User talk:Raptor Red

Welcome!

Hello, Raptor Red, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! J. Spencer (talk) 22:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carnian Coelophysis

Hello, Raptor Red;

Ghost Ranch (Whitaker Quarry) is simply not considered to be Carnian in age any more. For example, if you search on "Ghost Ranch" (one term) and Rhaetian in Google you will get some flavor of the issue; the first page of results alone gets seven papers published in the last 10 years. It is also worth your time to check Chinleana, the blog of Petrified Forest National Park paleontologist William Parker. J. Spencer (talk) 22:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You asked on my page "If the comment you posted on my talk about Coelophysis no longer being Carnian, then what age is the Petrified Forest one? And why does the book for Walking with Dinosaurs say that it lived 222-215 million years ago?"

The answers to both of your questions are related, but I'll need to lay down some groundwork first.

First, the formation(s) of the Late Triassic in the American Southwest have had a complicated history. In Arizona and New Mexico, there is the traditional Chinle Formation. Researchers from the New Mexico Museum of Natural History & Science prefer to have the Chinle as a group and its internal divisions as formations, while researchers associated with Petrified Forest National Park prefer the traditional Chinle Formation with divisions as members. The main upshot for our purposes is that some papers call the Arizona Coelophysis sites the Painted Desert Member of the Petrified Forest Formation, and the Ghost Ranch site the Rock Point Formation, while others call the Arizona sites the Petrified Forest Member of the Chinle Formation and are not entirely sure about Ghost Ranch (you might see "siltstone member"). This is important if you get into the literature. Some of this can be found in a paper published this spring about Petrified Forest National Park, freely available here (see especially the figure on p. 4).

Second, the Carnian and Norian have been substantially refined in age over the last decade. As the paper linked above notes on p. 7, the Carnian-Norian boundary used to be at 216 Ma (million years ago), and the Norian-Rhaetian boundary at 203 Ma. More recent work on the stages puts the Carnian-Norian boundary at ~228 Ma and the Norian-Rhaetian boundary at between 210 and 207 Ma. This makes the Norian substantially longer.

Third, the Petrified Forest specimen of Coelophysis comes from the Painted Desert Member of the Petrified Forest Formation or the Petrified Forest Member of the Chinle Formation, depending on whose side of the name battle you're on. See here for more. (There are a few other possible specimens from the park as well). The age of this rock unit is younger than 219.2 Ma (the age of the base of the Blue Mesa Member, two members down using the National Park names), and around 213 to 211 Ma at its top; see p. 8 of the first paper I linked. These dates were produced recently, and previously the Chinle was assumed to be a few million years older. Thus, the Park's Coelophysis lived sometime between about 219 and 211 Ma, closer to the young end because the older date is from much lower rocks. By the old definitions of the Carnian and Norian, this is late Carnian-early Norian, but by the new definitions, it is middle to late Norian.

Of course, the Walking With Dinosaurs book is doubtless using older information, because it was published before a lot of this work.

Now, the age of the Ghost Ranch Coelophysis is trickier, because the correlations of the rocks are still questionable. The Whitaker Quarry could be late Norian, Rhaetian, or even earliest Jurassic. J. Spencer (talk) 00:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Placerias is known primarily from the Placerias Quarry, which is from the Bluewater Creek Formation of the Chinle Group (New Mexico Museum) or Mesa Redondo Member of the Chinle Formation (Petrified Forest NP), which in either case is the unit under the Blue Mesa. It is also known from the Blue Mesa. Since the base of the Blue Mesa is about 219 Ma, Placerias probably ranged for a few million years before and after. Under the old Carnian-Norian, it would have a late Carnian range, but under the new Carnian-Norian, it would have roughly a late early Norian-middle Norian range. Interestingly, Coelophysis is not known to have coexisted with Placerias (the middle of the Chinle had turnover with a lot of its vertebrates), but there was a Coelophysis-like dinosaur (Camposaurus) found at the Placerias Quarry. J. Spencer (talk) 22:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

You have to realize that a fact is a fact because there is evidence in the real world that verifies it as being true, and not because you say it's a fact. As such, the claims that Gorgonops and Scutosaurus lived together, or that Gorgonops could migrate from South Africa to Siberia are false because there is no evidence to verify these claims as being true. Please read Wikipedia:Original Research and Wikipedia:Synthesis]. I hope you understand what I am trying to tell you.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are different genera of gorgonopsid around the world. Simply because Inostrancevia is a Siberian gorgonopsid does not mean that Gorgonops was able to migrate to Siberia, and it definitely does not give you the authority to say that.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 04:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond T-Rex

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Beyond T-Rex, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://lauradern.gossip-today.com/laura-dern/beyond-t-rex-3-of-5.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 01:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Beyond T-Rex

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.

