User talk:Chaoyangopterus

Welcome!

Hello, Chaoyangopterus, 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:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! - Sidelight12 ^Talk 07:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

December 2012

Your recent editing history at Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 21:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reverting your edits AGAIN. Take it to Talk:Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event if you want to actually be a collaborative editor. Just because you don't want to converse, doesn't mean you get to edit war. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 21:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chaoyangopterus, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Chaoyangopterus! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Theopolisme (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you.

Plesiorycteropus

Sorry, but I have reverted your edits. The article is an FA, and additions must conform to the citation format of the article. In addition, they must be rigorously proofread. These requirements extend to all articles, of course (including Rahonavis), but especially here. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I adjusted the text for what I noticed in the article, and added the proper citation.

I didn't catch the part that about Plesiorycteropus being of Afrosoricidian, so if that is correct you have to put it on the talk page and point it out. You really need to read wikipedia:Citation_templates#examples and other wikipedia information on proper citations. Fill in as many responses as you can to a citation, it may not be possible to answer all.

This is the entry for most journals, and there are examples for other types of publications too. {{Citation | last = | first = | last2 = | first2 = | title = | journal = | volume = | issue = | pages = | year = | month = | url = | archiveurl= | archivedate = | doi = }} Or you can use 'ProveIt' that is under: preferences- gadgets. I think you have potential to contribute to Wikipedia, but if you don't go by conventions your edits won't get a chance. Sidelight 12 ^Talk 23:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chaoyangopterus, thanks for adding the new paper to the Plesiorycteropus article. I wrote most of the article, but missed this new paper, which is an important piece of new information. I feel like it's better to wait before we change the order in the taxobox, but it does look likely now that it's a tenrecoid/afrosoricidan. Ucucha (talk) 23:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Using references

Hi,
I'm not disputing your changes to Desmostylus, but you are modifying referenced content without adding your source (the PLoS article). That way you make it look like one reference is supporting something not mentioned in that reference. I've completed the reference you added to Paleoparadoxia, use it! --Fama Clamosa (talk) 19:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Euboea, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Titan (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) 12:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Who Goes There?, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blob (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) 11:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bakonydraco, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tapejara (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) 08:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bakonydraco 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 my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

]''. Indeed, the original paper describing this species compared the holotype jaw to ''[[Tapejara (pterosaur|Tapejara]]'' and ''[[Sinopterus]]''<ref name=OWJ05/>, implicating it's affinities to this

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Banguela

Hallo Chaoyangopterus! In the original version of your article Banguela you wrote "Because dsungaripteroids are occasionally recovered as derived azhdarchoids, it is possible that toothloss has occurred even more often." I changed the "more" to "less", thinking that the point to be made was that if dsungaripterids were Azhdarchoidea they must have been originally toothless and secondarily developed teeth, meaning that was one case less of lost teeth. It seems that I was mistaken in this but the only scenario that I can think of in which dsungaripterids being azhdarchoids leads to an extra occasion of toothloss, would be that Banguela descended from a dsungaripterid that had secondarily developed teeth, with Banguela losing the teeth for the second time in its lineage. However, this would be contradicted by its being a basal dsungaripterid.

Kind regards, --MWAK (talk) 12:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is no precedent of teeth having ever been redeveloped in derived vertebrates (some possible situations in frogs nonwithstanding), so it's more reasonable to assume azhdarchoid pterosaurs lost their teeth multiple times, with Banguela being an obvious example of toothloss in a basally toothed group --Chaoyangopterus (talk) 15:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But how can it be concluded from this that a position of the Dsungaripteridae within the Azhdarchoidea would lead to an extra case of toothloss compared to a phylogeny in which dsungaripterids are not azhdarchoids? If the ancestors of Banguela did not redevelop teeth and had always been toothed pterosaurs, this would be true whether they are azhdarchoids or not. Also, in the phylogeny of Kellner Azhdarchoidea were, at least basally, edentulous, from which Unwin concluded that Dsungaripteridae could not have been azhdarchoids.--MWAK (talk) 14:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because in the analyses where dsungaripteroids are azhdarchoids they're recovered as part of Neoazhdarchia (see Myers et al 2013, for instance; it's in the Bakonydraco article), meaning that toothlessness occured at least three times in azhdarchoids (first in tapejarids, then in the last common ancestor between Azhdarchidae, Chaoyangopteridae and Thalassodromidae, and then in Banguela), or even four times (in Myers et al 2013, Dsungaripteridae is recovered as the sister clade to Thalassodromidae, meaning that toothloss occured independently in tapejarids, azhdarchids + chaoyangopterids, thalassodromedids and Banguela). This is definitely more than in the traditional view that Dsungaripteroidea is outside of Azhdarchoidea, in which toothloss would have only occured twice across these two groups.--Chaoyangopterus (talk) 18:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. However, now you seem to take for granted that Dollo's Law applies and that inclusion of the Dsungaripteridae within Azhdarchoidea would make the possession of teeth a azhdarchoid synapomorphy. But, as far as I'm aware, that is not the result of any actual cladistic study. I must admit that I haven't read the Headden & Campos paper: if they make this point, it should certainly be included in the article. But if they don't, we may at most refer to the problem by mentioning the Kellner-Unwin controversy about it. In both cases, the relevance of Dollo's Law should be made explicit. I also think that in the article the term "dsungaripteroids" should be consistently replaced by "dsungaripterids" as both the actual clade definitions of Dsungaripteroidea, by Unwin (Germanodactylus + Dsungaripterus) and Kellner (non-archaeopterodactyloid pterodactyloids), denote far more inclusive groups — in fact in each case probably including the Azhdarchoidea! Andres has just published a concept that might be closer to what you have in mind: the Dsungaripteromorpha (non-neopterodactyloid neoazdarchians). Headden hinted in his blog that Banguela might in fact be a somewhat more basal form outside of Dsungaripteridae, which would make it a basal dsungaripteromorph in Andres's phylogeny.--MWAK (talk) 06:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reacquisition of lost features provided they are not under substantial constraint to remain lost has been found to be widespread throughout vertebrates. The notion that it's only a feature of "lower vertebrates"--referring to frogs (can someone get any more taxon-biased!?)-- is absurd. Declaring something subject to Dollo's Law should not be an assumption but the conclusion after an extensive review of all constraints placed on a feature vs its reevolution or NOT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.98.16 (talk) 15:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of solar deities, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sól (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) 08:50, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Interpretatio graeca

