User talk:Justcallmesam

Wikipediaproject Zoo
You are welcome to join Project Zoo. Dan Koehl (talk) 13:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Ways to improve Morenelaphus
Hi, I'm TonyBallioni. Justcallmesam, thanks for creating Morenelaphus!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Your article is helpful! Please remember to try to cite your sources. I went ahead and added one to this article for you.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

TonyBallioni (talk) 15:52, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Help me apokryltaros.
Hey** extrapolaris and me are editwarring, can't you find a way to not minus the species informally or shorten the range span in the taxobox? Is he incapable reading the reference?? You save me apokryltaros so I'll repay u....

Ways to improve Aquila chrysaetos simurgh
Hi, I'm Meatsgains. Justcallmesam, thanks for creating Aquila chrysaetos simurgh!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Consider adding reliable sources to strengthen the page's verifiability.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Meatsgains (talk) 13:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

undo of my redirect for Bubo Leakeyae
Hi I just noted that you undid my redirect of your article. I redirected it to the mention of this bird in Horned_owl. It is most definitely a valid species but the information that you put into the article just duplicates the information in the other article and you do not explain the notability of the species or supply any sources. All articles have to meet WP:GNG and this one doesn't. Please read the guidelines and it would be a good idea to undo your revert. Thanks Domdeparis (talk) 14:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've since restored the article and added a source from an academic journal. If this still needs to be discussed, WP:AFD would be the place to do it.


 * Justcallmesam: please see my note on this page about adding sources. I've been doing it for a few of your articles, but I am far from the expert of these species. If you have sources that you are using to create them, citing them will prevent episodes such as this where someone redirects your article or nominates them for deletion. Again, if you have questions here, please reach out to me. I can help or find someone else who can. :) TonyBallioni (talk) 17:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Animal stubs
I've noticed you've been creating a lot of animal stubs for prehistoric animals. That's great, and we really appreciate it! I would suggest that you do Google and cite at least one reliable source before creating though. It's pretty simply, you just hit "templates" on your editing toolbar and fill in the information directly into nicely formatted boxes. The types of references you would probably be using are journal articles or books, which you can find via Google Scholar, Google Books, or sometimes just Google itself! If you look at what I did to Falco antiquus, it will give you an idea of how citing a source should look. If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I, however, do not appreciate it. When you are reverted by an experienced editor, you should seek to understand why rather than edit war. There is a learning curve with Wikipedia and while I'm glad you're filled with enthusiasm for editing, stomping on the gas is often a bad idea if you're new to steering. I recommend pitching in with a WikiProject like our project on Palaeontology. You can edit alongside more experienced editors who are doing cleanup on the many articles already written. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 18:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Now I am going to echo Chris and urge you to work on existing articles rather than create new ones if you cannot reference or format them. I have been adding references thus far, and it really hasn't been that difficult since the information is just verifying where they are from and what time period, but I am getting tired of doing it because this is not a particular area of interest for me. I've explained above how to cite sources, and they are several articles now referenced and with basic formatting that you can use as an example to build off of. If you don't think you can, ask for help or start working with the Wikiproject Chris linked to. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits to Golden eagle
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Golden eagle, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Materialscientist (talk) 23:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

February 2017
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Leptomeryx, without citing a reliable source using an inline citation that clearly supports the material. The burden is on the person wishing to keep in the material to meet these requirements, as a necessary (but not always sufficient) condition. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 03:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Haast's eagle. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 03:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Corallus. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 03:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Kaibabvenator


A tag has been placed on Kaibabvenator requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. &mdash;  Enaya Afzal Siddiqui  talk  01:21, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Kaibabvenator


The article Kaibabvenator has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * The lack of a reference makes this genus of sharks even less well-known (and makes one reviewer wonder whether it was invented). Please add a citation and remove this deletion tag if the genus did exist.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:50, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Kaibabvenator. Domdeparis (talk) 13:02, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Kelmayisaurus. Please stop with this "is it valid" inanity, it is extremely disruptive in addition to being of absolutely no benefit to any articles.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Vanamonde (talk) 06:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

