Hello, Bubblesorg, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prehistoric kingdom until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Passengerpigeon (talk) 01:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian Spinosaurid until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. VelellaVelella Talk 22:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Glyphis pagoda requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. CAPTAIN RAJU(T)15:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to wikipedia!, it's always nice to see new faces around here. Sorry for all these deletion notices, it must feel quite disheaterning, I don't think the reason that they're being deleted is that they are not notable enough, but that the fist draft normally needs to be significantly more substantial, this can be done by writing your article in your sandbox section prior to creating the article, so you can get a better sense of formatting and so on, If you need any help let me know
Hello, I just wanted to ask if you are the same user as Richard.sutt, as you seem to have similar interests and edit histories. If you didn't know, using multiple user accounts to make edits without disclosing the fact is considered suspicous activity. A user by the name of Ozarcusmapesae has recently been causing havoc on dinosaur wikipedia pages by using multiple accounts to publish hoax articles and other nuisances. Although WikiProject: Paleontology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Palaeontology) does not believe that you are the same person as this vandal, we do think that some of your edits are poorly researched and generally not very constructive. We don't want to ban you, but we would like some communication to help you become a more constructive wikipedia editor. To start, we would like you to stop using multiple accounts for your edits, an activity which is called "sockpuppeting" here. You may find yourself unfairly banned if some moderator considers you a vandal like Ozarcusmapesae. Please choose to use your main account, whether it be this account or Richard.sutt. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give South Asian river dolphin a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.
Thanks for uploading File:Blue Ganges River Dolphin Breaching.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.
If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. hiàn01:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Bubblesorg. The content of the Australian Spinosaurid article was merged into the Spinosauridae article yesterday because of a consensus at this discussion to do so. Most editors agreed that a separate article for the Australian Spinosaurid should not be created. Accordingly, please do not recreate the article without discussing it with other editors first and gaining a consensus. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thank you. Mz7 (talk) 08:30, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside to this, I don't think that the article was a clear cut delete decision, and I personally disagree with it. I don't think your decision to create the article was wrong. though I respect consensus and don't think the article should be recreated. I think the reason it got the speedy delete was because the initial article was not to be rude, was very brief, and had poor citations. Usually people who do delete requests don't bother to view the article on the merits of the subject of page but rather the initial quality of writing in the article. Had the article initially been in the condition I updated it to with the improved formatting and research paper references, I don't think it would've ever got deleted. For example the spinosaur Ostafrikasaurus is known from a single tooth, yet apparently is worthy of an article simply because somebody gave it a scientific name. Gurlin Tsav skull or Angloposeidon don't have a proper names, but nobody delete requested those articles either. In future, just make a properly formatted article with a few journal references, and it probably won't get deleted Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ganges river dolphin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Glyphis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
Hi Bubblesorg, I appreciate that you like uploading images to Wikicommons to help improve articles. However, when people take photographs, they own something called Copyright on them, which means that it can't be used unless they have said you can, this can be done in a number of ways most commonly by releasing them under what is called a creative commons license, the general rule is if you can find the license information and it is compatible with wikicommons licensing (notably wikicommons does not allow non commercial licenses) then you can upload it. Otherwise you shouldn't as it will just get deleted and you will get told off. (I've had this happen to myself so don't worry). if you need to use an image but can't find the licence, or is copyrighted. and you think that there are no possible alternatives to using the image, you can upload to wikipedia directly and use a Fair use justification. To be honest this stuff is very complex and a headache even for adults, and I would personally refrain from uploading images to commons unless you've taken them yourself, Kind regards Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An unreleased game without any reliable secondary source to support its notability (see WP:GNG and WP:reliable source). Currently the page was only cited by primary source (store page to buy the game as well as kickstarter)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Prehistoric kingdom, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prehistoric kingdom (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Matthew_hktc12:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Prehistoric kingdom, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. VelellaVelella Talk 12:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are starting to be more troublesome than helpful
Bubblesorg, please take some advice. Your recent edits show a general disregard for the rules here, and you are currently creating more work, and making trouble, than you are being helpful. You must know that unsourced stubs like Tursiops osennae([1]) and Boston roll([2]) are not acceptable. You must be aware that even if you can be bothered to provide a source, an article like Idiorophus needs a taxobox. Euselachii is a complete unreadable mess, and functionally unreferenced. And if you don't understand that whatever that is supposed to be at Talk:Prehistoric kingdom is completely pointless and only demonstrates an inability to work in a cooperative environment, then... I don't think you will have a long tenure here. Sharpen up and read what people write on your talk page. Reference all material. At least try to write legible sentences. If everything you do has to be cleaned up, top to bottom, by multiple other editors, you are not helping. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Elmidae: Done. @Bubblesorg: In reply to your statement (Special:Diff/839138489) Even you own the copyright of the image and you wish to upload to wikipedia under certain license, the image was still subject to deletion (e.g. selfie are most likely to be deleted), for image that you don't own the copyright, or some image that you edited, you only own the copyright of the edits, not the base image itself, so they are still subject to deletion due to copyrights violation. Matthew_hktc18:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, adding a map of Mongolia to the Velociraptor article as a "range map"[3] is pretty ridiculous. This editor needs to start consulting other editors before doing anything, it seems. FunkMonk (talk) 19:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've been following his edits for some time now and most of them just don't make a lot of sense, some of them border on deliberately disruptive. He also often reverts some of his own edits, presumably after realizing they're a bad idea. Here[4] and also here [5] He states Allosaurus lived well into the late cretaceous, and that tyrannosaurus became extinct 65 million years ago [6]. The allosaurus one was also after FunkMonk had stated he should consult with other editors before doing anything so drastic. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs)00:17, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bubblesorg:, It seem you either did not read the warning and comment in this talk page, or read but did not understand, or read but failed to show you are understand what specific issue had happened in your own word. You will keep receiving message and warning if you fail to understand and correct what you do. Matthew_hktc05:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(Bubblesorg (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC))Matthew HK i never said it was a Tasmianin devil i never edited that dude the last edit i made on the river dolphin page was the fact it lived during the Miocene as well.Also i was aking for help on sources whn i sent my messeges. Why would i say it was a Tassie Devil i was confused i thought you sent a joke or something.[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MatthewVanitas was:
This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the general guideline on notability, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Bubblesorg/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to User:Bubblesorg/sandbox, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
Hello, Bubblesorg!
Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you.
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Please make sure that a person is notable before trying to create a biographical article about them. I very much doubt this one is. Guidelines to decide that are at WP:NACADEMIC. I've moved the article to draftspace so you can check that out in peace. If it doesn't look as if you can satisfy these requirements AND present the required sources, please don't move this into main space again. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:05, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Orcinus meyeri requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. 2602:306:3357:BA0:A191:D40C:3E4C:C744 (talk) 23:41, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A page you started (Orcinus meyeri) has been reviewed!
