Hi Zadoralpes.
Please be reasonable, you cannot fill 1/4 of an article about a specific tree with info about the general chemistry of one of its components, be it the most useful one. You are copying from textbooks, sometimes down to the last line (like "see next page"), that's not admissible. Wikipedia articles have their own logic. An encyclopedia has little in common with a textbook. First and foremost, it must serve a NON-SPECIALIST READER. That means: GOOD SEPARATION INTO CHAPTERS AND PARAGRAPHS, not a mix of - in this case - habitat + chemistry + medical use + food + industry, jumping from Malay. to Indian to Chinese to Western and back... all well-mixed and served as a stew.
You have added good information to a stub, making it look much richer and more useful, now let others adapt it to the general needs. Since this plant is originally from S Europe and SW Asia, notS Asia, there should be at least a bit of info about occurrence & use in those areas. That's actually why I had looked it up for! So it's not theoretical, I NEED THAT FOR MY STUDY & WORK!
Getting into a "war" of undoing somebody else's edits is not very mature, nor useful, and not even in accordance with the Wik. regulations.
Thank you. Arminden ( talk) 00:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Arminden
A few minutes later :-)
I see you're making an even bigger mess of it. I hope it's because you're in the middle of editing and you'll clean it up in the end. Please make sure that's the case. Good luck & thanks, Arminden ( talk) 00:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Arminden
Zadoralpes, hello. I highly appreciate the work you have done with
Quercus infectoria in terms of collecting material and enriching the stub to become a substantial article.
Regarding the language, structure, and Wikipedia links, please do trust me on having a good additional contribution: I know what I'm doing, I'm good at it. It is of little help to collect all that excellent information and then to "package" it in a way few would understand, or have the patience to read through. It also helps in eliminating the numerous repetitions I found there, which are not welcome on Wikipedia. So please, should you continue working on the article, do not revert my formal edits again without any good reason. That serves your work more than anything else. Thank you!
Apart from that, there are Wikipedia users interested in the Aleppo oak mainly, if not strictly, as a tree growing in the landscape they are familiar with, and not in its medicinal uses. For instance: a less scientific DESCRIPTION of the tree compared to other trees living in the same habitat; where does it occur (countries, regions); its place in the ecology of the region; how did it make it from the E Med to S Asia; etymology of the different names. For such information we need some space, which does not need to compete with your topics of interest. If you have more on this type of topic, maybe on the introduction of Q.E. to Malaysia, please do introduce it; if not, please help to accommodate such additions from other editors in terms of space and structure. Thank you again! With utmost respect for your work,
Arminden (
talk)
07:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)Arminden
Hi Zadoralpes.
Please be reasonable, you cannot fill 1/4 of an article about a specific tree with info about the general chemistry of one of its components, be it the most useful one. You are copying from textbooks, sometimes down to the last line (like "see next page"), that's not admissible. Wikipedia articles have their own logic. An encyclopedia has little in common with a textbook. First and foremost, it must serve a NON-SPECIALIST READER. That means: GOOD SEPARATION INTO CHAPTERS AND PARAGRAPHS, not a mix of - in this case - habitat + chemistry + medical use + food + industry, jumping from Malay. to Indian to Chinese to Western and back... all well-mixed and served as a stew.
You have added good information to a stub, making it look much richer and more useful, now let others adapt it to the general needs. Since this plant is originally from S Europe and SW Asia, notS Asia, there should be at least a bit of info about occurrence & use in those areas. That's actually why I had looked it up for! So it's not theoretical, I NEED THAT FOR MY STUDY & WORK!
Getting into a "war" of undoing somebody else's edits is not very mature, nor useful, and not even in accordance with the Wik. regulations.
Thank you. Arminden ( talk) 00:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Arminden
A few minutes later :-)
I see you're making an even bigger mess of it. I hope it's because you're in the middle of editing and you'll clean it up in the end. Please make sure that's the case. Good luck & thanks, Arminden ( talk) 00:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Arminden
Zadoralpes, hello. I highly appreciate the work you have done with
Quercus infectoria in terms of collecting material and enriching the stub to become a substantial article.
Regarding the language, structure, and Wikipedia links, please do trust me on having a good additional contribution: I know what I'm doing, I'm good at it. It is of little help to collect all that excellent information and then to "package" it in a way few would understand, or have the patience to read through. It also helps in eliminating the numerous repetitions I found there, which are not welcome on Wikipedia. So please, should you continue working on the article, do not revert my formal edits again without any good reason. That serves your work more than anything else. Thank you!
Apart from that, there are Wikipedia users interested in the Aleppo oak mainly, if not strictly, as a tree growing in the landscape they are familiar with, and not in its medicinal uses. For instance: a less scientific DESCRIPTION of the tree compared to other trees living in the same habitat; where does it occur (countries, regions); its place in the ecology of the region; how did it make it from the E Med to S Asia; etymology of the different names. For such information we need some space, which does not need to compete with your topics of interest. If you have more on this type of topic, maybe on the introduction of Q.E. to Malaysia, please do introduce it; if not, please help to accommodate such additions from other editors in terms of space and structure. Thank you again! With utmost respect for your work,
Arminden (
talk)
07:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)Arminden