User talk:Bubblesorg

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)

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)

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.

Should be redirected to Balaenoptera. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

(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.

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. Super Ψ Dro 19:33, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at User talk:Matthew hk, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
2. 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.

Thank you. Matthew_hk tc 05:37, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

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)

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!

Ryan shell (talk) 14:56, 15 June 2018 (UTC) Ok thanks--Bubblesorg (talk) 16:28, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Why i have been banned? Editor is X is not me he is a school bully of mine. I was trying to fix his edits.

I'm not actually seeing any ban notice. Can you edit other articles or is it just with Basilosaurus?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@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)

Ok.Could you help me?--Bubblesorg (talk) 04:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

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).

Bubblesorg (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

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)

---

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.

Well if just the IP address is blocked, if you log in to your account you should be fine for editing   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

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.

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.

Even if blocked, you will usually still be able to edit your user talk page and email other editors and administrators.--Bubblesorg (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

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 talk  20:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

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)

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 talk  01:50, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• There's nothing I can do. You can request checkuser to find out if multiple accounts are used legitimately or abusively here. Widr (talk) 03:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh its ok i will use my Other computer after its fixed.--Bubblesorg (talk) 14:40, 20 June 2018 (UTC) It seems i can edit again on booth computers(Bubblesorg (talk) 15:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC))

Hello Bubblesorg,

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.

Xevus11 (talk) 01:25, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Bubblesorg,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Burrunjor should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burrunjor .

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.

Thanks,

Meatsgains^(talk) 01:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Jurassic World 3 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Irrelevant because the movie hasn't start filming yet

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria 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. 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

What do you need help with? Richard.sutt (talk)Richard.sutt (talk) 04:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC) Its in My talk page "Do you want to write an article with me. Its on the south polar region of the Cretaceous. --Bubblesorg (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Bubblesorg,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether North Carolina dromaeosaurid should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Carolina dromaeosaurid .

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.

Thanks,

Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Hunter Avallone (youtuber) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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)

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.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   12:48, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

ok--Bubblesorg (talk) 01:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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.

To add this information, select the appropriate license tag from this list, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you can't find a suitable license tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 07:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC) Ah ok the source is this. https://marine.rutgers.edu/pubs/private/grassle/2009%20Paleodictyon.pdf--Bubblesorg (talk) 17:11, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

How is this image even fair use? Any artistically competent editor could produce an equivalent illustration of the trace fossils. 2001:569:782B:7A00:ED7F:F0AB:9CE3:8CF1 (talk) 05:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC) Its not a trace fossil it is an actual picture taken under the sea.--Bubblesorg (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:14, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Titanoboa-monster-snake.62678.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

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.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

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)

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.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:20, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

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)

If you’ve been following its talk page, looks like we got some comments flooding in. Can you handle it?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Really?--Bubblesorg (talk) 01:25, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

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 talk  05:12, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

By friday yes--Bubblesorg (talk) 15:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alligator gar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aquitanian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

What exactly did you base the sizes off of? You need to cite your source(s) in the sourceline of the image description   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC) Its based from an article online where they say that orcinus paleorcas tooth is bigger https://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/110003359939/en and this. https://www.deviantart.com/qcy8/art/Pre-Seawolf-Orcinus-Paleorca-343960004--Bubblesorg (talk) 01:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

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 talk  01:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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 talk  22:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I just realized, what you posted up there is the full article. That’s all the original descriptor said. Estimated size, from what I see, is unsubstantiated   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Alt-right. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:33, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Do not remove or re-phrase sourced information unless you have a consensus on the talk page to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:33, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

ok, but still. Also i made it less bias.--Bubblesorg (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

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 Weller talk 13:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC) K--Bubblesorg (talk) 15:57, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

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.

Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Um ok thanks--Bubblesorg (talk) 15:53, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

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)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Allo picture.PNG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 02:02, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

The file File:Prehistoric park.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-free DVD cover being used in the DVD release section of the article,and not the main infobox as claimed. Fails WP:NFCC#8.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Whpq (talk) 02:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Bubblesorg,

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.

~~Cheers~~Mgbo120 19:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

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.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

Definitely not! My real concern was to stop the taxobox putting the page in the error tracking categories. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:06, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Ah ok. Let me just finish up with the paleobiology for now.--Bubblesorg (talk) 18:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Oshwah, dude again my friend is using the same computer, dude im not a troll, dont block me. Can you unblock?--Bubblesorg (talk) 02:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

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)

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.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• 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.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• 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)

Thanks for creating Physeter vetus.

