User talk:Codman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome!

Hello, Codman, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, you can post to the help desk or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! 

Contents

[edit] Introduced species

Don't you think it's going a little overboard to say that all introduced species have impacts? Conventional wisdon still goes with the rule of 10s. Of course, there's the "Heisenberg-style" impacts, but if you want to speak about ecologically measurable impacts, the vast majority of species have not been demonstrated to have any ecological impact. Since the vast majority of introductions fail, how can you reasonably say that all' introductions have impacts?

You also speak about it not being "fair" to introduce species. "Fairness" is an ethically-based opinion, not a factual statement, and thus is not really acceptable. See WP:NPOV. Guettarda 12:25, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More on Introduced species

Within the context of Australian freshwater fish, it is entirely reasonable to state that all introductions have had deleterious effects, so long as you define introduction as being one in which the fish survived and bred. I have been involved in the Freshwater fish scene in Australia for a long time and I cannot think of a single introduction (as defined above) that has not caused problems. Off the top of my head, problem introduced fish species in Australia include carp, roach, tench, goldfish, gambusia, trout, redfin (English perch), tilapia, weather loach, convict cichlid and no doubt many others I can't think of just now. Perhaps you might like to suggest one of your non-problematic species. BTW, what is your "rule of tens"? --Nick Thorne 02:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

iirc - Rule of 10's - less than one in ten introduced species becomes established, less than one in ten established species becomes naturalised, and less than one in ten naturalised species has enough of an impact that it can be considered "invasive". It's just a rule of thumb (and I may have either added or missed a level) but it's widely refered to in the invasive species literature. As for non-problematic introduced species, iirc even rabbits had to be introduced several times before they "caught on" - consequently, failed introductions are pretty much by definition non-problematic, and since the vast majority of introductions fail, the vast majority of introduced species are non-problematic. Saying otherwise is inaccurate. Which is not to minimise the impact of invasive species. Is Zea mays a problem in Australia outside of cultivated areas - a problem which relates to its being a non-native, a problem which would be less true if it were a native species? Guettarda 17:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reply from Codman

I really don't know how to use this messaging/discussion feature. I hope this is the right way to reply to these messages.

(And hi Nick, it's Simon here!)

First, non-Australian members should understand where I am coming from. The situation with a lot of Australia's unique flora and fauna is a very sad thanks to introduced species. So it is a very sensitive topic with me, and I get set off when I see people trying to defend the introduction of exotic species.

Furthermore, my arguments against the introduction of exotic organisms are very sound, and have a lot of support in various scientific and naturalist literature. My points about the impacts of introduced species on land masses with long isolated, highly endemic and unique flora and fauna - like Australia - is very valid.

I do admit maybe I was a bit hasty and poorly-phrased in a couple of the things I have said.

The point on introduced species that establish themselves is obvious, but perhaps should be explicitly stated. Yes, introduced species who fail to form self-sustaining populations in the country of introduction are unlikely to have impacts. Yes, obviously I am referring to introduced species whose introductions are "successful" and establish breeding populations.

The "there's no proof of negative impacts" arguments DO NOT impress me. Anyone who has dabbled in it will know that ecology, as the study of variable, large scale natural systems, is nightmarishly complicated. It is very difficult to prove anything in ecological studies of natural systems due to sampling and experimental design issues, and the sheer scale, manpower and funding some studies would need to prove some of these things; said funding of course rarely appears and so these questions remained unanswered. Also, many introduced species were introduced in the 1800s when our understanding of natural systems and the impacts of exotic species was abysmal. Further, due to cultural cringe in countries like Australia, people didn't give a stuff about endemic species and didn't bother documenting them or the impacts introductions had on them. I put up withclaims of no proof like the above all the time in Australia with the rather selfish introduced Trout lobby. This is rubbish. The fact that the majority of impacts occurred rather quickly after the introduction of Trout, and that they were not documented by culturally cringing settlers trying to remake Australia in England's image, does not mean these impacts did not happen! A thorough examination of what historical, anecdotal and circumstantial evidence exists, plus biological evidence on habitat preferences, breeding strategies, temperature tolerances etc of upland native fish reveals clearly the dramatic negative impacts introduced Trout have had in Australia.

