User talk:Christina1969

November 2014

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Utahraptor has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Utahraptor was changed by Christina1969 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.871459 on 2014-11-15T08:15:59+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 08:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 5 December

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 Microraptor 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) 00:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cougar

The difference between the two sets of numbers is the equivalent of saying that human males are typically 1.5-2 meters tall, and changing it to say 0.5 meters to 2.5 meters. The distinction is typical vs extreme range. The IUCN/SSC reference gives the typical ranges. The reference you cited , U.M. Museum of Zoology, gives the extreme ranges. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 17:15, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image on Theropoda

Thanks for your edit to Theropoda! I just wanted to drop you a note and say that this edit has been reverted because standard practice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs has generally been to represent clade pages by photos of two specifiers (if node-based) or a primitive/basal member (if branch-based). So while T. rex is the most charismatic of theropods, Eodromeus may be a better representative of the group as it is close to the ancestral condition. Of course, we're always open to revising these kinds of things or making exceptions so feel free to bring it up in talk! Dinoguy2 (talk) 20:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some of your edits had be reverted

Hi, Christina1969, and thank you for your edits on Dinosaur Size. I just wanted to remind some of your edits were reverted. For example, Tarbosaurus in Heaviest Theropods: I removed it because of Tarbosaurus at 5t, Van Valkenburgh and Molnar (2002) cite Paul's older work and a publication that doesn't even mention Tarbosaurus therefore, up to date estimate is 4 t, it doesn't make the cut. (that edit came from Mike.BRZ). I also removed it in length estimate but maybe we would add it back again. And I also found a line saying: Tarbosaurus, no one that has attempted a reconstruction of Tarbosaurus thinks it was bigger than 10m long, not even Holtz's book claims it was bigger than 10m. For Mapusaurus, I put it back at 12.6m. I don't understand why the page shouldn't be cited"coria&currie2006" but I have to follow the rules. And according to you, Holtz is could be good only if there are no other, better estimation, so there are no other estimates after excluding Coria & Currie so I have put Holtz's estimate. Last one, Argentinosaurus, I had put it back. If the 30-35m source is not a book, then you are free to add it as 30–35 m (98–115 ft) in the General Records because it excludes Holtz and Paul's books. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 01:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you can't too. The 35m source is also a book. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 05:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted you on Woolly rhinoceros and a few others. Please discuss the matter on the talk page--and please leave off the shouting, in all-caps. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies is right. Please leave messages on talk pages instead. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 04:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Justify edits

You recently reverted several edits of mine on Jaguar but you did not leave an edit summary or your justification for doing this. Please do so in future. __DrChrissy (talk) 19:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Jaguar. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

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.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and 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. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 00:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dreadnought

Hi Christina, I saw your edits at Dreadnoughtus and wanted to leave you a quick comment. Converting "approximately 59.3 metric tons" to exactly 59,291 kilograms introduces an element of false precision into the equation. I hope this helps! Best, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring, as you did at Dreadnoughtus. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of two weeks for edit warring and block evasion. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion

It's patently obvious that you have been evading your block using the anonymous IP 89.134.28.154. If you do it again, your account will be blocked indefinitely. Favonian (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I was just about to say the same thing. You're at the end of the rope, Christina—please don't force us to extend the block. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of three months for persistent disruptive editing, as you did at Dreadnoughtus‎. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In view of your repeated attempts at block evasion, I have added a week to the length of your block. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation

The reasons listed in WP:IPCEXAMPLES are why I deleted the "In Popular Culture" section in Kaprosuchus. Furthermore, please be aware that other wikias are not considered WP:reliable sources, given as how they are, by their very nature, constantly altered.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:45, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Precise vs. rounded estimates

I've seen the back and forth over whether to round and I think everybody is missing the key component here: context. If rounded numbers are to be used, they should be preceded by the word "about", like "the weight has been estimated at about 22t". If precise numbers should be used, then the context should reference the fact that they were generated by an algorithm or equation, like "the technique used by this study found the weight to be 22.1t". Both of the are equally correct. What is incorrect is saying "the weight was 22t" or the "weight was 22.1t". Both of those statements are equally incorrect. Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Last attempt to explain overprecision

Regarding this edit and many others like it: The source says Gustave "weighs 2,000 pounds". That's a very rough estimate, accurate only to one significant figure. Gustave (crocodile) reported this as "estimated 2000 pounds (900 kg)". You changed that to read "estimated 2000 pounds (907 kg)". 907 kg is a far more precise number, suggesting we have reason to believe Gustave's true weight is more than 906 kg and less than 908 kg. That's a degree of precision far beyond what the cited source supports. Thus, your edit introduced an error.

I see there have been multiple attempts to explain this to you, both here and at your other talk page at User talk:89.132.19.54. There's no other way I can say this – if you cannot understand the problem, you need to stop making edits that increase precision. If you won't do that you're headed towards a block on competence grounds. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 08:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

August 2015

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 15:45, 23 August 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).

Christina1969 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

No more too precise estimates Christina1969 (talk) 07:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I couldn't help but notice you evaded your block again to repeat the same pattern of unsourced alterations of numbers. Would it be asking too much to possibly string together a couple of sentences outlining why you do this and what your future approach will be? I'm afraid that it seems you're very likely to forget the five word sound bite above and return to what appears to be a compulsive behavior. Kuru (talk) 13:20, 20 September 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.