User talk:Meekororum

Hi Meekororum, the new cladogram you added to Haya griva needs some fixing. It is a bit broken right before Kulindadromeus, which is causing Hexinlusaurus and Yandusaurus to not be shown. I added indents for each subtier to try to track down the error, and left a blank row where the error first appears so that it will be easy for you to spot the place where it needs fixing. I would have fixed it myself but I don't have access to the article you are referencing. Also, your new cladogram does not include Cerapoda, Marginocephalia, or Ornithopoda - I would think these major groups should be included. I added back the old cladogram (at least for now) in addition to your new one. Can you go and fix your new cladogram? Thanks Cougroyalty (talk) 14:49, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I haven't done cladograms in a while, which explains the errors but I will work on it soon. Meekororum (talk) 00:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to remove it from the main article for now, but I'll dump it here so that your work is not lost. When you get a chance to fix it, you can put it back.Cougroyalty (talk) 16:05, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

In 2021, Daniel E. Barta and Mark A. Norell carried out a detailed analysis of the phylogenetic position of Haya. The cladogram below shows the results of their analysis, with Haya recovered outside of Jeholosauridae, and instead as part of Thescelosauridae.^[1]

Per Monvoisin et al. 2022 the stratigraphic provenance of most of the the theropod material in the cliff is unclear. Maybe the best solution here would be to merge the Marnes De Dives and Marnes De Villiers into a new article about the Falaises des Vaches Noires using the french version as a base, as ultimatley these specimens deserve to be indexed somewhere. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems to be the best solution. Meekororum (talk) 00:40, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

hello me and another user have gotten into a spat on the Nemegt formations age. basically he keeps editing that the nemegts base age is 72 mya. I reverted because of a whole bunch of reasons all the reasons stated are stated on the Nemegt formations talk page. he requested it be taken to the Nemegts talk page to have our arguments heard out and judged by third party arbitraters

I've seen you on Wikipedia and I've known you've been an authority on dinosaurs for years now and my question is, will you go the Nemegt talk page and review our section and arbitrate? Themanguything (talk) 00:50, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

look I understand I'm only just getting used to using visual editor and I admit some of my structuring is awful. but the information on dinosaur stratigraphic provenance in the lourinha and Tendaguru formations are from comprehensive peer reviewed work and so had no right to be deleted.

please stop reverting and getting rid of my hard work. if my structuring is bad just let me know on the talk page. im more than happy to improve how input info, I want to as a matter of fact. but reverting everything is not fair.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230321334_Palaeoecology_and_depositional_environments_of_the_Tendaguru_Beds_Late_Jurassic_to_Early_Cretaceous_Tanzania page 30 for elaphrosaurus

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320411961_The_Lourinha_Formation_the_Upper_Jurassic_to_lower_most_Cretaceous_of_the_Lusitanian_Basin_Portugal_-_landscapes_where_dinosaurs_walked page 83 for lusotitan and page 85 for lourinhasaurus and dinheirosaurus Themanguything (talk) 16:59, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

You know what, the way I responded to your edits was unprofessional and I apologize sincerely. Your work is indeed supported by theses sources, the only reason I don't accept them is the kind of sources I used for these formations was based on their respective redescription papers, like for Lourinhasaurus , Lusotitan, Dinheirosaurus, and Elaphrosaurus, if you check the paper I cited for Elaphrosaurus, it says Elaphrosaurus is only known from the Middle Dinosaur Member. These papers can be found using Google Scholar. In general, these sources are more trustworthy than faunal lists because they directly examine the material. I recognize that blatantly reverting your edits on the Lourinha Formation is rather harsh and a slap in the face, but I hope you see why I didn't accept them. Meekororum (talk) 23:54, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

its ok and if I have a structuring error please let me know. I've got big fingers so its hard to press the buttons I need to Themanguything (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

can you send the open pdf of the 2016 on elaphrosaurus? I want to see it but its log in-walled or paywalled Themanguything (talk) 00:11, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wtj85U0hyiEsUQ0SmcMSa9DZ2B1FEYob/view?usp=sharing

Here you go! Meekororum (talk) 01:50, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

please stop undoing my edits on lourinha

the whole " I trust these papers more than yours" is so arbitrary and not fair. I accept the one with elaphrosaurus.

but no direct paper has refuted mateus 2017 paper. as it stands they are valid. I mean the same paper is used elsewhere on the page so it can be used where I put them.

leave them alone, please and thank you Themanguything (talk) 03:02, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

it isn't cool when it is your opinion and your opinion alone

faunal lists are perfectly fine until proven otherwise and unlike with elaphrosaurus it hasn't been proven otherwise.

so I accept I was wrong with Elaphrosaurus but I'm not wring with lourinha

it is arbitrary unsourced and comes from you and only you.

