User talk:72.194.116.63

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Look, you're making a mess of List of military aircraft of the United States, which many people have painstakingly built up over several years. If you have disagreements with what is on or not on the list, please use its talk page to get feedback first. Stan 12:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The same comment applies to the cetacean taxonomy list you changed. We had an "official" source which you deleted and added your own bespoke one. You must discuss these sorts of changes at talk first. THanks, Pcb21 Pete 08:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Your changes to the dinosaur taxonomy pages, especially on Titanosaur and Hadrosaurid, also should be discussed (or at least an attempt should be made on the talk pages) with other users before being implemented, and you need to explain your reasoning and at least mention your sources.Dinoguy2 18:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for experimenting with the page Titanosaur on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Xiong Chiamiov :: contact :: 01:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Protoavis

Hi 72,

Thanks for your many contributions to Wikipedia's dinosaur talk pages. I would like to discuss with you your position on Protoavis. Wikipedia articles need to present a neutral point of view. Wikipedia can mention both sides of the Protoavis debate: those who believe in, and those who do not believe in, the validity of this genus. Sankar Chatterjee and a few others believe it's valid. However, because the majority of paleontologists who have written papers on it do not consider it a valid taxon, we can present both sides of the debate without giving undue weight to Chatterjee's proposed genus, which has not gained widespread acceptance, as at least three people have already mentioned on the Protoavis talk page.

You have posted comments many times to the talk page about things like possible explanations for the disarticulation of the Protoavis remains, etc, but unless this appears in a scientific paper, it is original research and cannot be included in Wikipedia. Also, please do not remove other users' comments when you add your own.

Thanks again for your often insightful comments on the talk pages. Please continue to weigh in on dinosaur-related issues. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 20:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cetiosauriscus leedsi

Cetiosauriscus leedsi no longer exists. It came from Ornithopsis via Cetiosaurus and poor referral of material to established names. Woodward (1905) assigned BMNH R3078, the type of Cetiosauriscus stewarti, to Ornithopsis leedsi, then thought to belong to Cetiosaurus. Huene (1927) found BMNH R3078 to be too different from Cetiosaurus oxoniensis to be in the same genus, so named Cetiosauriscus leedsi - but: this is like Scelidosaurus, where the type material of the genus and the material everyone uses are different things. Charig noticed this and had this changed by the ICZN so Cetiosauriscus would be based on the partial skeleton BMNH R3078, and not on the lousy type of Ornithopsis leedsi, which is recognized as an indeterminate brachiosaurid. This is summarized in Upchurch and Martin, 2003 (p. 213-214). Thus, there is no Cetiosauriscus leedsi recognized at this time.

Upchurch, P., and Martin, J. (2003). "The Anatomy and Taxonomy of Cetiosaurus (Saurischia, Sauropoda) from the Middle Jurassic of England". Journal of Vertebrate Palaeontology 23(1): 208–231. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by J. Spencer (talk • contribs) 16:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC). I was about to sign, stupid HagermanBot! J. Spencer 16:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page comments

Hi 72,

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please do not remove other users' comments from talk pages, as you did here. It can be seen as vandalism. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 22:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iguanodon anglicus

Hello; I returned I. anglicus to the dubious species section. If I. anglicus was still accepted as valid, no one would have petitioned the ICZN to make I. bernissartensis the type species, and such a petition would have failed. Therefore, it makes no sense to list it as a valid species. J. Spencer 18:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)