User talk:JurassicClassic767

Bulk edits
Hello, JurassicClassic 767. I noticed you've been making a lot of edits to pterosaur pages recently. These edits are by and large useful, but you should know that making hundreds of little edits in a row can be considered suspicious behavior. Vandals often use this technique to overwhelm reliable editors or make it more difficult to track their work. I'm not accusing you of anything, but just letting you know that it's better to make your edits in large chunks rather than numerous tiny increments. If you're unsure about editing in large sections, you can work in the sandbox to prepare text for articles. Good luck! Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, I actually knew that someone would realize about those edits, but the reason why I've done so many minor edits is that I often make mistakes like you said, specially in when putting references. If you visit my user page, you'll see that I put a userbox about fighting vandalism, and I'm not a vandal in any case. Anyway, I just wanted to contribute to pterosaurs, since there are mostly outdated or stubs, and I'm also part of the Pterosaurs task force, but yeah, I understand if someone would suspect about my little edits, and next time, I'll try to make larger edits with the mistakes corrected. JurassicClassic767 (talk) 15:03, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's no problem, I appreciate your efforts. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 16:58, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! JurassicClassic767 (talk) 17:13, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ornithocheiromorpha, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Limb ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Ornithocheiromorpha check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Ornithocheiromorpha?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ornithocheiromorpha
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ornithocheiromorpha you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of IJReid -- IJReid (talk) 18:01, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ornithocheiromorpha
The article Ornithocheiromorpha you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ornithocheiromorpha for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of IJReid -- IJReid (talk) 21:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Ornithocheiromorpha cladogram
Averianov (2020) does not actually contain a phylogenetic analysis. It's not only misleading to create a composite of two very different phylogenetic analyses (with portions of each arbitrarily chosen), add a couple other taxa without basis in analysis, and then attribute it to a third paper entirely, it is a violation of WP:SYNTH, as the resulting topology can't be found in any actual study. I've replaced those with the cladogram of Pêgas et al. (2019), with a couple additions after Kellner et al. (2019) (these studies both use the same base dataset and differ in only minor respects). Please keep this in mind for the future. Shuvuuia (talk) 01:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


 * On an unrelated note, please avoid writing out entire references twice. You can define a reference once with


 * and then call it elsewhere in the article with


 * and it won't be listed multiple times in the reference section. Shuvuuia (talk) 06:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Honestly, with the cladogram, I was getting a bit confused, there were mentions within other references, but I guess those were just cross-refs and unrelated? I know the original research, but what happened really was that I just got confused with the cross-refs thinking their related or something. Also, thanks for replacing the cladogram and not just delete it directly. As for the repeated refs, I do sometimes miss several, but that article has like 90 refs? Anyway, I didn't do original research, I just got confused with the cross-refs thinking their all related. Jurassic Classic 767  (talk | contribs) 07:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As a side note, Averianov 2020 may not have done a phylogenetic analysis of Ornithocheiromorpha, but he has done an analysis for Lonchodectidae, clearly stating that Serradraco, Unwindia and Prejanopterus don't belong to that family. Check it if you don't believe me, it's mentioned at the end of the paragraph. Also, when putting refs, it's better if you put them after any punctuation. Jurassic Classic 767  (talk | contribs) 13:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Discussion of the taxonomic placement of Serradraco, Unwindia, and Prejanopterus is not the same as a phylogenetic analysis. The exclusion of these genera is not based on a computational analysis in the same vein as e.g. Pêgas et al. (2019), and it has yet to be seen whether this assessment will be followed up with by other researchers. For now it's fair to keep them out of the taxobox (I marked them as possible members in an attempt at neutrality), but I've added a section mentioning that they'd previously been considered possible lonchodectids. Shuvuuia (talk) 23:43, 30 May (UTC)
 * OK, so we're clear with Averianov 2020 not being a phylogenetic analysis, but what I've been wondering was that cladogram you made as a replacement. I know part of the sources do coincide with the cladogram, but stating that it's a "composite" just leads to the thought that it's some kind of OR, and none of the refs say that it was a composite. So what I've done is exclude the analysis by Pegas et al and keep the one by Kellner et al, that's because Kellner makes a deeper classification of the group, while Pegas just focuses on Targaryendraconia. Jurassic Classic 767  (talk | contribs) 00:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * By "composite" I meant "identical to Pêgas et al. 2019, with Mimodactylus added after Kellner et al. 2019". I should have been more clear with that. That said, it bears repeating that the two papers share the same base dataset, so their topologies are largely identical. Kellner et al. 2019 did not "make a deeper classification of the group" - both analyses sample virtually the same breadth of non-lanceodont pterosaurs, Kellner et al. simply shows more in the cladogram in the paper (the full analyses can be found in the supplementary material of each, and they both go back further than what the papers show). If we had to choose one, I'd argue the Pêgas cladogram would be better for at least the Ornithocheiromorpha page due to it having a greater taxon sampling of that clade (the Kellner analysis lacks Boreopteridae entirely and only contains one member of Targaryendraconia, and the only lanceodont it has that the Pêgas analysis doesn't is Mimodactylus). Shuvuuia (talk) 02:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't want confusion with both cladograms, and there is a section of the analysis of Pêgas that I've missed because it's within the "supplemental area". If you're a new reader for example, and go to the reference, you may not directly find the cladogram. Now that I've seem the "Pêgas cladogram", I'd actually prefer that Targaryendraconia and Boreopteridae are included, even if we have to exclude Mimodactylus, so I should start putting it back? Jurassic Classic 767  (talk | contribs) 05:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, I've made a cladogram based on Pêgas et al 2019, I've excluded Mimodactylidae, but included Targaryendraconia, Lonchodectidae and Boreopteridae. I've just placed the cladogram on Ornithocheiromorpha (the second cladogram), and practically every other subgroup except Mimodactylidae. Oh, and I apologize for my first reaction on this, though the cladogram I made based on Averianov 2020 was no original research, the refs that come below confused me thinking their linked or connected to Averianov 2020, so I've made a larger cladogram with those classifications included. I know I've mentioned this before, but I just wanted you to be clear. Jurassic Classic 767  (talk | contribs) 06:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 3
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pteranodontia, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages British and Blunt ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Pteranodontia check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Pteranodontia?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Nyctosaurus at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with db-g7, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 05:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pterodactylus
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Pterodactylus you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pterodactylus
The article Pterodactylus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Pterodactylus for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 10
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Euctenochasmatia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Needle ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Euctenochasmatia check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Euctenochasmatia?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
A big Thank You! I really appreciate it! Keep up the good work as well! Jurassic Classic 767 (talk | contribs) 16:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

RE: moving sections
hi there! apologies about the structural problems i've caused. i haven't quite figured out how to move images yet, so i was afraid to try moving them anywhere else in case i made the issue worse. if there's something wrong with the structure next time i attempt to fix the sections, i'll leave it alone and post something on the talk page instead. thank you :) --Vaporwaveboyfriend (talk) 19:52, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize, just remember that when source editing (the one with wikitext), if you just put "thumb" to the image, it is placed on the right side of the article by default, and to put the image on the left side, just add a parameter that includes "left". Bear in mind that in articles about living things, there's a taxobox that occupies space, so that also might affect the image placing. Anyway, just keep up the good work, and feel free to ask any questions. Jurassic Classic 767  (talk | contribs) 21:14, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you! That's actually super helpful! I'll do my best! --Vaporwaveboyfriend (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Species names
Could you please revert your changes in several articles where you replaced the valid species name by an old combination, this is incorrect. Thanks! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * By species, I meant the original combination of the type species, and the valid species (or new combination) is placed below. Jurassic Classic 767  (talk | contribs) 16:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Type species and valid species are the same. Please revert this! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm doing it now, though is it necessary to put "originally (the previous genus it was assigned to; e.g. Megalosaurus)"? This is stated in several articles such as in Majungasaurus. Jurassic Classic 767  (talk | contribs) 16:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I was a bit too quick, and now see what you mean, my apologies. Maybe we need to change that indeed, but we would first seek consensus at the WikiProject in any case since this affects a larger number of articles. Maybe the variant with the "originally" will be less confusing. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * So, for now we should just put "originally" to the ones that were previously assigned to other genera then? Jurassic Classic 767  (talk | contribs) 17:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, thinking about it, we are not citing the original type species in the taxonbox in the first place, but the current binominal name (you changed it to type species though). In the case of Dilophosaurus, it says Dilophosaurus wetherilli (Welles, 1954). The brackets around Welles, 1954 indicate that he is not the author of the species group name. This is the correct citation I think. I would suggest to just leave everything as is, with changing things in multiple articles that are not obvious errors you almost always step on the toes of people. You can ask of course (as this affects all life taxon articles, the WikiProject:Tree of Life might be the correct place). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll keep that in mind for future changes! And yeah, if it's in parentheses, it means that he/she isn't the author of the current combination, but the author of the first combination for that specific name. Jurassic Classic 767  (talk | contribs) 17:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Koskinonodon and Anaschisma
Hello, JurassicClassic 767;

