User talk:01A ext2015

Your edits on Porpoise

Your edits on porpoise were all-in-all constructive, but you really need to cite your work. I'm sure you are familiar with <ref></ref>. Keep in mind that unsourced material can and will be challenged and removed, so I request that you, at the very least, add the link to the site at which you gathered the information for the paragraphs you have been writing. Thanks. Dunkleosteus77 ^{(push to talk)} 16:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, reading more in-depth, was this just a copy/paste of another (unreferenced) source? This is looked down upon in Wikipedia. I say this because the way it was written (in the view of the editor); it starts a new line at strange intervals, but the thing that tipped me off is the word "our". If this was original research, please remove it. If it wasn't, rewrite it and add verifiable citations. Dunkleosteus77 ^{(push to talk)} 16:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reference may be: "Harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) in the Marsdiep area, the Netherlands: new investigations in a historical study area" by Michelle Boonstra Yvonne Radstake Kees Rebel Geert Aarts Cj Camphuysen Lutra 05/2013; 56(1):59-71. [1] Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it was probably a direct copy/paste of the page, given the common usage of the words "our" and "we". Dunkleosteus77 ^{(push to talk)} 00:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]