Removing my Edit
Hello, I'm not sure how to cite to wikipedia. All of said statements about said species on the IUCN redlist were stated elsewhere on the wiki, on their respective page. I can link to them if you wish? 18.104.22.168 (talk) 21:56, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
How can we make the following more acceptable?
Whilst the assumption holds true that genetically modified organisms may reduce the use of pesticides, herbicides and fungicides, others think that the introduction of radically different organisms could have a detrimental effect on the food web, and could lead towards us into an even greater state of mass extinction. Out of the two most threatened categories on the IUCN red list, that is "Extinct in the Wild (EW)" and "Critically Endangered (CR)", it could be said that at least eleven species were drawn closer to extinction by the introduction of new species, including: The Guam Kingfisher and Guam Rail, by the introduction of the Brown Tree Snake, the Socorro Dove by the introduction of Cats, the Asiatic Cheetah by the introduction of domestic animals, the Axolotl by the introduction of both the African Tilapia and the Asian Carp, the Hawaiian Monk Seal by the spread of Leptospirosis (from humans), the Tristan Albatross by the introduction of Rats, Cats and Pigs, the Amsterdam Albatross by the introduction of Rats and Cats, the Northern Hairy-Nosed Wombat by the introduction of African buffel grass (used for the grazing of cows), the Red Wolf by the introduction of Nutria and the Spix's Macaw by the introduction of Rats, Cats, Mongooses, Marmosets, Goats, Cows and Sheep. Furthermore, the threat of bioterrorism and biological warfare has been greatly increased, that is from the moment of the discovery of genetic engineering through to the subsequent use and accessibility of the technologies as a whole. If genetically modified organisms have the ability to reproduce, native and existing non-man made species may gradually disappear. Without a clear plan on how to deal with this, the doomsday clock may tick ever closer .
Hi. I see the reasons you provided in the edit summary for the revert in Triglochin maritima, but are you sure that isn't pertinent information? The plant's alternate scientific name is already a redirect to that page, so i don't see why we wouldn't leave that information in. If you want, i can add the other names like Trigloghin maritimus for the sake of granularity. As for the cyanide production, i can't see how a single phrase mentioning the fact is undue weight. I know many plants produce that, but this is no reason to not include it in the article. Information is information, and that is a toxic plant with no information about that fact on its article. Can we discuss this? Regards, YuriNikolai (talk) 03:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- Understood! I'll leave further messages in the article's talk page instead. YuriNikolai (talk) 16:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Reversion of short description
Hi Plantsurfer, You reverted my short description at White with the edit summary "nonsensical" Would you mind explaining exactly what you are dismissing as nonsensical so that it can be addressed? Please ping with reply. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:37, 29 September 2018 (UTC)