37:
Actually, reading more in-depth, was this just a copy/paste of another (unreferenced) source? This is looked down upon in
Knowledge (XXG). I say this because the way it was written (in the view of the editor); it starts a new line at strange intervals, but the thing that tipped me off is the word
51:
The reference may be: "Harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) in the
Marsdiep area, the Netherlands: new investigations in a historical study area" by Michelle Boonstra Yvonne Radstake Kees Rebel Geert Aarts Cj Camphuysen Lutra 05/2013; 56(1):59-71.
23:. Keep in mind that unsourced material can and will be challenged and removed, so I request that you, at the very least, add the link to the site at which you gathered the information for the paragraphs you have been writing. Thanks.
53:
21:
Your edits on porpoise were all-in-all constructive, but you really need to cite your work. I'm sure you are familiar with <ref: -->
59:
74:
44:
38:"our". If this was original research, please remove it. If it wasn't, rewrite it and add verifiable citations.
29:
68:
Yes, but it was probably a direct copy/paste of the page, given the common usage of the words "our" and "we".
55:
69:
39:
24:
76:
63:
46:
31:
8:
7:
14:
1:
77:00:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
64:21:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
47:16:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
32:16:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
97:
17:Your edits on Porpoise
88:
72:
42:
27:
96:
95:
91:
90:
89:
87:
86:
85:
70:
56:Graeme Bartlett
40:
25:
19:
12:
11:
5:
94:
92:
84:
83:
82:
81:
80:
79:
71:Dunkleosteus77
41:Dunkleosteus77
26:Dunkleosteus77
18:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
93:
78:
75:
73:
67:
66:
65:
61:
57:
54:
50:
49:
48:
45:
43:
36:
35:
34:
33:
30:
28:
22:</ref: -->
16:
20:
60:talk
62:)
58:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.