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please add your references and categories.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Partridge Creek monster (Cryptid) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Gronk Oz (talk) 13:09, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Bubblesorg. When you make an edit, please take a moment to describe what you changed in the Edit Summary. This is very helpful to other editors. It is especially important where you remove a PROD tag, as you did here.--Gronk Oz (talk) 13:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Summer's coming up, and I wanna get South Polar dinosaur up to GA, and I can't figure out how to do that, and you have a pretty unorthodox approach on approaching things around here, and I figure you might learn a couple things about writing for Wikipedia in the process, so I was wondering, as a fellow teen Wikipedian, if you'd like to write South Polar dinosaur with me and nominate it with me at the end of it all. So you know, heavy editing probably won't start until summer begins and most of July's vacation time for me, and journal articles and books're just about all we're allowed to cite on this User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
(Bubblesorg (talk) 01:56, 26 May 2018 (UTC))[reply]
Yes I did start to add some sources I will help you out. I will replace with some jurols and books. I just added some sources that were not books and stuff because i did not want the article to be deleted.
How do you think the discussion on the actual dinosaurs should go? I think List of Australian and Antarctic dinosaurs will get merged into the article very soon, so that covers species pretty effectively. I'm thinking maybe a section on adaptations these animals had for the polar forests, and then maybe a section on the paleoecology of the place (apex predator and possible hibernation and so forth). Maybe here'd be the place (or maybe in a separate paleobiology section) for discussion on the non-dinos of the the south polar forests. Have you got anything different? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk04:01, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The dinosaurs'd be the ones from Australia and Antarctica, since those were the only continents that were below the Antarctic circle in the Cretaceous, but the problem is that not all the dinosaurs on the List of Australian and Antarctic dinosaurs are from the Cretaceous, so not all are South Polar dinosaurs (like Cryolophosaurus is from the Jurassic Antarctica, north of the Antarctic circle). That's a fair point. Do you think there should be a separate list at South Polar dinosaur, or none at all? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk01:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(Bubblesorg (talk) 16:55, 29 May 2018 (UTC))I think what we should do is put a list of Cretaceous polar dinosaurs and ones from the late Jurassic. All dinosaurs in that list should be 145 mya at the oldest and the youngest 66/65 mya for the list. This is stated in the article that the polar forests formed 145 mya and lasted into the end of the Maastrichtian.[reply]
Think this is good?
Hi, from a brief look at the article I think one of the main issues is scope, both temporally and spatailly, at minimum, all of antarctica and at least the southern part of Australia (ie Dinosaur Cove etc) are included. Do formations from Northern Australia like the Winton formation count?, What about the New Zealand Dinosaur taxa like the fragmentary remains from the Takatika grit in the Chatham islands? It's obvious that the fauna of East Gondwanaland- i.e. (Australia, Antarctica, NZ) is distinct from that of the rest of Gondwana, due to the Absence of any Abelisaur remains, at least in Australia (All large bodied theropods in Australia from the Aptian onward seem to be megaraptors) and the presence of basal Ankylosaur taxa which are completely absent from at least South America until the Maastrichtian. In my own recollection "South polar dinosaur" has pretty much been solely used to describe dinosaurs from the Early-Mid Cretaceous of Southern Australia, pretty much the "Spirits of the Ice Forest" episode of Walking with Dinosaurs. Before the article can be improved, the geographical scope must be defined first Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Hemiauchenia: Effectively any dinosaur that could've lived within the Antarctic circle is what I'm seeing it as, but you have a point. It's not really possible to have a complete list of the dinosaurs that lived below the Antarctic circle because there's no unified list of them all that might've lived in that region, there's only by continent if at all. Also there was land below the Antarctic circle during the Jurassic so it'd get pretty weird. Should I just remove the list then from South Polar dinosaur? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk02:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(Bubblesorg (talk) 03:05, 30 May 2018 (UTC))Yeah i think its a good idea for know. I did find a book about polar dinosaurs. I think you mentioned only using boos and journals. [4][reply]
(Bubblesorg (talk) 21:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC))Ok that gret i treid to look to see if there was one.I anyways have a Book about australian dinosaurs i will see if i could use that.[reply]
Couldn't find a free pdf, but looking over other sources who do use that book, we can kinda piece together what it would say and include the info in the article that way. I wouldn't say we absolutely have to have this book as a ref, but if you really are determined, you could check your local library or school library (I have my doubts they'll keep it in stock though). I would not recommend shelling out good money over this. Also, I'm wondering what that book of yours has to say on Australian dinosaurs; guess I'll find out soon enough when you add it to the article User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk22:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think it'd be a good idea to include avian-dinosaurs in a separate section from non-avian dinosaurs? I'd use this ref for the avian-dinosaurs. Also, do you wanna expand the lead a little? I'm not sure what should be included, but from the size of the article I'd say it should be a good two or maybe three paragraphs User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk01:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(Bubblesorg (talk) 23:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)) My Austrlian Dinosaur book actully mentions places fossils of Koolasuchus and some Freshwater Plesiosaurs were found.
(Bubblesorg (talk) 23:13, 1 June 2018 (UTC))It mentions the fossil fragments too.[reply]
Remember, any info you add on a non-dino needs to be at least loosely connected to dinosaurs, so is there anything in that book on Koolasuchus or plesiosaurs that in some way affects the dinosaurs or maybe draws conclusions on the climate of East Gondwana? Also, Cretaceous birds, yes or no? Also, this might be extreme but it is possible to change the name of the article to encompass all aspects of the South Polar region of the Cretaceous (dinosaurs, amphibians, plesiosaurs, etc.), is that a direction you wanna go in? It's big, so if you say yes, we'll need to establish consensus with WP:WikiProject Dinosaurs, but I'm fairly certain I can convince them of it. Yes or no? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk01:51, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(Bubblesorg (talk) 02:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)) Yes. There is many things about dinosaurs. The book shows predator prey relationships. Talks about gowndwanas slow but changing climate through time. The books called Amazing Facts about Australian Dinosaurs. It It may have a few flaws though. Like australovenator is not named. The Environment is shown and how different organisms interact in some pictures. Sorry if you do not find these things in the book, There is a discription of the environment while the formation was inhabited by Dinosaurs. Look to the last few pages. you will find some Dinosaurs that may be considered Polar Dinosaurs.[reply]
Might have some problems given it’s a children’s book, but if you find anything good, all you need to do is verify it with some other more reputable source. Like if Amazing Facts says Koolasuchus ate Laellynasaura, try to find another source that corroborates that (like a journal or a different book) and use the new source you found as a ref, then add that Koolasuchus ate LaellynasauraUser:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk14:49, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
