Talk:Bidyanus bidyanus

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bidyanus bidyanus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120715081236/http://www.mdba.gov.au/system/files/NFS-2010-fish-forum-abstracts_Final.pdf to http://www.mdba.gov.au/system/files/NFS-2010-fish-forum-abstracts_Final.pdf/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

good potential

This looks all the flesh and bones of a good article, a copy editor familiar with fish could get this promoted. cygnis insignis 02:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. It was good until someone unilaterally deleted two historical extracts and in important information about Cataract Dam population yesterday. Unfortunately I don't know how to do undo these outrageously presumptuous and deleterious changes.

I'm sorry that you consider our sourcing requirements and quotation guidelines to be deleterious. The latter really comes down to situational assessment and consensus from discussion, but the former is a hard requirement: don't add material without referencing the source. That can't be novel information to you after 14 years on Wikipedia. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@Elmidae: There have been some usable contributions, a bit of copyediting and quick google got the recent reverts tidied up and restored with citations. Cheers to those who did a bit of building. I think we're good here now. cygnis insignis 17:25, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Yup. It looks as if the remaining cn tag is actually covered by Sanger (ref 7) as well. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:42, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@Elmidae: once again, this page is for discussion of improvements and an edit summary explains what you are contributing. I read page histories and prefer not to have distracting interjections, recent example, a smoke screen for lazy obstruction of potential improvements and easily referenced facts is what I see on my watchlist. I could have noted this on your talk, an appropriate venue, but it may be more diplomatic to give this opinion here. – cygnis insignis 16:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

As for the factual merit of the edit: editorializing is not desirable in articles, which covers expressions such as "incredible rare observation" and "valuable insight". I did not remove any cited content, just adjusted the presentation. - I'll do you the favour of ignoring the rest of that conceited little holier-than-thou snipe, as I don't share your predilection for sneak feuding. Please find another imaginary audience to play to, I'm not interested. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I was not discussing that edit, it is the comment in the edit summary "overlong quote again, but to avoid the hissy fit, I'll just remove the editorializing", and I have italicised the part that I regard as disruptive. I think it merely sad, when I should be expressing compassion, maybe enquiring who your mates are and ask them to have a word. Whose opinion do you respect around here? cygnis insignis 18:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I note the criticism for my using the words "incredibly rare". Why wasn't it simply changed to "very rare" rather than being deleted? Do you know how rare actual 1st hand observations of MDB native fish spawning in the wild are? You can basically count the number of observations on one hand, maybe two at most, for the large MDB species. They ARE incredibly rare. They ARE incredibly valuable. They DO give very important insights into their spawning in the wild, as opposed in hatcheries. And given the state of the MDB now, these observations will probably never be made again. Codman (talk) 05:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)