User talk:Magnatyrannus/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

A belated welcome!

The welcome may be belated, but the cookies are still warm!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Magnatyrannus! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introductory tutorial
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Writing an article
• Five pillars of Wikipedia
• Community portal
• Help pages
• The Teahouse (newcomer help)
• Main help desk

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 03:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Malmros Klint Formation

Hello, Magnatyrannus,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Qwerfjkl, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I have tagged Malmros Klint Formation for deletion, because it doesn't appear to contain any encyclopedic content. You may find our guide for writing quality articles to be extremely informative. Also, you may want to consider working on future articles in draft space first, where they cannot be deleted for lacking content.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the deleting administrator.

For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Qwerfjkl}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Qwerfjkltalk 20:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Dromatherium moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Dromatherium, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. JW 1961 ^Talk 21:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Automatic taxoboxes

Hi, there's information on how to use the automated taxobox system at Wikipedia:Automated taxobox system. It's quite complicated! But the key idea is that you only need to specify the 'target taxon' and the rest of the classification is picked up from taxonomy templates.

• Look at Shaanbeikannemeyeria to see how to set up {{Automatic taxobox}} for a genus with multiple species.
• Look at Uralokannemeyeria to see how to set up {{Speciesbox}} for a genus with a single species.

Don't hesitate to ask at my talk page if you need any help with automated taxoboxes. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:24, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks.

January 2022

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.--Kevmin § 18:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

December 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Allokotosauria, you may be blocked from editing. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 21:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at User:Lapitavenator ‎. Meters (talk) 20:33, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

And on User:Huinculsaurus and User:Labradooodle. Don't leave comments on user pages. don't vandalize user pages, and don't make personal attacks. Meters (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Do not remove content that is properly cited as you did on Erythrovenator. Either provide a countercitation and leave the information in the article, or provide reasoning for removing both the content *and* the citation (eg, if it is not a reliable source). IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 22:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

You are now editwarring on multiple articles without providing any supporting citations for the changes you are making. This will result in editing sanctions and/or blocking if you continue the tendentious behavior. --Kevmin § 17:51, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I was right about Nhandumirim not being a theropod. You could have just looked at the article's references. Magnatyrannus (talk) 02:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved The ANI section in question is here. Thank you. FunkMonk (talk) 12:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

January 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.

You are edit warring against consensus, failing to communicate with your fellow editors, and engaging in personal attacks. Cullen328 (talk) 17:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

"Jacarean" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Jacarean and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 14#Jacarean until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #55563

has been closed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:46, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #56435

is closed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Checkuser block

Please see Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks#Checkuser blocks. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Dromatherium

Hello, Magnatyrannus. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Dromatherium, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Parvicursorinae

Hello, Magnatyrannus. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Parvicursorinae, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 12:01, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Dromatherium

Hello, Magnatyrannus. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Dromatherium".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

@Tamzin: The reason I was blocked is because I've persistently editwarred against consensus, failing to communicate with other editors and engaging in personal attacks. Then, I was re-blocked for sockpuppetry in January, then July. I, Magnatyrannus will, from now on, make more constructive edits, not engage in personal attacks, be able to communicate with other editors, discuss on talkpages, and no editwarring. In addition, I will no longer create multiple accounts to evade my block or log out to edit as an IP. Magnatyrannus (talk) 14:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Accepted (mostly). Downgraded to a one-month block for sockpuppetry and personal attacks, per discussion below. You are henceforth subject to a one-account restriction, and prohibited from editing while logged out. (If you accidentally edit while logged out, just acknowledge it in the next edit; or, if you want to keep your IP private, let the oversight team know and then acknowledge it after it's oversighted; no one's going to penalize you for an innocent mistake.)

When the tempblock expires, ping me and I can explain what I meant about unproductive comments at AN/I. I also note that the articles you've created have been tagged for G5 speedy deletion. I'm not going to do anything about that now, because first I want to see the evidence that you can go this month without socking, and it would be a waste of effort to undelete the ones that have been deleted, only to re-delete if you sock again. But assuming we have no issues in the next month, I'm happy to have a word with the deleting admin(s) when you return.

