User talk:Magnatyrannus/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Apology (also some clearing up)

Hello, I'm on my study hall and have limited time but I'm trying to nominate an article I saw on the news but can't edit. I had to copy and paste the last one which kept making everything seem like that one and I kept trying to fix it but the same results happened for some things like the image since there was none as I don't know how to put images in Wikipedia. Sorry for not making it look professional. The article was in case you want to know, about how Russia was sending nuclear weapons to Ukraine. The first in the invasion. Also the vandal one was because I spent a while trying to fix it. Again, I'm very sorry.

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

I was blocked again for persistently patrolling/editing other user's talk pages after other editors (including Ponyo, Bbb23, and ScottishFinnishRaddish) told me to stop reverting them. It was indeed very careless of me patrolling other user's messages on their talk pages by misinterpreting them as personal attacks or vandalism. Given those reasons, I shall cease vandal-fighting, editing other user's talk pages, and even avoid WP:SPI, and will instead make more productive contributions in the Paleontology topic area (e.g. the Salamanca Formation and the Sarmiento Formation, which are a few examples of my useful contributions in said topic area). After all, Ponyo, SFR and Bbb23 were indeed very right to warn me. Also, I agree with the following restrictions that I will not make any filings or comments at SPI, no reverting other editors' edits, and no editing other users' Talk pages or userpages, save for in a polite way, like asking other editors' questions on their Talk pages.Magnatyrannus (talk) 20:07, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Per the restrictions listed in the block log. Bbb23 (talk) 03:37, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Magna, I'd like to make this more formal. You'd have to agree to the following restrictions, the violation of any of which would be met with an indefinite block.

1. No filings or comments at WP:SPI
2. No reverts of other editors' edits for any reason except in the editor's own userspace
3. No filings or comments at WP:AIV
4. No editing other users' Talk pages or userpages except in a "friendly" way, e.g., asking other editors' questions on their Talk pages

Let me know if you think that any of these restrictions should be reworded, and, if so, how. Also, you would need to keep these restrictions present on your userpage as long as they are in effect. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:22, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, most of my problematic reversions occurred on users' talk pages, not in mainspace (with a few exceptions), so perhaps the second one should be reworded to "No counter-vandalism, meaning no reverts of other editors' edits, as long as they don't occur on other users' talk pages, or if it's not vandalism". Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 22:25, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

But that doesn't mean I will disagree with these restrictions. --Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 22:30, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I was thinking of two things. First, you mentioned in your unblock request that you would "cease vandal-fighting", and, second, your reverting vandalism without warnings and filing of misleading (a bit of a euphemism) reports you filed at WP:AIV; this was pointed out by Spencer.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:44, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

You mean, I should not revert any harmful edits on mainspace at all? Of course, what I'm saying is about my block. I thought that when the other editors warned me to stop going on patrols, I thought they meant I should take a break from vandal-fighting for now. --Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 23:30, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, no reverting vandals at all, and that includes reverting what you believe are socks. I assure you someone else can do it. Refocusing your edits to improving articles would be, IMO, good for you and your future here.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:45, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

What if I was reverting unsourced or inadequately sourced, WP:OR or WP:SYNTH edits? Although they aren't vandalism, I was wondering if, in this state, when and if unblocked, edits like these do or do not merit reversion. --Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 00:28, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I didn't respond to your comment yesterday because there were too many things wrong with it, and I was a bit tired of the back-and-forth. I'm not sure if you're being disingenuous or you truly don't understand what I'm saying. Why would you not be permitted to revert another editor's alleged vandalism but be permitted to revert another editor's OR or synthesis, which is generally a lesser offense? When I said "counter-vandalism" in the list of restrictions, I meant it in the broadest sense - I thought the phrase after ("meaning no reverts of other editors' edits") made that clear. Perhaps that restriction should just say "No reverts of other editors' edits". The example given on this page is illuminating: you reverted another editor's edit as a personal attack when it was at worst uncivil. That shows poor judgment on your part deciding what rises to the level of a removable personal attack. Reverting another editor's edit because you think it's synthesis often requires a nuanced, complex judgment as to whether it is in fact synthesis. That - and my belief that you would be better off sticking to improving articles rather than patrolling the enyclopedia looking for disruption - is why I think this (broad) restriction is needed.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:15, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

After careful consideration, I have accepted your unblock conditions in their entirety, and I understand that I cannot revert any user at any time for any reason. --Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 22:17, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I've updated Restriction #2 to make it clearer. Before I unblock you, though, I'd like to ping some of the admins who have criticized/warned you recently in case they want to comment (Spencer was already pinged earlier, so...): @Ponyo, DatGuy, and ScottishFinnishRadish:.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:48, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Fine by me if this helps Magnatyrannus edit constructively and leads to article improvements.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:11, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

My thoughts mirror Ponyo's. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:04, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