A tag has been placed on Beyond T-Rex requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Slon02 (talk) 01:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the article as a clear copyright violation. Also, despite you saying that it used to be on Wikipedia, I couldn't find it - what was the original name of the article? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ornitholestes

You should read Gregory S. Pauls' newest book, Field Guide to Dinosaurs. Even the guy who came up with the idea of a horn on Ornitholestes doesn't believe in it anymore (page 123). This isn't some wild theory of Carpenter's, it's an accepted fact. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a theory, it's an observation. They found out by examining the bone. There's a big difference between a horn or crest, and a price of normal skull bone broken into an upwards position. Greg Paul's mistaken interpretation (based on a photo I think, not even the actual specimen) only became popular because he unfortunately published it in a very popular book. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:180px-Chico and Barky.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:180px-Chico and Barky.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 17:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please Stop Introducing Original Research

Please stop trying to introduce Original Research and inappropriate Synthesis into articles. I keep telling you, just because you say so does not make it evidence. Furthermore, you seem to be unaware that Laurasia had already been divided by the Atlantic Ocean at the start of the Early Cretaceous, and that Western North America, where Utahraptor was endemic to was split off from Eastern North America by the Niobraran Sea, so if Utahraptor wanted to go eat an Iguanodon, it would have to cross both the Atlantic, and the Niobraran.--Mr Fink (talk) 13:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my responsibility to prove your claims: it is actually your responsibility to provide actual evidence to your claims, which you have not been doing, and is why your edits keep getting reverted.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

February 2011

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at King Cobra, you may be blocked from editing. Mokele (talk) 21:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Walking with Dinosaurs

Hi Raptor Red, I noticed your edits to the Walking with Dinosaurs article. I'm not sure that information is entirely accurate, and have started a discussion on the article talk page, Talk:Walking with Dinosaurs. I invite you to discuss the issues there. In the mean time, I have removed the material from the article. Let me know if you have any questions or concerns. --TeaDrinker (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please discuss the matter on the talk page. If we can come to a consensus to do so, then we will add the material back to the article. Thanks, --TeaDrinker (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your edit to the Raptor Red article. Please note it is entirely inappropriate to introduce speculation, no matter how well founded, into an article. This is one of the key policies on Wikipedia. Do let me know if you have any questions about it. Thanks, --TeaDrinker (talk) 21:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, I saw that you mentioned that it was in the book, so I left it. Thanks again and let me know if anything comes up. Best wishes, --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have protected the Walking with Dinosaurs page to prevent further edit warring. I would strongly encourage you to conclude the discussion on the article's talk page before making any other edits. This does not mean leaving an obscure message and reverting, it means having a full discussion and developing a consensus with you fellow editors on what is included. I take no position in your content dispute, but I would also encourage you to, once again, read our policy on original research. This policy dictates, unambiguously, that you may not insert your own commentary or conclusions into an article without very specific references. If you are still confused about this, please ask for clarification. If you continue to edit war after the protection ends, it is possible that this account can be temporarily disabled to prevent disruption. Kuru (talk) 15:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Raptor Red

I see from your talk I'm not the only person who has an issue with you introducing unverified or unsourced material, so I'll cut to the chase: please desist, or you may find yourself blocked for disruptive editing. See WP:V and WP:RS before continuing to add material and edit-warring to keep it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The taxonomic identity of the White Dactyl is never explicitly identified in the novel. A flock of pterosaurs identified as Ornithocheirus attempts to scavenge the Astrodon carcass after the death of Red's first mate but nowhere is it stated that they are the same species/genus as the White Dactyl character. Ozraptor4 (talk) 08:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning

This is your last warning; the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. I'm sorry that I was not clear enough earlier. The next time you insert your own commentary and edit war to keep it in an article, you will be blocked. Kuru (talk) 02:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 2011

This is your last warning; the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Placerias, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning; the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Animal Armageddon, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy as a result of your repeated abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} . Kuru (talk) 14:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning; the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Walking with Dinosaurs, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Corris No.9

A link to a photo of the loco has now been added to the article, so please stop deleting correct information. RGCorris (talk) 16:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning; the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at The Princess and the Frog, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. McDoob AU 93 03:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning; the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Walking with Dinosaurs, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Walking with dinosarus. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked again

You have been blocked 1 week for continued disruption after previous block. –MuZemike 04:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.

You are advised that further disruption may cause you to be indefinitely blocked. Regards, –MuZemike 04:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Materialscientist (talk) 05:54, 23 April 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

I can stop violating the original research. Raptor Red (talk) 14:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Sorry, I'm not buying it. Most of your reverts and additions explicitly state "this is not OR", when they clearly are. It would be a very good idea to include a much more detailed outline of why you've been ignoring a multitude of warnings and blocks that have forced an administrator to indefinitely block this account. How will you change your behavior and your interpretation of WP:OR? Kuru (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2011 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

The reason I ignored the warnings was because I had reliable sources to support my claims, like the encyclopedia. One time, I thought that some people didn't believe the Ornitholestes nose injury until someone told me to read the book. So I put down the same. Maybe you should read the encyclopedia too. Raptor Red (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Arguing that you did nothing wrong, against a loud consensus against you, will not get you unblocked. If you want to edit here, you need to recognize what you were doing wrong and convince us that you will change your approach -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:41, 23 April 2011 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I didn't put down proper references like Thomas r. Holts Jr. That's what I did wrong. I can ignore the information.

