User talk:Pinkpedaller

Welcome!

Hello, Pinkpedaller, and

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

You originally added this statement, which has since morphed in various ways. I've removed it completely, as basic ecology and the history of human civilization directly contradict it. Surely you've read Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed (2005)? Viriditas (talk) 05:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Viriditas, for pointing out your edit, I have not been monitoring subsequent edits to this article. I remember following some links and reaching the article in a rudimentary form, adding quite a lot of new material, and elaborating the phrase "human impacts are not that bad", to be more specific about what wouldn't be so bad about it: "not sufficiently bad as to threaten earth's ability to support human life". I personally believe we do have the ability to destroy the earth's capacity to support life, but, since the concept of ecocide is not universally understood and acknowledged, I wanted to outline the assertion that disbelievers in the concept of ecocide would make (in the interest of a balanced presentation). I actually have not read 'Collapse' (the book you mentioned) but I am familiar with the slippery slope 'tragedy of the commons' process that has led to local desertification, agriculture failure, and societal collapse for several bygone civilizations. Just because certain assertions are indefensible ('absurd') does not mean that a balanced article can't point out that some people make such assertions.

At the time I first heard the term 'ecocide' I was intrigued by its presumed analogy with 'suicide', in which the perpetrator kills him/her self. The current article mostly implies an analogy of 'ecocide' with 'homicide', 'regicide', 'genocide', or other 'xyz-icides' in which an agent kills an independent, separate victim. It seems to me that if a member species of the global ecosystem, causes failure and death of that ecosystem (or at least its ability to sustain the perpetrator species) then it is much more like suicide than homicide, and perhaps is more immediately urgent to put a stop to. I agree this article needs more references, but lament that the 'suicidal' connotation has all but disappeared. Best wishes, and thanks for caring. Pinkpedaller (talk) 07:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for such a thoughtful response. It's so rare to see one, that I had almost forgotten what it looked like. To cut to the chase, the article needs work. I would be grateful if we could talk about improving it on the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 01:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great spelling crusade! I wish I'd thought of that one ... well done! Cheers DBaK (talk) 22:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for caring! That was a bit of a chore, making 504 nearly-identical edits (one was the other way), but I think I have made progress toward stamping out misused 'hanger' / 'hangar' errors. Not quite as big an achievement as stamping out smallpox, but hey, it's something I felt strongly enough annoyed about to try fixing. Now I'll find out there's a bot that automates it! Pinkpedaller (talk) 06:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm! The person who reverted my edits on that one page (Dreadstar) must have liked them after all, and re-reverted them. I did check you know! Pinkpedaller (talk) 06:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current