User talk:Somed00d1997

Citing wikipedia as a source
The policy is. The source cited (Guiness Book of Records) on that page isn't reliable. You should find a peer-reviewed paper or book written by an expert. Those figures are just estimates anyways. No one has ever weighed any of the largest species of whale whole (except minkes and other smaller species caught by the Japanese during scientific whaling operations). ST1849 (talk) 15:42, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

October 2021
Hello, I'm Peaceray. I noticed that you recently removed content from Pan (genus) without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page.   Peaceray (talk) 18:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

I noticed your recent edit to Gorilla does not have an edit summary.&#32;Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:


 * User contributions
 * Recent changes
 * Watchlists
 * Revision diffs
 * IRC channels
 * Related changes
 * New pages list
 * Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting. '' It is important to use the edit summary so that others know the reason why you are making changes. What seems obvious to you may not be obvious to others. Using the edit summary may well reduce the reversions of your edits.'' Peaceray (talk) 19:13, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Your edit to Dog
I believe your edit summary here is a response to me, but flagging that the edit itself does not involve the part of the page I edited. --Yaksar (let's chat) 20:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Concerning Type Species
Please understand that when officially referring to the type species of a genus, binomial it was originally published as is to be used, even if the type species has been synonymized into a new binomial. It's been a rule for literally centuries.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I understand now. My apologies.

Giraffe edits
Your edits to giraffe were not helpful. There is no consensus on how many giraffe species there are and the IUCN currently recognizes one. Please don't continue with this. LittleJerry (talk) 22:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're referring to. All I did was tweak the wording for the sake of consistency. My edits were never concerned with how many species there are. I never explicitly stated or implied that there's more than one species of giraffe. You might be talking to the wrong person. Somed00d1997 (talk) 00:25, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

November 2021
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent further vandalism, as you did at Faggot_(slang). If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 20:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)