Since you've done the recent work on Koskinonodon and Anaschisma, I thought I ought to mention that the Gee et al. article is available for download at. While the abstract is not entirely clear about the synonymy, the text of the article establishes that the synonymy goes the *other* way, e.g., that K. is sunk into A., and not the other way around. J. Spencer (talk) 21:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have understood it wrong then? So, we would want to resurrect the Anaschisma article, and make the Koskinonodon article a redirect. Actually, when I redirected Anaschisma to Koskinonodon, I've noticed that most (if not all) the article text is text copied from Koskinonodon (or maybe the other way around), so if we want to redirect (or perhaps merge) K. to A., there isn't really much to sort out since practically the whole article info is the same or similar, i.e. it would be an easy merge/redirect. Jurassic Classic 767  (talk | contribs) 08:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think that re-instituting the Anaschisma article and redirecting Koskinonodon to it sounds like the best solution. J. Spencer (talk) 21:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've done it finally. Let me know if I have to change something. Jurassic Classic 767  (talk | contribs) 16:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me! J. Spencer (talk) 22:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Pterodactylus
Hello! Your submission of Pterodactylus at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Awsomaw (talk) 00:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Your signature
Hi. I noticed a problem with your signature here. Upon investigating, I also noticed that you're aware of the issue. I wanted to mention that, to make your signature safe for use in templates (such as DYK noms), you can fix it in your preferences by replacing that  between your "talk" and "contribs" links with. Your signature will look exactly the same, and will function correctly everywhere, including on templates. M AN d ARAX •  XAЯA b ИA M  19:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I didn't know there was another way of putting ! I'll change it right away.  Jurassic Classic 767  (talk | contribs) 19:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ornithocheiridae
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ornithocheiridae you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Pterodactylus
Hello! Your submission of Pterodactylus at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 13:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Please see new note on your DYK nomination. Yoninah (talk) 22:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Pterodactylus
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Cimoliopterus for FAC collaboration?
Hi, I noticed you've had an interest in editing articles about old obscure pterosaurs, and for some time I've thought of expanding Cimoliopterus for GAN and FAC, and thought you might be interested in a collaboration? Could be a good practice for those processes if you want to nominate more articles yourself later. I have also talked to about this one, and though I know he might not have much time anymore, he's of course welcome to join in any capacity. FunkMonk (talk) 12:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I indeed will not be able to make an important contribution.--MWAK (talk) 06:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I sure would like to join a collaboration for a neglected pterosaur article to be leveled up to FA status, or at least GA. I didn't really expect Cimoliopterus for the collaboration, but whatever pterosaur article works for me. Jurassic Classic 767  (talk &#124; contribs) 19:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought this one would be cool because though it has a long history, it only received its own genus recently, and is only represented by limited fossils, making it less complicated than many other old pterosaurs. And it has a lot of images too, which is always nice! FunkMonk (talk) 19:48, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. So, when should we start the collaboration then? Jurassic Classic 767  (talk &#124; contribs) 19:53, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If there are any sections you'd like to work on, you can begin whenever you want, and there's no rush really, usually we just chip away at articles over some time until it has all the info it needs. And we should be able to gather sources needed even if you don't have immediate access. FunkMonk (talk) 20:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the best way would be to just begin from top to bottom (i.e. starting from the history section, and then continuing with the other sections), but of course, we could always try another way. Oh, I've also noticed that Cimoliopterus doesn't have Paleobiology or Paleoecology sections, I think mentioning how the animal fed or behaved, or what animals it coexisted with would be something worth saying? But again, sources may be limited for this. Jurassic Classic 767  (talk &#124; contribs) 20:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There might be something about behaviour in Witton's 2012 book. As for how to proceed, what usually works for collaborations, since it is hard for more than one person to work on a single section, is to divide sections between them. The order it is done has little consequence, so you can just start with whatever you find most interesting. I'd think the best place to start would probably be to add info from the 2013 article that named the genus: The history section will no doubt be the most complex. FunkMonk (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah I agree. I was also thinking about the Rodrigues & Kellner, 2013 paper being one of the most useful sources, as you said above. Jurassic Classic 767  (talk &#124; contribs) 20:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
You are welcome.

