User talk:Eeeasterbunny

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Eeeasterbunny, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Trout. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Drmies (talk) 15:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

I reccomend that you please stop adding minor ranks to these articles. These edits may not be desirable according Wikipedia guidelines. There is currently a discussion regarding these edits at WikiProject Biology - at this link - Related edits. Please join this discussion, and see what the consensus might be before proceeding with more edits. Thanks for your cooperation, and thanks for your contributions. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 17:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please join the discussion. Chrisrus (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. Smartse (talk) 21:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Continuation of WP:BIOLOGY discussion

Because this seems to no longer be a WP:BIOLOGY issue, I'd rather not clog up that talk page with further discussion of this thread. With all due respect, your only arguments in that discussion for including the minor ranks up to this point were that it was useful for your class. You should have understood from the above that a new consensus could emerge for certain ranks and certain articles; I'm not whole-sale opposed to including minor ranks, especially where they make sense. You didn't argue for your position or try to persuade anyone until recently and kept on editing to include these ranks (or reinstate them). This can often be interpreted as disruptive editing. The comments at that discussion from you and Smartse have now convinced me that at least on the marsupial articles, the infraclass is useful; I didn't think to check other marsupial articles to compare (thanks for that, Smartse). This is what should have happened: You edit boldly, someone leaves a note on your talk page, you realize this discussion includes links to prior consensus about the kind of edit you were making, then you persuade others that the consensus might be too rigorous in some of the cases you were editing. That's part of the bold, revert, discuss cycle. And finally, a note on your comments about me. First you suggest that I hold an obvious personal vendetta against you and then belittle me (unintentionally, I believe) by comparing ages and professional experience (which is irrelevant if we're all here really to expand and improve this encyclopedia). I will not return the sentiment and only mention that perhaps what we were trying to say with that protracted discussion is that you're relatively new to Wikipedia and while yes, you have professional experience, you may not be completely aware of the prior discussions or rationale that lead to the consensus. That's what I was trying to explain to you when instead of engaging in a discussion you would rather express annoyance at my reversions of your edits. That's how it works, though; I reverted your edits that I saw as non-compliant with consensus on the matter. Please stick to the issue at hand and treat my background as irrelevant. It would also be nice if you acknowledge I was one of many people who reverted your edits and that this is not a personal vendetta. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 01:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)