User talk:Wiki skylace

Should you have done that?
Yup, you should have. "Should not be" must be a quote from someone, such as "the State of Washington says this plant should not be ...." blah, blah, blah. Good catch. Thanks. --KP Botany 03:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You're doing a good job deleting content about weeds which is not properly sourced or quoted, you also appear to be actually reading what you are deleting and contemplating its accuracy and its appropriateness within the context of what Wikipedia is, what the article is about and what the lines you remove or leave actually say. Please continue to do so, whatever your background, you read well--not something to be taken for granted--and your work is improving the quality of Wikipedia plant articles.  KP Botany 00:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Greetings! It looks like your contributions are very valuable to Wikipedia, but perhaps instead of deleting unreferenced statements, use the fact template as a first step per WP:CITE and WP:V. Also, be careful when deleting information in lead sections. Often, references are given for those statements in later paragraphs and sections (specifically the information you deleted in the lead section of Ailanthus altissima is referenced later in the article). Let me know if you need any help or have any questions here. And if you haven't done so already, consider joining our WikiProject related to plants (WP:PLANTS). Cheers! --Rkitko (talk) 21:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, good comments from Rkitko. I don't have any problems with most of the stuff I've seen you delete without putting a fact tag, although, Rkitko's probably correct that you should start with a fact tag.  Also, lead sections may be without citations that are contained in the rest of the article, as said, so do watch for this.  The Ailanthus article needs a stronger section on its weediness, though, to match the prominence of the lead section's comments about it.  KP Botany 02:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, KP! A general chain of events for removing unsourced material: 1) Try to find a reference! We'd like to build the encyclopedia instead of tear it down, unless of course the material is blatently incorrect for which no reliable source is available. Remember that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth (see WP:V). 2) If no reference can be found, then tag that item with fact. If it's really questionable, move the offending items to the talk page where it can be referenced and returned at a later date. 3) If no source has been supplied in a reasonable amount of time, remove the fact tag and move the sentences or paragraphs to the talk page as above. The ultimate point is that we don't want to lose information that is potentially verifiable in the page history. Hope that helps! --Rkitko (talk) 02:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What I remove is pure superstition, full of bias. It is no more verifiable than making a statement that ivory colored houses are better than white houses... There is no study anywhere that has documented that invasive species cause harm to an ecosystem. A few species in a few isolated ecosystems might has suffered loss from time to time as a result of an introduction, but any true scientific study (and any true wiki entry) would document the good that an introduced species does as well as the harm.... I will continue to remove unsubstantiated claims that introduced plants and animals have magical powers, and that by that magic they are harming the environment. The poisons and authoritarianism that are used to eradicate or control the movement of living organisms is much more detrimental to the environment and to humanity than any plant could ever be. Wiki skylace 21:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding these edits, I would advise caution again. And I must point out again that WP:V states that the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. We have reliable sources that state these plants cause local damage. Whether or not you agree on principal with those studies is an entirely different argument and one not meant for revert wars in Wikipedia articles. If you have sources that say contrary to the other sources and they're reliable, by all means add that information to the articles and cite it. But don't remove verified information from reliable sources that you disagree with on personal opinion. Let me know if you have further questions regarding Wikipedia policy or how to go about things here, though it seems you're quite familiar with the lay of the land already! Cheers, --Rkitko (talk) 00:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Edits to Ailanthus altissima
I strongly disagree with your edits to this article. First of all, your spelling changes go against the Manual of Style (the variety of English in which the article developed should be maintained - in this case British English). Second, the plant's invasiveness is not an issue of neutrality, it is fact. For example, it is officially considered noxious by the governments formerly listed in the opener. If you still want to make these changes, try to justify them on the talk page. Thanks. Djlayton4 | talk |  contribs 21:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no such thing as a fact regarding "Invasiveness". The subject of invasive plants is a religion, it is not a science. I challenge you by any definition (other than a regulatory proclamation) to decide whether any particular plant in any particular location is invasive or harmful. It cannot be done. Wiki skylace 22:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand your opinion. Really I do. I'm perfectly aware of the murkiness involved with the definitions of invasive species. However, Wikipedia functions on consensus, and you are not abiding by that principle. I've never read an article that said that Ailanthus altissima was not invasive. As all the verifiable sources support that, your edits are in fact more opinion based as you are the one of the only one who holds them. A constructive way to get your point across would be to find a source verifying your position and insert it as a counter to the many other scientists who agree that Ailanthus is invasive. Deleting material because you disagree with it without any sources is unhelpful and without literature to support your edits they will eventually be removed and give other a headache in the process. Djlayton4 | talk |  contribs 23:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If wikipedia depends on consensus, then find a way to write your articles so that they include my point of view: Namely that naming a species a noxious weed is a political/emotional/subjective issue and is not a scientific issue. Make a list if you'd like about which states or countries have banned a species. That is documentable. That is fair, neutral, and unbiased. There are plenty of people willing to publish plenty of articles about how non-native a species is, and that non-native equals bad, but there are few if any scientific studies to back up the claims. True science, and a true wikipedia entry would simply measure the effects that an introduced species has on a biota. It would not label that change good or bad. A true article about an invasive species would say things like: The introduction of zebra mussels into Lake Erie reduced eutrophication and restored water clarity. The commercial perch catch increased many fold to X million dollars. Tourism to the previously dead, but now living lake brought in an additional Y million dollars. Z million dollars has been spent on reconfiguring water intake mechanisms for power plants. Wiki skylace 00:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * the benefits of introduction of some species is grossly outweighed by the deleterious effects of many more. Yes there are some isolated examples of benefits and highlighting them is worthwhile but Tree-of-heaven isn't one of them. There are plenty of harmful plants, prickly pear (Opuntia) covered vast tracts of Australia in the early part of the 20th century rendering it unusuable for agriculture. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a subjective opinion. Where is the science to back it up? Wiki skylace 01:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Mimosa in northern Australia is another - if you want proven economic damage. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a subjective opinion. Where is the science to back it up? Any true science must include both the positive and negative costs. I am loathe to claim that the cost spent on genocide against a species can be attributed to the species. I think that cost is more appropriately attributed to supporting the religion that teaches that exotic equals bad. Wiki skylace 01:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