User:Kudpung while reveiwing this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

Please check the formatting error in the display of reference #2.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Kudpung}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC) Thanks for telling me--Bubblesorg (talk) 00:48, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

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)

Elmidae, any thoughts on Atractosteus africanus? 140.122.57.53 (talk) 02:06, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

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)

An article you recently created, 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 follow the prompts on the Articles for Creation template atop the page. ... discospinster _talk 23:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

It's actually a template, which has to exist in template space to support the automated taxobox at the article Pachystruthio dmanisensis, or the genus article if it's moved. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:09, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

What are you wanting to do?--Akrasia25 (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

"| synonyms = Mesocetus

	+	
                        = Basilosaurus drazindai"

Well okay, I was trying to add Basilosaurus drazindai as a synonym as thats what it was a synonym of Eocetus--Bubblesorg (talk) 01:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Considering drazindai is a separate species and not a synonym, the synonym field is not appropriate. 2001:569:782B:7A00:B4FE:E0AF:CB69:F00C (talk) 06:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

yes yes it is a synonym, actually its been one since 2013, you just have to pay attention to the revelations.--Bubblesorg (talk) 23:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Then you haven't read Gingerich & Zouhri 2015? 2001:569:782B:7A00:549A:8FCA:F71B:2BF5 (talk) 04:12, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Basilosaurus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thalassia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:04, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Bubblesorg,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Elmidae and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Cryptic hornshark should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cryptic hornshark .

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.

Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC) Yeah Im questioning the person who just redirected it--Bubblesorg (talk) 21:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

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)

Yeah, I dont know, I dont think its a good idea to delete, unless we ask the original poster of it on Wikipedia, this guy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jntg4Games#Re:_Removal_of_women's_football_leagues_from_template, but I dont know, anyways got to check on the basilosaurus page, The same user challenged me to some redirection which I dont get --Heynodonmiocene (talk) 22:23, 14 August 2019 (UTC) actually deletion is a good idea, anyways what did you do on the Basilo article?--Bubblesorg (talk) 22:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Basilosaurus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Choctaw County (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:16, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

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 Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:16, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

• @Ponyo: on the topic of Bubblesorg’s sock puppets, I’m almost certain that Cetusaurus pudgetiens (talk · contribs) was created by Bubblesorg in order to comment at wp:paleoart#Basilosaurus hunting and give positive remarks of his lackluster illustration in order to pass the image review, and then he does it again on the same day. The account Cetusaurus pudgetiens makes no more edits beyond these   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:46, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@Dunkleosteus77: The account is  Stale as far as checkuser goes, no data is retained past a certain period.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

[[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)

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 

• So, just for the record, as far as I’m concerned, you’ve had 3 sock puppets–all of which have been used for destructive purposes–Editor x is great (talk · contribs) from June 2018, Cetusaurus pudgetiens (talk · contribs) from May 2019, and now Heynodonmiocene (talk · contribs) in August 2019   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• @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 Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:56, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@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 talk  00:21, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

That was a long time ago, now can you stop that, I have tried to be nice now!--Bubblesorg (talk) 01:07, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I've heard that before   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Look pal, I dont want to get mad at you, im serious! I'm anyways dealing with a loss, and I DONT WANT TO FREAKIN TAKE IT OUT ON YOU--Bubblesorg (talk) 01:32, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Bubblesorg, I know 2001:569:7CF0:9300:A47E:5CD:254B:F95 (talk · contribs · IP 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 talk  04:03, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

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 (see 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.

You insinuated that I know how Wikipedia works. I do, in fact. I was active here once under an account. But every once in a while I'm reminded why I quit. You're welcome to take any further accusations up at WP:SPI. 2001:569:7BB3:9200:5024:A936:F7C1:B1BB (talk) 04:54, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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: FunkMonk (talk) 08:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Stop the drama, Im on damage control and to the ip, please just stop--Bubblesorg (talk) 14:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• By the way, this discussion also made its way onto my talk page User talk:Dunkleosteus77#https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:569:7CF0:9300:A47E:5CD:254B:F95 is not me   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Lets move the discussion to a sock puppet investigation like the Ip is suggesting. --Bubblesorg (talk) 14:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

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)

Is there a connection to this blocked sockpupeteer, who did some similar edsits as Bubbles? That user also seemed to have an obsession with the validity of Troodon. FunkMonk (talk) 16:08, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

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 ). However, feel free to pursue this line of inquiry if you wish. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

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)

Okay so can you say something? I have made a good case here, or did you just suspect this as a waist of time.--Bubblesorg (talk) 16:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

This is not up to us. As you have been told several times, it is up to an uninvolved third party to open a case. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:04, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about that. But how do we make sure we can get a case in the first place?--Bubblesorg (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

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)

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 talk  19:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

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)

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 talk  20:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Please dont be too harsh on dunk, I dont say yes to bullying.--Bubblesorg (talk) 19:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

I cite papers now and then, but could try to do it more--Bubblesorg (talk) 20:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

Could not agree more--Bubblesorg (talk) 03:32, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

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)

• Kind of like this? If not is there a place I can learn that?--Bubblesorg (talk) 17:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

No. The correct way to start your comment in this case, being at the fourth level of the discussion, is :::: instead of *. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:11, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

okay--Bubblesorg (talk) 23:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

Okay sure--Bubblesorg (talk) 03:26, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

This better not be you. Consider yourself warned. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:25, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Huh?--Bubblesorg (talk) 06:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:The truth about killer dinosaur.jpeg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

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)

dude, they was a fair use notice on the bottom, did you even look into the file or no?--Bubblesorg (talk) 13:04, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bubbleorg. Did you know that a non-free file uploaded to Wikipedia require two things (as explained in WP:NFC#Implementation): a copyright license and a non-free use rationale? The "fair use notice" at the bottom of the page you're referring to is indeed a "copyright license", but you still need to provide a "non-free use rationale". Since the file looks to be DVD cover art, you can probably use the non-free use rationale Template:Non-free use rationale video cover, but you don't have to use a template if you don't want to as explained in Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale#Non-template. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:14, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

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)

ThanksBubblesorg

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tyrannosaurus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hu (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

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)

I am going to contribute more actually.--Bubblesorg (talk) 00:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

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)

Sure, Here are the sources (https://www.strangescience.net/stromer.htm), (https://www.penguinrandomhouseaudio.com/book/122857/the-lost-dinosaurs-of-egypt/)--Bubblesorg (talk) 17:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Wonderful, thank you so much! sootikins ^{(gaze/palaver)} 18:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure, thanks for asking--Bubblesorg (talk) 18:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

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)

Hope this helps, kind regards. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much dude, it is great to see you back.--Bubblesorg (talk) 00:44, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay, so I tried the Inkscape out, hard at first but I got the controls. Came up with this

.--Bubblesorg (talk) 05:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

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)

Okay then, I will see what I can do--Bubblesorg (talk) 17:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

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)

Hello, this is Tim from Discord. I thought that for our planned collaboration on Australovenator it'd be useful if we knew eachothers Wikipedia userpages TimTheDragonRider (talk) 17:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay, the messege worked, got it--Bubblesorg (talk) 17:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

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)

If I may ask, why did you think Cau was notable enough to warrant him getting his own page? Cheers, -TimTheDragonRider (talk) 14:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

He named Halskaraptor, did many pieces of work regarding dinosaur phylogenetics, ect--Bubblesorg (talk) 16:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Thought I'd let you know the reason behind me asking, theres currently a discussion going on at the WP:DINO talk page. --TimTheDragonRider (talk) 16:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I usually let them come to a decision, but thanks--Bubblesorg (talk) 17:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I saw you revert the edit of User:Golden Wraith Terror on the Template:Taxonomy/Spinosauridae page. And you said that there is new evidence that they are basal carnosaurs. I tried looking on the Spinosauridae talk page, but i didn't find any evidence. It's either I read to fast or I'm just totally dumb. Can you give me a link to the paper that says this evidence? Le Wikiuser has arrived (talk) 17:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

The paper describing Asfaltovenator in 2019 recovered spinosaurids and megalosaurids as basal carnosaurs. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 18:24, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

However, that is not a reason to change the parent taxon. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 20:51, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

Note: See also Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 23:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Late Cretaceous fish of India indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 20:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi. I do understand that Brownstein (2018) did describe potential Dryptosaurus specimens from Tar Heel Conchman formation, but the edit I recently did after your first revert was not because I didn't see that statement (sorry about the IP appearing differently, as I'm right now in a different location using a different wifi). The reason is the more I research about the attributed specimens, the less likely they belong to Dryptosaurus.

