FANDOM

A FANDOM user
  Loading editor
  • The community has decided to remove you indefinitely from the taxonomy project, on the grounds that you do not cooperate with other participants, and that you have been recently warned that your behaviour could see you barred from the project. You was asked to modify or move a creation with an incorrect taxon classification (one of yours), which you have failed to do despite there being objective reasons to change it. Instead you evaded the discussion, and it is not clear that your intentions are in good faith. Members feel that you do not apply your own ideas to the project constructively, and it is not clear if some of the creatures and taxa you have added were made to score points with other users.

    You are not permitted to create or edit taxon pages, nor are you allowed to classify creatures either at request or creations you submit yourself. However, your submissions that were previously accepted in the taxonomy project can remain in the system. You can still make taxonomy requests, but users are not obligated to fulfil them and creations will treated as if the creator is inactive. In addition, Elephasaurus is going to be removed from Corsetidae because it is falsely classified. You are still allowed to use the custom taxon template on your pages, because that is not part of the taxonomy project, allowing you to use your own rules.

    If you want to appeal this community decision, it is advisable that you wait for a length of time, possibly half a year or more. You must show your intentions to cooperate with the community, and to cease activities deemed unproductive. It is up to wiki to decide if your appeal may be granted, if you can reasonably argue you won't repeat behaviour you have been warned about previously.

    This behaviour includes, but is not limited to:

    • Edit warring.
    • Point scoring additions in the taxonomy project and wilfully ignoring taxon descriptions.
    • Wrongly describing taxa and holding onto creature classifications largely agreed to be wrong.
    • Being unclear about the ideas you want to impose on the project.
    • Classifying creatures without permission.
    • Not familiarising yourself with updates to the taxonomy guidelines.
    • Making numerous unjustified changes, before letting other users know what your reasons were.

    If you want to regain trust with the community, there is plenty of activities you can engage with, such as editing the main namespace (glitches page needs a lot of work, and many pages still have irrelevant trivia) or entering the fiction universe. We will also soon being doing an overhaul to our navboxes, if you are interested in helping. If so, please ensure you are familiar with the rules, and stay up to date with announcements.

      Loading editor
    • Wormulon wrote: You was asked to modify or move a creation with an incorrect taxon classification (one of yours), which you have failed to do despite there being objective reasons to change it.

      I have deleted it now, along with most other problematic creations, and my will to make a new creature for the foreseeable future.

      Wormulon wrote:

      • Point scoring additions in the taxonomy project and wilfully ignoring taxon descriptions.

      If you mean creatures, they are gone.

      Wormulon wrote:

      • Wrongly describing taxa and holding onto creature classifications largely agreed to be wrong.

      I have moved past that.

      Wormulon wrote:

      • Being unclear about the ideas you want to impose on the project.

      Everyone is unclear in how they present there ideas, at least from what I see.

      Wormulon wrote:

      • Classifying creatures without permission.

      That was almost 2 seasons ago.

        Loading editor
    • The reason I listed some of the older points is to ensure you have a clear understanding of what activities you need to convince us you won't repeat again, should you ever appeal.

      Your point that "Everyone is unclear in how they present there ideas, at least from what I see." simply isn't true. Reclassification strategies like type creatures and new rules were discussed and written as new guidelines. But when you try to do big classification overhauls no-one is clear about what you intend, and you end up defending your ideas when challenged. Some of your activity of late has obstructed accepted classification overhauls, which you was warned about.

        Loading editor
    • Wormulon wrote: Some of your activity of late has obstructed accepted classification overhauls.

      What activity?

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Theropods are bipeds unless the taxon allows otherwise, which does not apply to the family you placed Elephasaurus in. Further, Corsetidae is meant for theropods with thorns, not any animal with a few spikes on the tail. Could you please either remodel Elephasaurus to a thorny biped, change its description to describe it as a biped and place it in a different family, or move it to Macraucheniidae?

