User talk:Cliygh and Mia

Username
Thanks for your interesting addition to Central bearded dragon. I didn't know that!

Just in case you weren't aware, it's a requirement that different people have separate accounts. Please see Username_policy.

Cheers, Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 05:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I am confused, did I make another account and forget about it?


 * I just mentioned it because "Cliygh and Mia" sounds like two people, who should have two separate accounts. But if you're just one person, no problem! Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 06:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I see, Cliygh and Mia are the names of my two leopard geckos I own, I can see how you may have though I was talking about people

Use of "you"
I suggest to review MOS:YOU regarding how to phrase things for Wikipedia. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I'll have to remember that

March 2016
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Axolotl has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 07:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Axolotl was changed by Cliygh and Mia (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.952199 on 2016-03-10T07:38:19+00:00.

Thank you, I was wondering why it changed. The person was stating a myth that axolotls seek out gravel to swallow, he used no evidence that axolotls do, and many new people may make that mistake because of him/her
 * But you need to rely on sources, Cliygh and Mia. The claim that axolotls seek gravel is supported by multiple reliable sources, so you shouldn't remove it unless it's contradicted by clearly superiour sources. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 09:39, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

But many people will make that mistake if is not true, many axolotls have died and needed surgery to get the gravel out. He provided evidence for frogs using gastroliths, not axolotls. He then used an x-ray of one axolotl that survived, ignoring the twenty other ones that probably died or were not as lucky as the one that did survive

And not only that, it is contradicted by many other sources, like these for example: http://www.caudata.org/forum/f46-beginner-newt-salamander-axolotl-help-topics/f48-axolotls-ambystoma-mexicanum/105582-very-sick-axolotl.html http://www.caudata.org/forum/f1-general-topics/f1158-introductions-area/105604-my-little-axolotl-his-big-dark-belly.html http://www.caudata.org/forum/f46-beginner-newt-salamander-axolotl-help-topics/f48-axolotls-ambystoma-mexicanum/f58-sick-axolotl/105586-swallowed-stones-stuck.html http://www.caudata.org/forum/f46-beginner-newt-salamander-axolotl-help-topics/f48-axolotls-ambystoma-mexicanum/f57-axolotl-general-discussion/102514-gravel-substrate.html and that last one I think was the person who edited the article to begin with

Also, what happened to my other edits? Such as the ones on the Cope's gray tree-frog and Five lined skink page? I noticed they were deleted too? Was that a bug?

Care instructions in amphibian articles
Hi - I have again cut down or outright removed a fair amount of material you added to Kaiser's spotted newt, Plestiodon fasciatus, Central bearded dragon, and Cope's gray tree frog. There are various basic issues here that you should keep in mind when adding material to Wikipedia.

a) Most fundamentally, all non-trivial statements of fact on Wikipedia need to be sourced to reliable references. That means that each sentence (or continuous section) needs attribution. You cannot place big chunks of text that do not provide a source, as you did in e.g. Plestiodon fasciatus. Additionally, the source must be reliable - under almost all circumstances, this does exclude self-published or crowd-sourced sources such as blogs, forums, online polls etc. See WP:USERGENERATED for the respective guideline. I have thus removed all material that was either completely unsourced or cited only to such unsuitable sources.

b) Second, Wikipedia is not meant to constitute a manual - it's an encyclopedia, not a how-to guidebook. See WP:NOTAMANUAL in this respect. This means that a species article is not expected to contain big how-to or sections or care instructions. This is what the previous discussion on using "you" refers to. The bot picks up classic "how-to" language and reverts that. However, just rephrasing to third person doesn't really address the problem that this material doesn't belong here at length. The care section now in Kaiser's spotted newt is arguably close to the limit, but the remainder is at least well referenced and does not contain any personal conclusions or opinions. - Another facet of the "not a manual" policy is that WP really does not feature anything that approximates commercial advertising or business advice, which is why I've removed all mention of advice for or sites facilitating trading or selling specimens.

Please keep these restrictions in mind. I can see you put a lot of effort into collecting this stuff, but huge how-to sections are just not suited for WP articles. They are a much better fit for WikiHow and do seem to get lots of hits there, too :) Short care sections are fine, but need to be neutrally phrased, contain no personal opinions, and be thoroughly referenced to reliable sources.

Finally, the material you added to Central bearded dragon is interesting and well sourced; I merely rephrased it to a more encyclopedic language and moved it into the "Behaviour" section. No need to re-add.-- Elmidae  (talk) 12:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC)