User talk:RyanStudiesBirds

References are required

Hi @RyanStudiesBirds: could you please add references to your edits? The information you added to Atoll fruit dove seems legit, but it needs to be attributed, with inline citations. These specific data may be from the BirdLife fact sheet? If you are not sure how to go about adding references, let me know and I'll be pleased to help :). Cheers -- Elmidae (talk) 13:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @RyanStudiesBirds: I have reverted a couple of your edits, e.g. on dwarf jay, for being copyright violations. If you use material from copyrighted sources such as the IUCN list (or most other sites you are likely to access for species articles), you are required to summarize the material in your own words; it can't just be copied and pasted into the article. I don't want to quench your good intentions, and these articles certainly need expanding - but avoiding copyright violations is a prerequisite for any content addded to Wikipedia :)

Also please use inline citations using ref tags for noting where in the text your sources apply. This can also be used to repeatedly mark a recurring source, by giving the first instance a name and then just referring to the name afterwards. You can see where I have done that in Ashy wood pigeon after your edits. Happy editing!-- Elmidae (talk) 12:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AND the same copyvio reservations apply to images. Please don't use species portraits or range maps (particularly not Google Maps! Those are Google property, natch) copied from other websites unless you are sure they are free content. Stuff form Birdlife International isn't free! I have removed these from Rapa fruit dove.-- Elmidae (talk) 12:54, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Come on man, you actually need to read editing comments and your talk page, otherwise you'll have a hell of a time communicating with other editors. The image of the Rapa fruit dove you keep adding to the article is NOT FREE - it is either owned or licensed by BirdLife, and they have NOT given Wikipedia permission to freely distribute, alter etc. the image. Usually, what a species article can use in terms of illustration is a) photos taken by editors themselves and released freely to Wikipedia, or b) illustrations from works that have fallen out of copyright, such as Kunstformen der Natur. This is neither.-- Elmidae (talk) 07:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are at least pasting the Birdlife species factsheet link to the bottom of the page now, but you also need to use inline citations using ref tags. It's no use having a source noted if the reader does not know which statements it applies to. I'm cleaning up after you at the moment, but could you please make an effort to reference correctly? -- Elmidae (talk) 09:08, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RyanStudiesBirds, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi RyanStudiesBirds! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Doctree (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

21:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Photo copyvio

@RyanStudiesBirds: - you appear to be uploading photos to Commons as "own work" that are very unlikely to be so. The image you uploaded and used in Olive-backed woodpecker is taken from this site [[1]]. From your performance in WP so far, I doubt that you are a professional wildlife photographer with an enormous portfolio. You cannot appropriate photos from the internet and upload them to Wikipedia claiming them to be your own work!! Please stop this, or you will run into trouble here very quickly.

If I am mistaken and you ARE 'wokoti' and this IS your own work, I apologize; but you will still have to prove it. In the meantime, I have reported that image for deletion from Commons.-- Elmidae (talk) 13:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you seem to have uploaded just about anything as "own work" over there. I have nominated the lot for deletion, with the clear copyvios from identifiable sites as speedy deletions. See you talk page at commons here [[2]. Sheesh, man.-- Elmidae (talk) 14:26, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References - STILL and AGAIN

I just reverted your additions to Australian king parrot and Solomons cockatoo because they were completely unsourced. I really feel I am talking against a wall here. What is so difficult about referencing your additions? Put ref tags behind the statement or paragraph, put your source in, have it turn up in the reference list! Easy! (and no, that does not require glueing a naked reference to the bottom of the article, as you have done in the past) Until you clue up in this regard, I will keep reverting this material.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources were already at the bottom before I even added the information.The information came from those already posted sources. Please put my edits back up. You are only censoring good information. Not to mention, I already had knowledge on both these birds before I even came to these Wikipedia articles.

I am as interested in expanding these articles as you are, and what's more I am quite sure that what you are adding is good information. However, you must correctly attribute it, or it will keep being removed from Wikipedia.

This involves referencing individual sections. It is no good claiming that the source is already used in the article, if you don't indicate that what you are adding is based on this source. How is anybody to know that your information is found in source X if there is nothing in the text to make that connection? Therefore you must use inline citations.

It appears that you are still unaware of how to correctly use these. Let's take Australian king parrot, which in the second paragraph of the "Taxonomy" section has the following inline reference:

<ref name = zoonomen>{{cite web | url =http://www.zoonomen.net/avtax/psit.html |title = Zoological Nomenclature Resource: Psittaciformes (Version 9.024) |date =2009-05-30|publisher = www.zoonomen.net }}</ref>

This kind of reference belongs at the end of each section (most often a paragraph) that can in its entirety be sourced to it. If you now were to add further information that also uses this source, you indicate this in all further cases by referring to the name of that reference as following:

- notice the "/" after "zoonomen"; this indicates that you are reusing a reference that is already defined. If I understand you correctly, this is what you claim is the case in the edits I reverted: the source is already in the article. So just check how the source is named in its first inline reference in the article, and refer to that name in all your uses as well. If the reference has not been given a name, give it one (name=... in the opening ref tag).

If you are willing to do that, you can just undo my removal of your stuff yourself - go into the page history, hit "undo" on my edit (this will give you a version of the text with your material restored), insert the required referencing, and save. Good luck. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think I added references correctly on the Solomons Cockatoo page. Please take a look and tell me if I added them correctly. I appreciate you teaching me how to do this. I did not know how to reply to you before. My sincere apologies.

Getting there :) I tidied it up a little, but that's the general idea. Two notes:

- I don't see the information about the species being absent from Ulawa Island on the BirdLife page, so I have removed it. Did you intend some other reference there? As the statements about pop size and IUCN status are better sourced to the IUCN link, which is already in the taxobox, I have removed the BirdLife reference.

- The second use of the IUCN link, as well as your second use of the World Parrot Trust reference, are instances of the reuse I talked about, above. When you use these for the 2nd and later times in the same article, don't give the entire ref again; rather, use <ref name={name given to ref the first time it was used} / >. That's why it is a good idea to always name your references.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-use named references

Thanks for your edits! But could you please have a look at the section immediately above, and follow those guidelines on how to re-use named references? References shouldn't be pasted in full every time you repeat them in a text; you name them the first time round and then just reference the name. I've fixed them up for you these last few times, but this shouldn't be left to other editors. Cheers -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And please avoid overlinking of everyday words - you certainly don't need to link names of months or terms like "agricultural land".--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References for Oak Hill Cemetery Brookfield

RyanStudiesBirds, could you please out the individual references in Oak Hill Cemetery Brookfield directly behind the sections/paragraphs/sentences that they pertain to, as you do in bird articles? They aren't much use bunched together at the end of the article. Cheers -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:32, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Aloe vera. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. The 'medical' source you provided is a spam site full of fabrications. Please use more care in selecting sources. Zefr (talk) 02:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]