User talk:Elasmosaurus

Welcome!

Hello, Elasmosaurus, 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:

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 and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Firsfron of Ronchester 07:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeti

Hello Elasmosaurus. I don't agree with your edits to the Yeti article. I agree that wikipedia should keep an open mind regarding cryptids, but it is clear that there is little physical evidence of the existence of the Yeti, it's mostly anecdotal, and therefore not scientific (doesn't mean it's useless, but it does mean it's completely unverifiable, and as such shouldn't be given too much credit in an encyclopedia). More specifically I think it is better to mention that "most scientists, explorers, and writers" doubt its existence than to simply say "a few people dismiss the legend." If nothing else more than just "a few people" doubt it's existence...I'd hazard to guess it'd be closer to "most people." I won't edit your changes now and I think a lively discussion is good (let's not make it too lively though ;-) Can't guarantee other people won't though. Cheers. Winston365 (talk) 03:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand the spirit of your edit and what you are trying to achieve, and I suppose I'm OK with it, although we clearly have different views on cryptids. I'm only really bothered by the "a few people" phrase. I think it's rather an understatement. If "most" means 95% then I think "a few" is closer to 5%, both being clearly inadequate. I think it would be fair to say "...although many people dismiss the legend..." With that change I'd be content...seems like a reasonable compromise. Cheers. Winston365 (talk) 00:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna make that change if I don't hear from you. Winston365 (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to Skunk ape has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. jj137 (talk) 03:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. Skunk ape has been debunked anyway. Elasmosaurus (talk) 18:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping an open mind

Hi Elasmosaurus, having noticed a few of your edits, and read your user page, I think we'll be heading for a few run-ins. I am not anti-cryptozoology in any way (heck I'm as willing to believe in Bigfoot more than the next guy), but I do, and will continue, to take a hard line on those crytids which appear to violate known scientific principals (rods and the Loch Ness Monster being good examples). In these situations the clear mainstream scientific consensus is that they do not (and in many cases, cannot) exist, and the wikipedia should reflect that as a fact. Anything else is original research. — John.Conway (talk) 11:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Follow the mainstream scientist consensus" is a rule I simply cannot follow. Because if I did, I might as well put "No cryptids are real" on the cryptid article, and on list of cryptids I might as well label every cryptid as "hoax", "discredited", etc, etc. I base my edits on the consensus of the mainstrem cryptozoological community.

Then it hits you.

Cryptozoologists ARE scientists.

So maybe I AM obeying the rules.

Elasmosaurus (talk) 01:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Following mainstream scientific consensus is Wikipedia's rule. If you continue to add your unsourced opinion to science articles, you will cause a lot of work for others in having to revert. You need sources! --Aunt Entropy (talk) 17:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptozoologists are scientists, so what am I doing wrong? And I have several sources for my edits. The cryptid zoo, etc. Elasmosaurus (talk) 18:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

"Speculation is the best evidence"???????? What??? This is very serious. You cannot base your Wikipedia editing on that presumption! --Damifb (talk) 17:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was just frustrated because in the list of cryptids I labeled ropen as a pterosaur, and someone edited out my changes, saying that it was only speculation that ropen was a pterosaur. I got irritated (because Ropen is OBVIOUSLY a pterosaur) and I decided that speculation is the best evidence. Of course now I reject that idea. Elasmosaurus (talk) 06:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surviving Terror Birds

Hello. I've read your posts and share your disbelief in all things Mothman related, but you also mentioned surviving Terror birds in Florida. Do you know of reports, both recent and historical, in the possiblity of Terror Birds still alive? If so, I'd like to read them, if possible. Also, on a related note, do you know of any Gastornis sightings, Gastornis was a similar bird to the Terror Bird, but stockier and lived during the paleocene. If you've heard of anything, let me know. Thanks.

A wiki you may like.

There is a wiki you may like, Living Dinopedia Wiki, and it is about living Dinosaurs, Plesiosaurs, and Pterosaurs( along with other Mezoic sea monsters). It is at a early stage, with only two people doing more than 3 edits in the two years it has been up( me and only recently, and the founder, who is often busy). I am sure that it could use your help. Before I came, a few weeks ago, it had 19 pages and now has 110 pages, but only 3 pictures on the sight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.37.157.229 (talk) 03:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]