* I remember reading something about Koolasuchus which talked about how it could tolerate colder temperatures than crocodiles, and therefore was confined to the south pole, and when it became warmer, the crocodiles replaced them. I think the Eumerella/Wonthaggi formations need to be discussed in detail given that they typify the South polar dinosaur archetypal environment, given that we lack similarly aged sediments from antarctica Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also where it says no ornithomimosaurs are known from gondwana isn't true as Nqwebasaurus is known from South africa, however a lot of the descriptions of the initial dinosaur cove taxa like timimus etc are based on very fragmentary remains, and I personally think their higher level taxonomic assignments are dubious and would strongly advise against using them for their taxonomic identification, and use more recent papers as sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Originally I tried to stay away from those because I was thinking it strayed too far from the main point, but I'm seeing your point, they are integral parts of the whole landscape of East Gondwana. My worry is there's gonna end up being more discussion on South Polar region than the South Polar dinosaurs. Maybe the article needs a name change User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk21:14, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the whole idea of south polar dinosaur is really vague, as we don't have any fossil record of dinosaurs in Antarctica after the early Jurassic until the last few million years of the Cretaceous, so we have no idea what is going on there really. It's also not very good in Australia with only the mid cretaceous being well represented in terms of dinosaur fossils. It's also not like the classic Dinosaur Cove localities are the Hell Creek or Jehol or anything, being known mostly from quite scrappy remains. Does the Winton formation Muttaburrasaurus, Australovenator etc even count as South polar?, as papers I've read suggest that it barely ever frosted, and is similar in latitude to the Nequen basin, which isn't considered South polar. It's also obvious that east gondwanaland isn't completely isolated either, as Hadrosaurid teeth have been found in Antarctica (almost certainly from kritosaurine hadrosaurs that migrated from south america after they arrived there from north america during the Campanian-Maastrichtian) and the Liptoptern and astrapothere mammals in Eocene formations which are also found in south america. I think expanding to "South Polar" taxa generally is advisable, given the paucity of current dinosaur material. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:39, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The argument most sources make is that the dinosaurs of Australia migrated across Antarctica from South America, so they did exist in Antarctica. It's just that Antarctica is so remote that fossils actually south of the polar line derive mainly from southwest Australia. Do you think something like South Polar region of the Cretaceous would work? I'm hesitant to expand into the Eocene for South Polar forestsUser:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk22:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't necessarily disagree with the assertion for early-mid cretaceous onwards. when the gondwanaland breakup gets in fully swing, but for instance there is no evidence of rhabdodontomorphs in south america. and these would have presumably migrated to Australia via africa sometime around the Jurassic-Cretaceous boundary, but who knows. My main thing is how much differentiation is there between the fauna of Northern and Southern Australia really, and are they distinct enough to warrant a south polar dinosaur distinction? I'm not sure the fossil record is good enough to tell. Yeah don't bother including the Eocene stuff, I was just giving it as an example of the land connection. Some comment should probably be made though about the hadrosaurid arrival in antartica during the Maastrichtian though. I agree that your first title suggestion is much more descriptive than the current one.Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:12, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My problem'd be geology would have to have a heavier focus, and I'm trying right now to dance around it because I have absolutely no grasp of geology whatsoever, so I don't know what's important to include and what's page-filler and specialist-level stuff. Should South Polar dinosaur be moved into East Gondwana or South Polar region of the Cretaceous, do you think you'd be able to help out with geology? Or Bubblesorg, how's your grasp on geology? Think you can make it? The article as it is now really does need a section on geology and continental drift during the Cretaceous anyways User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk03:41, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(Bubblesorg (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC))I do not have the heviest grasp of Geology. I just studied a little bit of it. I have had experience about learning about it since 7. I did watch something about the Triassic extinction creating Gondwanaland after the continents split.[reply]
now that I’m thinking about it, you could draw on the article Gondwana for info pertaining to East Gondwana. Perhaps starts at the breakup Pangaea and go from there until the end of the Cretaceous. Do you think major fossil-bearing formations should be discussed here in this section also? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk16:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bubblesorg (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)You mean like the winton Formation. Also what about Marine reptiles? Like the richmond Pliosaurs and Kronosaurs. I found a book by Dugal Dixon in my shelf that i saw a paleontologist use once. One of the paleo art deceptions shows Ornithopods in the snow.[reply]
sounds kinda like an outdated depiction. What book’s this? Bear in mind, science changes really fast, so make sure what you find in that book you coraborate with a couple other sources preferably more recent) just to make sure it’s still the case today User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk18:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
it looks like another kid’s book, so whatever you find in there, find a more reputable source (like online or something) and use that as your reference. Also, make sure it’s talking about the South Pole and not the North Pole User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk21:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bubblesorg (talk) 21:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)Its not a kids book. I saw paleontologist use it once to identify some stuff at a museum. It uses pretty complicated language which when i bought it would be hard to understand. This is quite literally judging a book by its cover.[reply]
(Bubblesorg (talk) 23:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC))i guess there are looking at the pictures not the words. It actually says words like Cranial and some other stuff. But i do agree its outdated showing basilosaurus in Australia (Like mammalodon is the same thing,Its not) and skipping Tiktaalik. But it does have feathered dinosaurs and slight feathering on leanosyura (i spelled it wrong didn't I. I do not believe Ornithopods ever saw that much snow as seen in the book however. The mesozoic even with some cold places was still warmer than today.[reply]
OK so I'm joining this project now at Bubblesorg's invite. I did a cursory scan of the article (I'll look more in depth later when I have time). Just as a general comment, the article's title suggests it is mainly about dinosaurs, but the article has more space devoted to talking about non-dinosaurian flora and fauna. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs)01:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ashorocetus: Yeah, it's on the table renaming the article to East Gondwana or South Polar region of the Cretaceous. Thoughts on the matter are welcome. My problem is that that would require a lot more in-depth discussion on geology, the whole breakup of Gondwana from Pangaea, then the eventual break-up of East Gondwana itself, and in-depth discussion on major fossil-bearing formations. From all the stuff I've already added about the animals and plants themselves, not much intensive searching is really all too necessary to figure out which formations are the big ones, my problem is that I don't know what's important or significant to add on any of that stuff. Hemiauchenia seems to have some kinda background on this kinda stuff, or at least a more in-depth idea of what s/he wants to see. Do you think you all could work on some kinda Geology section that discusses all that? I hope you're watching this page and, with that, welcome to the team editor number 4 User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk03:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is definitely a good idea. On principal, I don't think our own limitations of expertise should limit what goes into the article. I can work on that but to be totally honest my life is likely to be pretty busy for several months so I can't guarantee any major contribution. I'll do what I can but I can probably be most useful to review or find sources (I have access to pretty good libraries). Is our goal GA status? Ashorocetus (talk | contribs)05:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
that’s the plan, I feel all the sources right now are pretty reliable (though some may be on the older side), though if you find any other good ones, go ahead and add what you can User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk14:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(Bubblesorg (talk) 14:46, 7 June 2018 (UTC))I know something about Birds like vegvis being ancestors of water foul and them moving up to south america like in argentina. Correct me if i am wrong. Also wasn't australia flooded in some arras at the time?[reply]
On the other hand, you could always look stuff up on the Internet. That’s what most editors (to my knowledge at least) do; there’s no rule against using the Internet, only that whatever you find has to be reputable. On the other other hand, maybe you’ll find a book that can’t be accessed online, who knows? Good luck User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk01:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
fossilworks is completely fine actually, we use it all the time here. There's even a template for it. I may have been too restrictive when I said "only journals and books," websites are completely okay so long as they're reliable. If a site is written by a plesiosaur expert, for example, then it's okay to use the site. The only rule in refs is that it has to be reliable, really. It has to be written by somebody who really knows what they're talking about, and we have good reason to believe the author's an expert on the topic User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk02:50, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since you redirected it I will try to find more on cretaceous gondwana. Let me see if there is any online info. Also please tell when you have redirected something(Bubblesorg (talk) 23:20, 12 June 2018 (UTC)).
