User talk:Coopasaurus H.

Welcome!

Hi Coopasaurus H.! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! violetwtf (talk) 21:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

substantial edits

no worries and thanks for helping us edit wikipedia, but we noticed a series of nothing much added edits, all of them substantial. have a wikipedia day! Saintstephen000 (talk) Saintstephen000 (talk) 01:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 2023

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours has an edit summary that appears to be inadequate, inaccurate, or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. Stop with the "Nothing substantial was added." edit summaries. They are not descriptive and quite frankly, are deliberate obfuscation of your substantial changes. Such obfuscation is vandalism and will get you blocked. Zinnober9 (talk) 06:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Coopasaurus, I noticed you have continued to edit articles with the edit summary "Nothing substantial was added." I appreciate your contributions, but please stop with these edit summaries as they are inaccurate and misleading; you have made substantial edits to multiple articles. Writing accurate edit summaries helps fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary. Thank you. — TheOnlyZac (talk) 01:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm not sure if you realize it, but your edits are getting flagged as possible vandalism because of the edit summaries. Your edits so far do not seem like vandalism to me (they actually seem pretty good, though I admit I know nothing about dinosaurs), however as Zinnober9 said, continuing to use misleading edit summaries to hide the fact that you are making substantial changes to articles is considered vandalism. I would hate to see you punished for making good edits, so I'm asking you again to please use descriptive edit summaries. Even short summaries are fine as long as they are truthful. — TheOnlyZac (talk) 02:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in my message that I just sent to you, I will no longer use that description for my edits and will try to use other means of description. I’m very sorry for the trouble and I hope you have a pleasant day. Coopasaurus H. (talk) 02:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unsubstantial changes

You are currently involved in an WP:edit war at the WP:featured article Deinocheirus by re-adding needless or source-contradicting text even though you have been told to suggest such changes to the talk page so they can be evaluated. Please use the talk page instead of reverting, or this will have to be taken up elsewhere. FunkMonk (talk) 14:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please find useful references before editing. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 16:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't stop the disruptive edits and start using the talk page for suggestions, this will have to be taken up with the admins. FunkMonk (talk) 11:03, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It does not seem to have stopped. Now the edits have no description and are largely unnecessary, such as altering "tyrannosauroid" to "eutyrannosaurian" on Appalachiosaurus, "herbivorous" to "triceratopsin, chasmosaurine, ceratopsid" (now reverted) on Torosaurus or "limbs" to "legs" on Ichthyostega. Moreover, these edits are never one editing pass but constantly several unsubstantial changes, which crowds the history pages of these articles. I understand missing things and going back, I've done it, but that's why one should review their edits first, of course. Richardhesutton (talk) 05:21, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m deeply sorry that my edits are disruptive to many other editors on this site. However, I am a person who (on occasion) personally needs to understand something through precise instruction and I try to help others understand something in a similar way if it’s too simple or hard to understand. In the case of most of my edits, I’m either trying to be very specific about what something is or to simplify something that some people might not be able to or want to take the time to understand. Let’s say you have an orange, a lemon, a lime, and a grapefruit. Let’s say that you know that they’re all fruit, but you don’t know what specific kind of fruit they are. If you were to just say that they’re all fruit, then that’s certainly true. But, fruit can mean a part of a plant that is fleshy, edible (in some cases inedible), and used for seed carrying. If I were to tell you that they’re all citrus fruit and you didn’t previously know that, then I would be telling you what specific kind of fruit they are. In the case of the Appalachiosaurus page where (for example) I changed its classification from tyrannosauroid to eotyrannosaurian (which is true), that was to be more specific about what it is. The word tyrannosauroid can mean any dinosaur in Tyrannosauroidea, be it a proceratosaurid like Guanlong, a basal pantyrannosaurian like Dilong, a basal eotyrannosaurian like Appalachiosaurus, or any tyrannosaurid in either Albertosaurinae or Tyrannosaurinae (to be even more specific, there are many tribes within Tyrannosaurinae). To suffice, it is definitely a tyrannosauroid, but I want to let people know what specific type of tyrannosauroid it is. In the case of the Ichthyostega page where (for example) I changed the word “limb” to “leg”, it’s to be more specific about what type of limbs it has. It’s obvious by looking at it that it has legs, but saying limbs and leaving it at that is just a little too imprecise. The word limb can refer to any projecting body part that is used for movement. This can refer to legs, fins, wings, etc., so I wanted to be precise about what type of limbs they are. Since it’s limbs were most likely used for both aquatic and terrestrial movement, but more so resemble legs that have feet with toes, then I call them legs (as I’m sure that most people would). Other edits are for when I’m correcting other editor’s spelling or punctuation mistakes that they may have accidentally missed or purposely left behind with no intent to fix them. In the end, I’m sorry that my edits are problematic to many people, but all I want is to be able to share the information that I know about certain topics in a way that almost anyone can understand and to subtly fix any mistake that I see to prevent misinformation or misinterpretation of said information. Coopasaurus H. (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Jurassic Park (novel), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. As the genre(s) currently provided for the novel are sourced, if you wish to change them, please provide a source that supports your changes. DonIago (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I wanted to let you know that your recent edit(s) to the Jurassic Park (novel) plot summary have been removed because they added a significant amount of unnecessary detail. Please avoid excessive detail and high word counts when editing plot summaries/synopses. You may read the plot summary edit guides to learn more about contributing constructively to plot summaries/synopses. There are also specific guidelines for films, musicals, television episodes, anime/manga, novels and non-fiction books. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]