RE use of the word "fair" - noted. Will change it.

All in all, perhaps it would be more accurate to say something like "All introduced species that establish themselves have negative impacts on endemic species. In countries with long isolated, highly endemic and unique flora and fauna, many of the introduced species that establish themselves have very serious negative impacts."

Your thoughts?

To finish I'd like to make the point that I not only come from a country whose unique flora and fauna is a mess due to introduced species, but as an naturalist and ecologist I have done a lot of reading on the issue, and the conclusion I have drawn from my readings and study is that we really do risk the biodiversity of the world if humans continue to irresponsibly introduce exotic species.


Simon

  • The first problem has to do with the definition of "introduction". Introduction is not limited to species that are able to reproduce. It is not even limited to species that survive. Cultivated species are "introductions". Those who survive after abandonment are termed "persistent". Those who reproduce successfully are terms "naturalised". You can't re-define terms - that amounts to "original research" (see WP:NOR)
  • As for "defending introduction" - I don't know where you get that impression. Wikipedia articles should neither defend nor condemn introduction.
  • You say "my arguments against the introduction of exotic organisms are very sound, and have a lot of support in various scientific and naturalist literature" - if so, you need to cite these sources.
  • "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" - Wikipedia articles cannot advocate a single point of view. It's our job to document what's out there, and document the various points of view.
  • "The "there's no proof of negative impacts" arguments DO NOT impress me." I have no idea what to make of your rant. The vast majority of introductions fail. So, these species have no ecological impact. That is true of even Australia. Most of the introductions that do succeed have not been documented to have any ecological impact. To say that: "All introduced species that establish themselves have negative impacts on endemic species" is false. Introduced species can establish in areas which have no endemic species (not every region has the same level of endemicity as Australia), or they may be spatially, temporally, or trophically disjunct enough from endemics that they have (effectively) no impact on one-another. Guettarda 17:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Further reply

"The first problem has to do with the definition of "introduction". Introduction is not limited to species that are able to reproduce. It is not even limited to species that survive. Cultivated species are "introductions". Those who survive after abandonment are termed "persistent". Those who reproduce successfully are terms "naturalised". You can't re-define terms - that amounts to "original research" (see WP:NOR)"

Seems a semantic argument to me. Terminology seems to be a constant issue in the debate on introduced species. If you can suggest better terminology, good. I agree agricultural crop and animal species are a difficult issue. I try and avoid this particular one. There's no point arguing against the agricultural species on which we depend. In an ideal world though, we would accept that we have to import some agricultural species, but take it no further. Just because we import some crop and animal species for sustenance doesn't mean we then have to import a variety exotic crap for frivolous reasons.

It's also noteworth that with a few exceptions crop and animal species DO NOT tend to form feral populations, so that reduces the issue somewhat. (Though in Australia, olives, sunflowers, pigs and goats are agricultural species that have formed feral populations and are causing problems.)

"As for "defending introduction" - I don't know where you get that impression. Wikipedia articles should neither defend nor condemn introduction."

If Wikipedia articles are meant to be objective, then this article should point out that overall human introductions of exotic species are very harmful and have serious negative impacts. I think the current article is slightly biased in favour of this reckless human activity.

"You say "my arguments against the introduction of exotic organisms are very sound, and have a lot of support in various scientific and naturalist literature" - if so, you need to cite these sources. "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" - Wikipedia articles cannot advocate a single point of view. It's our job to document what's out there, and document the various points of view."

See comments above. Honestly, I don't have time in the near future to track these references down. Relevant references would include books by Tim Flannerey such as "The Future Eaters" and his more recent work (title not remebered) on extinct species, Tim Low's book "Feral Future" and a lot of species specific scientific papers. Also the famous Paramecium experiments by whoever (can't remember) showing that two species occupying similar niches and using the same resources cannot co-exists over the long term.

""The "there's no proof of negative impacts" arguments DO NOT impress me." I have no idea what to make of your rant. The vast majority of introductions fail. So, these species have no ecological impact."

As I said, this is mere semantics. We already agreed I'm only referring to species that establish, and I have explicitly stated this now.

"That is true of even Australia. Most of the introductions that do succeed have not been documented to have any ecological impact. To say that: "All introduced species that establish themselves have negative impacts on endemic species" is false. Introduced species can establish in areas which have no endemic species (not every region has the same level of endemicity as Australia), or they may be spatially, temporally, or trophically disjunct enough from endemics that they have (effectively) no impact on one-another. Guettarda 17:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC)"

Come on now, every single exotic species that establishes diverts resources from endemic species. That is an impact, and obviously a negative one.

Yes, impacts may be low for some introduced species due to the reasons you list above, but the impacts are still there.

And of course, for many introduced species, particularly in Australia, impacts are disastrous.

Re-read what I have to say on the evolution of biodiversity. Humans introducing exotic species is a stupid and dangerous thing that threatens biodiversity and I cannot tolerate an ambivalent article on it.

As I said, getting hard scientific evidence of the negative impacts of introduced species is very difficult. Due to the difficulties and lack of funding, manpower etc a lot of this hard scientific evidence will never be gained. However, there's ample anecdotal evidence of negative impacts and in the absence of hard scientifc evidence, we should take heed of it.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Codman"

Semantic arguments? Are you saying that an encyclopaedia should ignore precise definitions? There are established definitions for these terms in the ecological literature. Unless you have some other technical definitions of terms, redefining terms amounts to original research. I'm sorry that you don't seem to be willing to understand the difference. I hope you do not actually work in ecology. Unsubstantiated hand waving hurts the credibility of ecology. The right wing quite effectively undercuts the science of ecology by painting us as handwaving hippies. In the US the environmental battle has already been lost because we lost control of the framing of the debate. Refusing to be constrained by little things by facts is the favourite technique of the opposition. It only strengthens their hand when people on this side of the debate adopt their techniques. Guettarda 02:44, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Well aren't you charming mate? I do work in ecology; I don't write encyclopedias or talk crap for a living. Bottom line is you are raving on about lack of impacts from introduced/invasive species, I see it all the time, and your arguments are not valid on the continent from which I hail. Time to shelve your arrogance sunshine.

[edit] Rule of tens

To Guettarda

The above stated rule of tens may well be a rule of thumb that is applicable in many situations, but its applicability to Australian freshwater ecosystems, especially WRT fish I would seriously question. The reality that we have to deal with here is that our freshwater fish species are highly endemic and are of low diversity. To give you an idea of what I am talking about, in the entire Australian continent, which is about the same size as the contiguous United States there are only about 280 freshwater species. There are lakes in Africa that on their own contain more species than we have in an entire continent.

Our ecology has been moulded by millions of years of isolation and the continent is ancient and eroded and enormous tracts are arid or desert. Our river systems are highly variable, typically "running dry, or ten feet high". The net result has been that the environment itself has been the enemy of many of our fish and so there has not been a full adaption to expoit every possible way of making a living. this means that the introduction of trout, for example. into the higher (in Australian terms) areas of south east Australia has been devastating to many fish species because the original top of food chain predators are almost exclusively ambush predators. Other fish have not adapted survival strategies suitable for protection from an freely swimming active hunter like the trout.


Time and time again in the 200 years or so of European colonisation of this wide land we have released plants and animals into the environment only to cause utter havoc.

Even agricultural animals like cattle, sheep, pigs, goats and horses, not to mention domestic escapees like cats and dogs have cause untold and probably permanent damage to the biodiversity of our country.

So please don't try and tell us, who actually live and work here and who spend out time in the environment here, that we do not know what we are talking about when we discuss the adverse effects of introduced species in this country. I have seen the damage with my own eyes. I have discussed it with leading Australian experts on the environment generally and in fish biology and freshwater ecology in particular. I have read countless papers, publications and books describing the damage that has been done here. Even Steve Irwin knows the dangers of introducing exotic species to this country. Why can't you get it?

Why can't I get what? The name of the article is Introduced species, not Introduced freshwater Australian fish. I am well aware of the potential impact of invasive exotics. But that is not the subject of this article. This is not an article about exotic species in Australia. Feel free to write such an article - if you do, please collaborate with User:Petaholmes. Nonetheless, Wikipedia articles are not primary literature - they have to be based on published information (see WP:NOR).
"I have read countless papers, publications and books describing the damage that has been done here". That was not my question. I never questioned the impact of exotic species. Instead of insulting me, you should read my comments. Please address the points I raised, rather than attacking arguments that I didn't make. Guettarda 02:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Codman's view

Guettarda

What Nick has said about Australian freshwater fish (my passion and area of specialisation too) can easily be scaled up to the whole of Australian fauna and flora. In fact, it can be scaled up to fauna and flora of any landmass that has been highly isolated and has highly specialised and endemic faunas.

Sticking with Australia, isn't a continent the size of Australia, and the fauna of Australia, a significant enough component of total world landmass and total world fauna for a generalised claim of overall lack of impacts NOT to apply?

Looking at the world's landmasses with highly isolated, endemic faunas (Australia, New Zealand, Galapogos Islands, Madagascar, Hawaii) and the sheer devastation introduced species have caused in on these landmasses, I don't anyone is in a position to make generalised claims about lack of impacts from introduced species, and I don't think these claims are accurate.

In direct response to you, I'll thank to keep personally offending comments to yourself. Any ecologist in Australia knows what I am saying about introduced species is spot on. I used the term "semantic" in the sense of arguments on intricacies of meaning that serve no useful purpose in the educational, definitional or any other sense. I think most of the recent discussion fits this unfortunate description. Bottom line is, humans introducing species is a dangerous game, it threatens global biodiversity, and there is enough environmental devestation outside of Europe and the US caused by introduced species for generalised claims of lack of impact or ambivalent "encyclopedia" articles to be clearly inappropriate.

cheers


Simon

[edit] Origin of the name of Canberra

With regards to your recent edits on the Canberra and History of Canberra pages, please refrain from personal attacks towards other editors. Also, if you intend to pursue alternative explanations for the name, you will need to provide more references than vague hand waving at unspecified old books. Finally, please sign your additions to talk pages with 4 tildas. Garglebutt / (talk) 05:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I was the person who was attacked; by someone who was clearly looking for any opportunity to "be offended" and make a fuss. "...old books." That's funny, because that's exactly what most references are - old books! And as you are probably aware, I actually did specify the titles of those books. They are well worth reading too if one has an interest in the history of the Canberra region. Codman 01:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Editing Style

Hi Codman, it is obvious you have a good deal of knowledge on various items of interest in the Canberra region. If I could make a couple of suggestions regarding your editing style which may make your changes more palatable to other editors and generate less conflict.

Some of your inputs, although presumably valid, are too emotive and opinionated in their style to be an encyclopedic reference. You often add key points that are not specifically related to the article itself but should instead be expanded in a separate article. An example of this is the poisoning of the Molongolo River from Captains Flat mine. After the comments that it occurred and the impact, more information on how it occurred and the issues with the mine owners are valid but more appropriate for the Captains Flat article. The problem with your current approach is that it dilutes the intent of the current article and wanders away from the topic at hand.

I see that you have a strong interest in ecology and environment but bear in mind that you are not the only person with views and knowledge in these areas and that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a platform for critique and reform. You have made comments to a number of editors, including on my talk page, that I personally considered to be an arrogant assumption on your part that your opinion should have more weight that others. I realise this was probably not your intent, but bear in mind that editors will have different opinions and some editors are simply looking to apply a consistent style to articles rather than comment on their content.

