User talk:CCevol2016

CCevol2016, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi CCevol2016! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Jtmorgan (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Concerning Edits At Sabertooth

I keep reverting your edits at Saber-toothed cat because they are introducing errors into the article, such as calling the Thylacosmilidae "marsupials" when they are, in fact, no longer regarded as marsupials.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Saber-toothed cat, you may be blocked from editing. Stop putting in incorrect information about the Thylacosmilidae being marsupials: The Thylacosmilidae are Sparassodonta, and have been identified as such for over ten years already.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:02, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 13 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Antler page, your edit caused a redundant parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bee

Please note: wikt:practise is the British (and other) spelling. Articles should maintain their English variant. If started in Indian English, it should be retained. See wp:engvar. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 05:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to tidy up the Eusociality section of this article, but so many things have gone awry (references deleted, sentences left uncited, language settings changed as noted above) that I ended up reverting the section to how it was before you started on it. We may be able to make use of some of your suggested additions, but these will need to be made a whole lot more carefully. I see the same pattern in other articles - you have pushed poorly-cited material into the lead section of Bat, for instance, which is not the place for new claims. It might be best for a few days to begin by proposing changes on the talk pages of articles you hope to edit, and then you can proceed on the basis of consensus with editors familiar with those articles and with editing policies. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:21, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Poison dart frog

Hi, I see you're getting a bit of a hard time as you bump up against one rule after another here: there's a lot to learn given how complex things have become. I'm sorry therefore to add to the weight of messages all at once. However, please note that it would help if you could cite any papers you use in full, complete with authors, date, volume, issue, and page range. It's also generally a good thing to discuss the article's topic, not researchers who have investigated it. Obviously in a "History" section we have to name the researchers; otherwise, we try to focus on what has been discovered, not the process of discovery. And as the previous editor noted above, please do not change language settings from British to American without consensus. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just discovered your useful contributions to Bioluminescence that you made some months ago, thank you. I filled in the missing citation details for you, though I guess that by now you know how it's all done. If not, do feel free to ask no matter how trivial the question, we'll all do our best to help. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:46, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]