User talk:Bamboozlingbert

Giganotosaurus Edits
Hi, Bamboozlingbert,
 * you may be editing with good intentions, but could you please stop editing the giganotosaurus article so that is ‘Average’ size is 13.7m. Please understand that wikipedia relies on published academic sources. And the published  sources show that there is only 1 ‘decent’ specimen known of giganotosaurus,  that is about 12.5m. The ‘largest known specimen’ is a piece of lower jaw which ‘suggests’ a specimen 13.7m long. Other than those 2, there are some isolated teeth, so to say they average 13.7m long with the current evidence is wrong. There just isn’t enough  specimens to say what giganotosaurus average. Even if there’s the possibility larger specimens in the future, you can’t imply they exist when there’s no evidence. Thank you for your time.  Steveoc 86 17:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but the average size is 13 metres not 13.7 metres but i didnt want to edit that far and at most it is 14.5 metres due to some new estimates.
 * What new estimates? Also, how can a reliable average be computed when only a few specimens are known? J. Spencer 16:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, what new estimates? I'd love to see them.Steveoc 86 17:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * When it comes to dinosaurs, News articles are not good sources of information, news reporters don’t know much about dinosaurs and always make mistakes or use outdated information. So you can’t count them as ‘new’ estimates. As for tyrannosaurus, there are specimens over 12m. Sue for one is larger at about often said to be about ~12.8m, and there is a skull described that is slightly larger than sues, possibly ‘suggesting’ a larger animal. (but There’s a lot of variation in body proportions between T-rex specimens. There’s this specimen UCMP 118742 which is a single maxilla, which may be bigger still, but I’m not sure what current thinking is. In future if you have issues with an artical, raise it on the articals' discussion page before editing. There are many other people here who will be able to help you. Steveoc 86 12:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Deinonychus Pic
Thanks for commenting on my pic however, Deinonychus pic with wings on there hands are more correct. Althought feathers on Deinonychus havn't been found, (at lest to my knoledge), due to Deinonychus' phylogenic positioning it should be fully feathered, with proper flight feathers, carring on down the hands and to the end of the middle finger. There are animals less advance with them and animals more advanced with them, even some other more distanly related therizinosaurs have been found with them. (even though it couldn't fly). See the Deinonychus artical and theres a picture showing the similarites between its hands and Archaeopteryx'. this is a quote from the Dromaeosauridae artical
 * 'The discovery, in 2005, of the Thermopolis specimen of Archaeopteryx, which preserves a dromaeosaurid-like hyperextendible second toe, may mean that Archaeopteryx itself is more basal than the dromaeosaurids.[6] If this is true, then all dromaeosaurids could be considered true birds and members of Aves by definition, as Aves is defined to include Archaeopteryx, all living birds and all descendants of their most common ancestor.' Steveoc 86 10:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry to disagree with you, its nothing personal. Do you mean this feathered dinosaurs page, if so i see no mention of triceratops or styracosaurus??Steveoc 86 15:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Tyrannosaurus edits
Hi Bert,

First off, welcome to Wikipedia. It appears you never got a welcome message, so I'm leaving one below. This will help you get started in editing Wikipedia, hopefully.

Bert, can you please not change the numbers on sourced dinosaur material? For example, if the article on Giganotosaurus states it was a certain number of feet long, followed by a footnote that explains where exactly that number comes from, when you change that number, you also need to update the footnote, otherwise you're adding content which isn't supported by the source. I've reverted your edits to Tyrannosaurus where you did this, and I can see from the above comments that it's been happening on other articles as well.

Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester  18:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please 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, ask me on, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Regarding your edits made to Tyrannosaurus
Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Firsfron of Ronchester 11:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do not take the 12.8m measurment to heart it may not be correct, and like Firsfron said above do not change the sizes if theres a sorce in the artical. thanks. Steveoc 86 11:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Mgiganteus1 18:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Edmontosaurus
Perhaps you should inform Donald F. Glut of that, as he wrote the book where the citation is from. Obviously, "everybody" does not know that. Also, if you're going to change a cited size, you might as well delete the citation too. J. Spencer 21:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC) Anyway, if you're going to persist with this, find a citation for 13 m, instead of changing one that is cited, thus falsely representing the citation as saying something that it doesn't and making the rest of us look like idiots for not checking our material. J. Spencer 22:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I know that at least DinoData agrees with you--they list the max size for Edmontosaurus at 13m. However, this does not amount to anything unless a valid, published source can back it up. Glut's encyclopedia is such a source, but only lists 12m. If you know of a source that lists 13m, by all means, replace the data and the ref. Until then, the published source MUST trump you data, even if yours is more correct, in the name of good scholarship. This is a concession we wiki editors must make--if only some of the "common knowledge" stuff about feathered theropods and their actual relationship with birds were more widely discussed in the literature, people might be much more easily shot down when criticizing ""overly" bird-like raptors! ;) Dinoguy2 18:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Find a citation and use it. I'm not sure why you're so caught up on it being 13 meters long, but just cite the thing.  I don't really care how long it is (and there are undescribed specimens that may be longer than 13 m, if I recall correctly), just put a reasonable citation for it.  I don't trust most of the published length estimates anyway (since nobody ever says how they measured, if a straight line or along the curves) and I'm sick and tired of people fighting over dinosaur sizes (see Spinosaurus, Giganotosaurus, and Tyrannosaurus ad nauseum ad infinitum). J. Spencer 20:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, the best place to look for a 13 m cite is probably in a dinosaur dictionary-type book. If you don't have one, try a nearby library (or heck, even a chain bookstore), where they'll probably have at least one.  You'll want author, year, title, and page number at minimum (there's also publisher, publishing location, ISBN, etc., but you can usually find those after the fact on Google if you have the title and author).  Then, back at your computer, copy and paste from Template:cite book, or just copy one that someone has already filled out and change the different fields to what you need. J. Spencer 13:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's appropriate to take the discussions of size and speed into the talk page, otherwise we're heading to a "lame edit war". The speed material is being reverted because without a cite it looks like original research, which is not allowed. I'll start a heading in the talk page for use. Also, don't forget to use ~ (it gets converted into user name and date/time) at the end of talk page comments, so we can follow the conversation more easily. J. Spencer 14:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Speed/size charts
You're right, 25mph is around current top speed for rex (for some reason I got this stat confused with the oft-cited and very wrong 45mph...). I just use Photoshop for the size charts. Dinoguy2 01:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Models
No, I didn't make them (I wish!), just took the photos. They're part of Dinosaurs: Ancient Fossils, New Discoveries, an exhibit currently on tour. I saw it at the AMNH, I think it's currently at the FMNH or will be opening there soon. Dinoguy2 08:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Edmontosaurus
Please do not make changes to cited data without providing citations of your own. In a well cited article, your edits simply aren't appropriate. Rklawton 13:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Bert, are you aware that by continuously putting back your uncited claims about size and speed of Edmontosaurus after they were reverted numerous times by a number of different editors, you have violated Wikipedia's three-revert rule? A scrupulous admninistrator might block your account for this. Please come and discuss your claims on the talk page or provide proper citations. Thank you. ArthurWeasley 13:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your interest in my paleoart. I'll see what I can do. I know you are editing with good intention but your claim about the speed brings a substantial change to the original content of the article and should be discussed in the talk page. Some folks on wikipedia such as JSpencer and Dinoguy2 are actually working in the paleontology field and are very knowledgeable on every bits of the latest thinkings and discoveries in the dino field so you might want to consult with them. ArthurWeasley 14:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)