Talk:Dascyllus albisella
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Dascyllus albisella. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141221000918/http://www.fishbase.org/summary/Dascyllus-albisella.html to http://www.fishbase.org/summary/Dascyllus-albisella.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Plagiarism?
[edit]Hi all, I was looking to make some additions to this page as I am editing the Damselfish page, and I noticed that the writing in the paragraph within the "Behavior" section seemed a bit off. I am not sure if it is just the tone of the writer, but this seems too similar to the source articles that were cited. At the very least, this section was not written as if it were part of an encyclopedia, but rather a peer-reviewed article. For example, within this section, the contributor wrote "As we can see", "This behavior is possibly due to", "We see that", etc. This type of language seems more argumentative than is appropriate for Wikipedia. I do not think that this is intentional plagiarism, rather an inadvertent issue.
I believe that through more summarizing and paraphrasing, this section is useful to include and should therefore be edited rather than deleted. I am a student and I am new to Wikipedia so if I am mistaken in this or if there is anything else I should do to address this, please let me know! Unfortunately, at the moment I do not have time to make these edits, but if they are not done in the next couple of weeks, I will revisit this. Thanks!
MarineBiologyS (talk) 20:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Foraging Behavior
[edit]I have also added a small change to the first sentence of this article to include information about foraging behavior. This could possibly be expanded upon in future edits, possibly resulting in a "Foraging" sub-header within "Behavior".