I hope you accept this feedback as it was intended; encouragement and guidance. Garglebutt / (talk) 00:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough.  :-) I am a passionate individual, especially when it comes to Australian flora, fauna and ecosystems, and willful destruction of them. And yes, I do have a passion for the history of the Canberra region, particularly the natural history aspects. Codman 10:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Howdy. Sorry but I am reverting your last edit to the Invasive Species article as I believe you have removed a valid point I made regarding humanity's self inflated role in the long term history of this planet. The main point of the paragraph is that changes will occur whether they are due to long term forces of nature, short term willful acts of neglegence or intent by humanity. Yes our impact is significant over a short period of time, but our impact is less than the circumstances behind the extinction of the dinosaurs (not getting into that argument!) or any of the multiple ice ages this planet has seen.
I am a generalist with regards to matters such as ecology so I take a broader view of actions and ramifications outside of the environment such as economic, political, social et cetera. My intent in toning down a number of contributors edits is to maintain WP:POV as much as possible as that is the easiest way to avoid editing wars. It is not enough to simply consider your opinion more relevant or accurate than others; you need to persuade through neutral argument to convince other stakeholders that your perspective is valid. The easiest way to achieve this to clarify ambiguous statements, expand on matters of fact (not opinion) and consider how to position an article such that those with differing opionions on the topic at hand can't dispute the information provided. It is worthwhile having a good read through WP:NOT as Wikipedia culture takes a bit of getting used to!
To pick on a particular point you made above; you make the comment that environmental destruction is willful but that is not always the case and adverse impacts are often unexpected side affects. I won't share an opinion on mining, but the miners at Captains Flat may be guilty of ineptitude, negligence or simply ignorance of the potential impact of their activities, but I seriously doubt they deliberately set out to poison the Molonglo and it is quite likely that the mining company no longer existed when the accidents occurred so suggesting they "got away with it" is probably also inaccurate.
I consider your contributions to be very valuable but you need to be mindful that your POV is not currently considered neutral by many editors. That is not a criticism of your contributions; rather simply an issue with the tone. Where you violently disagree with an edit it is often better to raise your concern on the talk page first to see what other contributors have to say before jumping in and reverting an edit. Garglebutt / (talk) 13:47, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
As an addendum, I notice an increasing number of the pages you are editing have now had the talkheader template added to their talk pages following your edits. I urge you to have a think about how your edits will be recieved by a broader audience to avoid future conflict (I've been there!). Garglebutt / (talk) 14:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] New article: Fish in Australia

Hi - you might be interested in a new article on Fish in Australia that has been cobbled together from various wikipdia articles. Regards--A Y Arktos 23:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

thanks for your Albury, New South Wales edit. Is there a source for the info about the flows in the Murray River at Albury before the Hume Dam - not because I have any qualms about the info but rather it gives the reader who wants more info somewhere to go.--A Y Arktos 21:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. A lot of info floating about on the original flow patterns of the Murray River and southern tributaries. A book called "The Murray" - a good compilation of research by a number of authors, and put out by the Murray-Darling Basin Commission in 1990 - has the info and I believe is one of the places where you can source a graph of pre-regulation verses regulated flows of the Murray River.

cheers


Simon

Hi - just to check I have the right one ... (1990) in Norman Mackay and David Eastburn (editors): The Murray. Canberra, Australia: Murray-Darling Basin Commission. ISBN 1875209050.  Found from National Library catalogue Regards --A Y Arktos 02:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Yep, that's it. It's an excellent book. Of course, some of the science in it is a bit dated now, but overall it's still an excellent and useful book. The MDBC has now released a companion edition called "The Darling" that I look forward to reading sometime too. Another thought - graphs of the original verses regulated flow regimes of the Murray River may be available on the MDBC website (www.mdbc.gov.au), which is pretty good. I am pretty passionate about MDBC rivers and their ecology, particularly as it relates to native freshwater fish, so I am happy to help with any queries you may have. Cheers, Codman 03:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Introduced species

I left the page because I had better things to do than argue with you. You won. If you want an inaccurate political polemic of a page, feel free. I have no idea why you chose to dig this up after 3 months.