added links pointing to Sunna and Luna

Semen

added a link pointing to Miasma

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of Portuguese films of 2014 may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"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 my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Não Têm Vertigens]]'' || [[António-Pedro Vasconcelos]] || [[Nicolau Breyner]] || Romance, Drama}}
|}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

September 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Caiuajara 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 my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

youngest known tapejarid 8aside from the possible tapejarid ''[[Bakonydraco galaczi]]'') and also the most southern one known. This expansion of their known range was seen as an

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Bambolinetta

On 26 November 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bambolinetta, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Bambolinetta was probably the only duck species to propel itself underwater with its wings, like a penguin? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bambolinetta. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Proto-Indo-European religion

added links pointing to Catha and Lug

Heracles

added a link pointing to Lug

Perkwunos

added a link pointing to Lug

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Short citations

Hello. Please note that short citations are supposed to be accompanied by complete citations, otherwise they are useless. [1][2][3][4][5][6] Also please make sure that your additions to mythological articles are properly cited [7][8] (exact page numbers are always needed) and that they do not violate WP:SYNTH. Note that works by Patricia Monaghan are not reliable sources. [9] Please capitalize language names (e.g., it is "Baltic", not "baltic"). --Omnipaedista (talk) 05:07, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop blind reverting. See WP:BRD. Please use talk pages or fix the problems mentioned above before restoring your text. If your disruptive editing continues, I will have to take this to ANI. --Omnipaedista (talk) 21:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Athena, you mention "several authorities" but you only cite Dexter. She is admittedly a reputable scholar, but are her views widely accepted? If not the inclusion of her theory in the article may fail WP:UNDUE. This will have to be decided in the relevant talk page. --Omnipaedista (talk) 21:50, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen this particular work quoted in most proto-indo-european discussions, so at least in this regard it must be consistently accepted -- Yours truly, 23:28, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

"Discuss the edit, and the reasons for the edit, on the article's talk page. Don't engage in back-and-forth reverts because that will probably be viewed as edit-warring. When the discussion has improved understanding, attempt a new edit that may be acceptable to all participants in the discussion." (WP:BRD) --Omnipaedista (talk) 00:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Proboscidea may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"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 my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

or absent in early proboscideans. Proboscideans produced the [[largest land mammal]]s of all time]] in the form of ''[[Palaeoloxodon namadicus]]'' and ''[[Mammut borsoni]]'', which weighting around

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Largest mammal

The new article only says "may", "appears", etc. about its conclusions, so changing a lot of articles while writing "x was the largest mammal" etc. is misleading. The paper itself does not state it as fact, merely asd possibility, so we shouldn't either. It is impossible to make exact measurements with such scrappy material as used in the paper, and the author appears to acknowledge this. FunkMonk (talk) 02:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also this blog post about the paper which makes much the same point: http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2015/07/14/the-largest-beasts-to-walk-the-earth/ FunkMonk (talk) 02:45, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 20 July

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Sinornithosaurus page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

Your recent editing history at List of LGBT characters in animation and graphic art shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 14:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS - stop adding poorly sourced information as well. Blogspot is not considered a reliable source. Please find another source. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Marsupial mole may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"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 my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

is devoid of skin glands and associated ducts, much like in monotremes. Like in monotremes, the [[penis is located inside the cloaca as opposed to externally like in therian mammals, while the

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Apterodon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Seals. 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) 10:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding original research

As you're probably aware, Wikipedia does not use original research. That means that all material added must be completely supported by the sources cited for them, and the sources cited must meet WP:RS.