(Bubblesorg (talk) 14:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC))some documentry about austrlia said that when it went up it caused hevy climactic changes. I think that is dribble.[reply]
Yeah, this article’s going to have to cover in the Landscape section, maybe as a subheading, how the Eromanga Sea formed and its effects on the area in the Cretaceous. Maybe in this same section if you find any important lakes or rivers (I’m not sure if you will find any important lakes or rivers though) mention them here. In my experience, documentaries are not banned, they’re just really scrutinized. If you find the documentary let me know, but since you already seem to have an idea what kind of info you’re looking for, ask the Internet would be my advice User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk14:52, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(Bubblesorg (talk) 02:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC)) I may be offline for a little bit maybe for one or three days but i will be back. I may give some facts but not much so i will get back as soon as possible.[reply]
Okay, when you get back, could you expand the lead; write a geography (or maybe Geology) section which talks about continental drift, the Eromanga sea, maybe important fossil-bearing formations, and whatever else you see as notable; and help me reorganize the article a little? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk03:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(Bubblesorg (talk) 03:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC))OK
Yes i have come back i will write something about gondwana. Sorry for the wait.Bubblesorg (talk) 04:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Ok check the article help me with the Eromanga Sea section.--Bubblesorg (talk) 02:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Ok some idiot in school used my computer to create an account (i thought him how to do that) he basically bullies (calls me a nerd) And vandalizaed an edit of basilosaurs. Funk monk thought i was me and blocked me from editing for a bit. I told him so i hpe he understands.[reply]
Well I guess we'll have to wait till that blows over. I didn't realize you were still in school, mine got out just a week ago. Anyways, I got you started on a little Geology section, we'll have to see what direction you take that in. It is by no means, as it stand right now, complete or a template that you should restrict yourself to as you continue to expand the section or divide it into smaller subsections should you feel the need to do so. Research. Use the internet, google scholar, read over and synthesize anything you think may be important (and if it isn't all too important, you always have me and whoever else may be reading the page or the GA process to make everything more concise). You can build on what's already there, and along the way, read on related subjects and add them into the article. You can do this, I believe in you. It's not as hard as it looks once you get started on reading User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk04:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the further reading section there's Encyclopedia of the Antarctic, you can use that, it mainly talks about geology. Keyword search "Cretaceous," don't read the entire book, just the relevant portions, that's effectively all I did for the Geology section just right now and I only read the first instance of 8. to cite this, I used {{harvid|}}, which means all you have to do to cite it is put down {{sfn|Riffenburgh|2007|loc=p. [insert page number used]}} and you're all set with that one User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk04:42, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the one entitled “Encyclopedia of the Antarctic,” there’s a link to the google books preview, I think most or all the pages relevant to the article are open for preview (at least to me) User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk15:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not too sure OzFossils will be considered a reliable source, and whenever I try to scroll down the page reloads, so you should probably find a different source. Try going on Google Scholar, and proof-read what you write, there were a lot of grammatical errors and typos going on User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk13:22, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey I just want to say I'm really sorry that even though I agreed to help I haven't really contributed anything yet. I've been quite swamped with non-wiki stuff the past few weeks and I may not get a good break for a while. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 05:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC) Ashorocetus (talk | contribs)05:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Ok i am back and dunkleosteus 777 i will give you the source for the map lets get back to work.[reply]
I noticed that you un-redirected Balaenoptera sibbaldina. I do not feel that this "species" warrants its own article. It is not a valid name and there is nothing notable about the fossils. Despite Chris Lesley's claims there is no reason to suspect that these fossils belonged to an animal bigger than a blue whale. I would like to have B. sibbaldina re-direct to Balaenoptera, but I don't want to do that without a consensus. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs)17:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious what basis you have for claiming B. sibbaldina is a valid species. Do you have a reliable source which lists it as such? Preferably with a diagnosis? All the sources I have seen list it as a nomen dubium or of "questionable validity", which amounts to basically the same thing. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs)04:04, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the taxon does not appear to be generally accepted. The relevant passage from the source given in the article (Journal of Mammalian Evolution):
Balaenoptera sibbaldina Van Beneden, 1880
Balaenoptera sibbaldina; Van Beneden, 1880, pp. 14–15.
Balaenoptera sibbaldina Van Beneden, 1882, pp. 63–65, plates 49–51.
Junior synonym of Balaenoptera definata (Owen, 1844) fide Lydekker (1887a,b).
Type: None designated.
Locality: Antwerp, Belgium.
Stratigraphy: Kattendijk and Lillo formations (Sable Superieur d’Anvers).
Age: early Pliocene (Zanclian Stage).
Nomenclatural summary:Because of problems concerning the lackof a type specimen
(or a syntype consisting of at least a cranial vertex with associated petrotympanic) for this
taxon, its recognition as a valid taxon is suspect.
Discussion: Van Beneden (1880, p. 15) established this species on an isolated petrosal
and some vertebrae from different parts of the axial skeleton. Later, in his monograph Van
Beneden (1882) listed and illustrated a partial occipital shield (of a juvenile individual),
a right petrosal, an isolated posterior process of the petrotympanic, a partial rib, and
isolated thoracic, lumbar,and caudal vertebrae. Because no holotype was designated and the
syntypes are almost certainly from different individuals, it is not possible to unambiguously
diagnose this taxon. Van Beneden (1880, 1882) aligned (presumably based on size) this
fossil species with the extant blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus, known to Van Beneden
asBalaenopterasibbaldus),emphasizingthatrelationshipwithasimilarspecificname.Van
Beneden emphasized that he was naming the fossil taxon sibbaldina presumably referring
to the similar large size of the fossil and living blue whale.
(Bubblesorg (talk) 15:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)) agreed lets hold the consensus. Oh Elmide thanks for letting me know that the Ganges river Dolphin Article i made had been merged. I was a little upset at first but know i think i am fine.[reply]
Hi, Bubblesorg. I have seen that it has made several size charts and restorations, but I do not recommend the use of Paint 3D. It would be better if you look at other images made by other users, and if you do not know how to make them, ask them for advice. I would also ask you to add the resolution to your files, in some you can see the pixels. It is better to refrain from uploading more files until you gain some experience (unless it is a public domain image, then it is useful to upload them). My most sincere support for you, we all have had a similar beginning. Greetings. SuperΨDro19:33, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Hi Bubblesorg, I was wondering where you got the photo for the Physogaleus from- to me the tooth looks more like a Galeocerdo- maybe a primitive one like G. eaglesomi from the Eocene?
Ryan shell (talk) 14:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
The tooth is from a fossil store near a colubia river formation where there was once water fall. There was a fossil store there selling fossils from there and around the world. One of them was Physogaleus tooth. The cover for the tooth said it was a Physogaleus and it was found in france. Their was a galecedro tooth near by however but it was in the next isle. However you could be right as the cover said the outdated Physogaleus was tiger shark example.--Bubblesorg (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's kind of what I think happened. You might consider relabeling the tooth as Galeocerdo latidens which is a relative of the G. eaglesomi but if often found in France. That's the more likely identity of this tooth. Also if you have any more fossil photos, especially of the shark teeth (I'm working on a Ph.D in shark teeth) I would be glad to help you identify them!
