User talk:109.48.210.235

January 2018
Hello, I'm WolfmanSF. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Megafauna have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. ''You should not be making edits to size estimates, ranges or comparisons without providing a detailed justification. Given the rate at which you have been making edits, it doesn't appear you are giving them much thought.'' WolfmanSF (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Deli nk (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Please stop what you are doing
Your edits to multiple articles over the past 24 hours are considered disruptive. Wikipedia relies on references. None of your edits are referenced or they are counter to existing references. If you carry on regardless you will end up getting blocked. nagualdesign 21:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

January 2018
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. 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:. You must provide references to reliable sources for the changes you are making. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  21:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Before you return to editing, please read the following
Unfortunately, not a single one of your edits so far have conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and all of them have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. Additionally, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Please be open to talk page discussions. If you have any edits reverted you should not repeat the edit without discussion, and please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions. nagualdesign 22:58, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Read the links you have been provided with above. I asked you where you were getting your information at Talk:African elephant You did not even provide a single edit summary, you did not respond to discussion, and you repeated edits after you had been reverted instead of discussing them. Spend the time that you have familiarising yourself with our policies. Thanks. <b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 23:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

12274kg African elephant


Here it is the sources: http://www.newtimes.co.rw/section/read/93519/ http://relivearth.com/endangered-species/african-elephant/ http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-illustration-of-a-charging-african-elephant-21622126.html https://www.si.edu/Exhibitions/African-Elephant-63


 * The first link doesn't work for me (the page is blank), the second and third may not be reliable (alamy.com is just a stock photo repository), and the fourth (Smithsonian) though reliable does not mention the animal's weight. When you return please discuss any changes at Talk:African elephant first, and any changes to other articles should be discussed first on the relevant talk pages. If your edits are warranted then you should have no difficulty gaining consensus. Once again, please follow BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, which means that if any of your edits are reverted you will be expected to discuss any changes on the talk page rather than simply repeating your edits. <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 13:00, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Well in the fourth link is saying "Our iconic 12-ton, 14-foot-tall African Elephant has undergone a remake!" Anouther source: http://relivearth.com/articles/wildlife/largest-elephant/

Mistakes
Also WolfmanSF, for example in List of largest mammals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_mammals is saying "The largest species in terms of weight is the hippopotamus (Hippopotamus amphibius), native to the rivers of sub-Saharan Africa. They can attain a size of 4,500 kg (9,900 lb), 4.8 m (16 ft) long and 1.66 m (5.4 ft) tall.[3] Prehistoric hippos such as H. gorgops and H. antiquus rivaled or exceeded the modern species as the largest members of the family and order to ever exist." and in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippopotamus_gorgops is saying "With a length of 4.3 metres (14 ft) and a shoulder height of 2.1 metres (6.9 ft) and with a weight of 3,900 kilograms (8,600 lb) H. gorgops was much larger than its living relative, H. amphibius." There are many other details like this that I found, I was correcting them
 * I didn't edit List of largest mammals. However, consider the challenge posed to other editors when you suddenly publish a long list of edits without any explanation. Someone then needs to go through all of them to see if they're appropriate. If it appears that some of them aren't, and the proof-reading editor is busy, it's easier for him to just revert them all. So, please slow down and provide explanations and references. WolfmanSF (talk) 05:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * WolfmanSF I just show a example, anyone can see how wrong this is,

so since I can not do anything, it's up to you to change this or if you want to continue with wrong informations, I think you should be the one who needs to be blocked
 * Go to Talk:List of largest mammals and Talk:Hippopotamus gorgops and discuss these issues there with the people who have contributed to those articles. If you cannot read and understand a simple message, or you aren't willing to listen, then you're not going to get very far. <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 15:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well i did that, if someone would answer me that would be great

And User:nagualdesign why you don't talk in the talk page of the african elephant? I guess I'm rigth, and so I will edit the wrong weight of the elephant
 * I suggest you wait for a reply. You have to understand that the people who have contributed to that page may not be sat at their computers waiting at your beck and call. Use a bit of common sense. <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 15:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, but when I edit, almost immediately they show up, you should use better arguments

February 2018
Please do not add unsourced or original content. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked* from editing Wikipedia.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   16:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC) Unsourced? I putt many sources! You should calm down
 * I don't think so, you are the one who is trying to discriminate me, so you should be blocked rigth now before you do something barbaric

