User talk:Junsik1223

Welcome!

Hello, Junsik1223, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind support! Junsik1223 (talk) 02:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jurassic Park (novel), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Possum. 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.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copying licensed material requires attribution

Hi. I see in a recent addition to Spinosaurus you included material from a webpage that is available under a compatible Creative Commons Licence. That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. It's also required under the terms of the license. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material in the future. — Diannaa (talk) 00:15, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Haman Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Batrachopus.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Haenamichnus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Batrachopus.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unexpected editing

So my question is, what is happening with you about the Bagaceratops article? your overwhelming editing has truly caught me off guard. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 00:33, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to make sure that all estimates count really. That's all I want to say. Nothing more nothing less. And now I do understand those specimens indeed might not be Bagaceratops after further research, but just deleting it without including a source is wrong. That is not how edits should work, according to Lythronaxargestes and FunkMonk (who have been here much longer than us and has contributed to several featured articles). They taught me that no estimates should be omitted really (unless there is enough evidence to claim that this is exaggerated or overestimated; but even then, explain using a source). Also how accurate is the skeletal? Because I've never seen any article which says Magnirostris reached 1.7 m in length other than your claim. On the other hand, I've actually seen an article which claims to be closer to 3 m (though Magnirostris isn't really the focus of that article). Junsik1223 (talk) 00:41, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is very true, actually, I have learn a lot from older users since I joined Wikipedia two years ago. However, I have also learn that less is often more, and in this case the information added is not truly relevant if we have more precise sources. If we follow your reasoning that all estimates count, we should add every single existing estimate for the taxon (which also extends to other dinosaur articles), only contributing to confusion and misleading readers. It really does not contribute to the article. Regarding the length of the skeletal, it is closer or falls within the range of, for example, Tereschhenko 2008 (1 to 2.5 m, including the now synonyms of Bagaceratops). Whether we agree or disagree in his species/specimens identification, his estimates are published literature and can be used to backup the resulting skeletal length. If you actually put in the time to corroborate published measurements you would reach similar conclusions regarding IVPP V12513. Creating a skeletal is simply using data and references from literature, and not creating elements or claims out of nowhere. What really caught my attention me were your persistent edits (16 yours - 4 mine, since 17 August); you even pushed Paul 2016 cite above other cites. It seemed that you disruptively wanted to include this estimate no matter what. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 03:35, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also if you really support a smaller length, at least note that a body mass estimate of 175 kg by Paul is based on his assumption that Magnirostris reached 2.5 m in length, because he didn't consider them in the book to be much shorter. Junsik1223 (talk) 00:46, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can't really say that much about it, I haven't been able to find other mass estimates besides Paul or Holtz. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 03:35, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pushing Paul above other sites was actually an edit error really. What I really tried to do was to put the 2.5 m length in a separate sentence and write that an individual of this size would reach this mass. But I usually mess up on edits (admittedly); this is not on purpose though. Plus I was considering where to put this estimate source (because if 2.5 m is false, then this mass estimate would be also rendered false, which now it seems more likely to be the case). Junsik1223 (talk) 03:49, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe finding a better mass estimate could be an alternative in this case. I'll update the website in that way. Junsik1223 (talk) 04:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your understanding, I only advocate for the best regarding the article. Also yeah, other mass estimate could be nice, they are quite nonexistent though..... PaleoNeolitic (talk) 04:43, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please use the talk page as you've been asked a dozen times now? Your ten edits a minute to a single article approach is