The only remaining question is what to do if the below occurs. Simply wait for a RC patroller to spot it? DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 07:22, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I have concerns here that Magna's 0RR may be exploited by vandals to harass him, even after he stops vandal fighting. For instance the recently created account Psalm of Emil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be solely purposed to revert Magna's edits and vandalise his talkpage archives. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:27, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Also noticed that account at Talk:Syrian elephant. Bbb23, I'm unaware of the history here, but if whatever it is attracts obvious trolls like that (whose TPA should be revoked), there needs to be some reporting mechanism if AIV and SPI are off-limits. CMD (talk) 05:26, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism exists on Wikipedia, and it's not just that they often target editors who do counter-vandalism, but also editors who revert socks, something that Magna has done more frequently than most. Indeed, my guess is that Magna's revert of Finestalla at Guillem Morales is probably what caused the creation of Psalm of Emil. And usually these vandals are caught fairly quickly, especially if they are on a tear. I don't think we should leap to the conclusion that Magna's editing restriction will make them any worse off than anyone else just because of this one account.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't wish to leap to a conclusion, merely to note that receiving abuse is unpleasant even if it can be reported. Hopefully it is a non-issue, but I will note such vandals are sometimes not caught at all. My suggestion is that obvious harassment accounts (ie. created just to revert) can be noted on this talkpage, although of course it remains up to you (or other admins). CMD (talk) 13:16, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

• Magna, now that we've heard from the three admins I pinged, I'm ready to unblock you. However, do you have any thoughts on the issue raised by editors here? I will say that if there is indeed a significant problem with users targeting you in particular, you are welcome to notify me on my Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:40, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps ammend point 2 from "No reverts of other editors' edits for any reason" to "No reverts of other editors' edits for any reason outside of your own userspace"? and amend point 3 from "No filings or comments at WP:AIV" to "No filings or comments at WP:AIV outside of reporting vandalism in your userspace"? Just a thought. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:46, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I have no problem with amending Restriction #2, but the problem with allowing an AIV report is Magna would have to warn the user, which would violate Restriction #4. I always contemplated that Magna should be able to revert users in their own userspace, which would normally be reverting users on their Talk page. Not sure what Magna thinks of all this. I'd like this to be as straightforward as possible, both for Magna's sake and for admins enforcing the restrictions.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:20, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

When they were first blocked I was giving this some thought, and although my thoughts were along similar lines to yours, they were a less stringent.

1. No recent changes patrolling or anti-vandal patrolling.
2. No reverts or removals of perceived personal attacks.
3. Vandalism spotted in the course of normal editing can be reverted, and a standard warning template placed, with a standard edit summary. No further commentary on the warned user's page or in the edit summary. Any reverts of borderline edits or non-vandalism, or warnings about stale edits will result in revocation of this allowance.
4. Allowed to report at AIV, RFPP, or SPI, but not comment on existing reports. Not allowed to post further comments on their reports unless they are specifically questioned. Bad reports, such as requests for preemptive page protection will result in the revocation of this allowance.

My thought is to allow mostly normal editing while cutting out the problems. This allows them to still revert vandalism in the course of normal editing, report obvious vandals, and hopefully gain the necessary experience to be helpful in these areas in the future. The reason I didn't list these before is, as you say I'd like this to be as straightforward as possible, both for Magna's sake and for admins enforcing the restrictions. My idea certainly has a lot of grey area. Ponyo's suggested changes are also perfectly acceptable, and should address CMD's concerns. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:27, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

@Bbb23:,I agree with all of the other editors here that I should be allowed to revert within my userspace, and as such I'v accepted the offer. --Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 22:10, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Magna, the other editors have said more than that. However, based on what you're saying, I've modified Restriction #2. Please confirm you're okay with the four restrictions, and we can finally put this baby to bed. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh yeah, my bad, they actually said that the restrictions listed up above would be difficult to enforce. And yes, I am okay with the four restrictions. --Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 00:26, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to beat this into the ground, but I want to be absolutely sure we're on the same page as there are now two sets of 4 restrictions. I'm talking about the 4 restrictions listed at the top, the first one of which is "No filings or comments at WP:SPI".--Bbb23 (talk) 01:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, at the very top, about not being permitted to making any filings or comments at SPI. That which I agree with. --Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 01:38, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Great, as you can see, I've unblocked you. I've listed the 4 restrictions in the block log so it's clear. You don't have to keep this here if you want it to archive normally. However, as we discussed much earlier, please add these restrictions to your userpage under the previous restrictions that led to your unblock last summer. Those restrictions, of course, are still in effect. Thanks very much for your cooperation and patience in all this. If any questions about the restrictions occur to you in the future, you are welcome to ask them on my Talk page. Best of luck to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:41, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Adianthidae

@Magnatyrannus Hello and thanks for making edits to my article Adianthidae. The only thing I would like to complain is that I created the cladogram from wikipedia articles. The thing is it can be edited by anyone so that would be not a referrable source. Nextly, Why have you removed the section Subtaxa? It was quite informative but you deleted it (I didn't see anything wrong in it). Its a little bit of disruptive editing. Could you please explain why and I could try to rectify the errors in the article. Yet, thanks for correcting incorrect information (Indaleciinae) and adding categories. PrathuCoder (talk) 12:11, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