African bush elephant
Hi! Please read page 10, page 11, page 16 and page 17 in this PDF to know why Larramendi revisited the old allometric estimates with volumetric ones: https://www.app.pan.pl/archive/published/app61/app001362014.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.77.128.218 (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

How can you be so sure he is right? He is the only person saying this, every other oficial studies show that in fact the elephant shot in 1974 was really 12.25 tonees

Because the others like Mark Carwardine just copied the allometric estimate from Wood. Larramendi explained why volumetric estimates are better: "Volumetric vs. allometric.—The results obtained from the volumetric method differ greatly from allometric formulae (Table 4), and these differences could have been even greater if equations with a percentage prediction error (PE%) over 15 had not been excluded from SOM: table 1. A comparison of the masses obtained from different proboscideans reveals that in most cases the discrepancies between the two methods are significant. For example, the body mass for Scoppito Mammuthus meridionalis obtained by the allometric method goes from 10.5 to 17.1 tonnes or up to 60% more than that obtained by GDI (10.7 tonnes). A body mass of 17 tonnes is too excessive for the Scoppito skeleton's volume and cannot be correct, the upper limit for this animal may be around 11.5–12 tonnes, even the obtained average body weight of 13.2 tonnes is still too high. The average body mass obtained for Zhalainuoer III M. trogontherii by two methods is quite similar, but the body masses obtained by allometric method for the other large bull 396 cm-tall M. trogontherii specimen (Azov I), are not reliable. An African elephant of this shoulder height is predicted to weigh about 10.5 tonnes, but the humerus and ulna dimensions of this mammoth produce body masses of around 14–17 tonnes, respectively, and an averge body mass of 12.7 tonnes (Table 4, SOM: table 1). These estimates are far from possible because the great resemblance between two genera's skeleton proportions at the same shoulder height. On the other hand, the body mass obtained by the volumetric method is only 10% more than predicted for a Loxodonta africana of its shoulder height, and the little difference in body mass can be explained because of the relatively wider pelvis of the mammoth. The similarity in the size of the bodies of the elephant and the mammoth confirms the accuracy of this result by GDI. Moreover, the very low body mass obtained by the allometric method for the Kolarik Mastodon (Mammut americanum), just 4.8 tonnes, is an astounding result and hardly credible considering that this weight corresponds to a slender-proportioned L. africana barely less than 3 metres tall and that the volume of the 269 cm-high mastodon is about 35% more. The less accurate results of allometric estimates show important body mass/bone dimension differences between extant and extinct forms. So, the allometric method is not accurate enough for calculating the body mass of extinct proboscideans. Finally as shown above, the body masses obtained by allometric formulae for extant forms are not realistic. However, the results obtained by volumetric calculations correspond perfectly with living elephants (SOM: table 1)." Based on that, the new estimates for the largest recorded African bush elephant and Asian elephant are: "Therefore, the tallest Loxodonta africana on record (396 cm) is predicted to have weighed 10.4 tonnes, 1.9 tonnes less than previous estimates (Wood 1982). Meanwhile the tallest E. maximus (343 cm) is estimated to have had around 7 tonnes of body mass." Also, the remains of the 1955 Fenykovi elephant indicate it was ligther, and also shorter than previously said: "In November 1955 an enormous elephant (popularly known as Fenykovi) was shot in the same area. This one was measured at 401 cm on its side, suggesting its size to be 381 cm at the shoulders (Wood 1982). This specimen is stored at the Smithsonian Natural History Museum and catalogued as USNM 304615. The postcranial long-bone diaphyseal lengths of this specimen (Roth 1990) show an animal nearly 10% taller than Jumbo (AMNH 3283), indicating a shoulder height in the flesh of about 350 cm and 7.5 tonnes of body mass, very far from previous estimates of 31 cm (381 cm) in shoulder height and nearly 3.5 tonnes (10.9 tonnes) in body mass (Wood 1982)." Finally, Larramendi is a well-known and respected proboscidean expert, who made this awesome paper, in which he gave reliable and accurate estimates for several proboscideans which size was either not known, or had unreliable and inaccurate estimates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.77.134.147 (talk) 08:02, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Alrgith, but Wood says "computed weight of 12.25 tonnes", what these means? And why he says that some pre historic mammals reached 28 tonnes, that doesn't seems much reliable, its a reason why the 10.4 tonne figure is probably wrong

December 2018
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Apokryltaros. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:16, 30 December 2018 (UTC) Hello. Sure, but in a matter of fact I'm not the one who started this, you should also warn User talk:Apokryltaros for his actions.