July 2007
Your recent contribution removed content from Invasive species. Please be more careful when editing pages and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. ''Stop removing credible sourced content. If you feel strongly about it, discuss it in the talk page and gain consensus rather than acting as if only your opinion matters '' Djlayton4 | talk |  contribs 22:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think your choice to remove that modifier was a good one, for in that situation it is unnecessary. As you said Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Please look up any of the plants commonly accepted as invasive in other encyclopedias. All of the ones I have ever read also mention their invasiveness. You hold a fringe view and are welcome to find sources supporting it and place that information in articles. Deleting the widely accepted views, however, is nonconstructive. Djlayton4 | talk |  contribs 23:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Warning
As an uninvolved administrator, I have reviewed the situation, and you, my friend, are way off the mark. You will drop this strange vendetta against the widespread recognition of some plant species as "invasive",[...] or you will be blocked for disruption. Hesperian 23:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia aims for a neutral point of view. Calling a plant a noxious week is not neutral. It is inherently biased, and subjective. I have no problem at all with making a list of which governments have banned which plants. That is merely a political issue and is documentable. What is not currently documentable is that non-native species are harmful to the receiving biota. There is plenty of opinion on the subject, often published by people who benefit financially from making claims that non-native equals bad, but the science is not there to back it up... And the exotic plants also gain magical powers: They "out compete", the are exceedingly this, or devestatingly that, or the do something extremely well. Such rhetoric has no place in an encyclopedia, and especially not in wikipedia which aims for a neutral point of view. Wiki skylace 00:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