@PrathuCoder:, sorry for the belated response. I removed those sections because they were redundant and already covered in the subgroups section. Also, when inserting cladograms onto an article, you'll need to cite a source, otherwise it would be original research. --Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 22:37, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

@Magnatyrannus thanks for the info. But relating to the cladogram, can I cite another wikipedia article as a source? Would that acceptable? PBDB says that litopterna is a suborder which would just not comply with the wikipedia taxonomy template. Should I change the template? Or should I refer to a wikipedia article? I'm a new wikipedian and this is too complex for me and just too debatable. PrathuCoder (talk) 11:43, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

@PrathuCoder:, citing another article as a source would be considered unreliable, however, if an academic paper depicts a cladogram, then it can be cited, and the cladogram in said paper can be used. Hope you understand. --Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 20:51, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

@Magnatyrannus Ok, maybe I can refer to the source of that wikipedia article which I referred to. I created a cladogram from a description of families in the article not another cladogram. But thanks and I think this is the bet way to approach this PrathuCoder (talk) 13:06, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

November 2022

Your edit to Protypotherium has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 13:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

@Diannaa: The source that I copied was from a CC-BY Licensed source, and other springeropen sources are CC-BY licensed, so this was probably made in error. If I’m mistaken, then I sincerely apologize for accidentally violating Wikipedia policy. --Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 13:55, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I checked carefully and could not find any evidence that the source paper is compatibly licensed. I checked here and here and here and here. — Diannaa (talk) 14:03, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, this appears to be an honest mistake, as many other SpringerOpen articles are CC-BY licensed. Always goes to show that you should carefully check the license. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

@Diannaa Does that mean I should stop improving the article, given that there might be copyright issues? --Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 03:34, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

It's okay to continue to improve the article, as long as everything you add is written in your own words and sourced properly to reliable sources. — Diannaa (talk) 13:39, 2 December 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) 01:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Here is a page that I am working on

Irgilin Dzo

I was wondering if you could help out with me on this page that I am working on right now. CuddleKing1993 (talk) 05:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

• @CuddleKing1993: It is not ready for mainspace, so it should probably be incubated in draftspace. --Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 12:53, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

  Are you going to help me fix it up? CuddleKing1993 (talk) 13:29, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

  @CuddleKing1993 Sure, but copy the content from Draft:Irgilin Dzo onto User:Magnatyrannus/sandbox1, given that I am not allowed to edit in other users' userspaces. --Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 22:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

  I tried my best and did it. CuddleKing1993 (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The late Cretaceous American Interchange

We have hadrosaurs like Kelumapusaura, the nodosaur Patagopelta and a highly likely ceratopsian in Notoceratops in South America which indicated that hadrosaurs, nodosaurs and ceratopsians dispersed into South America from North America, while Alamosaurus and Dakotaraptor indicate that titanosaurs and unenlagiids dispersed from South America into North America, and Labocania potentially being either an abelisaur or a megaraptoran. CuddleKing1993 (talk) 04:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

We've discussed this before. Saying that Labocania is either an abelisaur or a megaraptoran is irrelevant, though it has been suggested to be the former at one point. It probably would not have been a megaraptoran, given that it lacks features that are unique to megaraptorans and not by other theropod dinosaurs. Also on Dakotaraptor, it may or may not have been an unenlagiine, given that various aspects of its holotype might not belong to the genus, simultaneously making it a possible chimera. Using the fact that certain dinosaurs from North America dispersed into South America and vice versa isn't really a compelling argument, and until more papers come to light, saying that Labocania was an abelisaur or a megaraptoran would be original research or original synthesis. As I can see, you've added a "See also" section on Notoceratops, linking Kelumapusaura, Labocania, and Patagopelta, but those three taxa are obviously irrelevant to the article, and thus is unverifiable speculation. --Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 22:39, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

		Happy Holidays
		Hello, I wish you the very best during the holidays. And I hope you have a very happy 2023! Bruxton (talk) 01:53, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

@Bruxton: Thank you, but I am Muslim and don’t celebrate Christmas. However, if there’s one thing I might say, it’s this: Happy New Year!!! --Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 01:16, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Walking With Dinosaurs Reimagining SA episode?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

If you could make a Walking with Dinosaurs episode set in early Maastrichtian South America, what kind of creatures would you use? CuddleKing1993 (talk) 18:32, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discord Account?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Do you have a discord account? CuddleKing1993 (talk) 03:04, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

@CuddleKing1993: WP:DISCORD is relevant. Also, please stop posting unnecessary messages. --Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 03:50, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I want to talk to you more. CuddleKing1993 (talk) 03:55, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Again, WP:DISCORD exists. If you click on the link, it’ll then show “Join Server”, as long as you want to join the server. But again, it’s hard to understand why you leave such messages. --Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 04:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.