User talk:2601:589:4480:4B20:4170:91DE:A975:86E5

Welcome!
Hello! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. You are welcome to edit anonymously; however, creating an account is free and has several benefits (for example, the ability to create pages, upload media and edit without one's IP address being visible to the public).

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 05:01, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

June 2022
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Chilesaurus, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Peaceray (talk) 05:01, 18 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Absolute nonsense on your part, as expected of wikipedia editors. It would have taken you 5 seconds to look up the fact that Baron et al. did not come up with Ornithoscelida. It's literally in the second sentence of the wikipedia article on the subject. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ornithoscelida I'll be reverting any reversions you make. Thank you. 2601:589:4480:4B20:4170:91DE:A975:86E5 (talk) 05:38, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Please see the Verifiability, not truth essay, where it states in a nutshell: Editors may not add content solely because they believe it is true, nor delete content they believe to be untrue, unless they have verified beforehand with a reliable source. If you make a statement in an article, the burden is on you to provide verification with a citation to a reliable source.
 * As per WP:BRD, I invite you to take the discussion to the talk page if you disagree about adding citations. Peaceray (talk) 05:47, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Chilesaurus. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Peaceray (talk) 05:41, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please get yourself under control. Stating a basic fact of history is not "original research". Calling it that is completely unreasonable on your part. There is no basis for calling Baron et al.'s Ornithoscelida a "new" classification system. You keep just spamming blocks of wikipedia rules text but you're not addressing the actual edit. Nor am I interested in a protracted debate on the subject.


 * I am very familiar with WP:OR, WP:V, WP:RS, etc. Your statement fails the "the sky is blue" test as most readers would not know about Ornithoscelida. Therefore you need to provide citations when you make an attestation. BTW, your statement that I'll be reverting any reversions you make. is classic edit warring & will quickly get you blocked. It is much better to pay attention to Wikipedia policy & guidelines. Peaceray (talk) 05:57, 18 June 2022 (UTC)


 * , as a regular editor on the WP:DINO project, please stop. The IP is not technically incorrect, Ornithoscelida is named after a historical classification. You are merely aggravating the situation. In fact, the burden of proof for Ornithoscelida being new would have been on the editor who originally wrote that text, because the reference also does not support the claim that it is a new hypothesis. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 17:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * to be clear, I was responding to behavior that appear to violate Wikipedia policies & guidelines. The statement a resurrection of an old dinosaur classification scheme was unclear & seemingly unsupported, as the two sources following did not specifically discuss ressurecting Ornithoscelida. I think that your edit was much clearer, as the sources did discuss the reclassification of the individual order within Ornithoscelida/Ornithischia.
 * I respond poorly to editors who make changes that appear to be original research without citations or explanation, then threaten reverting to get their way instead of being a part of discussion & clarification. Peaceray (talk) 18:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)