To expand a little on the above rationale; you are clearly capable of editing productively in the area of fossil animals and taxonomy. However, you need to learn to take advice in the spirit that it is given. Several very experienced Wikipedians have posted advice above, and you seem to have largely ignored them. Furthermore, edits such as this are clearly intended to be disruptive, because you ask for a source when a source was present in the removed content; and it seems to be that you are doing things like this because several people have asked you to provide sources for content that you added. I too was 15, once, and I can remember that being told to do things a certain way, and to keep receiving criticism, can be frustrating. But I urge you to read the criticism carefully, and take it to heart, so that you may become a productive editor here. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 06:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Please stop with the "is it a valid genus" bullshit. There is no point to declaring a taxon "valid" or not if there is no one challenging its validity. All of the other editors are sick of you doing this on this account and your IPs.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Justcallmesam does not appear to have edited since I blocked them for this behavior. Is there something more recent you are responding to? Vanamonde (talk) 16:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Justcallmesam also uses various ips in the range of 113.88......, including this one, which he just used this morning. His edits and edit summaries blatantly suggests he either wholly ignored your advice, or is incapable of comprehending it.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:42, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

April 2017
Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Vanamonde (talk) 03:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Please stop saying or claiming a taxon is valid or not, as unless there are reputable sources that explicitly challenge a taxon's validity, THERE IS NO REASON WHAT SO EVER TO UNNECESSARILY DESCRIBE THE TAXON AS VALID OR NOT. Why is it so hard for you to understand this is not a helpful trend?--Mr Fink (talk) 14:36, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited White-Barred Boxfish, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Richardson. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Sourcing
Hi again. As you've already been warned and blocked you know the drill here on what we expect on articles. Miodugong was created by you without any sources at all. I've cleaned up articles for you in the past, but I really suggest that you try to do it yourself at the beginning when you create the article. If you can't do this, it might be better to update existing articles. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I really don't understand your behavior in this regard. You seem to think that creating articles consisting of one unreferenced sentence is useful. It's not. No one is going to credit you with article creation when they examine your edits and see crap like this. What we could do is have you topic-banned from creating articles. That would mean that the community will prohibit you from doing so and your noncompliance would result in a block. We don't need to go down that road but you've already angered the few editors that have been trying to help you. Wikipedians like me would happy to just run you off, as you cause more problems than you solve. I think you could be a useful contributor but you really need to quit with this foolishness. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 03:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

May 2017
This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Placerias, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Stop using IPs as sockpuppets to continue on with your "is it a valid genus" bullshit, like you did at AGAIN. You've been blocked for this before. Do you want to be blocked for this again?--Mr Fink (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I've blocked you for 72 hours. Do the same sort of thing again (unsourced content, disruptively asking if a taxon is valid) your next block is likely to be an indefinite one, whether you use IP addresses or this account. Vanamonde (talk) 17:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Cercopithecoides) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Cercopithecoides, Justcallmesam!

Wikipedia editor Boleyn just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Thanks for creating this; could you please help address the tags?"

To reply, leave a comment on Boleyn's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Boleyn (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Equus giganteus) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Equus giganteus, Justcallmesam!

Wikipedia editor Boleyn just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Thanks for creating this; could you please add your sources?"

To reply, leave a comment on Boleyn's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Boleyn (talk) 19:33, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Hexaprotodon sivalensis) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Hexaprotodon sivalensis, Justcallmesam!

Wikipedia editor Boleyn just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Can you please add your soruces? The WP:BURDEN is on the creator to do so."

To reply, leave a comment on Boleyn's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Boleyn (talk) 19:34, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

August 2018
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Corydoras revelatus. Stop using IPs to post the "is it valid" vandalisms, like this. It is tiring, and you do not fool anyone, and you will get banned from Wikipedia if you continue doing this.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)