getting really tiresome, and the writing you're introducing is subpar. FunkMonk (talk) 10:17, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This will be your last warning, if you keep adding questionable sources to featured articles and messing up edit histories instead of consulting the talk page for evaluation of your suggestions, I will have to call for admin action.FunkMonk (talk) 16:35, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But that estimate seemed pretty coherent to the understanding of Gallimimus size. Its length and hip height estimate has barely a difference, and it's only the mass that has a difference of 60 kg, which is not significant compared to some other varying estimates for one specimen of certain dinosaur species. That is why I didn't think this required evaluation, although if you say so then I will not add it. Junsik1223 (talk) 16:39, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this calls for the need to discuss on the talk page before making such problematic edits. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 16:43, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is the same pattern of adding stuff which has already been discussed and excluded from articles and adding them in an extremely messy way with multiple edits instead of one, and often introducing grammatical and citation formatting errors. Every. Single. Time. And this means the rest of us have to waste time cleaning up the edits after they have been done. This is especially problematic when it comes to featured articles, which have higher standards than regular articles. So next time you want to edit a featured article, consult the talk page, or this behaviour will be reported. FunkMonk (talk) 16:48, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As suggested, I have opened a new topic on the talk page. Junsik1223 (talk) 16:52, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you keep doing this. Admin action will be called for soon. FunkMonk (talk) 15:59, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wait was that also a featured article? Ok sorry that one clearly wasn't intentional. Junsik1223 (talk) 16:01, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, it doesn't even matter whether it was featured or not, you are doing a lot of unhelpful edits, and this will be the last one. FunkMonk (talk) 16:02, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I wasn't enjoying my time here anyway. Goodbye. Junsik1223 (talk) 16:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, no one asked you to leave, you should be fully able to do constructive work like article expansion such as Jinju Formation and Archaeoniscus. The problem is when you drive-by edit articles that are already well-established (such as featured articles, but this goes for any article) to remove info or change info based on iffy sources or misunderstanding of sources, adding bad grammar and source-formatting, and doing this with dozens of edits that make the edit history incomprehensible. All you've been asked to do is to not do such potentially disruptive edits and instead ask on the respective talk pages whether the suggestions are helpful or not. It baffles me why that should be so hard to do. There are plenty of editors here that would be glad to help you make constructive additions. FunkMonk (talk) 17:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that rule didn't apply to something very obvious or quite problematic by its existence. For example, the Syntarus from the Dilophosaurus article (yes it's written incorrectly in the article as Syntarus, not Syntarsus). I'm pretty sure that's an error and I think it's meant to say Syntarsus? But isn't Syntarsus not a dinosaur name anymore? What is that supposed to mean? Also that dinosaur is clearly not Megapnosaurus, and the info was pretty tangential, so I thought it would be better to just remove its mention (since that species is pretty much a taxonomic nightmare). Junsik1223 (talk) 23:30, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See, this is exactly why you need to use the talk page, because you are clearly in doubt about the issue and need to ask. Yes, an s was missing from the name, but no, it is not tangential info, and no, while the taxon needs a new name, it is still very much a dinosaur. Until then, there is only the preoccupied name or alternative combinations to use. If you would just use the talk page instead of editing when you are unsure about something, this could have been very easily cleared up without a bunch of pointless revisions that removed valid info. FunkMonk (talk) 23:20, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well at least that's clarified then, thanks. But I am actually taking a break for a while because: 1) I feel I really didn't benefit Wikipedia (except for very minor instances); 2) I didn't really had a good time here. So I think this will be my last (possibly for a couple of months). Thanks for at least coming here again to reply. Junsik1223 (talk) 04:35, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you have been doing good work to articles that really needed expansion, which others have noted too, so if you'd continue that kind of stuff instead, everyone would be happy. FunkMonk (talk) 09:32, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to various shark articles

