Talk:Paracorynactis

description of Crown-of-thorns as destructive
The description of the crown-of-thorns starfish as "destructive" is not a fact but a personal opinion....ecological succession is a natural process; it is only when one chooses which species they feel are "desirable" that a non-neutral description such as "destructive" enters the conversation. Just because humans might find some species more aesthetically pleasing does not make them somehow morally superior to other species. Jacona (talk) 13:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * No, it's not a personal opinion. Crown-of-thorns population blooms can and do cause widespread coral reef destruction. Hence "destructive". That has nothing to do with anthropocentric biases or "morals". Why do you think so much effort has been done to find solutions for crown-of-thorns outbreaks among marine biologists and conservationists? Tubbataha Reef, which is near the locality of the papers cited here, was subjected to such an outbreak in 2009, and considerable effort was done to mitigate the damage. Same as has been done for similar incidents in other coral reefs in the Indo-Pacific (most famously in the Great Barrier Reef).


 * And what are you talking about with aesthetic bias? Some crown-of-thorns starfish color morphs are quite beautiful. Ecosystems are based on balance. While ecological succession is natural, so is extinction and human overexploitation. Should we stop conservation efforts then because it's "wrong" to pick sides? -- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  14:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Some biased sources have called the crown-of-thorns "destructive" because when it eats the growing surface, it often gets inhabited by algaes and other forms deemed unattractive, rather than the crown-of-thorns itself. The reef structure itself is not destroyed, but ecological succession occurs and different organisms grow there.  To call this process destruction is a human construct, necessitated by the desire to pick the winners based on some human concept of desirability.  The source you cite above is an example. Jacona (talk) 15:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * facepalm That's lifted from Crown-of-thorns starfish almost word-for-word, except you pluralized algae wrong. It's called "destruction" because it destroys the original hard coral ecosystem. Period. A coral rubble habitat is not a coral reef. Just because grasslands might replace a bulldozed rainforest, doesn't make the bulldozer non-destructive. Whatever philosophical bullshit you might have about the truth of the human condition and the conspiracy against starfish or whatever, I only care about WP:RS. You're arguing for argument's sake and blatantly WP:Wikihounding. The irony never stops. Stop. -- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  15:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why you are resorting to profanity nor making accusations of harassment. If you believe my behavior is inappropriate, I'm sure there is a more appropriate channel for dealing with misconduct.  I'll provide you some sources soon - the one you mention is one that I have read, thanks for finding it!  Jacona (talk) 16:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The two main sources for this article itself studied Paracorynactis hoplites EXPLICITLY because it might prove to be a solution for preventing crown-of-thorns outbreaks. A simple google search will give you thousands of characterizations of crown-of-thorns as "destructive". Highly reliable sources. It's the main subject of numerous studies. So no. I didn't make that up. I don't mind corrections or valid issues being raised, but this is not a valid issue. It's almost comical even, given that you just somehow implied ecological bigotry or something.


 * As for why I'm accusing you, I don't mean to sound condescending again, but it's obvious that this is not an area you commonly edit in. It's way way out of the usual article route for you as to raise almost no question that you're doing this because of Talk:I Am Legend (novel)‎. I randomly argued with you in an article that was added to my watchlist years ago, but I didn't go over all your articles trying to pick another fight. So why did you? If you're here because of random curiosity, cool. But seriously, this "issue" is so nonsensical that aside from a simple unfamiliarity with the subject, the only other reason would be malice. Is it? -- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  16:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry to offend you. I do not understand how my actions can be construed as "picking a fight". I edit a wide variety of topics, which reflects my wide variety of interests. Is that inappropriate? Do I need your permission to edit or start a discussion on the talk page of an article you created? It almost seems as if you are trying to intimidate me to keep me from editing "your" article. I'm sorry that for some reason you don't approve of my edits. I believe my edits have made this article better, don't you? I certainly see that you have done some good work here! As this seems far too personal from your point of view, I will voluntarily leave this article alone for a period of time. Perhaps at a later date (we have time!) we can discuss the article without resorting to profanity or accusations. If not, we can go through proper channels for dispute resolution at that time. Is this OK with you?


 * Saying things like "editing articles you own" is picking a fight. It may not have profanity (which wasn't directed at you, but your argument), but it's just as uncivil.


 * Your edits are appreciated. I welcome corrections, additions, and even wholesale revisions to articles I started or expanded. I'm not WP:OWNing  this article. Notice how I haven't reverted anything. It's that we just came back from a heated argument where harsh words were thrown about in an article I watchlisted randomly years ago and don't really care that much about. And here we are again, in a completely unrelated article. And you've raised an issue that just doesn't make sense  (to my point of view, given that this is actually the usual subjects I write about). It's not really surprising that I would suspect this as an attempt to continue the argument, is it?


 * If I'm wrong then apologies. But it's not that you raised an issue, it's that you raised an issue that is nonsensical with rationales like morals or aesthetic bias or "human concept of desirability" . And yes, it is annoying. I have only a limited free time. I just came back from a wikibreak. I want to finish as many articles as I can. And my ISP is giving me 5kb/s internet because the typhoons apparently obliterated their towers on this island. I'm not in a very good temper right now for philosophical discussions.


 * I repeat. I do not mind the errors you've caught so far, the copyediting, etc. They are very much appreciated. But crown-of-thorns population outbreaks destroy coral reefs. That's really all there is to it. It's so unreal to have to argue about objective facts like this in terms of biases or neutrality that are more applicable to political articles (which I avoid like the plague precisely for that reason). And yes, I'm done with this article. It's as long as it will ever get, given the limited number of accessible sources at the moment. I have more things to do.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  00:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you are not in a very good temper right now. Don't stress, I'm sure your connection will get better, just be patient. I am also sincerely sorry if I threw out any harsh, arrogant or offensive words either here or at Talk:I Am Legend (novel), but I really don't believe I have.  If I did, you should report it to an administrator.Jacona (talk) 02:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Apologies as well. Rereading what I wrote. I realize I do sound like a complete asshole. >.< I'm not. Just... not very social at the moment.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  12:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)