So the "Dryptosaurus" specimens from that formation were first described by Baird and Horner (1979), as noted in Brownstein (2018): "The theropod dinosaurs also left behind an extensive record at Phoebus Landing. Hindlimb material comparable to Dryptosaurus aquilunguis was noted by Baird and Horner (1979). The femoral material compared to D. aquilunguis and figured by Baird and Horner (1979) may show an autapomorphic feature of this taxon. This is the presence of an ovoid fossa on the medial surface of the femur just above the distal condyles (Brusatte et al., 2011). More recently, Weishampel and Young (1996) also regarded Dryptosaurus aquilunguis as present at Phoebus Landing."

As noted in Brownstein (2018)'s appendix (see here on page 33), they are the following:

• USNM V7199 Tooth (Dryptosaurus sp.)(Tyrannosauroidea)
• ANSP 15332 Two teeth (Dryptosaurus sp.)(Tyrannosauroidea)
• USNM V7189 Partial femur (Dryptosaurus aquilunguis)(Tyrannosauroidea)
• ANSP 15330 Partial femur (?Dryptosaurus aquilunguis)(Tyrannosauroidea)

However, other authors did not describe these specimens as Dryptosaurus in their paper/database, or doubted the Dryptosaurus classification. For instance, in 2023, Gallagher referred ANSP 15330 (noted as ANSP-DU 15330) to just as a medium-sized theropod without specific classification. I also checked the Theropod Database of Mickey Mortimer (she's a well trusted figure who's source has appeared in various paleontology articles including FAs; you can even ask other users), and she noted that ANSP 15332, ANSP 15330 and USNM 7199 do not belong to Dryptosaurus as cited below from Mortimer's Theropod Database Tyrannosauroidea page (Mortimer, 2024):

"unnamed Eutyrannosauria (Cope, 1869) Early Campanian, Late Cretaceous Marl Pits of James King, Tar Heel Formation of the Black Creek Group, North Carolina, US Material- (USNM 7189 in part; syntype of Hypsibema crassicauda) femoral shaft fragment (lost), distal femur (Cope, 1869) Early Campanian, Late Cretaceous Phoebus Landing, Tar Heel Formation of the Black Creek Group, North Carolina, US (ANSP 15319) pedal phalanx III-3 (62 mm) (Miller, 1967) (ANSP 15330) distal femur (Horner, 1979) (ANSP 15332; 'ANSP 15331' of Miller, 1967) two incomplete teeth (FABL ~12.1, ~12.8 mm) (Miller, 1967) (USNM 7199) tooth (20 mm) (Stephenson, 1912)"

So what about USNM V7189 (which was in part a syntype of a separate dinosaur Hypsibema)? Mortimer (2024) has noted this specimen as D. sp., so she tentatively agrees that this might be Dryptosaurus, yes, but it's still not certain enough to classify it directly as representing D. aquilunguis.

"D? sp. indet. (Horner, 1979) Late Cretaceous Marl Pits of James King, North Carolina, US Material- (USNM 7189) two femora Comments- Horner (1979) referred these to Dryptosaurus, though this is not confirmed, as they are also similar to tyrannosaurids. Reference- Horner, 1979. Upper Cretaceous dinosaurs from the Bearpaw Shale (marine) of south-central Montana with a checklist of Upper Cretaceous dinosaur remains from marine sediments of North America. Journal of Paleontology. 53, 566-577."

Now you might ask why is Brownstein (2018) study not cited, and honestly I too wonder about this (maybe because Chase Brownstein is still a graduate student without doctor's degree yet?). However, it is a fact that some authors do not consider these specimens as definitive Dryptosaurus specimens; and the attributed specimens themselves are extremely fragmentary to assign them confidently to any taxon (like just search up "USNM V7189", you'll see what I mean), with considerable amount of age difference, so it is uncertain whether these specimens actually represent Dryptosaurus. Like just think about it: what tyrannosauroids ever lived for over 10-12 million years as a genus based on good fossil evidence that are not fragmentary? Even the fragmentary T. mcraeensis (though within the same genus) was described as a species separate from T. rex due to the age difference much shorter (5~7 million years) than the age difference between the Tar Heel specimens and the Dryptosaurus holotype (over 10-12 million years), so it is highly unlikely to consider that they represent the exact same species (though it is possible that they belong to the same genus, which is why I put "earliest=Campanian" at the fossilrange to reference this).

Overall, it is still uncertain whether these fragmentary specimens truly belong to Dryptosaurus, and there are researchers who disagree with or consider them uncertain. I personally think they could potentially belong within Dryptosauridae, but we'll have to see other papers for that. I hope you understand the reasoning behind my edits, and the fact that there are some people who classify those specimens differently from Brownstein (2018). 198.30.200.57 (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

No, Mortimer is not as reliable as you are making her out to be and if you are going by degree status, Mortimer does not even have a PHD to my knowledge. She is more of a phylogenetics expert when it comes to the programs and software. Also, there is some evidence that Tyrannosaurus is much older (See the possible Judith River/Two Medicine specimen). But regardless it does not matter how long other tyrannosaurs lived. Not unless you can find a paper that says otherwise. Also, the last part of your detailed explanation seems to be based on personal opinion. Brownstein only suggested it belonged to Dryptosaurus due to the revised diagnosis given by Brusatte. Here, do you want to talk this to the actual talk page? --Bubblesorg (talk) 18:42, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Of course, and I do know those "Tyrannosaurus" specimens, but as I said, they're extremely fragmentary (the degree thing was just my opinion as I really do not know why he wasn't cited). 198.30.200.57 (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dryptosaurus#Tar_Heel_Dryptosaurus_specimens You can come through this section of the Dryptosaurus talk page (I've included what I said here just as a starting point). 198.30.200.57 (talk) 18:57, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did to Sequoites dakotensis, without good reason. They should have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. Wikipedia has some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are moving the article without following policy, which does not permit copy-and-paste moves. Since multiple editors support moving the page and taxonomic norms are recognized as preferential for article names, policy supports keeping the move. If you want to contest the move, you can request someone with the relevant permissions to do so. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:19, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Which multiple editors? Where? It is only you. You only used one source. In the discussion we are having two people (me and the other person) are against you moving it. --Bubblesorg (talk) 15:21, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Kevmin recognized the current accepted name as Sequoites dakotensis. There are two sources that post-date Brown that demonstrate Sequoites as the appropriate genus and another source that goes even further to say that this may not even be a deciduous plant. Copy-and-paste moves are disruptive. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:28, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Kevmin said this "Sequoites is not an alternative name for Sequoia". This is not an agreement, if anything it is the opposite. --Bubblesorg (talk) 15:34, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Correct, its the same as saying Ceratops is not Triceratops, they are different genera one is a paleobotanical form genus for ovulate cones on stems. They are not sysnoyms as Pbritti originally thought. I agree with Pbritti that the current genus placement is Sequoites not Sequoia.--Kevmin § 19:17, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Paleobiota of the Morrison Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nilssonia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:51, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

On 30 April 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sequoites dakotensis, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Sequoites dakotensis was first described from clay-filled casts (examples pictured) and not the original tree cones? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sequoites dakotensis. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Sequoites dakotensis), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Dryopteris oreades. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it does not feature even a brief description. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. — Moriwen (talk) 18:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

The redirect Post KPG Coelacanth fossils-- has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 9 § Post KPG Coelacanth fossils-- until a consensus is reached. consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 12:31, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Asa Gray disjunction, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Gordonia and Diphylleia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:52, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Edwards Plateau, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 19:05, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

please stop changing the Nemegt formations age to upper campanian.

once again barun goyot underlies Nemegt and is itself considered to be latest Campanian at its oldest, so Nemegt being that old just makes no sense stratigraphically. the top of the djadochta formation itself has more precisely been dated to 71 million years ago and its precedes the barun goyot and the nemegt so a 72 million year age for Nemegt just makes no sense in that regard.

the 2013 study was before the upb dating was done and when there was more room for discussion. but the 2023 dating tested the middle Nemegt to be 66.7 mya give or take 2.5 mya. even if you add the 2.5 mil, the middle Nemegt is still well within the maastrichtian. the lower Nemegt better span millions of years to justify a 72 mya age. the upd study has narrowed the Nemegt down to the maastrichtian, full stop.

