The edit was described as: "cleanup to make more neutral, sound more fluid prose-wise." I agree that it's more fluid, I like the brevity, but I don't think we really are neutral on the issue of whether spoiler warnings should frequently be used. The trend of the article, and discussion, for quite a while has suggested that we're generally against spoiler warnings except in unusual cases (which we've completely failed to deliniate) where their necessity can be demonstrated. Anyway, I don't want to go crazy over this, so maybe a third party can again strike a compromise between these versions.zadignose 00:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
LS Land Issue 28 Fairy 14
I disagree with the opening post's statement that the improper removal of spoiler tags is a side-issue. As long as we have people claiming 'silent consensus' using the lack of spoiler tags as 'proof', it will continue to be relevant.--Nydas(Talk) 07:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wow. Uhmmm, in no particular order... (1) It is perfectly legal in the United States to display images of illicit drugs, although obviously it raises the question of where the images came from. (2) When I say, and link, Wikipedia is not censored, I am referring to the subpolicy-or-whatever of that name, which explicitly acknowledges the fact that wikipedia is censored (or editorially overseen, or what-you-will) for issues around libel, spurious content, and pointlessly offensive graphics. Arguably, the policy is badly named. It might be more appropriate to call it: "Wikipedia: Read at your own risk!" But that is the name of the policy. I am not arguing that there is no censhorship on wikipedia. (3) I would argue, though, that wikipedia has a fairly unique role and opportunity to play in providing a diverse ("encyclopedic") range of information in a direct way, largely unfettered by the social sensitivities of one group or another. There are many websites that actively pursue a policy of editing content for one or another POV; there are very few that strive to do what we are doing.
Evolution after gene duplication has been a fundamental issue in evolutionary biology chiefly because of its direct link to the generation of novel functions and adaptations [14-16]. The opportunity for generating novel functions is, however, often balanced with the effects such duplications have on gene dosage [17-20]. The photosynthesis environment changed mainly as a result of the emergence of flowering plants [21], and as the open sunny ground transformed into the closed shadowy canopy. For this reason, the biodiversity of other vascular plants largely decreased, and some lineages underwent extinction [22-24]. Remarkably, rather than the result of being adept at holding on in the face of angiosperm domination, the leptosporangiate ferns may have the ability to capitalize upon it [25]. The underlying molecular functioning of this ability remains a mystery for evolutionary biologists, and the present study sheds some light on it. The colonization by these species of canopies angiosperm-dominated light environments sparks the idea that such extraordinary diversification may have been fuelled by functional innovation following psbA duplication. To disclose this obscurity, we performed a comprehensive analyze of the action of natural selection following the duplication in psbA .
2ff7e9595c
Comments