@Bubblesorg:, according to your block log, you are not blocked. It may be that, because of Editor is X being blocked, both of you were using the same IP, and that IP has been blocked with Editor is X.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Because i am innocent Editor x is great is not me someone else
Decline reason:
Procedural decline only. This account is not blocked. If you are unable to edit, please follow the instructions which appear when you attempt to do so. Yamla (talk) 15:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
It does give me a blocked warning. --Bubblesorg (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
When i am about to edit.--Bubblesorg (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Also i tried to relog in does not work. same warning You are currently unable to edit Wikipedia.
You are still able to view pages, but you are not currently able to edit, move, or create them.[reply]
Editing from Editor x is great has been blocked (disabled) by Widr for the following reason(s):
Vandalism
This block has been set to expire: no expiry set.
It looks like you’ve been caught up in a range block where a lot of IP addresses around your school have been blocked, assuming Editor X was using a school computer. Are you trying to log in at your school or at home? Hey Widr, it’s currently looking like when you blocked User:Editor x is great, you also blocked Bubblesorg’s IP and editing privileges. Do you think there’s anything to be done here? Bubblesorg’s saying the only ‘instructions’ being thrown up are, “You are currently unable to edit Wikipedia. You are still able to view pages, but you are not currently able to edit, move, or create them,” when trying to edit User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk20:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think he used both my school and one of my home computers. i think he put his wikipedia login on my home computer as well when i was working on some project on boron. The worst mistake i let him borrow my home computer. I think he did that then. Especially yesterday when me and him were at my house and doing the project.--Bubblesorg (talk) 20:43, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit, this entire thing is starting to look kinda sketchy. You were told your IP address was blocked but then you failed to mention directly afterwards why that may be (Editor X used your personal desktop) and instead waited until you were directly asked about it, it seems pretty late in the school year to be doing a take-home project on Boron considering this is probably your last week of school, and my school IP has been blocked on a couple of occasions and that never stopped me from editing there once I logged into my account. It also seems unlikely, at least in my point-of-view, that you would allow the school bully unsupervised access to your personal desktop, though not necessarily, and that the bully would take the effort to use your personal desktop when their phone or some such item would have sufficed just fine. That being said, I’ve already pinged Widr (twice now), we’ll see what s/he can do about this whole situation; in the meantime, try drafting the Geology section for South Polar region of the Cretaceous in your personal Sandbox. User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk01:50, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Arica Monster for deletion, because it doesn't appear to contain any encyclopedic content. Take a look at our suggestions for essential content in short articles to learn what should be included.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.
If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. NeoBatfreak 00:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
is there a reason this page should be separate, rather than a redirect to Pinniped as it has been for 15 years? Xevus11 (talk) 04:49, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, i think seals are not a taxon though. Warlases are no seals but still pinnpids. Sorry for misspelling I am writing this on my phone[reply]
If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 08:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Tanacon incident requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. VelellaVelella Talk 12:48, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop trying to replace animal taxa articles with common names. It's not helpful, especially since with prehistoric taxa articles, more bias and emphasis need to be place towards formal academia, and not pop culture.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:14, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, you need to be more careful with your edits in general, follow the guidelines, and listen to what people tell you. We had this very discussion a while ago, and you promised you would comply, but it seems to be getting worse. Get consensus for your proposed edits on the talk pages first, otherwise you are just creating messes for others to fix. FunkMonk (talk) 17:22, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:13, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking over what you did to the taxobox on July 31 and you should use the Show preview button before you hit the Publish changes button, no matter how minor you think your changes are. That way you can catch your spelling mistakes (which you seem prone to) and your syntax mistakes. And also, check over your spelling. I understand that you may edit on a phone, but even then, it's not too complicated to spell, and you can always switch it from mobile view to desktop view by scrolling all the way down and selecting desktop view if you think it would make it easier. User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
oh ok--Bubblesorg (talk) 01:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Something to consider: when adding references for taxa that are still extant, it's a bit strange to limit the sources to Fossilworks or similar fossil databases - after all, there is usually much more (and more up-to-date) information than that based on the fossil specimens. A good source for basic taxonomic citation for marine species is WoRMS. See e.g. Negaprion. Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Paleydiction.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or provided a license tag. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Paleydiction.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Thanks for uploading File:Titanoboa-monster-snake.62678.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 21:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Jurassic world the game.jpeg
Thank you for uploading File:Jurassic world the game.jpeg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Parasqualodon, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. —AE(talk • contributions)14:48, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An article you recently created, Parasqualodon, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C}14:50, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Brygmophyseter 4.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
You were taking too long so I just rewrote the lead just now. I'll be nominating it to GA, you can help out with any comments User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:39, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Thats fine with me i didnt really have much time to work on it anyways. Lets just chuck it in--Bubblesorg (talk) 22:46, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A person left comments on the article talk page that should be resolved before anyone starts the GA review. Call it an unofficial peer review. Your task is to resolve all the comments. Can you do this? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk05:12, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The first link I don’t read Japanese so I can’t tell if they specifically said the size there (if you can speak Japanese I need you to translate for me), and the second link is dead. How do you how much bigger O. paleorca is from O. orca? This came to my attention at first because I was planning on expanding O. paleorca (but I can’t read the original description in Japanese so I can’t do much) User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk01:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I dont speak japanese either but i was able to use some translating guides and here what it is "The writer was kindly submitted by Mr. G. NATSUME of Minato Town, Kimitsu District, Province of Kazusa, a fragmental fossil tooth of orc from a gravel bed at Nagahama of the town for a study. This bed, corresponding to the writer's Parelephas protomammonteus typicus Zone, has hitherto yielded the remains of such vertebrates as Isurus hastalis (Agassiz), Carcharodon carcharias (Linne), Parelephas protomammonteus (MATSUMOTO) typicus, Giraffa (Orasius ?) nipponica Matsunoto and Cervus (cfr. Sika) kazusensis MATSUMOTO. The fossil orc in question is named here as follows. Orca paleorca, sp. nov. (Figs. 1 & 2) Type-specimen: Large fragment of abult tooth, which may likely be either a right upper one or a left lower. Horizon: Parelephas protomammonteus typicus Zone; gravel bed at base of the Sanuki Formation. Age: Basal Calabrian. The tooth is fairly large and stout. Its reference not to the Physeterids but to Orca is evident in lacking a thick coat of cement. The root is cylindrical, gently tapering apically, and is smoothly oval in transverse section. The pulp-cavity is rather large proximally. In living Orca orca (Linne), the root of tooth is compressedly oval in transverse section and its anterior and posterior sides show a tendency to be broadly and very shallowly grooved. Such a feature is entirely absent in the fossil tooth. It as preserved measures 50 mm in height, 29.5 mm in the greatest transverse diameter and 22.5 mm in the greatest longitudinal. The present tooth is much larger than that of Orca cylindrica LYDEKKER of British Pliocene, the former being distinctly closer to the teeth of Orca orca than the latter is to the same." It would be probable that the present species was actually ancestral to the living one. Thats just an abstract version im not getting the full article. As for the deviantart link it still works.--Bubblesorg (talk) 04:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may have misinterpreted that passage. It says that the tooth is larger than that of O. cylindrica but similar in size to that of O. orca. And indeed, checking up on the average size of recent orca teeth, they come in at 76 mm x 25 mm (see 3/4 down on this page). That's actually a good deal longer than in O. palaeorca, and depending on whether they are reporting transverse or longitudinal diameter, a little thinner or a little thicker. There seems to be no basis here for assigning any specific body size ratio. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But the deviant art post made by the paleoartist said its bigger. Also is there any other docs you can see where a size measurement cn be determined. --Bubblesorg (talk) 17:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think maybe if I download the article in Japanese and convert it to a pdf, then maybe I can get a machine translation and check if the restoration you saw on deviantart is entirely accurate or not. I’ll come back in a couple hours User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk22:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Bubblesorg. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi. You might want to read Wikipedia:SUMMARYNO which says "Avoid incivility. Snide comments, personal remarks about editors, and other aggressive edit summaries are explicit edit-summary "don't's" of the Wikipedia Civility policy." Also, be careful about article talk pages, they're there for discussions on how to improve the article not to reply to a 2015 comment about SJWs saying "True". Doug Wellertalk 13:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
K--Bubblesorg (talk) 15:57, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
A tag has been placed on File:Image 1531 2e-Sphyrna-gilberti.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{Non-free fair use}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file. If the file has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Whpq (talk) 01:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Mgbo120 and it's nice to meet you :-)
I wanted to let you know that I have tagged an article that you started, Cratosolpuga, for deletion, because it's impossible to identify the subject of the article.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the deleting administrator.