the 2021 study has not been universally accepted and as it stands the consensus is that the barun goyot and Nemegt are seperates albeit closely related formations https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0031018217305771#:~:text=The%20lower%20Nemegt%20is%20well,origins%20of%20the%20dinosaurian%20biostratigraphy.

the discourse on the nemegts age while still not resolved, points to an age well confined to the maastrichtian between the upd study, the biostratigraphical implications of the maastrichtian saurolophus and the radiometrics of the much older djadochta make the notion of the lower nemegt being 72 mya very unlikely. as it stands it is safest to give the nemegts age as 70-66 million years old, 72 million years old is a bridge to far for now as it stands.

so please stop adding that, thank you and please Themanguything (talk) 21:01, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

i understand that you want to add useful information but as it stands the info you're putting is not well supported currently. Themanguything (talk) 21:04, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

I literally kept it as 72.1 MYA because that’s the latest Campanian. Second, learn how to read before making claims. Third, if you’re going to write something this long, at least grammar-check it—ChatGPT is free, just ask it to “clean up your comments.” What is with all the lowercase letters at the start of some of your sentences? There is no language written in the Latin alphabet that begins sentences with lowercase letters. Half of this was hard to understand. Finally, why is this on my talk page? It should be on the Formation’s talk page. Also, telling me to “please stop” is not a serious request on Wikipedia. Telling me to stop and suggesting we discuss this on the talk page—that’s much better. I kept it as 72 MYA, and you said it’s 72 MYA at the oldest. That’s the end of the Campanian, the latest Campanian—exactly what the paper says. So please, be serious and stop with this nonsense. I also wanted to note that you cited a 2018 paper and claimed it was a response to a 2021 paper, which is honestly pretty funny—I had a good chuckle over that. Furthermore, the Tarbosaurus tooth paper does not debunk anything the 2013 paper stated. I would suggest brushing up on stratigraphy, please and thank you.(https://stratigraphy.org/gssps/files/maastrichtian.pdf). *I also do not mean to be cruel, but you do realise the issue?--Bubblesorg (talk) 21:21, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

the barun goyot is 72 million years at its oldest. the the top of the barun goyot were the beginning of Nemegt is would be younger than 72 mya. as I've said that constrains the Nemegt and the uppermost barun goyot well outside the campanian. once again the youngest part of the djadochta has been radiometrically tested to be 71 mya and it is older than barun goyot and Nemegt, so it makes 0 sense for any part of the Nemegt to be Campanian when all the evidence points other wise.

the science as it is doesn't support a Campanian age for the Nemegt, it doesn't even support for barun goyot. keep adding that and I'll remove it, it is simply not accurate as of now. Themanguything (talk) 21:30, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

You didn’t read my comment. Are you a native English speaker? What you wrote makes no sense. Why don’t you try typing what you want to say in your native language, then use ChatGPT to translate it and make it clear and concise in English? Otherwise, I really can’t understand what you’re trying to say. I do not know what language you speak, so I cannot translate my response. Maybe chuck my response in ChatGPT as well. --Bubblesorg (talk) 21:34, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

the lower Nemegt being 72 mya makes no stratigraphical sense given the radiometrics of the preceding djadochta and there's a mountain of evidence against that, which I've already mentioned. im simply trying to keep the Nemegts info as up to date and accurate and your additions as they stand are not. the 2023 dating is newer and supercedes the 2021 study (which again isn't universally accepted by most paleontologists) because even taking the margin of error into account, places the formation in the maastrichtian. even if the barun goyot and Nemegt are the same the top the of bg is well within the maastrichtian so the base of the Nemegt would not touch the Campanian.

and then theres the biostratigraphy and the dating of djadochta but I'm not a broken record here. until proven otherwise, the Nemegt isn't 72 mya, it simply makes no sense.

this conversation is over, good day Themanguything (talk) 21:42, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

