User talk:AlexCWebb

December 2017

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Dinosaur Planet (TV series). Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Dinosaur Planet (TV series), you may be blocked from editing.
Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: Dinosaur Planet (TV series) was changed by AlexCWebb (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.85485 on 2017-12-07T13:35:24+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 13:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Subhyracodon. Donner60 (talk) 03:50, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. only (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

The edits are all correct, but I did not know how to reference the evidence. In the final episode, in the creatures section at the bottom of the screen, I changed Carcharodontosaurus to Giganotosaurus because it was clearly Giganotosaurus, based on the skull morphology, which is a Carcharodontosaur. The wikipedia page says Carcharodontosaurus, which is a different type of Carcharodontosaur. The name Carcharodontosaurus is not used in the episode. I don't know how to prove this though, other than to tell people to watch the episode. Carcharodontosaurus was only found in Africa, and the episode takes place in South America. I can provide proof for that, if needed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Cretaceous_dinosaurs_of_Africa I also changed the 'unidentified elasmosaur /plesiosaur' entry in the Pod's Travels episode, because the only Plesiosaur known to be the size described in the episode (50 feet) was Mauisaurus. I realize the episode takes place in Romania, and that the Mauisaurus has only been found in New Zealand, but I'm trying to err on the side of caution and assume the episode is not wrong about the length: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauisaurus AlexCWebb (talk) 22:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This unblock request appears to be justification for leaving you blocked indefinitely. Certainly, it doesn't appear as though you understand WP:NOR, WP:V, or WP:RS. Yamla (talk) 02:14, 29 March 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

If the problem is that it's not clear if this is a Giganotosaurus or not, I understand. But it is definitely not Carcharodontosaurus. The narrator says, "Carcharodontosaurs" not Carcharodontosaurus, at 3:40 into the episode. The name Carcharodontosaurus is not used in the episode. According to the same entry on Wikipedia, the setting is the forests of Patagonia in South America. Carcharodontosaurus has only been found in Africa. http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/life/Carcharodontosaurus. It is definitely not Carcharodontosaurus. It would be more accurate to say it was a Carcharodontosaur.

Decline reason:

Your unblock request is not the place to continue your argument. All this shows is that you haven't understood why you were blocked to begin with. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:39, 6 April 2018 (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.

Non-admin comment Your unblock request is not the place to continue arguing for your edits. You need to recognise that regardless of whether you think your edits are correct or not, they are not reliably sourced, and appears that you are conducting original research. Zyc1174 _chat? ^{what I did} 07:40, 6 April 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

I understand now, and I apologize. I was referencing books instead of links to online sources, which falls under original research if the text is not available online, and I incorrectly believed that YouTube links for copyrighted materials were not allowed. Since they are, I could've just pointed to the relevant videos.

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but I still don't think you understand what sources Wikipedia considers reliable and what is considered original research, particularly original synthesis. I rather doubt any of those books you say you were referencing discuss what animals are shown in a specific episode of Dinosaur Planet, do they? Huon (talk) 20:13, 15 April 2018 (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.

None of my books explicitly state what happens in that episode. What I mean is that I have at least one book that refers to the incident they are recreating in that episode, and I have several books that corroborate why I think the Wikipedia page is wrong. They all support the position that this is a Giganotosaurus.

And here's the YouTube link to the line in question, where they say Carcharodontosaurs, because there are two of them. Earlier I gave proof that the Giganotosaurus was the Carcharodontosaur in question here. The plural of Carcharodontosaurus is Carcharodontosauruses, which the narrator definitely does not say. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pN2bNibct0A&feature=youtu.be&list=PLrywqALJ5SGdBxPhnKqiAGuTcnZOEzT2Y&t=213

Now, there is one thing I definitely don't understand. I'm being accused of original synthesis, but the links cited on the Wikipedia page do not back up the text, nor is that text found anywhere on those links. [7] points to an archive.org page, which does not list the text in the article at all, and [6] points to a dino viewer that contradicts the text, and corroborates what I'm saying. So how is the current summary on the Wikipedia page not original synthesis? AlexCWebb (talk) 00:05, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At a glance much of the article's current content indeed seems problematic. The way forward, however, should be to remove unsourced content and original synthesis, not to change one kind of inappropriate content into another kind or to add more problematic content. Huon (talk) 19:46, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]