There are two aspects here that constitute disruption: As far as I'm concerned, I've given you a more detailed response here than you actually deserve. I'm reiterating my position that you need to abandon your vendetta and find something else to do, or I'll be blocking you. Hesperian 01:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) You are pushing your point of view that "There is no such thing as a fact regarding "Invasiveness". The subject of invasive plants is a religion, it is not a science." in opposition to the preponderance of reliable sources that present information about invasiveness as fact. I quite agree with you that calling a plant an invasive species without qualification is usually wrong. For example, to say that Melaleuca quinquinervia is an invasive species would be quite wrong to us Australian readers; one should rather say that it is an invasive weed in the Everglades. However, you are taking this vendetta way too far. With this edit, for example, you changed the assertion that "it is an invasive species in the Rocky Mountains" into "it is sometimes considered an invasive species in the Rocky Mountains.". The cited source supports the former statement rather than the latter; what the latter sentence does is accommodate your point of view, even though the cited article doesn't. Most concerning about that edit is the statement "the article cited attributes the success of this plant to overgrazing" in the edit summary. This is a gross misrepresentation of the article, which states: "The competitive superiority of this species suggests preadaptation to disturbance... The initial invasion of spotted knapweed, like other noxious weeds, is correlated highly to disturbed areas. Once a plant or colony is established though, it may invade areas that are relatively undisturbed or in good condition with gradual, broad, frontal expansion (Tyser and Key 1988, Lacey et al 1991). This invasion is associated with a decline in the frequency of some species and a decline in species richness overall (Tyser and Key 1988). Widespread invasion of spotted knapweed often results from overgrazing.... The knapweed is highly adept at capturing available moisture and nutrients, and it quickly spreads, choking out other vegetation (Roche et al 1986)." It is clear that the article attributes invasion to the species' ability to out-compete native plants. Yes, it mentions that initial establishment is correlated with disturbance, and often results from over-grazing. But to focus on a single sentence, while ignoring all the talk about "competitive superiority", invasion in areas that are "relatively undisturbed or in good condition", "choking out other vegetation" etc, is a mischievous reading of that article that suits your point of view.
 * 2) You are editing aggressively and disrespectfully. Falsely defining everyone else's position in terms like "magic" and "religion" just pisses people off, and edits like this do the same.


 * A major contributor to the ailantuhs altissima page claims that s/he "hates" the plant and that it is a "godforsaken weed" (see the talk page). That attitude fills the whole article. My initial attempts to bring fairness and neutrality to the article were arbitrarily reverted. Adding cite needed tags was the only way I understood at that time to call attention to the bias. Wiki skylace 01:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked for 24 hours for this. It is universally agreed that Kudzu is invasive in the U.S. You won't be permitted to push your fringe POV against consensus any longer. Hesperian 02:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The USDA plant database, lists kudzu as "potentially invasive" in only one state. It is listed as some kind of "noxious" in 10 states. Two other states ban it. So 37 out of 50 states have concluded that kudzu is not a problem, and only 13 are calling it a weed. If there is a consensus, it is that kudzu is not an invasive species in the united states. 65.100.213.65 04:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * A more accurate statement would take into account the 19 states where the plant is not actually recorded... Circeus 22:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

How to get things done around here
On Talk:Ailanthus altissima, I was looking through some of your edits, trying to figure out what suggestions for improvement could be gleaned from what you had identified. There are potential areas of agreement (at least with me). For example, I suspect that we should be using the word "weed" less often (especially when it isn't clear what we mean by the word). However, if you want to make any progress on this, you need to: (1) find sources of your own, not just bitch about the sources we have, (2) suggest alternate wordings which are true to the sources we have or can find, (3) be patient, (4) do research, (5) go to talk pages not just to express an opinion or attack the other editors, but to concretely try to improve articles (one format which can sometimes be successful is a point-by-point description of each proposed change and the specific reason). You don't show any signs of caring whether you are pissing people off, for its own sake. But you might care about whether you are hurting or helping your cause. Kingdon 04:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)