Talk:Angaturama

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Dinosaurs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DinosaursWikipedia:WikiProject DinosaursTemplate:WikiProject Dinosaursdinosaurs articles

Palaeontology

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles

Angaturama is its own genera

I think that Angaturama should have its own page--Bubblesorg (talk) 09:19, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Genera is plural. And if you read the article, you will know that what you say is not at all the conclusion of the latest studies. There are three possibilities; it is a distinct genus, it is another specimen of Irritator, or it belongs to the same specimen as the Irritator holotype. FunkMonk (talk) 09:32, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In just about every other case we'd give a genus in that situation its own page, though. I do prefer the current arrangement, since the topics are so intertwined, but it completely breaks precedent. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:44, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike other similar cases, it doesn't seem like anyone is solely considering this a distinct genus. At most, it has been presented as one of several possibilities. Can't think of any similar cases off hand (unlike for example Torosaurus or Vagaceratops, where there are two distinct camps arguing against each other). FunkMonk (talk) 06:34, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, lets just unredirect --Bubblesorg (talk) 18:11, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bubblesorg, please self-revert. There is no consensus to make that change. 2001:569:7BB3:9200:1D7C:B949:2CEE:DE41 (talk) 21:49, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay--Bubblesorg (talk) 22:03, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your behavior here is getting more and more unacceptable. If it continues, I will have to support a block. FunkMonk (talk) 17:31, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wait what!I have had enough! I drop the stick NOW--Bubblesorg (talk) 14:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have told you like ten times now that you should never do controversial edits before getting consensus on talk pages. This is the last straw, and I agree you should be blocked. FunkMonk (talk) 16:11, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bubblesorg, when Ponyo recommended that we "drop the stick", they meant in the context of our suspicion into your relations to IP addresses. That does not apply here, where we are trying to stop you from making destructive edits. You are harmful to this project and are acting incredibly rude. We have reminded you repeatedly to change your ways, but you have not made any efforts towards doing so apart from empty promises. You're sitting on a knife edge here. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well Im not wanting to be rude. I was talking to Funk monk as he was talking about the IP during the time it was not appropriate, like this talk page. And how am I being rude? I would want to know, i said sorry for calling dunk an idiot, what else am I doing? If anything you guys are unnecessarily stressing me, and causing me great stress to the point that my mother had to all ways ask whats wrong. I hope you realize that.--Bubblesorg (talk) 16:47, 14 October 2019 (UTC) Actually, I might have misunderstood what funkmonk said, sorry about that.--Bubblesorg (talk) 17:25, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]