"The 2023 dating only covers the upper and middle sections. The 2023 study does not debunk the 2021 study. In fact, if you read the 2023 study, it clearly states-"Combining this data with the time constraints of the upper boundary of the Nemegt Formation, we can say that the validity of the deposition of the middle and upper Nemegt formations, which have been thought to have occurred during the Maastrichtian, is supported by fossil isotope dating itself. However, the present data alone do not allow us to argue whether the depositional age of the Nemegt Formation dates back to the late Campanian." This conversation is over because you clearly cannot read English." If you keep causing an edit war, you might be in for a possible ban. I would change your attitude and maybe have a discussion on the Nemegt talk page. Let's present evidence there and get other editors opinions. Does that sound like a plan? Try not to do the "this conversation is over" on the actual talk page for the formation.--Bubblesorg (talk) 21:55, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

see you there Themanguything (talk) 22:00, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

i started the discussion on the Nemegt formations talk page so other editors cant arbitrate in. Themanguything (talk) 22:09, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

can arbitrate in* correction Themanguything (talk) 22:10, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Hey, I reverted parts of your edit because your statement that Australia and Africa shared these plants is not supported by the sources at all. What you did is combining sources to arrive at your own conclusion, which is WP:OR or at least WP:Synth. It does not matter if you are right with your assessment (you might be), but all information in Wikipedia has to be directly verifiable, and that Agathis trees existed in Africa is just not mentioned in those sources. Again, the point is not that you are wrong (I don't think you are), the point is that it is not verifiable based on the sources you provided, and such additions are therefore not helping, please only add information that is directly verifiable. Thanks! Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:55, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

It is mentioned in my sources. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235708368_Late_Cretaceous_equatorial_coastal_vegetation_new_megaflora_associated_with_dinosaur_finds_in_the_Bahariya_Oasis_Egypt Please learn to read. --Bubblesorg (talk) 13:31, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Bubblesorg You're citing a nearly 25 year old conference abstract reporting preliminary findings of that flora. Show us where those findings were ever actually published. Preliminary plant identifications regularly are revised as further examination by other paleobotanists happens, And neither Kirk nor Scott are gymnosperm experts anyways.--Kevmin § 15:25, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

The discussion is not about how hold the source is, it was about what the source says. Here is a more recent source. https://iupress.org/9780253063311/the-desert-bones/ Also, it does not matter here if they are specifically Gymnosperm experts. This abstract was published in a reputable journal and is cited by 12 other papers. --Bubblesorg (talk) 15:35, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

You don't have the source text though, as it DOESNT exist. you only have a one off statement in the abstract of a verbal talk at a conference. Find peer reviewed sources that also state Agathis is present and we can evaluate them. That Kirk and Scott are not gymnosperm experts is very relevant, we don't quote Ford Model-T auto-mechanics on why the tensile strengths of LZ 129 Hindenburg cross girders failed in the fire. Related fields do NOT automatically confer cross expertise.--Kevmin § 15:55, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

• I see you cited two conference abstracts, and I apparently looked at the other one – my bad. However, I reached out to you not because of source-text integrity. I do agree with Kevmin that conference abstracts generally not be used, but my primary issue goes deeper: it is about WP:OR / WP:Synth. You state that The habitat of Spinosaurus has been compared to Great Sandy National Park in Australia, and source that to the popular BBC book (not a scholarly source, I note). Now, you expand that statement using a list of plants of Sandy National Park, and two conference abstracts listing plants found at Bahariya, to pick only those plants that both have in common, to underpin the thesis of the popular book. This is a prime example of WP:Synth. You combine three different sources to arrive at novel implications: that the plant life was similar to Sandy National Parks, and that the mentioned species are the relevant examples to mention. Here, you go far beyond of what the sources actually say. Do you understand the concern? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:14, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

On 23 October 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Osmundastrum cinnamomeum, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the modern cinnamon fern has existed since the Cretaceous? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Osmundastrum cinnamomeum. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Osmundastrum cinnamomeum), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.

Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 00:03, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Finally, this is my first "Did you know" nomination and I am happy it ended up as a success.--Bubblesorg (talk) 15:56, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 22:11, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Caribbean pine, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A dates error. References show this error when one of the date-containing parameters is incorrectly formatted. Please edit the article to correct the date and ensure it is formatted to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style's guidance on dates. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Pterocarya, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A dates error. References show this error when one of the date-containing parameters is incorrectly formatted. Please edit the article to correct the date and ensure it is formatted to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style's guidance on dates. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Monolophosaurus, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A dates error. References show this error when one of the date-containing parameters is incorrectly formatted. Please edit the article to correct the date and ensure it is formatted to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style's guidance on dates. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 01:28, 14 March 2026 (UTC)