User talk:Aliafroz1901

Vandalism Reverts
My edits can not be considered to be vandalism because I was not intending to vandalize the information I enter duced int the neosaurus articel is aquret sinse as I staded in my edit sumery pelycosauria is not even a valid clade so why should it treted like one eupelykosauria on the the other hand is a valid clade. regarding naosaurus at the time I thaught that naosaurus is a chimera and thaught that it should not be redereked to idafosaurus. when I loked at the idafosaurus article I found that the article listed naosaurus as a sinonim of that genus thus when edited 1886 in palioentology I noticed that the articel increctly listed it a valid genus and so changed it. regarding my edits to your  talk page they wer sertenly not bad faith edits sins I just passed a remark on your revertion of my edits+i've herd that theres a vikipeadia polisy that says that you cant remove somebody els's coments. Aliafroz1901 (talk) 13:43, 18Jone2012(UTC)


 * Your edits were unsourced and very similar to the edits of an IP vandal that was vandalizing last night who was blocked. Changing dates and figures in an article requires close scrutiny because it is a very common form of vandalism. Please leave an edit summary regarding your edits when you change dates and figures on an article as like I said figures are often changed to undermine the integrity of the encyclopedia.  In addition, I reverted the edit you made to my talk page because it was worded as a personal attack against me for reverting your edits I felt were vandalism.  I have erased the warnings on your talk page because I do feel you were acting in good faith but please ensure to cite your sources and leave useful edit summaries when you make changes to articles, as it can often be characterized as vandalism if you don't.  Thank you for your edits :-) Welcome to Wikipedia!
 * <3 ♥ Solarra ♥  ♪ Talk ♪   ߷  ♀ Contribs ♀  14:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Sue size
Thanks for the heads up! I actually scale the figures in my scale charts to skull size or long bone length rather than overall length. So the only thing that may need to be changed is the length of the tail itself, rather than the rest of the body. I'll check this out if I have a chance this week. MMartyniuk (talk) 13:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Tyrannosaurus edits
Hi. Please use spell check. And you abbreviate "feet" and "pounds" as lower case "ft" and "lb/lbs", not upper case "FT" and "LB". Thank you for your contributions. SaberToothedWhale (talk) 00:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see you ignored the above and reverted my edits. Don't pull that shit. Understood? SaberToothedWhale (talk) 17:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Corythosaurini
It looks like that section of the article was out of date, as it stated that Lambeosaurini had never been defined and cited a 5 year old source. Older sources did use Corythosaurini, but a paper published this year pointed out that Lambeosaurini has priority and defined it, so Lambeosaurini is correct for the same reason Apatosaurus is correct rather than Brontosaurus--a matter of priority, not opinion. MMartyniuk (talk) 13:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

tyrannosaurus
Your recent editing history at Tyrannosaurus shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. de Bivort 08:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I left this notice to get your attention that there are procedures at work on wikipedia that help the process of creating good articles - not to discourage you from contributing. I hope you will read up a bit on the consensus revision process. Also, please start using spell check. It's very hard to understand your posts at times, and it diminishes your credibility. cheers. de Bivort 08:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * 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.
 * Same goes for Yutyrannus. If you have an issue with the way information is reported in the article argue your case on the talk page, not edit summaries. MMartyniuk (talk) 16:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

How this works
Hi - It's clear you don't yet understand how this process works. When you make a change to an article, and other people don't like it and revert it - the obligation is now on you (not them) to justify it on the talk page. If you revert the reversion, you are edit warring. Go read wp:BRD de Bivort 15:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

