What's wrong with my aquarium? * see pictures*

[Aeonflame]

Why is wikipedia not a good source of information if said information is cited, and can be followed to the published work? Also, the burden of proof lies with you, yet you fail to provide it.

[BDpups]

Why is wikipedia not a good source of information if said information is cited, and can be followed to the published work? Also, the burden of proof lies with you, yet you fail to provide it.

Wikipedia is not a good source. I don't know anyone who thinks it is. The burden of proof lies on you as well. Yet, you have failed to provide it was well.

[Aeonflame]

By all means
Here is just one study done into the correlation of diatomaceous algae, and silicates as a regulating nutrient. It is from a peer reviewed journal via the University of Bergen, Norway.

http://www.int-res.com/articles/meps/83/m083p281.pdf

Also, I clearly stated that there is nothing wrong with using cited research from wikipedia as long as it can be followed to the published work. Anyone who doesn't think this is true, is frankly, incorrect.

[Slaphppy7]

I've picked up a blip on TrollDar, heading S/SW at thirty knots....

[RiversGirl]

By all means
Here is just one study done into the correlation of diatomaceous algae, and silicates as a regulating nutrient. It is from a peer reviewed journal via the University of Bergen, Norway.

http://www.int-res.com/articles/meps/83/m083p281.pdf

I am looking forward to reading this article.

[BDpups]

Anyone who doesn't think this true, is frankly, incorrect.

That has been discounted in other articles. So I'm standing by my feelings about Wikipedia. And anyone who thinks it is a reliable source for any information, is terribly mistaken.

Sorry for all the "drama" I'm getting out of this thread. You guys have your opinions on this. As outdated as they may be.

[Aeonflame]

What has been discounted? Using peer reviewed literature?

[Rocksor]

That has been discounted in other articles. So I'm standing by my feelings about Wikipedia. And anyone who thinks it is a reliable source for any information, is terribly mistaken.

Sorry for all the "drama" I'm getting out of this thread. You guys have your opinions on this. As outdated as they may be.

supply the link to other articles that discounts Aeon's link.

[Richard Peche]

This is astonishing......

Perhaps you should then read the various scholar and university level papers on the subject. Provide a thesis and disprove what is accepted knowledge and practice. When that paper is then accepted by a suitable research facility you can start chirping. Statements such as "there is lots of information to support this
... but I'm not digging to support this" are not valid when a technical discussion is happening.

Make a statement, back it up. This is elementary. If you don't feel that you need to do so then by all means don't be offended and confrontational when it is disputed.

Yes Wikipedia is editable by anyone. However, it is fairly reliable in terms of the scientific topics because of the references that need to be made. No, I would not submit it as a suitable source when providing university level papers. We're not doing that here.

Further, not once did I say that light is not a contributing factor. You stated clearly that silicates do not affect diatoms. I disproved that statement. Perhaps you should read your post and mine again. Debating is clearly a skill you need to develop.

Be polite, be clear and be concise as possible.

Not coming back to the thread? Well, I'm not rising to that bait.

My sincere apologies to the beginner who started this thread as it has gone way off topic

For future reference, WELCOME to the AC. There are many many members here who will help you willingly and give you great information.

Slaphppy7, Boundava, Cliff, Aeonflame are just a few of these. (not going to try list everyone obviously)

[Richard Peche]

I've picked up a blip on TrollDar, heading S/SW at thirty knots....

So very true.