Decline reason:

Please, one request at a time. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:42, 24 April 2011 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I can ignore the information Raptor Red (talk) 18:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Please, one request at a time. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:42, 24 April 2011 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I disrupted original research Raptor Red (talk) 18:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because I find it inadequate; to be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.
  Somehow, I'm not really convinced by this recent edit of yours. I'm not removing your right to edit your talk page, for the moment, but please bear in mind, that, if you keep this up, it'll happen soon enough. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:42, 24 April 2011 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I disrupted original research, and I am so sorry for doing so. I will not edit that page ever again. From now on, I'll ignore the edits on that page and won't make any myself. Raptor Red (talk)

Decline reason:

I see you trying to say the right words, but I don't see any evidence that you understand the rule you have been breaking. If you don't understand the rule, you can't promise not to break it. The next unblock request you make will be your last, so be careful not to request unblock unless you can clearly explain what you did wrong, and what your plan is for editing differently in the future. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:48, 24 April 2011 (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.

I've already declined one unblock request, so that rules me out now, but here's a couple of hints: No, you did not "disrupt original research", and no, you were not blocked for edits on "that page". I strongly urge you to read back over all of your warnings and review your edits, and try to come up with something vaguely coherent that at least makes it sound like you understand the issues -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{unblock| reason= I made violating an disruptive edits, ignored the original research policy, and I am so sorry for doing so. I will do those edits ever again. From now on, I'll ignore the edits and won't make any myself. Please unblock me. Raptor Red (talk)}}

Some advice

I'm probably one of the least nice people on Wikipedia, so spending even a nanosecond giving advice is way out of my standard operating procedure. However, since I'm one of the several editors that warned you and reverted your edits, and I think you have some good intentions, though reading that over the internet is pretty close to impossible, I think you can learn to be a good editor. Therefore, let me give you a few pieces of advice:

This is critical: learn to sign your posts. Just type four tildes ~~~~. But that's not why you were blocked.
There is no "truth" on Wikipedia. There is what you can prove with reliable sources. Just because you read something or watched the video does not qualify as a reliable source. You really need to read this, and understand it. You also cannot synthesize your own conclusions, or write as if you are the original source. You need to understand each of these things inside and out.
We all make mistakes. We all think we understood something. We all get cranky. But you're beating your head against the wall, by pushing the same point over and over again. You need to go to the talk page of the article, and express your ideas, clearly. Engage in a discussion.
Do not throw out accusations. That just pisses people off. And admins, those individuals who do this as volunteers, have no time for individuals who leave rude and frankly accusatory requests to unblock. Blocks aren't punishments, but if everyone thinks you're just going to do what you have been doing, you're not going to get any sympathy. Do not drop by people's talk pages and accuse them of anything. That never works. Just pisses people off.
I have no clue what the admins will do, but unless you express a full understanding of the basic principles of Wikipedia, and show some maturity that you will adhere to them, you're not going to get them to unblock you. And even if they do, you will be watched closely, so it isn't worth getting unblocked, if you're just going to be disruptive again.

You can continue to believe that you're right and the rest of community is wrong. Or you can understand how to improve your own editing. Mostly, admins are here to help. The ones that have contributed here are mostly good people. You're not getting them on your side by your accusatory statements that everyone is stupid. Because, most admins and editors here aren't stupid. I don't know how old you are, but you're going to have to act a lot more mature if you're going to be a good editor.

These are just my opinions. It's my one and only shot at helping you. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock | Ok, I understand now. I won't be disruptive ever again. Raptor Red (talk) 23:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)}[reply]

In your last request, I told you that this would be your last request, and that you would need to clearly explain what you had done wrong, and what you will do differently in the future. Then User:Orangemarlin told you that you would need to explain clearly what you did wrong, and what you'll do differently in the future. I know that you understand what you need to do. Since it looks like you simply don't know how to do that, although it makes me sad, I've disabled your access to this talk page. There's just no reason to take up anyone else's time reviewing these requests- if you truly aren't able to change, then no unblock is going to happen, and any more requests will simply be a waste of your time and ours. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well this isn't the last you hear of this guy: he will get his revenge!!! (You'll never know who this is) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.8.42 (talk) 22:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just did, and I blocked the 6 sock puppets you just created, too. We're not fools. –MuZemike 23:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on!!!

I know Raptor Red better than you guys. And he can't explain what he's done wrong because he has autism. Therefore, he can't accept being banned because he doesn't deserve it. He is very sensitive to what he sees on this site and if he doesn't like it, will want it changed. Thomasfan98 (talk) 03:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are able to understand English well enough to understand this: You are blocked from Wikipedia. Stop editing. If you don't feel you can do that alone, ask your parent or caretaker to disable your internet access. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]