As for whether your work is rigourous or not, I can only just by the emotive crap that you chose to fill that page with. I found your comment your argument about "not all introduced species" establish is not clever, and is in fact rather immature. It goes without saying that we are only discussing exotic species that establish to be rather strange, when you were the one who chose to redefine the term. I am only using the definition as is used in the invasive species literature, and as the page said before you chose to change it. If there's anything one would call immature...

And I stand by what I said. Ecology as a science is under attack from right wingers and industrialists. They are successful because people who appear to speak for ecology make ecology into little more than a political rant. Guettarda 02:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, whatever mate. Codman 02:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
That's hilarious, when it was you who felt strongly enough about it to dig up ancient history. Guettarda 02:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I only noticed your little dig today; that's why I responded to it today. Codman 02:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Just wanted to say hi, and appreciate your fish additions, including great pics. There are all too few species with the properly in-depth treatment that you've written! You might want to consider re-uploading your images to the commons, which is better-organized to make galleries of multiple images, and also makes them available to people writing in other languages (oftentimes I notice that they find good articles in English and translate them). Stan 14:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Stan. There's a few things in Wikipedia that I haven't worked out yet. Putting photos into commons, and putting up disambiguation pages are two examples ('Guyu' needs disambiguation between a Chinese solar period and a genus of Australian native fish). If you can advise on how to do either of these two things, that would be great. RE pictures, I'm hoping to put up a couple more nice Australian native fish pictures at some stage. Cheers, Codman 00:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Seconded. Your articles are excellent, and it's nice to see that you have a username. Gdr 14:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guyu

Hi Codman. You might be interested to know that I have created an article for the Bloomfield River Cod based on your comments on the Guyu page. Couldn't find much information but it is a start. Garglebutt / (talk) 21:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

If you have a look at the source for the Guyu page you will see that the link to the cod article is a special template. I don't think it is worthwhile creating a separate disambig page as I doubt many people know about this very rare genus of Percichthyidae.Garglebutt / (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Upland and lowland

Since upland (freshwater ecology) and lowland (freshwater ecology) have almost the same content, I think it would make sense to merge the articles so that improvements can be made in a single place (see windward and leeward, left and right for examples where a merge of opposites works well).

Could you suggest a name? Upland and lowland (freshwater ecology) would be straightforward, but maybe there's term of art (along the lines of "freshwater ecological zone" of "riverine ecological zone"). Gdr 15:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I merged the two pages into Upland and lowland (freshwater ecology) and added a couple of illustrations. Please check that I haven't made any errors in carrying out the merge. You'll see that links work properly from pages like Mountain Galaxias. Gdr 19:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Murray Cod

Hi Codman. We have been through this before. Making highly emotive and subjective remarks in article is not appropriate for wikipedia.

I don't disagree with any of the points you are making but I will continue to tone down emotive remarks and remove opinions as they have no place here.

If you have facts then cite them. Commenting on research then saying 'therefore we must' is not encylopedic, it is your (probably correct) opinion. Saying something is criminally inadequate is rubbish as otherwise where are the legal proceedings?

This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not an environmental rag. I may not know as much as you about cod, but I do know plenty about wikipedia so I will stay with what I know. I deliberately made this last statement bold as you did so in the article and on my talk page and I think it makes a point that bolding is generally not appropriate. Garglebutt / (talk) 03:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually I have a mild interest in cod and I don't appreciate your loftly position as though you are the world authority and noone else can have an opinion. However, my edits are not about cod but about your editing style. Your talk page is littered with issues raised by numerous editors so it isn't me; it's you. I keep an eye on a variety of articles and review edits to ensure they are consistent with an encyclopedia. If you don't like that then perhaps you need to reconsider whether you should be editing wikipedia as this is a collaborative project. Your strong opinions may be warranted, but putting them on wikipedia in strong emotive tones is not acceptable. Do you think you could get a paper published with so much opinion in it? Garglebutt / (talk) 22:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Invasive Species in Australia

I removed a section you added to Invasive Species in Australia it was far to emotive and NPOV, and practically propoganda against the WTO enforcement.

