User talk:Catharsis Jones

Welcome!

Hello, Catharsis Jones, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! JACKINTHEBOX • ^TALK 08:01, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coypu

Hi there! I added a link to the Coypu talkpage in my most recent edit summary. If you've got any questions about general Wikipedia how-tos or anything, I'd be happy to help as best I can. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 20:57, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do come to the talk page at Talk:Coypu#Categorization_as_invasive_species and let's discuss there, instead of going back-and-forth with reverts. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved your comments to the section at the talk page indicated above - Talk:Coypu#Categorization_as_invasive_species - to keep things centralized.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trying!

I'm not sure if this is the "talk" page, or how to get there?

Let me know whether this is right, and in the event it is I am happy to have this discussion!

I'm only frustrated by the technical learning curve but I'm working hard to learn.

Regarding the critique offered, I hear what you're saying but I do have a lot more, very well documented and up to date information about the nutria that answers some of the questions you've brought up. However, I just haven't had the chance to add them, as every time I've tried to start to add content that would reflect a clearer and more scientific portrait of the nutria, I've had my work removed. So I just haven't gotten there. But there is, honestly, a lot of information about control measures based on a more current and balanced understanding.

Catharsis Jones (talk) 21:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just click on the link provided - here it is for the third time: Talk:Coypu#Categorization_as_invasive_species. Then you edit that page instead of this one. Clear? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Coypu. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Dr. K. 21:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Understood

I'm hoping that this is all going where it's supposed to? (I feel dumb that I got the link 3 times, and clicked on it thinking I was responding on the right page, but can't see where it's going owing to my silly interface.)

I think I just responded to someone else with my reasons for trying to edit this accurately.

In case not, embarrassed to cut and paste:

"There has actually been considerable evolution in the past 6 years in our thinking regarding whether or not it is accurate or helpful to label a species as "invasive" and to craft militaristic solutions based on that metaphor. After decades of using this label and responding with eradication efforts, we have found that this approach is just not as scientific, and thus not as effective, as we wish it were.

Most of us turn to wiki as our first source of general info on a new subject. So when someone wants to know what a nutria is, if we simply posit that they're "invasive" then we are encouraging one side of that controversy over another.

Not sure how much room to devote to all the mounting evidence that the "invasive" categorization is flawed and unhelpful in the restoration of habitat, but there is a lot of it. Things like, for quick examples, 1. Some of the most destructive animals in the US are native species (eg the pine beetle); 2. Some species long thought to be invasive and destructive turned out to have been harmless and to have actually increased biological diversity and ecological robustness (eg, "invasive" honeysuckle in Pennsylvania, tamarind in the US SW); 3. The damage associated with nutria is often the result of a number of factors having more to do with predator removal and ecological disruption than with nutria; 4. Efforts to eradicate nutria based on the militaristic metaphor, over the past 6 decades, have proven futile in controlling them, because high birth rates and migration from both upstream and downstream quickly overrun eradication efforts. Even after the killing of hundreds of thousands of animals, their numbers remain consistent. New conservation efforts aimed at strengthening the overall ecosystem, studying the animals in the environment, and coexisting with them as an accepted part of a new niche have proved much more effective, in a short time, at mitigating any damage.

Thus the assertion that this is a controversial topic rather than settled science. You and I, both ecologists, are clear evidence of this controversy. I did not remove your position, that many often consider the nutria to be invasive, but balanced it out with multiple, reputable, peer reviewed sources from multiple perspectives. " Catharsis Jones (talk) 21:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]