User talk:Skurnack

August 2021
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Woodlouse has been reverted. Your edit here to Woodlouse was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links in references which are discouraged per our reliable sources guideline. The reference(s) you added or changed (https://www.reddit.com/r/isopods/) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 21:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Woodlice as pets
Hello! I just wanted to give a heads up in advance that I removed your section about woodlice as pets and rewrote it. I noticed you had made efforts to reinstate it a while back with a note to future editors and a request for a reasonable removal reason, so wanted to clarify why I rewrote the section. I appreciate that you did research but ultimately unreliable sources are not sources, and the burden of proof goes to whoever adds the information, you should not ask others to find sources for you. If you are adding information to a Wikipedia page, it should be information you gained from a reliable source, so you should already have all citations available. Even if information is commonly accepted among hobbyists, that is not reliable enough information for a Wikipedia page, which relies on objective information. Hobby information can frequently be incorrect. Citing care guides from hobbyist sites also still indirectly violates WP:NOTGUIDE I believe. The way morphs/varieties were described was also very confusing and made no clear distinction between species, common names, and morphs, and some of the paragraphs just did not make sense to me. It was also a section very centric on the US, citing prices and places to source isopods that may not apply to other countries. Saying "X is usually $--- on most sites" is also very much not objective. If you would like to discuss the changes just reply here :) PoetaCorvi (talk) 03:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)