User talk:Cewvero
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Welcome!
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!
STORMTRACKER 94 Go Sox! 15:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Habitat destruction
This particular article is about human-induced habitat change. Please don't change sourced content. You are welcome to find new sources and content. Viriditas (talk) 02:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- The intro sentence is incorrect and not sourced. Please see discussion on the article talk page. Cewvero (talk) 02:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- What is incorrect about it? The article is about human-induced habitat destruction. Agricultural land is cleared by logging. Why did you remove trawling? Viriditas (talk) 02:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- See the article talk page. I am not discussing the merits of trawling versus logging, but literally the first sentence of the article. (To answer your question i replaced "trawling" with "logging" in an unsourced sentence of the page, since the latter is a much more significant element of habitat destruction worldwide, but I am not questioning your reversion of that edit at this time.) Cheers. Cewvero (talk) 02:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- There's no replacement. Agricultural land is cleared through logging. It is implicit in the assumption. Trawling destroys ocean habitats. If you have sources for your claims, please provide them, and if you wish, please mark unsourced claims in the article as needed. Viriditas (talk) 02:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Please provide any insights to this matter on the talk page of the article where it belongs. I am not debating with you presently on "trawling" versus "logging". You are debating yourself. Please examine the intro sentence in itself, not the entire intro paragraph. You reverted my edit to the intro sentence without justifying your action. Cewvero (talk) 02:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not required to justify your deletion. I asked for your explanation, and you said that logging was more significant than trawling in terms of habitat destruction worldwide, which is a strange response considering the impossiblity of proving or supporting such a statement. They are entirely different forms of habitat destruction, so claiming that one is more significant than the other is comparing apples and oranges. Viriditas (talk) 02:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Please stick to the subject. No one is debating you on "trawling versus logging". I have questioned your unexplained deletion of my edit to the first sentence of the article. Please consult the article talk page and reply there. Please re-visit your edit to the FIRST sentence of the article and take responsibility for that edit. You keep addressing an unrelated change you made to a subsequent sentence, which in the interest of peace i am not debating. Please focus on the outstanding issue. Thanks. Cewvero (talk) 03:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, then that's out of the way. When you say that the "greatest forms of habitat destruction are generated by chemical and meteorological phenomena," are you trying to argue that natural agents of habitat destruction are more powerful than human ones? If so, most biologists would disagree. Calvin Dytham, for example, says just the opposite. Or, is that not what you are saying? Viriditas (talk) 03:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Not at all. It s obvious that human causes are the most significant compared to "natural" causes, but human causes also include chemical pollution and climate change. It sounds like we are in agreement more than disagreement here. Cewvero (talk) 03:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Habitat destruction entails the replacement of one habitat with another for economic reasons, usually "growth"; ecosystems are directly altered in human endeavours like agriculture and forestry. Pollution is usually treated separately as an indirect cause. Climate change is a bit trickier, and the current article says that habitat destruction leads to climate change. Viriditas (talk) 03:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Not at all. It s obvious that human causes are the most significant compared to "natural" causes, but human causes also include chemical pollution and climate change. It sounds like we are in agreement more than disagreement here. Cewvero (talk) 03:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, then that's out of the way. When you say that the "greatest forms of habitat destruction are generated by chemical and meteorological phenomena," are you trying to argue that natural agents of habitat destruction are more powerful than human ones? If so, most biologists would disagree. Calvin Dytham, for example, says just the opposite. Or, is that not what you are saying? Viriditas (talk) 03:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Please stick to the subject. No one is debating you on "trawling versus logging". I have questioned your unexplained deletion of my edit to the first sentence of the article. Please consult the article talk page and reply there. Please re-visit your edit to the FIRST sentence of the article and take responsibility for that edit. You keep addressing an unrelated change you made to a subsequent sentence, which in the interest of peace i am not debating. Please focus on the outstanding issue. Thanks. Cewvero (talk) 03:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not required to justify your deletion. I asked for your explanation, and you said that logging was more significant than trawling in terms of habitat destruction worldwide, which is a strange response considering the impossiblity of proving or supporting such a statement. They are entirely different forms of habitat destruction, so claiming that one is more significant than the other is comparing apples and oranges. Viriditas (talk) 02:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Please provide any insights to this matter on the talk page of the article where it belongs. I am not debating with you presently on "trawling" versus "logging". You are debating yourself. Please examine the intro sentence in itself, not the entire intro paragraph. You reverted my edit to the intro sentence without justifying your action. Cewvero (talk) 02:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- There's no replacement. Agricultural land is cleared through logging. It is implicit in the assumption. Trawling destroys ocean habitats. If you have sources for your claims, please provide them, and if you wish, please mark unsourced claims in the article as needed. Viriditas (talk) 02:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- See the article talk page. I am not discussing the merits of trawling versus logging, but literally the first sentence of the article. (To answer your question i replaced "trawling" with "logging" in an unsourced sentence of the page, since the latter is a much more significant element of habitat destruction worldwide, but I am not questioning your reversion of that edit at this time.) Cheers. Cewvero (talk) 02:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- What is incorrect about it? The article is about human-induced habitat destruction. Agricultural land is cleared by logging. Why did you remove trawling? Viriditas (talk) 02:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Cewvero, I've reverted to your reversion, as my version does not fix the underlying problem. Viriditas (talk) 04:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