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC) 
 * Heh! Looks funnier than cute. Jurassic Classic 767  (talk &#124; contribs) 15:21, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah . I just select the one that comes in the middle of the three. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

August 2020 Tree of Life Newsletter
Delivered on behalf of Enwebb (talk) 17:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ornithocheiridae
The article Ornithocheiridae you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Ornithocheiridae for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:02, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Brontosaurus vs. elephant
Hi, just responding to your undo of my edit on the Brontosaurus page re: comparison to elephants. You are correct that I didn't cite a source for the weight of an elephant in tons; I simply converted the article's given (also without citation) weight in kilograms to tons. While I'm an experienced editor, I'm not an experienced Wikipedia editor, and it is clear you are. So I'll definitely concede the point in regard to the deficiency of my edit. All I'd say is the current version also does not cite a source for the height or weight of an elephant, while giving the weight in different units than are given for the Brontosaurus (making comparison difficult when the whole point is easy comparison to an animal people are familiar with). Further, it unhelpfully gives the height at the shoulder of an elephant as something to compare to the total length (head to tip of tail) of a Brontosaurus. (I didn't get around to fixing that one because I couldn't easily find either the shoulder height of a Brontosaurus or the length of an elephant, to bring the measurements into line.) I suggest this needs improvement. Can&#39;t help editing (talk) 14:58, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't notice that there wasn't a source for a 6 ton weight, maybe 'cause I just edit quite fast at times. The latter things that you said (the unhelpful comparisons and all), yeah, I totally agree, that should definitely need improvement or something. Another thing that we could do is just remove that unreferenced part, that way, we don't have to find sources or anything, whaddaya think? Jurassic Classic 767  (talk &#124; contribs) 18:29, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

 * Merry Christmas and happy holidays to you too! Jurassic Classic 767  (talk &#124; contribs) 11:25, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks man . - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:26, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Santa Claws



 * Hahaha! Jurassic Classic 767  (talk &#124; contribs) 18:20, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year, JurassicClassic767!


Happy New Year! JurassicClassic767, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.