For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Mgbo120}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Coelacanth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page European (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
I think this is likely premature. There's only a single mention I can find online, and THAT has gone dead (your link no longer works). I think we will need at least the basic taxonomic description, published in a journal, before an article is possible. Best to let it sit in draft until then. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Someone put up an article for "Zunityrannus" which actually contained the formal description of "Suskityrannus". I have moved that to Suskityrannus. I suggest you integrate the suitable material from the draft there. Then to clean up afterwards, Draft:Suskityrannus should be marked for speedy deletion using {{Db-g7}} (author requesting deletion). I suspect Peter coxhead won't mind if his copyedits get mulched :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on File:Hook island sea creature.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 21:58, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Hook Island Sea Monster requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Tangaroasaurus requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://rsnz.natlib.govt.nz/volume/rsnz_65/rsnz_65_00_002420.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. CAPTAIN RAJU(T)17:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Bubblesorg, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Tangaroasaurus have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.
It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. CAPTAIN RAJU(T)17:45, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A page you started (Physeter vetus) has been reviewed!
Hi Bubblesorg, I have redirected this article to Sperm whale#Fossil record and added a sentence on the two fossil species in the genus there. The amount of available material here runs somewhat counter to the practice in paleontology articles to not create articles at species level unless there is a lot to say. Here, the only statement of importance is really the classification itself. All that stuff about the paleoecology is misleading at best because these are NOT from the same ecosystem - did you expect the whale to actually share a habitat with bisons? They are only connected because they share a deposition location, but clearly they are from quite different time periods (one where the area was marine and one where it was terrestrial). So that is somewhat beside the point ;) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:16, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather speak about that later, I will not be here for a week, so my basic thoughts are leave it there as long as we say it’s potentially dubious Bubblesorg (talk) 00:48, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
C'mon man, don't put this kind of thing into mainspace without adding at least some basic PDBD sourcing... build it in draft if it will take a while. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An article you recently created, Taxonomy/Pachystruthio, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CASSIOPEIA(talk)05:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Durlstotherium requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. — Smjg (talk) 16:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durlstotherium actually dont worry, i have finished it--Bubblesorg (talk) 16:53, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've added content now - thank you.
For future reference, "I need time to finish" isn't a ground for not deleting a page. At the time, the article text wasn't even started, and therefore there was no point pressing the Save button. All articles on WP should have at least a basic description (which would qualify the page as a stub) when initially created. — Smjg (talk) 12:14, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not ballot-polls. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.
If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Elmidae}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
Hey man, I'm aware that you did not revert that redirect. But on reflection I do now believe that a redirect isn't a good idea either - the sourcing is just too weak (one guide book author's speculation does not make establish a valid topic). Hence the deletion proposal. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have no clue why you created Heynodonmiocene (talk·contribs) to make it look like you were different people, but I've blocked the account indefinitely. I've also blocked your account for one week for abuse of multiple accounts. Don't try a stunt like this again please.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots21:16, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What the actual fuck, dude. Whenever it seems that you may be starting to become a little more reliable, you go and do stuff like this. This is not the way to build a good reputation. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
talkokay im sorry, I am suffering from two great losses in my family, I Promise It wont happen again, i did not know the implications of what arm I could have done, I dont feel like my self right now, I going to take a break from wikipedia for a week or two. sorry man< I wont do it, I thought it would be harmless.--Bubblesorg (talk) 23:05, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[[User:Dunkleosteus77] and User:Ponyo I will stop with my immature behavior after I had the break, Im planning to take a few more days off before I join wikipedia again, I need to reflect and read up on the rules, instead of making jokes.--Bubblesorg (talk) 22:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Let’s also not forget the time Editor x is great (talk·contribs) was created purely for vandalism, and, suspiciously, when that account got blocked this one was too because you both share the same IP. Then you tried to tell this story of how the school bully used the account on your personal desktop at your house because you were doing a final project on Boron in probably the absolute last week of school (which I have doubts on) User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk
@Dunkleosteus77: Hopefully Bubblesorg realizes they are in "last chance" territory here and that any additional shenanigans will result in a swift indefinite block. Let's give them a chance to find their way and you can ping me or drop a note on my talk page if you have any future concerns regarding inappropriate use of accounts.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots22:56, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ponyo: found a fourth sock, Iswunderbar (talk·contribs) whose only edit was on May 2019 to comment positively on a page Bubblesorg created, Post Cretaceous Coelacanth fossils. I don't know if any action is required on your part, I don't think you really need to take any precautionary measures because the account is definitely going to remain inactive, but I'm simply setting the record straight on how many socks Bubblesorg has created in the hopes that he'll stop if he stops believing he can trick us so easily User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk00:21, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bubblesorg, I know 2001:569:7CF0:9300:A47E:5CD:254B:F95(talk·contribs·WHOIS) is you. His first edits come off as if he knows how wikipedia works, and then he makes some random (borderline disruptive) edits with random edit summary that don't pertain at all to the edit (like "This image is suspect..." and his last edit was supporting something you said about 20 minutes after you posted it, and the previous 5 edits are undoing yours (which means you purposefully vandalized pages). I see what you're trying to do: you couldn't trick us with fake accounts so you tried an IP address, spacing out some edits over a month, and then when you needed it, you activate it to support whatever you're saying. I can't really do anything to stop you, just know I don't trust you and I never will, and have a nice day User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk04:03, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, it's 2001:569:7CF0:9300:A47E:5CD:254B:F95 under another IP. I don't appreciate your suggestion that I am a sockpuppet. I find fault with many of Bubblesorg's edits for three reasons: 1) it contains a faulty interpretation of the literature; 2) it's inadequately sourced (usually to PBDB); or 3) it's grammatically incoherent. With respect to the "random edit summary" that you pointed out, it is referring to the image that I edited the caption for. If you have been following the user who produced that image, you may be aware that another one of their size charts [7] (see [8] for discussion) not only contains questionably attributable taxa, but also contains silhouettes which seem to be derivative of other works without proper attribution. I haven't looked into the Cedar Mountain size chart but I wouldn't be surprised if it has the same issues.