Hey, I've noticed that you've been editing small blurbs into various shark articles that go along the lines of, 'A 2019 study suggested that it would have reached such a length during the (insert period)', citing Pimiento et al. [1]. Having skimmed the paper and supplementary material, I can not find any such wording that states these claims. Am I correct in assuming you're using the information in the caption of figure 1? It simply states the 'first appearance date' and the maximum length the taxon reaches. I have not found any evidence that this is intended to mean that these taxa reach the max size during the 'first appearance date'. Or am I missing something? Thanks. Steveoc 86 (talk) 13:46, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I figured out my mistake before you state this and I was going to delete them but didn’t had the time. You can delete them if you want thanks. Junsik1223 (talk) 22:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Compounding Edits

Hey Junsik, while your passion for editing is admirable to say the least, I have to urge you to be more concise with your contributions and write any changes in fewer individual edits. A lot of your contributions boil down to very minor fixes and adjustments that you spread out very thinly across the multiple sections, publishing each of them as their own edit (typically without edit summary either). This is kind of starting to become a problem as it means that article histories are needlessy filled with all your minor adjustments, when it would be a lot more convenient for everyone trying to grasp the changes if you would compound them into ONE SINGLE edit rather than a dozen. It also seems like at least some of your edits, while certainly in good faith, are not needed and simply reword things that were perfectly fine the way they had been before, while other times your edits go and undo things you had added yourself previously. It would save everyone a lot of work and effort in deciphering your contributions if you were to, as already said, try and make multiple changes within a single edit, preferably double checking before publishing. If it is any help, you can also simply copy paste the page into your own sandbox and do your edits there before applying them to the main page. Really just anything to make the editing history less massy. Much obliged and best of luck with any further edits. Armin Reindl (talk) 12:14, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Princeton Field Guide Edits

Hi Junsik, it seems like you have been at work editing pages on marine reptiles in accordance with Paul’s Princeton Field Guide to Marine Reptiles. However, as discussed here, most of the editors at WP:PALEO do not consider this volume to be a viable source when it comes to the topic. I would like to kindly ask you to stop editing the sizes mentioned on marine reptile pages in accordance with this book. Thanks in advance, TimTheDragonRider (talk) 15:59, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meraxes

Sorry for accusing you of making up information from Henderson (2023). I assume you were getting the 9–10 m estimate from Table 1? Henderson cites this to the original Canale et al. (2022) description. At the end of the paper, though, Henderson provides a revised length of 10.2–11.6 m using calculations from the pelvis, which is further supported by Figure 4 and the fossil material. Also, Google Drive links aren't exactly appropriate for Wikipedia citations. Hope this helps clarify some things. -SlvrHwk (talk) 07:38, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was based on Table 1. While I do realize the other estimate provided, I think we should include both estimates, given that the skeletal reconstruction and the size chart in Wikipedia estimate shows a closer estimate to 9~10m. Junsik1223 (talk) 07:56, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So I just went back to that article, and the other IP seems to have done this already, although I'm not sure if his/her reasoning is correct on Henderson oversizing carcharodontosaurids and downsizing Spinosaurus. Junsik1223 (talk) 07:59, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Logged out editing

Can you confirm or deny that you are the editor behind the 58.228.22.162 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 121.189.96.179 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) IP addresses? Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both are not me. I swear. May I ask what's the reasoning behind assuming they are me? Junsik1223 (talk) 05:13, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Links to user pages and sandboxes

Please do not introduce links in actual articles to user pages or sandboxes, as you did at Hesperonychus. Since these pages have not been accepted as articles, user pages, sandboxes and drafts are not suitable for linking in articles. and such links are contrary to the Manual of Style. These links have been deleted, please do not re-add any such links, thank you - Arjayay (talk) 10:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disrespectful behaviour

Hi, I really can't be bothered to argue with you regarding Triops cancriformis. However, you should not be so rude we are all here trying to help out Wikipedia. Plus marking edits as minor is only for vandalism so note that for future edits. AussieWikiDan ^(talk) 15:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Junsik1223,

It would have been nice if you had provided an edit summary to explain this edit. Why did you remove all of these categories? Please provide an edit summary for any edit that other editors might have questions about and this one did raise questions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well it was because there are no definitive fossil evidence that represent Triops cancriformis, with the article itself explaining how previous triassic records are erroneous, indicating that this is a recent genus with no fossil record pre-holocene. Junsik1223 (talk) 01:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found that the fifth reference of this article can't open the web page. If this is about PDF files, it will be very difficult to query and correct-this paper is very difficult to find, I hope it can be restored, thank you.[In the Achillobator giganticus entry] KATgeneral1900 (talk) 02:42, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to open an independent topic, sorry... KATgeneral1900 (talk) 02:57, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

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.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]