If, for example, a source only mentions the conclusion "ABCD," we can mention "AB," "BC," or "CD," but not "EFG." This source does not mention Inanna or Mithras. The pages cited from Campbell's A Hero with a Thousand Faces do not connect Inanna's descent into the underworld with Christianity.

This is why your edits to the religion articles have been reverted, and will be reverted again. The best way to edit any article, especially articles relating to the humanities, is start from a source and paraphrase that instead of writing something and then finding a source. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The video cited does.

Concerning the Demise of Creodonta

Have you seen this article about the newly discovered "hyainailourine" Kerberos langebadreae? [10] It seems that Hyaenodontidae has been promoted to order as "Hyaenodonta," and now comprises of Hyaenodontidae and Hyainailouridae.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Hyaenodonta or Hyaenodontida have been used in several papers (see for example the Apterodon source paper). --Chaoyangopterus, 03:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

However, I have not read any papers where either family has been placed in Afroscorida. Which paper was that?--Mr Fink (talk) 01:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See the discussion in the page. Further information can also be seen at here

If you review said sources in those pages, you will find no support for it. Further, citing a webpage written by a non-specialist in fossil mammals from almost a decade ago which provides no evidence/sources for speculation is not a justified source for such a claim. 24.131.66.18 (talk) 12:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the IP points out, palaeos is not an authority: that, and the Kerberos paper still posits the hyaenadontids as being laurasitheres, and makes no mention of Afrotheria, let alone placing Hyaenodontidae+Hyainailouridae in Afroscorida.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further, palaeos cites Wible et al. (2007) in a speculative manner in the sense of perhaps if x is y and y might also have some tangible connection to z, then there might be something going on with x and z. However, this is not how to carry out science in the first place. Additionally, it is important to understand that taxon sampling within Wible et al. (2007) and subsequent matrices is not strong for placental mammals and the authors never advocate a position that they think or support afrotherian relationships for *Eoryctes* (and they NEVER ever bring up hyaenodontids!). Further, Goswami et al. (2011) which expanded the matrix with several more tenrecids (afrotherians) found *Eoryctes* as a sister to *Solenodon* (a eulipotyphlan in every molecular analysis) and *Eoryctes*+*Solenodon* as the sister to Tenrecidae. Their data set, when constrained for molecular supports, see their supplementary material, finds *Eoryctes* within Laurasiatheria. So this tenuous suggestion that *Eoryctes* having some vague afrotherian affinities is evidence for afrotherian affinities with hyaenodontids that is advocated on palaeos is demolished by this. 24.131.66.18 (talk) 14:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries, please

Hello Chaoyangopterus, and thanks for your contributions. A couple of general editing suggestions for you to consider:

Please make a habit of providing an edit summary when you make a change to an article. Doing so makes it easier for your colleagues here to understand the intention of your edit.
Plus, it will be easier for you and your co-editors to collaborate on articles if, instead of making multiple consecutive edits in rapid succession on an article, you use the "Show preview" button to view your changes incrementally before finally saving the page once you're satisfied with your edits. This keeps the page history of the article less cluttered.

Thanks in advance for considering these suggestions. Eric ^talk 21:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Siamoperadectes) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Siamoperadectes, Chaoyangopterus!

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

Note: when citing books or other large sources, please include page number(s) or page range that directly supports the content referenced.

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

Learn more about page curation.

Disambiguation link notification for October 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Waitoreke, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Conway. 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) 10:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! --Animalparty! (talk) 00:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Haldanodon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thomas Martin. 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) 09:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Eutriconodonta

added links pointing to Diaphragm and Trophic

Gobiconodonta

added links pointing to Diaphragm and Trophic

Gobiconodontidae

added a link pointing to Diaphragm

Spinolestes

added a link pointing to Diaphragm

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feathered dinosaur

I have reverted you again.

The list says "preserved with evidence of feathers". There is no concrete evidence, just yet. This is something that would need to be discussed on the talk page.
The ref you gave was hard to find. Please give refs so one can find them.
Use same style of ref formatting that is already in the article. If you had, it would have helped find the source.
Don't do ALL CAPS
Most importantly, when I did find it, it turned out to be from a conference abstract that was scheduled to be given this week. Conference abstracts are generally not a good ref. They have undergone review, such as a published article. They can be difficult to find and generally only the abstract is available.

Bgwhite (talk) 22:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jugulator (album)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Jugulator (album), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.upcscavenger.com/wiki/Jugulator/.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 18:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Chaoyangopterus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I would like for you to lift my block because A) your accusations appear to be rather slim, B) it has been done on bad faith, by a user that breached several violations. ~~~~

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. There is not a "vague correlation", there is an unambiguous equivalence of these accounts. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I would say that a checkuser "Technically indistinguishable" is hardly slim... Peridon (talk) 17:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They do not cite the reasons for this comparison other than some vague correlation between me and another user.