 * I forgot to wish you in time. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! And in your "merry Christmas" message above you already wished me a happy new year, so that kinda works too, right? But yeah, happy new year to you too! Jurassic Classic 767  (talk &#124; contribs) 09:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No man, I had to wish . - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hahaha! :) Jurassic Classic 767  (talk &#124; contribs) 09:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

False allegations
Dear friend, How can someone be protected by others posting false allegations for him? Please advise. There must be a way. Otherwise anyone who has a reason to undermine an individual will be free to do so, unchecked.Thank you Alstamatis (talk) Alstamatis (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I was just patrolling for any vandalism, and saw your edit (where you removed text and a bunch of references, and you just said "deleted false accusations", without providing proof). I don't really know much about that article, but you can discuss it on the talk page. Anyways, do you have any proof that the allegations are false? I mean, it is cited, unless those references don't back up the info. Jurassic Classic 767  (talk &#124; contribs) 23:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That man's username is very similar to the subject of the article he edited, so he may have did it based on personal, but unverifiable information - a violation of Wikipedia rules. I'd say you report it at WP:COIN. Atlantis536 (talk) 03:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I've reported it, so now we just have to wait until someone responds I guess. Jurassic Classic 767  (talk &#124; contribs) 10:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Copying licensed material requires attribution
Hi. I see in a recent addition to Cimoliopterus you included material from a webpage that is available under a compatible Creative Commons Licence. That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material in the future. — Diannaa (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't copy the exact same text as the one in reference, I reworded several of the sentences, as well as changed the order of some other ones. If you want though, I can reword more of the info. Jurassic Classic 767  (talk &#124; contribs) 22:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not necessary to re-word compatibly licensed text as long as you provide the required attribution. Alternatively you can use the template — Diannaa (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hm, yeah, but I think I'll still stick to rewording it a bit, just to make it more original, and it also kind of seems more appropriate to me, even though it's not necessary. Jurassic Classic 767  (talk &#124; contribs) 23:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 30
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cimoliopterus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Convex.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Revue de Paleobiologie
Hey there, just making sure you saw this. Some of my pings haven't been going through lately for whatever reason, so you may not have seen my message. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, I haven't received any pings from you, but I'll check what you sent right now. Jurassic Classic 767  (talk &#124; contribs) 21:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 26
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Anhangueria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Basal.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Can you rerate the article about Torre-Pacheco?
Good evening JurassicClassic767,

the article about a Spanish municipality named Torre-Pacheco is assessed as start-class, but I think that it deserves a higher class.

The first link shows the site where assessing an article and the second one the criteria for choosing attributing a class.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Torre-Pacheco https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spain/Assessment#Quality_scale