I don't want to get into an editing war so just leave my edits alone,please Themanguything (talk) 03:04, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

your personal opinion on fauna lists doesn't justify deleting the edits because you don't agree with them. its not fair my valid and sourced work is trashed because of your personal opinion

its peer reviewed science saying they are present there so it is perfectly fine

elaphrosaurus had its material directly reanalyzed and proved the old info wrong. lusotitan,dinheirosaurus,lourinhasaurus etc haven't had that tho, the info in the 2017 paper still stands and I will keep it in. other wiki pages on formations use fauna lists and there's no problem at all.

so please just leave my edits on lourinha alone. they are valid and deleting them because of your own personal opinion is so dumb. Themanguything (talk) 03:11, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

its not up to you and you alone to accept them. other editors accepted them, you know why? because the source is legit

so leave them alone Themanguything (talk) 03:37, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

i got angry and messaged a ton,forgive that

please leave my edits on lourinha alone. your personal opinion on fauna lists has no bearing on the validity of what I input. Fauna lists are used across formations on the wiki,lourinha is no exception. Octavio mateus is one of the most renowned paleontologists and has studied lourinha for over 2 decades, he knows what he's talking about.

your logic of "detailed descriptions defeat fauna lists" only works when there has been detailed revisions that explicitly defeat fauna lists, but not every animals gets than. elaphrosaurus had that reappraisal and was determined to not have come from the upper dinosaur. but lourinhasaurus,miragaia,dinheirosaurus,etc have not. the information that they spanned into the porto Novo or Praia Azul members still stands. their respective description papers have not debunked their presence in other members at all. I contacted mateus et all and they reaffirmed the info I put in is legit

I make structural errors, the info I input at times can be wrong and can be debunked. I was wrong with uberabatitan, i was wrong with elaphrosaurus. but I am not wring here.

your logic of "I don't accept these sources." ends right here, right now. It doesn't matter that you don't accept these sources. other Paleo expert editors on Wikipedia accepted the source, paleontologists accepted the source. your solitary opinion is only your opinion and its not fair my work is trashed upon just because you don't agree.

so my edits to the stratigraphic provenance of the lourinha dinosaurs is to be left alone. fauna lists are reliable most of the time. sometimes like elaphrosaurus they can be, but that isn't the case here.

it has been stressing me much. please leave my edits alone, the opinion of the paleontologists that know this stuff and other editors more senior than myself justify my inputs and that is what matters, Not your solitary reservations about sound science. Themanguything (talk) 04:29, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

I see that you contacted the paleontologists on the validity of their information, and they confirmed, so I'm happy to let your edits stand. Allow me to explain my reasoning. Dinheirosaurus is only known from one specimen, and in its redescription paper in 2012, and Tschopp et al. 2015 about diplodocids, it is said to be from the Praia da Amoreira-Porto Novo Member. Without any justification, this faunal list refers it to the Praia Azul Member, which in retrospect I should accept proven otherwise. The same thing is the case for Lourinhasaurus and Lusotitan, which is referred to the Sobral Member/Formation by its redescription, equivalent to the Praia Azul Member, but referred to the Praia da Amoreira-Porto Novo Member by Mateus et al. without justification. But as you said, the faunal lists are full of correct information, so I have to let your edits stand. However, in the case of Miragaia, a 2019 paper (cited on the wiki page) which deals with Miragaia longicollum only refers to specimens from the Praia Azul Member and Santa Rita Member, thus there is no evidence for it being in the Praia da Amoreira-Porto Novo Member as is stated in Mateus et al. (2017). So this has to be reverted to its original state. In the end, this is just Wikipedia, a place where anyone can edit so we can have these discussions. I was under the (mistaken) impression that we had come to an agreement, but it doesn't seem that way, so I will back off. Meekororum (talk) 13:01, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

already got rid of the info for miragaia

sorry for my outbursts last night Themanguything (talk) 13:13, 21 October 2025 (UTC)