I agree, but dunk here is actually a conspiracy theorist, you realize that right? he actually contradicts him self.
Funny that he is responsible for so many great edits and makes wikipedia article good, but then he can note the diffrence between how people talk. However dont get into an argument, let that idoit think you are me. Cause that is all a conspiracy theorist is capable of. EVEN THE GUY WHO BLOCKED FOR A WEEK SAID WE HAD MANY DIFFERENCES. Sorry dunk, you maybe make good article criterias in a snap of a finger, but stuff like this, makes you seem so dumb I can even imagine.--Bubblesorg (talk) 15:43, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dunk has been much more helpful and civil than you have been, and your rude actions on this page have made me very suspicious of you as well. I also have a feeling that you are not the inexperienced new user you claim to be, and that your poor grammar is just a charade. You make specific types of unconstructive edits and post copyrighted material even when reminded repeatedly not to. Presumably an actual inexperienced person would know to avoid stuff like that at this point, after over a year of activity on the site. You are now known to have conversations with yourself, and the 2001 IP uses similar rhetoric as you do. Note the hostility towards Dunk, specifically how the 2001 IP says to "hang up the tinfoil hat" while you call him a conspiracy theorist right here. Dunkleosteus77, Elmidae, and myself have been giving you the benefit of the doubt so far, but frequent lies and deception surrounding accounts like Heynodonmiocene and "User X is Awesome" certainly make it seem like you are a vandal trying desperately to cover your tracks. Considering your untrustworthiness in the past, why should we trust you now? If you have a constructive answer, I would like to hear it, but if you want to rant like how you just did with Dunk, please consider your words carefully. The world is watching. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 01:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay sure, I apologize, I was a little angry at the time. But lets just say I want to change all that. Also were has the IP ever behaved like me>--Bubblesorg (talk) 02:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for the suspect and uncivil replies on Dunk's talk page, but I'm frankly fed up with my actions contributing to the denigration of another individual's reputation. I would be happy to formally go through WP:SPI to clear this up, but I think the talk page diatribe needs to stop. 2001:569:7BB3:9200:11A:5FFB:5A18:575B (talk) 07:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
IP, why don't you make an account so we can keep track of your contributions. If you are an independent user caught up in the crossfire, we apologize, but understand that Bubblesorg is an unreliable editor who enjoys having conversations between his accounts, often applying different personalities to each and lying in an attempt to cover his tracks. We are rightfully suspicious of him (and other small accounts interacting with him) and doubt that his edits are made in good faith. Another SPI is certainly warranted, and this is a good place to discuss it, so don't expect us to stop anytime soon. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 15:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting ridiculous. Bubble's bad edits have long outweighed his good, and the latest drama here just confirms that we should consider admin action if he continues like this. He has had many chances to improve by now and gain consensus for controversial changes before doing them, yet we still get edits like this:[9]FunkMonk (talk) 08:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think I found another sockpuppet, Edaphosaurus, most recently used September 17th. Similar subject matter (advocating for the restoration of Animal Armageddon, interest in Nanotyrannus) and once more the whole "conversations with one's self" situation. I also have reason to suspect that Bubblesorg is based in Seattle, as their earliest edits (Euselachii) correspond to a 2601 IP. This IP address is also linked to some of Edaphosaurus's edits. Note that the 2001 IP is based in Vancouver. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 15:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, Fanboyphilosopher, I do not think Edaphosaurus is Bubblesorg. I recall an off-wiki user with the same username who I think owns the account; they are associated with the Saurian community (cf [12]). However, feel free to pursue this line of inquiry if you wish. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Edaphosaurus, is a diffrent user, My edits go back to 2018, infact I had no intrest in editing back before 2018, but edaphosaurus goes back before that time. Also Dromeosaur guy? Never heard that much of him. I saw his edits once while scrolling back on some edits on troodon to see some stuff. But no. I think you guys are taking this too far. But you are right abou the 2001 Ip not being me as He is based of vancover. Edaphosaurus is most likely this guy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oe1nI9b1tm4--Bubblesorg (talk) 16:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Oh yes and Edaphosaurus account was made in 2014, apparently a 10 year old kid (mind you does not know how to make a Wikipedia account) with ADHD would care to edit Wikipedia articles and sockpupeting, yeah Funkmonk, you make a lot of sense. Love the logic. On the other hand this is a case of pareidolia, you went out looking for something and it was there cause you went looking for it--Bubblesorg (talk) 16:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is the 2001 IP. In December 2017, I forced myself to take a break - admittedly executed poorly - because I felt that my continued presence was not beneficial for either myself or the community. I realized that I was not capable of contributing responsibly or of treating other users with fairness and respect, and I apologize to the community for these personal failures. When I left, I did so with the intention that I would return under my account at some point to make up for my actions. I wish this were under better circumstances. For some time, I have been stalking Bubblesorg's contributions after recognizing that a not-insignificant portion of their incompetent edits were not being corrected or reverted. I agree with many of you that Bubblesorg's behaviour is getting ridiculous and that something needs to be done about it, but I have unfortunately been caught in the crossfire. As I have said, I am willing to go through WP:SPI with CU to demonstrate that we are two distinct individuals. (In the spirit of full disclosure, I made a second account, IUpdateRottenTomatoes, as a clean start for contributing to the film project. However, I limited my contributions there after realizing that my personal issues were still present, and I won't be using it again now that I have reactivated this account.) Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:48, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for coming forward, this is making my case better. I am felling more happy and less alienated. Me and you will go immediately to the WP:SPI, with some assistance from you. I do need help on how to make a case.--Bubblesorg (talk) 19:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I want to apologize for stretching out this controversy. Lythronaxargestes, I had no idea that you were the IP and I now realize how foolish I had been acting in assuming you were a sockpuppet. Bubblesorg, I now realize that my suspicion that you were a persona of some "master vandal" is completely unfounded. Many of my points about your behavior still stand, but I now know better than to make such deep accusations. I want you to be a positive force on the paleo project more than anyone and I am invested in your actions. An SPI between you and Lythronaxargestes is unecessary now, although be aware that you will likely still be investigated for other possible sockpuppets in the future. Dunkleosteus77, you should be aware of this development. I completely understand your frustration with Bubblesorg, but you started this phase of the controversy and you need to understand the consequences of the accusation you made. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 19:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to apologize Lythronaxargestes, I'm very suspicious of every one of Bubblesorg's edits and it worsens as time goes on, especially because we had a discussion on whether to ban him or not when he first started and I made the argument to not, so I feel personally responsible for every bad action Bubblesorg has taken and am trying to mitigate them as fast as I can. I'm sorry you got caught in my haste User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk19:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the civility. I am all for ratting out sockpuppets but I have found that there is a need to distance your emotions from this process to avoid unjustified accusations (and I think the same is true for you as well). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:44, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, in hindsight I probably should've figured it out when the address changed from 2001:569:7CF0:9300:A47E:5CD:254B:F95 to 2001:569:7BB3:9200:1D7C:B949:2CEE:DE41 which wouldn't happen were Bubblesorg using a VPN User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk20:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have accepted your apology, you seem to be a bit to motherly in your response, but thats fine. My behavior may be a bit pathetic, but I am not like that in real life. In the end we all need to come together and make wikipedia a better place. I want us all to apologize to Funk monk for wasting his time. Just remeber I am only trying to make wikipedia a better place, I want our paleoarticles to be good, thats why I asked dunk for help.--Bubblesorg (talk) 19:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The onus is on you. WP:BRD is not an invitation to make sweeping changes without prior discussion. Additionally, I think it is more than fair to say that we are getting tired of your citations of PBDB or to other similar websites (e.g. "Shark References"). I suggest that you take some time to learn to properly read, summarize, and cite papers before continuing to edit in an active capacity. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is not "now and then", this is always. There are very few circumstances in this project where you should be citing anything other than a paper, book, or conference abstract which directly contains the information you are referencing. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bubblesorg It would be helpful if you keep all discussions relating to this on this one page and not spread out onto different user's pages. Indeed, from what I can tell of the situation you are trying to justify or apologize for past actions. We had a discussion before when these rash and impatient edits were made, and this time it appears to be more about the actual legitimacy of your potential violation of site rules. However, I think you are a more thoughtful contributing member now and I don't think you should be banned at this point. You are more active than many of us, myself included, and you have improved. In future, I would recommend the use of your sandbox, User:Bubblesorg/sandbox, for potential major edits, and i am willing to help out with the intricacies of wikicode if you need it. I am not taking you under my wing, and none of us should have to, but if we can make you an acceptable, active editor, and we do not need to have a third discussion on your edit qualities and site rules, I am perfectly willing to allow you to stay. Now let's all stay civil, assume good faith, keep up the discussions, and make shit better. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}02:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And one of the first things is how to properly comment. As a method of organization, every individual comment begins with at least one : which increase in number to give the comments a nested organization. This comment starts with three, :::, because it is the third reply. Try and remember this please. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}14:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Almost. But each comment adds an additional : Try using the "Show preview" button instead of "Publish changes" to see the difference it makes, or visit Wikipedia:Teahouse and ask there. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}02:12, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay
The trick is to add 1 more colon than the previous comment. For example, this comment has 7 colons, so a response to this comment should have 8. Also don't forget to always sign your comments with 4 tildes. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 21:10, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me wtf is this. I try to get a documentary page reinstated and I'm suddenly a muppet?! What a joke. p.s. Animal Armageddon deserves its own wikipedia page, it had more episodes than the majority of dinosaur documentaries. Maybe the reason multiple accounts are advocating for it is because many people agree! Edaphosaurus (talk) 10:50, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Um, this discussion has been closed for 2 months now, if you want to talk about Animal Armageddon, then do it were it is appropriate. You know, like a talk forum for the show?--Bubblesorg (talk) 15:49, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:The truth about killer dinosaur.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:16, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor has added a non-free use rationale to the file's page. You can see what it looks like by looking at the file's page. Just try and remember for future references that non-free files need a copyright license AND a non-free use rationale (they actually need a rationale for each use if the file is used more than once). -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:47, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bubblesorg! You created a thread called Question on talk pages at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
I may not be that active due to the covid 19 lockdown. I have not been here for several months. I am just making this message. I will be back in summer. just like I always do, love you all bye :D--Bubblesorg (talk) 19:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I'm pretty new to Wikipedia, so forgive me if I overstep in any way!
I noticed your edit adding in some information and the edit summary said it was from several sources you'd found. I was hoping to get the sources inserted into the article if possible! How can we make that happen? sootikins(gaze/palaver)17:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bubblesorg, I think that your drawing work could be significantly improved by using better software. I would recommend Inkscape which is a free vector drawing tool, using that would make your drawings look a lot nicer. I have no artistic skill but I've made vector drawings that I would consider good by using it, see:
Drawings I've made with Inkscape and other vector illustration software
Lateral view
Sinomegaceros ordosianus
Megaloceroides algericus
Concavenator skull (I actually drew this in Adobe Illustrator, but it's the same idea)
The linework looks somewhat jagged, either you should follow really close in to the lines with many closely spaced points so they see seem smooth when zoomed out, or you should delete some of the points, which will make them into curves which look smoother. Also the detail lines inside the main outline should be thinner than the outline, this can be changed by going to Fill and stroke (Ctrl Shift F) --> stroke style --> width. I notice that your line drawing is also a direct copy of a line drawing from the paper, ideally your line drawings should be original and not a copy of someone else's. It's not bad for a first attempt though. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:40, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First, thanks for all your work on WP. I ran across this article and am curious as to what DPC is. Can you explain it to me or wikilink it in the article? --LilHelpa (talk) 14:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Not sure what the author of the study meant, I guess he was talking about Diphenyl carbonate possibly? Not sure. We may have to ask the author if that is possible--Bubblesorg (talk) 19:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Chased by dinosaurs.jpeg
Thanks for uploading File:Chased by dinosaurs.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Hi Bubblesorg. I just want to tell you that I am not dead: I have just been unable to use my original account for a long time, but I recently got control over it again.--Conty 20:19, 23 November 2020
Lol, I was not refering to you actually being dead, but your account being dead. Anyways, its great to see you. You have not been here for a long time. Your popular now if I recall--Bubblesorg (talk) 22:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Sorry I have been out so long, anyways my friend showed me the vandalism that tyrannosaurus was a mammal on instagram so I wanted to pop back in. --Bubblesorg (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
As Magnatyrannus said, they are recovered as such by Rauhut in 2019. This paper isnt so hard to find, couldnt you have just gone to the Carnosaur page itself and found it? --Bubblesorg (talk) 21:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didnt change, I just reverted it. Le Wikiuser has arrived changed it to Megalosaurs, however for months Spinosauridae has been placed under Carnosauria question mark with not much hesitation. Any changes to something that most editors kept for months should be not be reverted unless they go on the talk pages--Bubblesorg (talk) 20:59, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions are appreciated, but, in this edit to Prehistoric kingdom, you removed Articles for deletion notices from articles or removed other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates. This makes it difficult to establish consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. -★- PlyrStar93. →Message me. ← 01:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with this edit to Australian Spinosaurid. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. -★- PlyrStar93. →Message me. ← 01:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give South Asian river dolphin a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.
Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:South Asian river dolphin#Seperate articles!. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Matthew_hk tc 02:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi Bubblesorg, I'm Primefac. You'll likely not be pleased about this but I have removed some of your edits because they reveal too much personally identifiable information about you. We have a policy of protecting editors' safety by hiding such information if they share it. I'm really sorry about having to suppress your edits, and I know it's annoying, but it's for the best. Please don't re-add the information. For some useful information on privacy and safety, you can take a look at Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors and Wikipedia:On privacy, confidentiality and discretion. Thank you, and sorry for messing about with your edits! Primefac (talk) 18:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
. Narky Blert (talk) 21:53, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Moved from User talk:matthew hk
located above the edit window.
Hello Bubblesorg, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Tangaroasaurus have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.
Stale as far as checkuser goes, no data is retained past a certain period.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Lateral view
Sinomegaceros ordosianus
Megaloceroides algericus
Concavenator skull (I actually drew this in Adobe Illustrator, but it's the same idea)
![[7]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hell_Creek_Formation_Fauna.png){kind=link}
![[8]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Hell_Creek_Formation_Fauna.png){kind=link}
