Talk:Evidence-based conservation

Perhaps we should start....
Perhaps we should start with a description of the organization before we describe the purpose and philosophy of the organization. Do you want this article to be about the philosophy primarily or do you want it to be about the organization? ... or do you want it to be about what your website does. The article is all theory. BTW, your professor Sutherland probably notable enough to have his own wikipedia article. It's a little crazy to try to help you with the article unless you become a little more forthcoming on your goals, here. Is this an assignment?
 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 19:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi gentle Barbara or Bfpage,

Thanks for all the hard work on our article. Here are some humble comments: 1) You might have noticed that I have undone a lot of the edits you made. This is because many of the edits you made were not particularly appreciated by the editor who rejected the article. I spent considerable time in bringing it back to the original. Since this is my first wikipedia article, I must say I learnt a lot in the process. I do sincerely appreciate your honest effort though. 2) You correctly pointed out that the article is all theory. It is about the concept of evidence based conservation. That is exactly what it was meant to be- THAT IS THE PURPOSE. The article is not about "promoting an organisation" or its philosophy. 3) In keeping with wikipedia's philosophy, we are trying hard to avoid peacock terms and also a peacock bent of mind. Hence terms such as "founder" and "location" are not just irrelevant, they are an irritant. Ideas are as free as the air, as boundless as the oceans, as overarching as the skies and we would like to keep it that way. Perhaps, you will appreciate why we removed the "infobox" which tied the idea to a university department. 4) No- it is not an assignment. 5) "BTW, your professor Sutherland probably notable enough to have his own wikipedia article": Great! please help me in building him a page. I look forward to your help.

Have a nice Sunday. Avicennia marina (talk) 15:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)Avicennia marina

Sounds Good!
Great, I can stop helping to highlight the work you're doing on your website. Taking away the infobox is also the right thing to do. Don't be concerned about offending me. Proving the notability of your theory is going to be quite an accomplishment. I'll work toward that end of trying to turn this into an article about an organization. I would like to apologize for taking you down that path. Articles about theories are difficult but I will do what I can.
 * Bfpage from my mobile phone.

"I'll work toward that end of trying to turn this into an article about an organization."

Did you mean the contrary? I hope so. Thanks for the rapid response. You are not just deligent, but also super fast. Avicennia marina (talk) 16:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)Avicennia marina

Shopping list
To establish the notability of your theory we must find as many secondary sources as possible that mention your theory. Reviews, those applying the theory, etc. I will get the references into the correct Wikipedia markup style and create links that will connect your articles on similar topics. Bfpage from my mobile phone

Hi Barbara,

I think we should wait for the editor to take a final look before we make further edits. Thanks!

Avicennia marina (talk) 16:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)Avicennia marina.

"Assessing evidence on conservation interventions" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Assessing_evidence_on_conservation_interventions&redirect=no Assessing evidence on conservation interventions] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC)