Miracusaurs

Welcome

Hello, Miracusaurs, and Welcome to Wikipedia!   

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Teahouse.

---

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

• Table of contents / Department directory

• The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)
• The Signpost, our newspaper

Need help?

• Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
• Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
• Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

• Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
• The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
• Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

• Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

• Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

• Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
• If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

Miracusaurs, good luck, and have fun. Loafiewa (talk) 03:29, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Image Review

Hello Miracusaurs! It's great to see you uploading so many dinosaur restorations to Wiki. However, it seems you were not aware of the WikiProject Dinosaurs Image review. You can check it out here. On this page, artists can get their work checked for inaccuracies or issues by other users. It would be great if you could run your restorations through here before adding them to articles. Don't worry, I made the same mistake when I started!

P.S. As a side note, it's never a bad idea to list references for your work when you upload.

Best of luck, SlvrHwk (talk) 03:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing my work! And yes, I do know about the image review page, but I deliberately didn't want to post them there. But now that you did, I guess it'll be fine. Miracusaurs (talk) 06:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I just noticed that only two of your restorations were added to articles, and you didn't even add them! My apologies for calling you out like that here and on the review page. SlvrHwk (talk) 04:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

It's alright. Miracusaurs (talk) 04:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chiayusaurus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jiayuguan. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 05:56, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi

I m from korean Wikipedia. Nice to meet you. 애국심 존중 (talk) 04:22, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Nice to meet you too. Miracusaurs (talk) 07:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tapejaroidea, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tapejara.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Miracusaurs! While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• 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 cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

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. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Indian and Madagascan dinosaurs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Maleri Formation.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Frederick Sulcer

Hey you brought up this subject on the COI noticeboard. I wrote this article on my late father, Frederick D. Sulcer. I write under my real name. I don't hide behind a handle. So I am asking you kindly to look the article over. Is there anything wrong with it? Anything made up? Biased? Promotional? Please fix it as you see fit.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:18, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I simply linked the discussion on COIN to tell the OP that you were reported there before. I have made no new allegations against you. Miracusaurs (talk) 06:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Character list

I added the character list on the Miraculous Ladybug article because having a section that was just a spot to link to another article seemed a little weird. I think at least there should be Marinette/Ladybug and Adrien/Cat Noir in that section, or maybe some kind of overview with very little detail that just lists all the characters. The character list wasn't supposed to be a super detailed thing (like the full article) for them, so I don't think removing the list because there is a more detailed article for it is justified. I've seen other articles that have a section that links to a full article underneath, and they have a summary of that full article there. --Roundish ⋆tc) 15:43, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I understand. But the thing is, there's already some basic information about the main characters in the "plot" section, so I felt it was kinda redundant. Miracusaurs (talk) 01:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

So what about just a bullet point list of the main characters or the main Miraculous holders? like

• Marinette/Ladybug
• Adrien/Cat Noir
• Nino/Carapace

format.

Not necessarily Nino.

A list would make information about characters more comprehensive. We could also add their roles, maybe.

• Gabriel Agreste/Hawk Moth (main protagonist)

If the plot already includes character information, why have the "Characters" section at all? The character list is important in my opinion. --Roundish ⋆tc) 21:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I know you think a dedicated character list would be important, but if the plot section already name drops all the main characters and briefly mentions their roles, I believe a character list would be unnecessary. However, the Characters section can be kept to direct readers to the main character list page. Miracusaurs (talk) 11:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Problem with Ercé (talk · contribs)

Hi. I come to you to have some light on your accusations concerning Ercé. These accusations are unfounded, but above all defamatory. He is an active member of Project Phoebus which is still productive. As such, he has access to the unexhibited collections and has the technical means of the Museum of Toulouse for the images. The images all have a caption, in good and proper form, well above average. The images are published with the agreement of the conservation assistant (entomology, botany, etc.). It is normal to give the name of the museum and the references. He does not receive any remuneration for this work from the Toulouse Museum. It is very difficult to recruit volunteers of this level for our projects. I urge you to contact the Director of the Museum Mr Francis Duranthon Q3081409 directly. Best regard --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Miracusaurs, I would Wikipedia:Assume good faith and assume that Ercé is adding images to Commons and articles which they believe improve the encyclopedia. If you agree you could strike the sentences about promotion.

@Archaeodontosaurus: thank you for the information about Ercé. TSventon (talk) 17:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

@TSventon: Done.

@Archaeodontosaurus: I am sorry if my statements came out as defamatory. I do not mean to smear anyone. I have striked them out and take back my allegations. Miracusaurs (talk) 02:31, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• I sincerely thank you. We are no longer very young with Ercé. Working for Wiki is an ideal. Dialogue with contributors before launching a procedure. Have a good day. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  The problem is not the images themselves - these are valuable contributions to Wikipedia. The problem is wikilinking to the museum inappropriately in every caption. Don't get me wrong, I think these photos are an awesome addition to wikipedia, but the repeated linking of THMT is what led to the account being blocked on nl.wikipedia.org and is the reason for the problem here. BrigadierG (talk) 14:48, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

BrigadierG, this page isn't the best place to discuss Ercé's work. It might be useful to ask a relevant wikkiproject like WP:BIRDS for feedback, then post some advice on Ercé's talk page. TSventon (talk) 17:40, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Rhabdodontomorpha/?

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Rhabdodontomorpha/?, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other test edits you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

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 deleted 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 deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Fram (talk) 08:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Edits to the Coloradisaurus page

Please cease the pointless edits to the taxonomy section of the Coloradisaurus page. This section does not need to be rewritten like you insist on doing. It only makes this section unnecessarily wordy and convoluted. Additionally, your edits contain factually incorrect statements, like that David Lambert intentionally proposed Coloradisaurus as a nomen novum (which he did not). Carnoferox (talk) 20:59, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Listen carefully. I have evidence you have deep connections with the paper, which I can't reveal due to WP:OUTING. That means you have a conflict of interest in the paper, and, in all honesty, your preferred wording does not sound neutral, instead stating the conclusions of the paper as if it's the absolute truth, pushing aside the fact that Lambert's authorship was once widely believed. I still stand by the belief that "the authorship should be attributed to him" sounds like a command. Your repeated attempts to reinstate that wording comes off like you are trying to make sure that the paper is painted in the most positive light at all times, and feels similar to companies and people trying to whitewash their pages. Conflict-of-interest editing is generally disallowed, especially when you're seemingly trying to control your page's wording, as it can feel like you're trying to own the page. No one can own Wikipedia pages, even if you're deeply connected to scientific research.

I will restore my wording because I believe it is more objectively neutral, as it explains how the name was traditionally credited to Lambert. I will also make minor changes to highlight how the paper found his replacement unintentional.

TL;DR If you have a conflict of interest with the paper, which I believe you most likely have, then you do not have the authority to determine how its conclusions are worded or tell editors to stick with your preferred wording. Miracusaurs (talk) 11:15, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Carneforex's wording indicates that his edits were correct. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 19:46, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

The problem was that Carnoferox's wording stated only the conclusions of his paper as an opinion/a request without mentioning it was actually a reinterpretation of the status quo. Ornithopsis already fixed it. Miracusaurs (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

How is one source not enough

Hi! I see that you've reverted my edit on Template:Taxonomy/Leaellynasaura after you said "it's only one study", when I used a source for the elasmarian placement, but I don't see how a source is enough. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 13:20, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Only one study (Herne et al.) recovered it as an elasmarian to my knowledge. It is only one hypothesis for the position of Leaellynasaura, so until more studies can corroborate it, it's better to place it within Neornithischia for now. Miracusaurs (talk) 13:31, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Deinonychosauria

Its strange that you revert to paraves all the time. Regardless of Troodontids being related to Dromaeosaurs or birds, Dromaeosaurids are the only taxa that can be confidently assigned to Deinonychosauria. In anycase, Deinonychosauria could become a synonym of Dromaeosauridae. Because Dromaeosauridae is the only taxa confidently assigned to the Deinonychosauria (as per Holtz), I think the templete should include Deinonychosauria. Either that, or I give you a lecture about taxonomy and the history of taxonomic names so we can discuss this further. Bubblesorg (talk) 13:22, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I revert the parent taxon to Eumaniraptora, not Paraves, because no matter whether troodontids are related to dromaeosaurids or not, the smallest clade they belong to is Eumaniraptora, which is explicitly defined as the smallest clade including dromaeosaurids and birds. Paraves is defined as a larger clade containing all taxa more closely to birds than oviraptorosaurs, and may include troodontids, archaeopterygids, anchiornithids, and unenlagiids (if they're not deinonychosaurs). Whatever their internal relationships, the smallest clade including dromaeosaurs/deinonychosaurs will always be Eumaniraptora. Miracusaurs (talk) 14:03, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but deinonychosauria is the higher classification for Dromaeosauridae, regardless of Troodontids actual position. The smallest clade they belong to is Deinonychosauria, as defined by Holtz and Sereno. Holtz, the person who nammed Eumaniraptora, defined it as such. Take a read https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02724634.1999.10011123--Bubblesorg (talk) 21:57, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Does the cited source state that troodontids are deinonychosaurs? Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 22:03, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

It doesnt matter weather Troodontids are Deinonychosaurs, regardless, Dromaeosaurs are the only animals confidently assignable to Deinonychosauria. Why is this so hard to understand? You know its bad when even Mangytyrannus is more reasonable than you--Bubblesorg (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Actually, even better, read the wikipedia article for Deinonychosauria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinonychosauria. Dont change a bloody thing--Bubblesorg (talk) 22:12, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

The thing is, displaying the parent taxon of Dromaeosauridae as Deinonychosauria could be interpreted as being biased towards the (dromaeosaurids + troodontids <- birds) side of the phylogeny debate. Because Wikipedia has to remain neutral, Eumaniraptora is currently the best choice, for the reasons I explained above. Miracusaurs (talk) 10:20, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

From my knowledge, Eumaniraptora is considered a synonym of Paraves, NOT because it redirect to Paraves, but because many studies have said so. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 14:23, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I never said anything about Eumaniraptora. Anyways, about your earlier points. Its incorrect, yes we have to stay neutral, but we have to stay factual. Regardless of what it looks like to you, Deinonychosauria is the higher level classification for Dromaeosauridae and it doesnt matter if it makes it look like we are taking the side of Troodontidae and Dromaeosauridae, since they can click on the Deinonychosauria article to see how controversy and the usage of Deinonychosauria, we can also clarify within the article that Deinonychosauria does neescely mean a clade formed by Troodontidae and Dromaeosauridae and that its original definition was just all taxa closer to Dromaeosaurus than to birds. There easy solutions, we need to stay factual that regardless of Troodontid phylogeny (wheather they are closer to birds, Dromaeosaurids or Ornithomimasaurs), Deinonychosauria is the higher clade for Dromaeosauridae and might become a synonym of Dromaeosauridae if nothing else. Now read what i have said carefully.--Bubblesorg (talk) 17:11, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Also, Managtyrannus, please note that only to some authors in Eumaniraptora a synonym of Paraves. Some authors consider it to be the more inclusive clade within the paraves.--Bubblesorg (talk) 17:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I understand that regardless of troodontids' position Deinonychosauria and Dromaeosauridae are defined the same, but Deinonychosauria won't be the parent taxon. Instead, it would be the exact same clade as Dromaeosauridae, and would go in the synonym box, not as the higher clade. Miracusaurs (talk) 02:07, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

That depends on the usage of Deinonychosauria and the definition of Dromaeosauridae. For example, in the 1990s paper I gave you from Holtz, where he places Troodontidae as a sister to ornithomimasauria, he still uses Deinonychosauria as the higher clade for Dromaeosauridae. --Bubblesorg (talk) 13:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

That was thirty years ago. Nowadays studies only use the term "Deinonychosauria" if they recover a dromaeosaurid + troodontid clade, and when their phylogeny says otherwise, they ignore it in favor of Dromaeosauridae. Miracusaurs (talk) 15:04, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

That wasnt 30 years ago, and no, there have been uses of Deinonychosauria in a similar way since. Like Senters 2004 Dromaeosauridae study--Bubblesorg (talk) 13:51, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

That's still extremely old and mostly abandoned by current researchers. Miracusaurs (talk) 15:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Which one?--Bubblesorg (talk) 17:15, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Hartman et al.'s 2019 description of Hesperornithoides is one recent study I can name on the top of my head. It actually discusses an "expanded" Deinonychosauria at length, while others just use it as a cladogram label for a Dromaeosauridae + Troodontidae clade. Miracusaurs (talk) 12:02, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Plus one to two other clades within Deinonychosauria--Bubblesorg (talk) 22:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into Huaxiadraco. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 02:51, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Miraculous episode summaries

Actually, I was trying to make them short and detailed. Especially if I edited episodes where the summary seemed nonsensical to me. I'm sorry if I did cause issues. Perhaps you can review this episode summary then.

"Gabriel's condition worsens as his Cataclysm-induced scar begins affecting his organs, the damage compounded from abusing the Snake Miraculous's time rewinding power in previous fights. Despite accepting Natalie's request of arranging someone to look after Adrien, he instead schemes to separate Ladybug from her yoyo and Cat Noir. Monarch hacks an experimental space jet and tricks its AI Ada into leaving the solar system with the assumption that her pilot, Claudie, died during the test flight. He then uses the Goat Miraculous to create an Earth-bound asteroid to force the heroes into splitting up, taking out Cat Noir with a Shell-Ter/Venom combo while akumatizing Ada into the robot "Bugfighter" to subdue Ladybug. But Ladybug tells Claudie to break out of the ship and disable Ada, who deakumatizes herself upon realizing her pilot is still alive. Monarch overuses the Snake Miraculous to prevent Ada from learning the truth, only to eventually relent and let the test proceed without his meddling with less time left in his life."

173.170.38.252 (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

First of all, your summaries are frequently more detailed than the ones already on the page. Most of these details are what Miraculous fans like us would appreciate, but Wikipedia is not meant for fans only, so most of your details are unnecessary. My personal metric when writing summaries is to only include details I would tell someone who has no idea what Miraculous is. Details that are probably not required in your summary include Nathalie’s exact wish and what Monarch wants to separate Ladybug from. On the topic of grammar, there are only minor mistakes, such as “died during the test flight” (what test flight?), the capitalization of “ter” in “Shell-ter”, and beginning sentences with “but” (which is not acceptable for encyclopedias).

Overall, the problem lies not with your intentions, but with your wholesale replacement of the summaries. The ones that are already on the page are, in my opinion, okay because they strike the balance of shortness and conservation of detail, and replacing them with fundamental rewrites is in most cases, unnecessary (unless, of course, the original summary is too detailed and/or convoluted). That said, adding details is fine as long as they are not excessive, like this. Miracusaurs (talk) 05:54, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I've acquired a word-count and found the episode summary I wrote for your review is at 165 while the current one is 185. Plus, the core of the episode is that Gabriel ignored some good advice to get his affairs in order and squandered what remaining time he had left in a scheme to separate Ladybug from Cat Noir and disarm her that failed multiple times.173.170.38.252 (talk) 04:28, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I admit that your summary has a smaller amount of normal words, but what I’m concerned about is the wordiness — your summaries tend to use a greater number and more complicated words than mine, which readers can find confusing or boring. For example, “Monarch overuses the Snake Miraculous to prevent Ada from learning the truth, only to eventually relent and let the test proceed without his meddling with less time left in his life” has 31 words, while “No matter how many attempts Monarch makes, Ada always realizes the truth. With all the memories of his previous tries intact, Monarch eventually gives up.” has 25, saying the same thing but clearer and more to the point. Miracusaurs (talk) 16:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

2024 in paleontology moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to 2024 in paleontology. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Ratnahastin (talk) 10:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Patagomaia chainko has been accepted

Patagomaia chainko, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Question regarding sources

Regarding your correction on Orodromeus, where did you find the 1988 source?

By the way, i didn't add anything, i undid a revision which removed info with the reason being "I'm not so sure about this" Formerlychucks (talk) 18:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232779705_A_comparative_embryological_study_of_two_ornithischian_dinosaurs

It makes no mention of quill knobs, something that would have sent shockwaves around the world if they were indeed found in 1988. Miracusaurs (talk) 05:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Formerlychucks (talk) 11:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)