User talk:Jonkravetz

Adaptation list
I wrote in the edit comment, which I'm not sure you can have seen, given your comment:
 * "I'm really sorry as I assume that's a piece of college work, but such a list could grow indefinitely ("and here's another interesting example"), and it doesn't contribute to this particular article. You could start a list article and link it from here, but it would need a wider scope taxonomically".


 * You wrote
 * Hi. You reverted my edit on adaptation. It's hard for me to understand how actual examples of adaptations backed up with research from academics are not useful. The page has nothing about physical vs physiological vs behavioral adaptations. If you don't like the fact that something is "interesting" that's fine, but honestly it seems like you are being nitpicky and a control freak. Any existing examples are disorganized in inappropriate sections. The "Types" section is an absolute mess, and in some cases just plain wrong. It's bizarre to me that you would remove a section that could potentially make this article more useful, because right now it's trash. (with all due respect)


 * Well, what to say, other than to repeat my edit comment. Examples sections very rarely enhance articles; they attract what we call "listcruft", i.e. we get a large number of entries, often uncited, added at random without thought for the form of the article, or the point it may once have been supposed to have been intended to make. That makes even a short list of examples dangerous. As I noted, you are entirely at liberty to create a List of examples of adaptations and link it from the existing article, but such a list would have to be carefully planned and given an appropriate structure, most likely taxonomic. I see you are rather new to Wikipedia so I will not take offence at your personal remarks, but I will note that they are forbidden under the WP:NPA ("no personal attacks") policy; and following a series of such remarks with a disclaimer that it's with respect doesn't make it any better, actually. The article makes use of multiple examples, integrated with the flow of argument in the text. There is no doubt room for more examples, so integrated, but that is not at all the same as a bunch of examples annexed to the end of the article - at best, that repeats the article's message, while at worst it adds length without direction, unfortunately the usual result with such lists. I do hope this is clear; as I already said, I'm sorry if you find this disappointing, but the reason for it is very far from your suppositions. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

It's strange to me how you behave as if you somehow have the right to tell others how it is, when Wikipedia is a democratic entity. For me personally, as a student of genetics and evolution a list of examples of adaptations with citations would be extremely useful for me. I'm not sure why you think that a convoluted prose littered with the occasional example is somehow more helpful to someone whose trying to learn about adaptation. It's not. I don't find it disappointing, because I don't view you as an authority figure (even though you seem to view yourself as one). You are just "some guy". Same with me. The only difference between you and I is that I don't try to claim stewardship over content that I don't own. You don't own the adaptation page on Wikipedia. I'm sorry. It's not yours. It's ours.


 * You are not being forbidden to write a list of examples, indeed I just invited you to do so in a suitable place. I'm not going to argue about authority figures: once again, that line of discussion is entirely inappropriate. I've no idea why you'd think an unstructured list better than an integrated discussion; biology textbooks and journal articles are always integrated, and encyclopedia articles should be likewise. It would help if you could stop being rude; at the least, other editors would probably be more inclined to engage with you on technical matters if you spoke politely;. Finally, please reply only here; we don't need a discussion split over two locations. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:21, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I understand why in your experience you might feel a list is "dangerous" in the adaptation section, but seeming as you wiped out my entire contribution like a hawk about 2 seconds after i posted it, I think you might be up to the task of ensuring it doesn't get out of hand. Also, instead of just wiping out my entire edit...perhaps you could've used some of the content I provided in a manner that you felt was more appropriate. This is coming from my professor who is a PHD in evolutionary biology! There is content that is missing from this article on adaptation and there is content that is not in an appropriate section. Sometimes in textbooks there are tables or figures that provide several concrete examples. My professor reviewed this particular wikipedia article and asked me to do exactly what I did for my graduate level course in Evolution and Genetics. So you were right about that. It's fine. I told her I was worried some Wikilifer was going to trash it and I was right. I guess we were both right.Jonkravetz (talk) 12:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does not claim to be a democracy; quite the opposite. 331dot (talk) 12:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh really, so what's the opposite of a democracy? An autocracy? I don't think Wikipedia is an autocracy.Jonkravetz (talk) 12:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)