User talk:CuddleKing1993

Since you insist on your own idea of these creatures' relationships, I would like to remind you how they really are related according to real, professional scientists.

- Labocania is disputed to be either a tyrannosauroid or a carcharodontosaurid similar to Shaochilong.^[1][2]

- Dakotaraptor is currently believed to be a dromaeosaurine, but a chimaeric one.^[3]

- Santanaraptor is usually believed to be tyrannosauroid,^[4] although it seems to have some features of noasaurids.^[5]

- Kelumapusaura is part of an endemic clade of South American kritosaurins.^[6]

- Notoceratops may be either a ceratopsian^[7] or a hadrosaurid.^[8]

- Patagopelta is a nodosaurid,^[9] possibly a panoplosaurin.^[10]

- Alamosaurus is a saltasauroid titanosaur, although it is disputed whether its ancestors came from South America^[11] or Asia.^[12]

There is currently NO evidence that Labocania is an abelisaurid or that Notoceratops is a ceratopsid. The evidence for Dakotaraptor being a unenlagiine is flimsy at best. The describers of Patagopelta tested its relationships against parankylosaurs and nodosaurids and found it to clade with the latter.

The presence of nodosaurids and hadrosaurids in South America and Alamosaurus in North America does not automatically assume that their contemporaries also crossed continents. The exact reason why is unknown, but it definitely isn't because of their "majesty" or "mundaneness" and most definitely not because you yourself personally want to see evidence of a Late Cretaceous American interchange. You do not have the power to guide the evolution of dinosaurs that lived seventy million years before you were even born. So STOP adding your speculations to articles and talk pages, because real scientists don't agree, and Wikipedia can only show real scientists' findings when it comes to the relationships of dinosaurs. 2001:4453:5C6:CB00:C56C:38D2:DFBF:253A (talk) 09:27, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I do not understand the logic of professional scientists. CuddleKing1993 (talk) 11:28, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

The scientists examine the fossils themselves, notice certain subtle traits in those bones, then use their knowledge of fossils to compare them and determine their relationships. Sometimes they enter those traits into a phylogenetic analysis so that computers can work out their relationships.

On the other hand, I assume you just read the very simplified results of those scientists on Wikipedia and form your own theories based on them. While that's still scientific thinking, your theories can't be added to Wikipedia because they aren't published in scientific papers and aren't based on provable evidence.

Besides the fact that "hadrosaurs and nodosaurs reached SA from NA, so ceratopsids must've too" and "you want to see ceratopsids and abelisaurids fighting", what concrete evidence do you have for Notoceratops to be a ceratopsid? Are there subtle features in its fragmentary, lost dentary that suggest relationships with ceratopsids? If so, I suggest you write a scientific paper about it and publish it in a scientific journal before you add it to Wikipedia. 2001:4453:5C6:CB00:C0FF:93AA:66B0:4E32 (talk) 12:07, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

2001:4453:5C6:CB00:C56C:38D2:DFBF:253A (talk) 09:27, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

In case there is ever an unblock request, I can't help but respond to this statement: "I do not understand the logic of professional scientists" with "You don't need to understand it. Just accept it." David10244 (talk) 13:56, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sarrail (talk) 01:26, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, CuddleKing1993. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Diablophis".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Hey man im josh (talk) 16:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, CuddleKing1993. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Irgilin Dzo, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 03:02, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello, CuddleKing1993. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Irgilin Dzo".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC)