User talk:Wesley J M

Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 21:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of A Field Guide To Dinosaurs: The Essential Handbook For Travelers In The Mesozoic
I have nominated A Field Guide To Dinosaurs: The Essential Handbook For Travelers In The Mesozoic, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Field Guide To Dinosaurs: The Essential Handbook For Travelers In The Mesozoic. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 23:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 18:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of List of animals from "The New Dinosaurs: An Alternate Evolution"
I have nominated List of animals from "The New Dinosaurs: An Alternate Evolution", an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of animals from "The New Dinosaurs: An Alternate Evolution". Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 18:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

List of animals from "The World Of Kong: A Natural History Of Skull Island"
Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Plutonium27 (talk) 11:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of animals from "The World Of Kong: A Natural History Of Skull Island"


The article List of animals from "The World Of Kong: A Natural History Of Skull Island" has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Uncited list/fancruft that's entirely WP:OR

While all 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. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Plutonium27 (talk) 11:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

April 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with List of animals from "The New Dinosaurs: An Alternate Evolution". Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 21:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of List of animals from "The World Of Kong: A Natural History Of Skull Island"
I have nominated List of animals from "The World Of Kong: A Natural History Of Skull Island", an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of animals from "The World Of Kong: A Natural History Of Skull Island". Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 16:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Geological Formation article images
Please stop making changes to these articles without discussion. Actual photographs of fossils are generally preferred over life illustrations by Wikiproject:Dinosaurs. This is especially true for rock formations where it is more helpful to see what the fossils found in the rocks look like, their state of preservation, etc. than an artist's interpretation. Also, adding images for every fossil listed is not good practice because it breaks the table in many browsers making the page difficult to navigate. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, please stop doing this. I'm adding a warning template next time. MMartyniuk (talk) 16:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Message from Wesley J M
You know, you all could help out in the external links and stuff like that next time i make an article. Wesley J M (talk) 23:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Massospondylus
Hello, Wesley J M;

Why are you removing the image of Massospondylus from List of African dinosaurs? It is most definitely an African dinosaur, and it's not an inaccurate restoration. J. Spencer (talk) 21:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Response to Massospondylus
I'll tell you why J. Spencer, I am removing it because it was taking up a little to much space. Wesley J M 6:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't do anything about the height of the image, given the pose of the animal, but the column of pictures itself is shorter now without Barosaurus (exclusively North American, African species in Tornieria). J. Spencer (talk) 23:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Wesley, this is ironic considering that you continue to add as many images as possible to tables of limited height in articles like you just did again to Paleobiota of the Yixian Formation. It is not necessary to illustrate every taxon by breaking the tables. MMartyniuk (talk) 01:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Homosexuality
Don't do this again. You should know better what to add to articles. And for certain, what not to add. --Moni3 (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Response to Homosexuality
You Better not be thinking opinion-wise Moni3.
 * What? Don't people usually think in opinions? Aren't opinions made up of thoughts? Is there a clearer way you should phrase what you're trying to express? --Moni3 (talk) 21:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

That is true, but I focus mainly on facts.
 * Except when you insert your own opinion into articles, as in what you did to Homosexuality? It's ok to be honest about it. --Moni3 (talk) 14:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have a question...or a few
Your talk page is on my watchlist because I sent you a message, so:


 * 1) Do you capture pedophiles, or pedofiles? If the latter, is that an organizational system for this guy?
 * 2) It is unclear in your user page statement if you capture homosexual men, women, and pedo(f)iles, or homosexual men, homosexual women, and pedo(f)iles, or if the folks you capture are simply people who "com(m)it be a stiality and incest", regardless of sexual orientation. That is confusing and Wikipedia in general should know of your doings, particularly if you are enough to post them on your user page.
 * 3) What is the goal of the brainwashing? I'm just terribly compelled to ask if spelling and grammar is a part of this treatment or if that is complimentary.
 * 4) How does the brainwashing take place? What methods do you use? Nonstop airings of Left Behind or Fireproof? Similar to the way Manuel Noriega was prised from his palace in Panama, do you blast dc Talk at the subject for weeks at a time? Or is this more hands-on kind of brainwashing, the kind that Jeffrey Dahmer attempted?

I appreciate your offer to field questions and eagerly await your responses. --Moni3 (talk) 21:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Response to: Yes, I have a question...or a few

 * 1) When I mean "pedofile/pedophile (same thing)" I mean people who try to do child sexual abuse. You know, far apart ages, like a 50-year old guy or gal with a 12-year old guy or gal (I know, ew).
 * 2) This society/academy thing dosn't actually exist, but I wish it did, i'm a baptist.
 * 3) We brainwash these UL (unnatural love) people to turn them naturally normal.
 * 4) We use a brainwashing machine. All you do is put the person in the machine, put a sample of DNA from someone of the oppisite gender of the one to be brainwashed in a little test tube thing on the side of the machine, presh the activate button, there is like electric-like zap type thing happening inside the machine to the person, they finally come out "reborn" with NL (natural love) and go out with that person we got the DNA from.

User:Wesley J M

Edit summaries
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary&#32;for your edits. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. mgiganteus1 (talk) 15:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing Warning
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, 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. MMartyniuk (talk) 14:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.

Ok, i'll do better at what you're telling me to do MMartyniuk.
 * Wesley, do you understand why what you're doing is always being reverted? You cannot add an infinite number of images to the tables in articles about rock formations. Adding too many will break the table: that means, the row of images will become much longer than the actual information, which conflicts with the way the table format works. I and others have tried to explain this to you but you keep doing it anyway. The next time you add a lot of unnecessary images to a formation article, I will begin adding vandalism templates to your page and you may eventually be banned from Wikipedia. Again, please stop adding so many images that the tables break. MMartyniuk (talk) 12:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, i just wanted to entertain myself with clear-to-see images but the table things are a little tricky to deal with i know. So I'll keep it low on the editing for a while. I promise I'll be good MMartyniuk.
 * And yet you've just done it again at Vertebrate fauna of the Maastrichtian stage. wikipedia is not for your personal entertainment. Marking as vandalism. MMartyniuk (talk) 13:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed. Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in you being blocked from editing.MMartyniuk (talk) 12:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Vandalism warning
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. MMartyniuk (talk) 13:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Phillip Corlett


The article Phillip Corlett has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article. &#32; The nominator also raised the following concern:
 * place reason here

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners or ask at Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. v/r - TP 22:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you can help me with that TParis.

Proposed deletion of Claire Corlett


The article Claire Corlett has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners or ask at Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 18:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Phillip Corlett for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Phillip Corlett is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Phillip Corlett until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 17:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Tales of Amalthea for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tales of Amalthea is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Tales of Amalthea until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Amalthea 20:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 14
Hi. When you recently edited Tales of Amalthea, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Feline (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Philip Corlett for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Philip Corlett is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Philip Corlett until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of creatures from The Spiderwick Chronicles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scandinavian. 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) 09:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=628419321 your edit] to List of creatures from The Spiderwick Chronicles may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * poison harmless were carved from Unicorn horns. Shoes and belts of Unicorn hide cured fevers, and the ground-up liver of a Unicorn was believed to cure a myriad of

Disambiguation link notification for October 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of creatures from The Spiderwick Chronicles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Devils. 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) 09:31, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of creatures from The Spiderwick Chronicles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Seal. 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) 09:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright
Hello Wesley J M, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your addition to List of creatures from The Spiderwick Chronicle has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.


 * You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and a cited source. You can read about this at Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
 * Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
 * Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Copyrights. You may also want to review Copy-paste.
 * If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Donating copyrighted materials.
 * In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
 * Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied without attribution. If you want to copy from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 10:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vertebrate fauna of the Maastrichtian stage, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ray. 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) 09:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Orkoraptor is a Megaraptoran
Two independent studies, one by Benson, Carrano, & Brusatte and the other by Porfiri et al. have explicitly found Orkoraptor to be a Megaraptoran. Benson, Carrano, & Brusatte found Megaraptorans to be Allosauroids, yet Porfiri et al. found them to be Tyrannosauroids. It is more certainly a Megaraptoran than it is an Allosauroid.

And please stop reverting the addition of the citation I added to Porfiri et al. 2014. This is removing useful information.

Shuvuuia (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Repsponse to Orkoraptor is a Megaraptoran
But Shuvuuia the link you keep posting does not talk about Orkoraptor, it talks about Megaraptor, not Megaraptorans.

I have access to the full paper by Porfiri et al. 2014, not just the abstract on that link, and it not only discusses the new juvenile Megaraptor remains, but also the classification of Megaraptorans. It contains a phylogenetic analysis containing data from the new remains, and the analysis clearly places Megaraptorans as Tyrannosauroids. Said analysis also contains Orkoraptor and places it right in the middle of Megaraptora. Here's a screenshot of it (Proceratosauridae is largely cropped out, Tyrannosauridae is abbreviated as Tyradae.) Shuvuuia (talk) 05:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Then tell me, why is there also an article link there that talks about Orkoraptor being an allosaur?

That paper also calls it a Megaraptoran. In fact it's the paper that names Megaraptora, and the five taxa referred to Megaraptora in the description (found to be in it by a phylogenetic analysis) are Aerosteon, Australovenator, Fukuiraptor, Megaraptor, and Orkoraptor. At the time (2010) analyses returned Megaraptorans as Allosauroids (more specifically Neovenatorids), but the juvenile Megaraptor hadn't been found yet and wasn't factored into the analysis. Porfiri et al. 2014's analysis did include the juvenile, and with its data Megaraptorans returned as Tyrannosauroids. But no matter what Megaraptorans are, it's pretty likely that Orkoraptor is one. Shuvuuia (talk) 23:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The New Dinosaurs: An Alternative Evolution, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Worms. 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) 09:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited After Man: A Zoology of the Future, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Castor. 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) 09:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

User page
Hello, I find the statements, possibly intended to be humorous, about the "Anti Unnatural Love Society" on your user page to be inappropriate. Both trapping and brainwashing people are acts of violence and you appear to be advocating those acts. I have no objection to you stating your beliefs, but I think you should remove statements describing violence. Wikipedia's guidance on this issue is expressed at User pages. Thank you. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 06:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Alright, it's deleted. I was a little immature then.


 * Thank you very much. I really appreciate it.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  15:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Vertebrate fauna of the Maastrichtian stage
You have added a LOT of information to that page. I applaud you for your diligence and effort. But perhaps the descriptions have a little too much information? Several genera have full paragraphs. This is probably not the place to list, for example, all of Quilmesaurus's diagnostic features. Would it be okay if I trimmed it down a bit? Shuvuuia (talk) 17:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I think that those descriptions were needed because they discuss the uniqueness of each species. You can't just reduce it to just what classification they are with no period at the end.


 * Please respond to me.
 * ( - this will create a notice for Shuvuuia.   SchreiberBike | ⌨  01:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC))


 * Admittedly, lack of periods was my personal sloppiness. I confess, I shaved them down too much. I apologize. But this page appears to be intended more as a simple list of what lived in the Maastrichtian stage, not a huge repository of information about them. And not every species needs a unique description. For some species the descriptions delved into detailed anatomical jargon, which is probably not what people going to this page want to see. If a reader wants to know what makes each species unique, they'll probably go to their articles, which are literally linked to right there on the page. In at least one instance, the article didn't have much more information than the description on this page did! And more than once there were descriptions of traits in a species that were kinda unnecessary and redundant because said species has a picture of it on the page which clearly shows said traits. If descriptions are required at all I personally think they shouldn't be more than a couple sentences long, to avoid excessive detail and an overly long article.


 * But if you feel obliged to revert to the longer descriptions, go ahead.


 * Shuvuuia (talk) 04:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for what happened last time. But I'm going to try again to make the descriptions shorter. I copied the sauropod section to a user page and trimmed it down to something I feel is appropriate for the article - definitely more information than last time but less than what there was. It's at User:Shuvuuia/Sandbox. You are welcome to review it and give your opinion. If you feel it's satisfactory, I'll copy it to the main article and continue with other sections. Shuvuuia (talk) 17:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Also it probably isn't a good idea to directly copy blocks of text, which may have unnecessary anatomical jargon or other details that aren't required, from other articles. In the future please put it into your own words. Shuvuuia (talk) 17:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I guess we have come to an agreement.

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Re: Megaraptora
Hi Wesley, I notice that you have reverted the megaraptoran taxonomy template to displaying them as neovenatorids. There is no consensus about its position at present, and explicitly naming them as neovenatorids blatantly contradicts the text of Megaraptora. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 03:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of How to Keep Dinosaurs


The article How to Keep Dinosaurs has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * Nothing establishing notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. Plantdrew (talk) 04:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Giant Dinosaurs of the Jurassic


The article Giant Dinosaurs of the Jurassic has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * No indication of notability

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. Plantdrew (talk) 04:31, 4 April 2017 (UTC)