User talk:Biology-Edit

Welcome!

Hello, Biology-Edit, 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! GermanJoe (talk) 15:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SELFCITE

Hello Biology-Edit, I have reverted your additions as such passing mentions of secondary aspects didn't really add any relevant substantial information about these topics. Also, just in case you were citing your own research, please make sure to read WP:SELFCITE with additional advice about using your own publications in a possible "conflict of interest" situation. If this is your own research and you believe it provides substantial encyclopedic information about these topics, please suggest these additions on the article talkpages. You can use Template:Request edit in such suggestions to notify other uninvolved editors. Thank you for your consideration. GermanJoe (talk) 15:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify your connection to the given source and use the article talkpage for suggestions instead of re-inserting the disputed content yourself, in case you have such a conflict of interest. Even without such a conflict of interest, the additions would be questionable at best - they add little to nothing substantial about the topic. Thank you. GermanJoe (talk) 15:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello GermanJoe, there is no connection to the given source. The addition was a major and not a 'secondary aspect' to population viability analyses, so the notion that the addition adds 'little to nothing substantial' to the topic is incorrect. Population viability analyses are generally conducted to assess the viability of population on the basis of vital rates (and other demographic parameters) AND to assess the relative importance of vital rates (and other demographic parameters) that drive population dynamics. This part had not been adequately addressed in the current (previous) Wikipedia article on population viability analysis--hence my addition to highlight this major aspect of PVA. Please clarify why you deemed this to be a 'secondary aspect' to PVA and/or undo your reversion. Sincerely, Biology-Edit Biology-Edit (talk) 15:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the articles already contain several examples and use cases. Additional examples add nothing for a basic encyclopedic summary of the topic. In other words, Wikipedia is not supposed to be a comprehensive listing of each and every application for this method, but should focus on a succinct overview and description of the method itself. Textbooks commonly use multiple examples to clarify a point, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a textbook. In all fairness, the current list of example applications is already a bit too detailed, but adding even more doesn't improve that flaw. A more procedural request: please use the article talkpages to discuss this further if needed. Such discussions should be open to all interested editors on article talk, not just a private 1 vs. 1 communication between us. Thank you for your consideration. GermanJoe (talk) 17:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the addition I made was not an example or a case study. As mentioned in my comment above, the addition is a major (not a secondary) aspect of PVAs that has (had) not been adequately addressed in this Wikipedia article. While I agree that there are several parts in the article that could be deleted (or need corrections), this does not change the fact that a major role of PVAs is to identify vital rates and other parameters that are critical to the persistence of populations. This should be pointed out (if not highlighted) in this encyclopedic summary of this topic (which my addition attempted to do). Please clarify as to why you think that this is not a major aspect of PVA. Could you also give some reasoning for this judgment based on the science discussed here? If you feel that the current listing of example applications is too detailed, then this should be addressed--but not by deleting parts that pertain to the most important aspects of PVAs. With respect to the procedural request: Yes, I agree this should be openly discussed with all interested editors (hopefully including some who have experience with PVA and demographic modeling). I am writing this is in 'talk'. Sincerely, Biology-Edit Biology-Edit (talk) 13:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I probably should have been more clear, sorry for the misunderstanding: please use the article talkpage for such discussions instead of re-adding disputed content. Article talkpages are located at "Talk:article name", for example at Talk:Population viability analysis for the recent disputed edit. GermanJoe (talk) 23:30, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]