User talk:78.73.25.173

March 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Living dinosaur, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you.   — Jess· Δ♥ 13:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

May 2015

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Lake Placid (film series). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Supdiop (talk) 08:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Removing sourced and replacing with unsourced content

Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. 2601:188:0:ABE6:1426:57EB:B017:9787 (talk) 19:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

At the very least, take your arguments to the talk page if you believe you have a strong case. We should discuss this civilly and come to an agreement before this escalates into an edit war. Armegon (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. 78.73.25.173 (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Just responded to the Zilla talk pageArmegon (talk) 23:47, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Genesis 3D (film) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Genesis 3D (film) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genesis 3D (film) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. BiologicalMe (talk) 21:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

August 2016

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to The Dragons of Eden, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. David J Johnson (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Your recent editing history at The Dragons of Eden shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Neither have you answered that snakes are included in the text - they are! With your editing history, you will find yourself blocked. David J Johnson (talk) 18:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

I am well aware of this type of issue. However, I find it interesting and juvenile that you would become so peeved off at such a minor insignificant edit that was made with the best of intentions, to improve the article. The text as it was written made it sound illogical. Snakes aren't mythological creatures, and the book deals pretty specifically about so-called "dragons". Whether or not snakes or any other reptile are mentioned in the book doesn't exactly justify your insistence to keep that in the article text. 78.73.25.173 (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)