      Loading editor
    • View all 13 replies
    • Yes I do.

        Loading editor
    • Opdagon wrote: Yes I do.

      Then tell me what it is.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Since your return to SporeWiki, the community has decided some of your editing conduct is unconstructive and that some changes you've made have derailed certain member's contributions. You have not broken any rules and you have avoided edit warring, so you do not risk a wiki-block. But these are serious problems presented by the community, and I am warning that you will be removed from the Taxonomy Project if you don't improve ASAP.

    Activity the community have deemed unconstructive since your return:

    1. Making changes to taxa without concluding a discussion with an agreement.
    2. Moving taxa under construction by another user.
    3. Cluttering taxon pages by adding clades when there are not enough taxa inside to justify it.
    4. Reverting edits made to taxons in the duration of your block.

    These are not constructive edits, because they slow the resolution of the disagreement and cause more edits to fix. I can see why certain members feel like their ability to contribute is being derailed when their edits have being undone, or are changed before they are able to complete a taxon page. I hope you can understand that all of this looks needlessly combative, which is discouraged on the taxonomy project rules.
    I don't want you to be removed from the taxonomy project, so I'm going to suggest the following improvements to avoid conflicts of interest in the future:

    You should seek conflict resolution. If you find your edits (or someone-else's) are causing disagreement with someone, stop everything you are doing and resolve the dispute first. I'm not here to say who is right or wrong, but you should reach an agreement with the other user before returning to edit any negotiated changes. This applies especially to (1) and (4), but also the rest. As for (2), if you see someone making a taxon, don't just repurpose it without talking to the creator first, and especially if the page features a construction template. This means the user has yet to finish it. As for (3), these edits seem pointless to me, but if you think these changes are justified, debate the community about it first.

    Thanks for your time.

      Loading editor
    • View all 5 replies
    • Who are these users, and what clades lacked enough taxa to justify them?

        Loading editor
    • I'm not here to dwell on past arguments between you and other users, who I'm not going to mention. And I'm not here to pick sides on who was right or wrong about the taxon disagreements. Frankly I don't have enough interest in the project to care.

      It doesn't matter who these users are, conflict resolution is a universal and we expect you to apply it in the future. The point of this discussion is about making your editing more constructive, so the community doesn't decide to remove you from the taxonomy project. That is up to them, not me. Is there anything about these suggestions you want me to clarify?

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Your hag has ant-like mandibles, not hagfish-like jaws. Are you certain you are classifying it correctly?

      Loading editor
    • View all 7 replies
    • It would be better to have a leggy family for each type of fish. A stingray, a seahorse, and an angler fish are all completely different from one another and should not have versions of themselves with limbs lumped together.

        Loading editor
    • OK. You make that fix.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Hi, Opdagon! So, since your Coleopter has arthropod and fish features, I think it should be moved to Lobopodia. Do you agree?

      Loading editor
  • Once again you are carrying out your dispute in the edit history rather than settling it with Dorite.

    It has already made clear to you have this is an edit war. Dorite has also made it clear that your creature must be approved on the thread. Continued edit warring will promptly get you blocked without further warning, for a time set by admin discretion.

    I don't agree with Dorite's standards for semi-realistic creatures, but everyone should follow the standards set by the coordinator (which is wholly up to Dorite). Your involvement with the type species project is optional after-all.

      Loading editor
  • Like I have mentioned in the past, it is best practice to take disagreements you have with other contributors to the talk pages instead of page itself. You have at least continued the debate on various threads which commendable, but this is what you should be doing prior to changing the page.

    Here's some recent examples:

    1 - Here you kept adding unrealistic examples alongside Disgustedorite's realistic example of a type species in Spinosauridae. It is true that your creature was undone but it was done with a strong justification, that being the Humpry creature is what we are aiming for, with type species. This forced Disgustedorite to undo your edit once more.
    2 - You repeat the same mistake.
    3 - You removed a wastebasket template without justification.
    4 - You classified a page without getting an active user's permission.

