holocene" with "present," either.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Please stop making test edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Euarchonta. It is considered vandalism, which, under Wikipedia policy, can lead to being blocked from editing. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. --Mr Fink (talk) 00:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, if a taxon recently went extinct, it would explicitly say so in the first place.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes but it's still a possible misconception. Gustav Rammelsberg (talk) 00:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Also please stop deleting my replies. Gustav Rammelsberg (talk) 00:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no possibility for a misconception of a taxon being recently extinct if its taxobox does not explicitly say it is extinct simply because the fossil range ends in the Holocene.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Rodent. Anaxial (talk) 00:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * How did I vandalize it? The text said the time it existed ended recently which is obviously not true. Gustav Rammelsberg (talk) 00:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You are persisting in unconstructive editing despite having been warned about it. That is considered vandalism.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I clicked on vandalism and it said it was attempting to comprise the viability of wikipedia through editing or removing content. How was what I was doing that? Gustav Rammelsberg (talk) 00:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Also what do you mean test edits? That's not what I was doing. Gustav Rammelsberg (talk) 00:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Your edits replacing "Recent" and "Holocene" with "present" are considered unconstructive: that is why other editors keep undoing your edits and placing warning templates on your talkpage.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC):What do you mean unconstructive? Gustav Rammelsberg (talk) 00:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC) Also even if it's still correct to have recent of Holocene that doesn't mean putting present is incorrect. Gustav Rammelsberg (talk) 00:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The edits are unconstructive because they do not improve the article, and or they remove important links, especially since no one else has the fear that readers may potentially assume that "Holocene" or "Recent" in the fossil range would imply a living taxon is extinct. So, please stop replacing "Holocene" or "Recent" in taxoboxes with "present."--Mr Fink (talk) 00:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC):They very very slightly improve the article but judging the important of an improvement is mostly arbitrary. And the mere presence of links doesn't immediately make the article better. Links are good but just having them doesn't make it objectively better. Gustav Rammelsberg (talk) 00:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC) Also when the article's pictures are only of extinct members and or skeletons and the article is small somebody might assume such. Gustav Rammelsberg (talk) 00:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not the standard terminology, and again, you're the only person making the assumption that the average reader would make that misconception.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:50, 4 July 2015 (UTC) The thing is absolutely nobody would misunderstand the article saying "present" but a small amount of people would misunderstand if it said recent or Holocene and I'm failing to understand how this minor change counts as vandalism besides with some articles that are small only show pictures of extinct skeletons despite continuing bloodlines could cause misconceptions by readers. Gustav Rammelsberg (talk) 00:55, 4 July 2015 (UTC) Oh also doing this isn't exactly harming anything in the article. Gustav Rammelsberg (talk) 00:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It takes a long time for fossils to form, so there are none from the “present“ under any reasonable interpretation of the term. Fossils are dated to the geologic era of the sediments in which they are found, while recently dead organisms are still part of the biosphere.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  01:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

You ignored all of my other points but regardless it's Temporal range or in other words Time range so it's not referring to fossils and by that logic species that we don't know through fossils but know through other ways should have Temporal ranges! Gustav Rammelsberg (talk) 01:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC) Oh and by the way I never got anyone threatening to ban me and accusations of my edits being "unconstructive" when I made other minor edits but for some reason this is different. Gustav Rammelsberg (talk) 04:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC) I bet if I was changing Holocene to recent or vice versa nobody would be reporting vandalism and changing it back but for some reason this is different because even if recent or Holocene were good terms for describing extant taxa present would be too! Gustav Rammelsberg (talk) 04:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC) I've literally never had people threatening to ban me for other minor changes so why this? Gustav Rammelsberg (talk) 04:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC) There is even a box to check when making minor changes so why is this suddenly a problem? Gustav Rammelsberg (talk) 04:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC) If editing Holocene/recent to present is an "unconstructive change" they why isn't changing present to Holocene/recent considered an unconstructive change? Gustav Rammelsberg (talk) 04:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please read the template parameter name, it says "fossil range". The template might currently render this as "temporal range", which may be open to improvement, but your large number of changes are setting back wikipedia considerably. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:11, 4 July 2015 (UTC) How on earth am I setting wikipedia back? And even if I was how would it be considerably? Gustav Rammelsberg (talk) 14:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC) Oh and thanks a lot for ignoring everything else I said really shows your eagerness to explain this ridiculous conflict. Gustav Rammelsberg (talk) 14:44, 4 July 2015 (UTC) I'm going to make extremely minor changes like what I was doing and I'll see if anyone reports me for vandalism! Gustav Rammelsberg (talk) 14:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC) Wow how not shocking! Nobody is complaining with these extremely minor changes, reporting me for vandalism, or nonsensically calming that I'm setting wikipedia back! Gustav Rammelsberg (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2015 (UTC) Still not getting complaints for other minor changes! How shocking! Gustav Rammelsberg (talk) 14:55, 4 July 2015 (UTC)