Regards,

--Yolanda95 (talk) 22:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)Yolanda95
 * Since you're a member of the WikiProject, you're free to reassess articles within the scope, just remember, rate the article the rating that fits the best for it, in this case I think Torre-Pacheco should be a C-class. Additionally, you can use a script to make rating articles easier. Jurassic Classic 767  (talk &#124; contribs) 22:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I expanded quite the article and I am Spaniard, and that difficults objectivity. Owing to these reasons, especially the first one I prefer other person, not from the country of the article, if possible, to reassess the article. Anyways, I can reassess the article. --Yolanda95 (talk) 07:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC)Yolanda95
 * Oh, yeah, I get what you mean, but apparently, I'm someone who also lives in Spain, so I'm technically from the country of the article as well. Jurassic Classic 767  (talk &#124; contribs) 07:47, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 15
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tapejaroidea, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tapejara.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Weird mammalian pterodactyls for you!
The weirdest pterosaurs ever drawn? FunkMonk (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Haha, thanks! Imagine if pterosaurs turned out to actually be like this, it'll be oddly impressive I gotta say...  Jurassic Classic 767  (talk &#124; contribs) 22:38, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Need help
Hi, would you kindly verify these unexplained changes? Looks POV to me. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry for responding so late! Yeah, apart from being unexplained, 7 to 7 tons doesn't really make sense, I'll revert the edit now. Jurassic Classic 767  (talk &#124; contribs) 14:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No probs. Thanks!. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Activity at WikiProject My Little Pony
Hello,. At WikiProject My Little Pony, I'm trying to compile a list of active participants. Your name is currently listed on the active members list and you are active on Wikipedia. Would you consider yourself active on WikiProject My Little Pony? Please ping me in your reply and see our project talk page for the latest updates. Thanks! Pamzeis (talk) 05:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , yeah, I haven't edited articles about MLP that much recently, mostly just about maintenance (e.g. fixing dashes, etc.) or reverting vandalism. Does this still count as "active" in the WikiProject, though? Jurassic Classic 767  (talk &#124; contribs) 18:36, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess I can leave that decision to you but if you feel you no longer would like to actively contribute to MLP articles, I think you would not be "active". Pamzeis (talk) 00:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Edit Request Tool
Hello, I renamed my script Edit Request Closer to Edit Request Tool a while ago and am now deleting the old page. If you wish to continue to use the script. Please change the link in your common.js to the following: importScript('User:Terasail/Edit Request Tool.js'); // Backlink: User:Terasail/Edit Request Tool Thanks, Terasail [✉️] 21:48, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Cimoliopterus
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Javelinadactylus
Hi. I've noticed you've added quite some stuff from the Javelinadactylus paper, including some phylogenetic results. Where did you access the full paper? I have only seen the abstract. Atlantis536 (talk) 04:18, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you may have confused my edits with MWAK's? He has been adding lots of info to the article, while I've only done some cleanup. Jurassic Classic 767  (talk &#124; contribs) 05:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You did write that Argentinadraco was a thalassodromine sourced to that paper. Atlantis536 (talk) 05:30, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I've begun doubting my conclusion about that since my edit at Template:Pterosauria was only based on the edits of‎ ‎85.246.244.63 at Argentinadraco and Thalassodrominae, to which the IP referenced that study. Jurassic Classic 767  (talk &#124; contribs) 05:41, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I see. Atlantis536 (talk) 07:09, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations
Deserved, and therefore:
 * Thanks! There goes my first FA, I don't really know what to say apart from "wow", I guess? Haha... Hopefully someday I get to do a solo nomination if I can! Jurassic Classic 767  (talk &#124; contribs) 10:29, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Please do not remove my edit again
The raptor family is used to describe birds of prey, dromaeosaurs', and a few other avian dinosaurs. No it is not just an "informal" way of saying dromaeosaur. Drawkingg (talk) 21:47, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * But there's also no scientific group name to designate that exact definition of "raptor family". The "raptor family" basically doesn't exist since "raptor" is just a common name that either means bird of prey or dromaeosaur and related avian dinosaurs. Jurassic Classic 767  (talk &#124; contribs) 22:18, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!
 Happy First Edit Day! Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Cimoliopterus scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 11 November 2021. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to comment on the draft blurb at TFA. I suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Hi, there!

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC) 
 * Hey man, nice to see you back, we've missed you! Hopefully everything is alright!  Jurassic Classic 767  (talk &#124; contribs) 20:33, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks man. I was.. well..busy . Everything was alright. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Tree of Life Newsletter – 018



 * February 2022&mdash;Issue 018


 * Tree of Life


 * Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!

Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:45, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Tree of Life/Newsletter/019



 * March 2022&mdash;Issue 019


 * Tree of Life


 * Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!

Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Tree of Life Newsletter – 020



 * April 2022&mdash;Issue 020


 * Tree of Life


 * Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!

Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Edit Request Tool changes
Hello, I just made some significant changes to User:Terasail/Edit Request Tool. Since you have the tool active, I am informing you of this since it may affect you. To open the tool you will now have to click the "respond" button. The tool will load a similar interface as before. There is now a live preview of the response. These changes might have introduced some bugs so if you have any concerns / suggestions or run into problems please leave a note at User talk:Terasail/Edit Request Tool Thanks, Terasail [✉️] 15:33, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Happy Third First Edit Day!

 * Thanks! Jurassic Classic 767  (talk &#124; contribs) 11:37, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Tree of Life Newsletter Issue 21



 * August 2023&mdash;Issue 021


 * Tree of Life


 * Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!

Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

WikiProject Tree of Life Newsletter Issue 22



 * September 2023&mdash;Issue 022


 * Tree of Life


 * Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!

Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name. Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:23, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

WikiProject Tree of Life Newsletter Issue 23



 * October 2023&mdash;Issue 023


 * Tree of Life


 * Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!

Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name. -MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)