    I firmly believe that in your mind, you are contributing to the project. You keep repeating these mistakes, which leads me to conclude that you are unfamiliar with the ideas being advanced by other contributors. This at least includes:

    • The purpose of the wastebasket template.
    • The idea behind type species.
    • The policy that has recently been emphasised that states permission should be granted from active users to reclassify their taxons.
    • My warning to not start edit conflicts, this has also been recently emphasised.

    I recommend that you talk to users who's edits you are unsatisfied with *before* undoing their edits. You should also familiarise yourself with current developments, by asking people what justified their edits if you don't understand their rationale, or if you think they are unjustified (they may be right, or you may be right). You must also keep up to date with the taxonomy guidelines.

    I don't want to get at you, but the way you are editing isn't very efficient or constructive at the movement. It would be better for you and everyone-else involved if you engaged more with other members of the community.

      Loading editor
    • View all 10 replies
    • That sounds like major error to me.

      But I haven't classified anything for years, so I'm not the best person to discuss this with.

        Loading editor
    • Well, that pretty much describes the Gaskhan

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Sea snakes are SNAKES which are REPTILES. Look it up.

      Loading editor
    • Also, stop removing fictional taxon templates. THEY ARE THERE FOR A REASON.

        Loading editor
    • Disgustedorite wrote: Also, stop removing fictional taxon templates. THEY ARE THERE FOR A REASON.

      A reason that doesn't apply to all those taxons

        Loading editor
    • Opdagon wrote:

      Disgustedorite wrote: Also, stop removing fictional taxon templates. THEY ARE THERE FOR A REASON.

      A reason that doesn't apply to all those taxons

      Read the taxonomy guidelines. Real-world taxa take priority over fake ones, so hagfish can ONLY be put in REAL taxa named by REAL biologists.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • I've made a custom taxonomy template for people who would like to keep their taxonomy separate from the wiki's:

    {{Custom Taxonomy
    |domain=
    |kingdom=
    |phylum=
    |class=
    |order=
    |family=
    |genus=
    |species=
    }}
    
      Loading editor
  • It has come to my attention that your behaviour in the taxonomy project has been unconstructive, and even combative. If you cannot cooperate with other users in the taxonomy project without causing conflict in the project, you may be sanctioned with a block.

    I see you have been having a long dispute with Dinoman972, particularly concerning the Therapoda and Therizinosauridae taxons. In the mean time, you have been making big reclassifications to these taxons, which have since been undone (and changed back again by you) more than a couple of times. This is an edit war in my books, but the reason I'm messaging you is because you should not have made such changes without the dispute being resolved and agreed upon first, regardless of who's in the right and who's in the wrong.

    Furthermore you have claimed Creature:Thapointus is a personal attack, a claim which seems to be unfounded, merely on the basis that the article is claimed to have therapod features. Then, it appears you made Creature:Thapointi emphasising non-therapod features. All I can guess is that you added this creature to make a point. This is needlessly combative and we do not regard this behaviour constructive as far as the Taxonomy project is concerned. I ask that you repurpose the content of the article and remove any links to the taxonomy project, or I will delete it.

      Loading editor
    • Why have you not contacted digustedorite about making thapointus?

        Loading editor
    • If you believe that Digustedorite created the page as a personal attack, you should complain through the proper channels (reporting to an admin) and present evidence to give substance to your claim. I do not currently see it founded in anything.

        Loading editor
    • Since I have checked the Thapointus page anyway, I can see that it was indeed there to make a point about the dispute on Therizinosauridae taxon. I have asked Digustedorite to remove details which may have upset you. Please inform and admin if you think you are being attacked personally in any way, and this could have been resolved more simply.

      As I have told all involved, it is most constructive to resolve disputes and propose bold changes by the talk page before taking action on the taxonomy project (by enacting them or making pages for a point) or anything-else. Especially when there's multiple users involved at the same time.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.