User talk:Sandhillcrane

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Tiger, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.  :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 16:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism?

I would like to known what you consider "vandalism" regarding my contributions on that page.

While I do believe I used that template quite hastily, I would disengage from making such large edits like that because it does come across as vandalism. I would discuss the matter of your changes in the Tiger page before doing so. Also, try to sign any comment you make using four tildes as so, ~~~~. Thanks :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 16:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User page

It would be good if you wrote a little (not too much) about yourself on your user page. It is not a home page, but it belongs to the wiki as general information. Perhaps, take an interest in the layout of others' users pages before starting your own. Snowman 15:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Secretary Bird

Hello. Can you please provide references for your addition to Secretary Bird? Wikipedia needs such information to be based on more than your own knowledge of the subject. Please provide a book(s)/article(s) etc that you base this on, and add it to the information in the article. If you do not know how, please look at the other references or leave a note on the talk page. Cheers and happy editing. MadMaxDog 07:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bears

Regarding your change to the bear article, you're right of course, the danger emanating from bears is a relative thing. Bears are for the most part _potentially_ dangerous for the most part depending on human behavior (sneak up on a grizzly and find out) and there have been cases where usually starving weaker young grizzly males have gone after humans as their last resort. Blacks bears are another story entirely. These are the most docile bears on the planet, hell I've seen pictures of one being cornered and chased up a tree by a house cat. A bunch of people have been keeping them for pets lately (the most demanding pet imaginable). Lynn Roger's research http://www.bearstudy.org/About_WRI/Lynn_Rogers.htm might be of interest.

There is one thing to keep in mind with Wikipedia. It was never meant to be up to date compendium of hard science or even to be truthful. More than anything it is a vehicle for the views of Jim Whales and his friends and they've created an environment where popular opinion prevails over fact. Sometimes there is collateral damage such as in your case. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.160.209.75 (talk) 08:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Re: Bears

Of course, bears will far more often than not avoid contact with people. Attacks are often caused unintentionally by people when they surprise a bear or close a garbage dump that a bear may become dependant on. All bears are powerful animals and are capable of killing people. There are recorded incidents of every extant species of wild bear attacking people, with the possible exception of the Spectacled Bear. I'm aware that the threat that people pose to bears dwarves the threat that bears pose to people.

[edit] multiple recent edits

Please be sure to cite your sources when making edits. You've recently made numerous edits without a single citation. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sandhill. I notice you've been adding a lot of animal info. Glad you want to help out.

At a glance, you aren't citing your sources, as Uther notes, which isn't allowed. For the format of citations see the Wikipedia:Citation templates. Note, you don't have to actually use the templates, but the way they break out information is preferable. You might want to start a page for yourself to practice: User:Sandhillcrane/sandbox Marskell 21:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] September 2007

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to Michael Scofield. Thank you. - Taroaldo 16:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

Hi. I noticed you've added a lot of interesting information about such and such a bird being the biggest in its family, smallest in its range, etc. Could you please include your sources with all those edits? That's Wikipedia policy and it makes sure the information is good. I'll be glad to help you with formatting references if you want, though often you can just copy what's already in the articles. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 20:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Crotalus adamanteus

Just a few minutes ago you made a change to the Crotalus adamanteus article that I'm afraid I could not let stand. You changed:

"... The largest rattlesnake species, the maximum sizes reported are 244.0 cm (8 ft) (Klauber, 1972) and 251.5 cm (Ditmars, 1936). One captive specimen weighed over 26 pounds (12 kg). ... (Campbell & Lamar, 2004)"

... to

"... The largest rattlesnake species, the maximum sizes reported are 244.0 cm (8 ft) (Klauber, 1972) and 251.5 cm (Ditmars, 1936), and were estimated to weigh approximately 22 kg (48 lb) each. ... (Campbell & Lamar, 2004)"

The problem here is twofold: first, you added new information to a section of text that was already accurately paraphrased and referenced. However, your new information cannot be found in the original source text. This makes it look like your information came from Campbell & Lamar, 2004, even though it didn't. Second, you deleted the statement, also referenced from the same source, that indicated the maximum reported weight. Basically, what you've done is to replace accurate and referenced information with information from an unknown source. This is not helpful. If you must add additional information, or replace existing information, make sure you add a new reference to show where you got it. (PS -- Please answer here if you must, as I've temporarily added your talk page to my watchlist). --Jwinius (talk) 14:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bitis gabonica

In case you hadn't noticed, everything in the Bitis gabonica is neatly referenced. Please add a reference for your latest addition. (PS -- Please answer here if you must, as I've temporarily added your talk page to my watchlist). --Jwinius (talk) 14:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I've gone ahead and removed it. Comparisons with other viperid species really belong in the Viperidae article anyway. --Jwinius (talk) 17:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting references

Hello, that was a good piece of information you added to Common Raven, but it would be helpful if you could format references using the cite format. This page - Template:Cite_web is helpful. There is also Template:Cite_book and Template:Cite_journal. Also, be wary of some web references as they are some way down the chain from even scholarly works. If in doubt just ask someone. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Great Horned Owl

Hello Sandhill, thanks for the new information you added to Great Horned Owl and thank you for citing your source. I'm afraid I have reverted your change and I wanted to be sure to explain why. I took a look at the reference you cited http://www.canadianwildlife.ca/facts/Hornedowl.asp?page=/facts/Hornedowl and sure enough it does list 2.9kg as the high side weight for a Great-horned owl. I was curious about this as it contradicts the existing article. I checked the references cited at the bottom of that page and four of them were broken links. The ones that did work directly conflicted with the weight range cited in the article so the canadian wildlife page is not a very good source for information. Please keep working to improve pages but if you find a webpage that seems to conflict with what others have already written be sure the source is a good one. Thanks! Kirkmona (talk) 13:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)