User talk:Cewvero
Welcome![edit]
- 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)
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)
- Thank you for understanding my point. It's refreshing to have someone to work with on Wikipedia who actually listens. By the way, I have added "trawling" back into the list of causes, since I agree it is a significant issue. Regards. Cewvero (talk) 13:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Learnia[edit]
The article Learnia has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Cannot find references to topic (product) other than those which appear to be copied from Wikipedia. There were previously 4 external links, generally about ADD/ADHD, none of which mentioned any "Learnia" system. Article creator has not edited any other article than this one.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. - Hordaland (talk) 05:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Petsofas[edit]
Thank you for the improvements to Petsofas, it's helping me learn how to better write and support these articles! k. da-ma-te (talk) 22:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Lack of citation[edit]
In Bridge-spouted vessel, you have claimed that pottery has been recovered from palace. The claim is cited with a source which doesn't confirm the claim and british museum link is dead. There has been discussions and attempts to find source has been unsuccessful. Could you clarify and cite it properly. Changeworld1984 (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
"Tenemos" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]
The redirect Tenemos has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 4 § Tenemos until a consensus is reached. PleaseStand (talk) 08:59, 4 March 2024 (UTC)