I believe in the environment, and think Australia should keep its high standards of quarantine despite trade pressure - but the entire section was to hard for me to salvage. I ahve saved it on teh Talk page.

If you can rewrite it, using sources for instances of events, like rallies, or quotes from politicians or scientists that could make it usable.--ZayZayEM 09:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Fauna of Australia edits

Please keep POV edits out of this article, the article is long and does a good job at what it was designed to do. Your additions on the megafanua push a POV and are unnecessary as the debate is discussed in the megafauna article. The problemnatic section on quarantine is not suitable for this article and is better discussed with a more neutral point of view in the invasive species article.--Peta 02:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The details of the Genyornis fingings were already mentioned on the page, you already added the links to the megafauna page yourself. The purpose of the fanua article is to present a summary, not to discuss everything related to fauna in Australia at length.--Peta 05:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Just make sure that since you are adding something that is obviously based on someones research that it correctly cited using the system that is being used in the article. Although something as specialised probably would be better in the Australian fish article.--Peta 03:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Unless its published it really shouln't be added, see WP:NOR.--Peta 03:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Because Wikipedia isn't supposed to report observations, did you read the original research page?--Peta 03:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

You still haven't demonstrated that your observations are supported by primary or secondary sources, and to do so would require quite a bit of text, so I think it's be better to describe them in the fish article. If I recall correctly the Wallace line is mentioned in the bit about origins of the fauna.--Peta 04:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems like it be relevant to Fish in Australia, which would benefit from some more details on biogeography for both freshwater and saltwater fish.--Peta 04:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Yep, that page needs some work. Will look at working on it in the medium term. Codman 04:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit]  ??

Rude entry deleted. Some people can't cope when the opinion of multiple relevant experts is against their favourite theory, which is basically the situation here.  :-)

[edit] Murray cod

Actually B is the highest rating before GA and FA (leaving aside A, which is a bit of an oddity). To get to GA or FA somebody has to to ask for it to be assessed for those classes. On the other hand the issue with this article is references, which despite what may be said in some places boils down to in-line references. There is no evidence that much more than 3 or 4 general references is useful. You need to concentrate on footnotes, which are created by inserting text between <ref> and </ref> using cite templates (see WP:CITET), especially for online refs. For witten refs you need only write <ref>Anderson, et al (1992), p15</ref>. Nowadays FA processes seem to require anywhere more than 30-50 footnotes.--Grahamec 04:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, <ref></ref> automatically generates numbers and puts the result at the bottom at {{reflist}} (or <references/>, but the former is preferred). You don't have to use the citation templates between <ref></ref>, but they are preferred for internet references. --Grahamec 12:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Larva

I think the specific word for fish larva is fry. Some people use "fry" for older larva, but I think in most cases, the two words are pretty much interchangeable. Cheers. --Melanochromis 12:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I'm afraid I do not agree however. The term "fry" is a rather anachronistic and informal term for larvae that evolved largely in salmonid hatcheries in reference to salmonid species. Having done some recent scientific research and writing on fish larvae, I can assure you that larvae is the correct term. Cheers, Codman 00:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi again Codman. From my experience, the word "fry" is used in a lot in aquaculture and the aquarium hobby context. It's not just salmons and trouts, but most aquarium fishes newly hatched are called fry too. It could be just a colloquial term but it's as popular in the daily language as "wriggler" for mosquito, or "grub" for beetle. Anyway I won't try to contradict you, as you probably know much more on the subject. So, it's up to your judgment then. Cheers, --Melanochromis 01:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, fry is a popular term in aquaculture and aquarist situations, so it has some validity as a term. But in scientific literature "larvae" is the accepted term. Cheers, Codman 04:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dusky Flathead

Looking great for an article that started about an hour ago. Kudos to you! JohnCub 01:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Cheers, Codman 05:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/o/d/User_talk%7ECodman_1fca.html"