Talk:Wulong bohaiensis

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Dinosaurs Low‑importance

	Dinosaurs portal This article 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

China Low‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles 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.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article needs a map. Please work with the Maps workgroup to create and add a map to this article. Once the requested map is added, remove the `map-needed` parameter.

Contested deletion edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because the Carnivora thread appears to have copy-pasted from this very page, not the other way around. The thread was created at 04:47 UTC and exactly matches this page as it appeared at 04:00. --Atlantis536 (talk) 09:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

At last midnight, i created wulong bohaiensis page. I have a proof. Please i cited, i obeyed the rules. Don't be unfair. User:Historianengineer.

Carnivora copied this page not the other way around. I know because I wrote this myself and because I estimated the size myself from the image and scale bar in the paper. You won't find the size there by itself (unless I missed it). User: jfraatz (talk)

Removed the sentence "The skeletal remains were about 90 cm long. However it is estimated to have only grown to two-thirds of its adult size, putting the adult size at about 1.35 meters (4.4 feet) in length." because from the above comment, this appears to have been original research on the part of the editor. David notMD (talk) 08:05, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Two versions, merged edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

History is that on same day, one editor User:Jfraatz created an article and another editor User:Historianengineer submitted a draft. The draft was declined because of the existing article. Content from both have been merged into the article. David notMD (talk) 08:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Context: WP:TEA#History Merging.
@Historianengineer: An image in your draft might be also useful here, please copy it, that guarantees that your account will be a part of the edit history here, e.g., use edit summary added image from my draft. If another user decides that the image is not helpful your account is still part of the edit history, same effect as for any other constructive (or not) contribution.
That's not how enwiki works, there are no OWN articles and no "who cites what when" competitions, enwiki credits are limited to the purposes of the Creative Commons licence. As strictly non-notable OEIS contributor and author of one standards track RFC with an ORCID I can guess where you come from, it's n/a here. I sometimes claim bragging rights anyway.^[1]
@David notMD: Please remove the "merge request", normally I'd just fix minor nits without bothering others, but if I guessed correctly Historianengineer could be disappointed by the effect.
–84.46.53.192 (talk) 02:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Meanwhile the draft was deleted. You certainly know which image I was talking about, have fun. –84.46.53.192 (talk) 03:11, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Add topic