edit warring at yutyrannus
Your recent editing history at yutyrannus shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. de Bivort 15:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry!
Hi, Aliafroz1901, you'll likely not be pleased about this but I have suppressed a number of your edits which reveal too much personally identifiable information about yourself. We have a policy of protecting editors' safety by hiding such information if they share it. I'm really sorry about having to suppress your edits, and I know it's annoying, but it's for the best. Please don't re-add the information. For some useful information on privacy and safety, you can take a look at Guidance for younger editors and On privacy, confidentiality and discretion. Thanks, and sorry for messing about with your pages - A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Amniote Taxonomy
Hi Aliafroz. I changed the rank of Amniota back to "clade" because the group is widely accepted as a clade - ever since Gauthier (1988), as the article already mentions. "Series" is not a formal taxonomic term as far as I'm aware, except in botany. A clade might not be a rank under Linnean taxonomy, but it's definitely an acceptable grouping for the purposes of a taxobox. Smokeybjb (talk) 15:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Clades are often used in taxoboxes, so I don't think Amniota should be labelled as "unranked". Just look at Amniota's parent taxa; five of them are labelled clades. I see no problem with calling Amniota a clade, too. Smokeybjb (talk) 15:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I know a clade not a rank in the traditional sense, but Wikipedia taxonomy isn't strictly Linnean. That's why we use clade as a "rank" in the taxonomy, even though it is not the type of rank you are thinking of. The instructions for Template:Automatic taxobox say "If it is not a Linnean rank, specify clade, cohort, total group, stem group, or informal group. If none of those apply, set the rank to unranked." So, since clade applies, clade it is. If you think all clades should be changed to "unranked" in taxoboxes, you should bring it up at Template:Automatic taxobox or Wikiproject Tree of Life.
 * Also, for Template:Taxonomy/Amphibia/sensu lato you wrote "we can't expect the reder to know what sensu lato menes." While that's true, taxoboxes aren't for explaining terms. If readers don't known what sensu lato means, they can click on the link and read about it in the Amphibia page. There's no mention of sensu lato in the article now, but I'll find a way to add it soon. Right now ""Amphibia" sensu lato(Amphibia in the wide sense)" is way too lengthy for a taxobox. Smokeybjb (talk) 16:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, if you still disagree with the use of the word clade in taxoboxes, you should bring it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life or Template talk:Automatic taxobox where others can weigh in. As for Amphibia sensu lato, I don't get your reasoning. How is sensu lato misleading? It has an exact meaning and is standard terminology in taxonomy. If the reader doesn't know what something means, that doesn't mean it should be dumbed down. Especially when there's a direct link to an explanation! Smokeybjb (talk) 21:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I linked "Amphibia sensu lato" to the Classification section of the amphibian article, where Amphibia sensu lato is explained. When readers click on the link in the taxobox, they will be brought right to that section for an explanation. Smokeybjb (talk) 16:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem with writing ""Amphibia" sensu lato (Amphibia in the wide sense)" is that it takes up a large amount of space in the taxobox and will clutter hundreds of pages. I'm not against explaining things, but this is really unnecessary. How about we compromise and say "Amphibia (wide sense)"? Smokeybjb (talk) 15:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Spinosaur size
Sorry for the short reply, but I don't use methods of adding and multiplying speculative numbers to create my scale charts, I take reasonable reconstructions, based on e.g. Hartman's, and simply scale them in Photoshop. When I put Hartman's holotype Spino in Photoshop, and make it larger until the premaxilla is the same exact size as the dal Sasso specimen, the dal Sasso specimen ends up being larger than before, because before, using the same method but with a relatively larger head, the body was smaller relative to the head. Now that the body is larger relative to the head, when I scale based on the head, the body ends up, um, larger ;) This is of course assuming that the head/body proportions are exactly the same in both specimens. MMartyniuk (talk) 20:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Same answer for the first question. Forget scaling to percentages. The skeletons of these animals are complete enough for a good skeletal restoration, and we know the bone lengths. Simply scale to that and measure the resulting picture. When I do this, Baryonyx ends up more than the usually stated lengths which have been based only on guesstimates like the vague ~20% figure you mention. Unfortunately, as those posts were made almost 3 years ago I don't remember the specifics of that specimen without going through the research again, but the dead links were to the Theropod Databse page on Baryonyx and Suchomimus, which is now here . MMartyniuk (talk) 19:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Second question regarding the statue--this was something posted on line a while ago along with a short story on the new unpublished material. Unfortunately I don't know what the link is (again, original post was 3 years ago). Most of Hartman's skeletals can be found on his web site here or on his devianArt page here . His newest Spinosaurus is here . MMartyniuk (talk) 13:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)