User talk:WelcometoJurassicPark

WelcometoJurassicPark, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi WelcometoJurassicPark! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Rosiestep (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Death Valley temperature

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Death Valley, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. HkCaGu (talk) 15:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. US temperatures are measured in whole degrees Fahrenheit. Your international source does not contradict this fact. And according to the MOS, US units must come first. HkCaGu (talk) 17:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, as you did at Prospect Creek, Alaska, you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. HkCaGu (talk) 02:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaur size

What are you doing? --Spinosaurus75 (Dinosaur Fan) (talk) 00:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaur Size - Notocolossus

Hi WelcometoJurassicPark! There's a discussion on the article Dinosaur Size that involves you. Don't worry, it's nothing bad. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 23:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blue whale

Hello, I'm DrKay. I noticed that you made a change to an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.

Your recent editing history 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. DrKay (talk) 16:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. DrKay (talk) 16:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Blue whale. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. DrKay (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. DrKay (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016

Hello, I'm Editor abcdef. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to gray wolf has been undone because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Editor abcdef (talk) 23:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at gray wolf. Vandalism is prohibited. Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page. William Harris • talk • 20:46, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing your talk page, now it is more clear why you are edit warring. Please stop this behaviour for the good of Wikipedia. Reverting edits will not make you right. Here is why: Talk:Saltwater crocodile, please read Berkserker (talk) 17:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have been editing the great white shark article now, please cite your findings, as I had previously corrected some of the sources that did not represent the data (you can see my changes in history). I'm saying this so that we don't have a similar reverting session like on the other article. Berkserker (talk) 11:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Report of Edit Warring

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Faendalimas ^talk 15:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that since your warnings and since this report you are continuing to edit without discussing on the talk page I really suggest you learn to work with wikipedia and not against it, page content is determined by consensus and you are going against it and not taking any notice of the discussions either. This is in the hands of the admins now. Could I suggest you try to cooperate. Cheers Faendalimas ^talk 10:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@WelcometoJurassicPark: You still have time to change this behaviour. Nobody has anything personal against you, and you don't have to prove anything. Cooperating will only benefit you; you will have more quality time on Wikipedia, as well as helping the articles improve. Berkserker (talk) 03:45, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've been warned per the result of the edit warring complaint: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:WelcometoJurassicPark reported by User:Faendalimas (Result: Warned). You may be blocked the next time you edit the Saltwater crocodile article unless you have previously obtained consensus on the talk page. I see you've been making edits about the sizes of other large animals. While I haven't looked into that, similar behavior on those articles is risking a block. You may not be familiar with the seriousness of Wikipedia's sourcing rules. The New York Daily News is unlikely to be accepted as a reference for the size of crocodiles. Ask at WP:RSN if you're not sure. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:WelcometoJurassicPark reported by User:Chenzw (Result: ). Thank you. Chenzw Talk 10:51, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Saltwater crocodile

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The full report is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:WelcometoJurassicPark reported by User:Chenzw (Result: Blocked). You have continued your original edit war, paying no attention to warnings. You've also been cautioned several times (above) as long ago as April, about changes that are not well-enough supported by good-quality references. If you won't follow Wikipedia standards this may not be the place for you. EdJohnston (talk) 13:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brown Bear and conversions

In the Brown_bear#Ecotype_or_regional_populations, you modified a statement to remove about in "about 751 kg" to remove the about, stating "Correction based on the source". Does the source specify the weight in pounds or kilograms? Either way, a better way to deal with conversions is to specify the weight in the unit provided by the reference, and have Wikipedia do the conversion into the other unit with the {{convert} template. E.g.: {{convert|751|kg|lb|abbr=on}} gives 751 kg (1,656 lb) while {{convert|1656|lb|kg|abbr=on}} gives 1,656 lb (751 kg). This preserves the information about which unit was retrieved from the source as well as ensuring that the arithmetic is done correctly. Regards, Tarl N. (talk) 14:44, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saltwater Crocofdile

I see you have decided to continue your editing of this page. You have been repeatedly asked to discuss changes and reach consensus first. You have received two warnings and one block for this already. It is not in your interest to refuse to cooperate. All you will achieve is an escalation of the penalties for your edit behavior, this can ultimately lead to a permanent block. Faendalimas ^talk 20:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Gray wolf, you may be blocked from editing. Same issue as 15 May above. William Harris • talk • 11:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Tyrannosaurus. Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 20:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Golden Retriever, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. - Mr X 16:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't make stereotypical assumptions

Don't assume that I'm a slavish, brainless nerd just because of my love for a certain anime, and my revert of your edit without checking the source; it felt insulting.Gonzales John (talk) 11:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. Katie^talk 15:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dreadnoughtus

I think your reverts deserve a bit more explanation than a sharp two word summary given here. In particular, what specifically is the problem with the edit? It's a complex edit bringing in a variety of sources, which I can understand you may disagree with some. But it deserves a more explicit description in a talk page than your two-word revert. Secondly, please note WP:BITE, the editor is a newcomer, and deserves a longer explanation of why the work is unacceptable. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 17:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, WelcometoJurassicPark. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest snakes

Thanks for catching that vandalism of List of largest snakes. I thought that previous edit had just swapped the order in the list to correspond with the order of maximum weight. I didn't realize they changed the weight at the same time to conflict with the cited source. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016

Hello. I wanted to let you know that your recent edit(s) to the King Kong (2005 film) plot summary have been removed because they added a significant amount of unnecessary detail. Please avoid excessive detail and high word counts when editing plot summaries/synopses. You may read the plot summary edit guides to learn more about contributing constructively to plot summaries/synopses. There are also specific guidelines for films, musicals, television episodes, anime/manga, novels and non-fiction books. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. -- DonIago (talk) 14:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Chrysler Building. - Mlpearc (open channel) 19:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Chrysler Building 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 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. - Mlpearc (open channel) 19:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further

I'm not saying the information is incorrect, I'm saying it apperars you are changing the format of the page, which usually requires discussion and not edit warring. - Mlpearc (open channel) 19:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Acroterion (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion 2

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:WelcometoJurassicPark reported by User:McGeddon (Result: ). Thank you. McGeddon (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you are continuing an edit war immediately after coming off a 3RR block, presumably for the same war. Admins are not likely to put up with this. What's most likely is you will be blocked for as much as a month. Consider making a diplomatic answer at the noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

541.3

Hello. First, content disputes are not resolved by reverts and edit summaries. If your edit is disputed and you feel strongly enough about it, talk it to the talk page. Also, there is no requirement to match a source exactly on something like this, any more than we are required to match their words exactly in prose. We are allowed to reduce the precision of that number if that better suits our needs, and I feel that it does. The "541" still passes WP:V. I'm willing to let this slide and see if anybody else disputes it, but it was worth a note here. Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree with Mandruss comments above. This recent "editor" seems obsessed with minor changes, does not use the Talk page facility, and is ignoring edit war warning. User is in line for a longer block if this does not stop. David J Johnson (talk) 19:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Had I been aware of the history, I would have been less friendly. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1month for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Acroterion (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 01:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]