I sincerely hope the upward trend we've witnessed on your other account continues apace in a month's time. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Tamzin: you have my permission to unblock if you are satisfied.

Magnatyrannus: there are few types of behaviour that I find more problematic than an editor logging out to leave messages for other users as an IP, particularly when those messages are disparaging. If you are unblocked, and you have something to say to someone, say it while you are logged in, and sign your posts. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:49, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

So, as I said at User talk:Patachonica, I don't want to sideline a productive contributor if possible. That was my feeling when I initially noticed this sockpuppetry and contacted Girth Summit, but at the time I was unaware of the personal attacks by loutsock. I do think some response is merited there. Blocks are not punitive, but one usage is to deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior, and I worry that an immediate unblock would fail to have that deterrent effect. The PAs in question have been summarized to me (as, essentially, not outrageous but not nice); if this were coming to me as an SPI clerk without the concomitant block evasion I would probably block for two weeks. Given the evasion, doubling that to a month block would seem an appropriate balance in terms of deterring future sockpuppetry.

That's the socking side. There's also the matter of the underlying block for disruptive editing. As I said at your other usertalk, I think that your contributions on that account—as much as I wish you wouldn't have gone about it this way—do show significant improvements in all regards that Cullen328 identified. There's the warning a few weeks ago for edit-warring, but it's not the kind of edit war you were blocked for (edit-warring with IPs blanking their talk is a pretty common mistake), and you showed the kind of communicativeness that was sorely lacking in January, acknowledging in your first message that you'd been in the wrong, and apologizing in your fourth, so to me that thread reads as neutral at worst, moderate positive at best. I will note that what got you on my radar was a series of unproductive comments at WP:AN/I, but they all struck me as good-faith, and what I've seen so far makes me think that if I explain to you why they were unproductive, we won't have further issues going forward.

So in summation, I'm overall optimistic, and would be prepared to reduce this to a one-month tempblock for sockpuppetry and personal attacks, subject to a one-account restriction and no loutsocking. (Apologies to anyone you insulted would also be great to see, but I wouldn't demand that.) But I'd like to hear Cullen's impression as the original blocking admin. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Tamzin, I do not object to an unblock, and I encourage you, Magnatyrannus, to take to heart the excellent advice that you have been given by Girth Summit and Tamzin. Cullen328 (talk) 20:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@Tamzin: If at any point you would like the G5's to be reversed, just ping me and I'll help with the restoration given that I deleted the majority (all?) of the pages. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:38, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@Ponyo: Are you able to restore the pages I've created once my block has expired? Magnatyrannus (talk) 23:07, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Tamzin specifically addressed the deletions in their unblock message "I also note that the articles you've created have been tagged for G5 speedy deletion. I'm not going to do anything about that now, because first I want to see the evidence that you can go this month without socking, and it would be a waste of effort to undelete the ones that have been deleted, only to re-delete if you sock again".-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

So basically that means, "stay off the platform for the month and they'll be brought back"? Magnatyrannus (talk) 23:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Basically yes, but I wouldn't put it that way. A user being unblocked doesn't nullify the validity of G5 deletions made for evading their previous block. The criterion cares about whether you were evading a block when you made the page, not whether you're evading it now. As such, it comes down to admin discretion whether to reverse a G5 when the creator is unblocked. In this case, I'm saying, if you serve out your remaining block without issue, then personally I'll be satisfied that there's no reason to keep the pages deleted, and can ask the deleting admin to restore them. And then, fortuitously, the deleting admin has shown up to say that she would grant that request should I make it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:01, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

So does that mean all of the articles I have created may be undeleted under those reasons? Magnatyrannus (talk) 00:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Unless they would meet some other speedy deletion criterion—and I don't think any would—then yes. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Also, what do you suggest I should do off Wikipedia when waiting for the unblock? Should I edit on other wiki projects?Magnatyrannus (talk) 01:48, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, if you like taxonomy, you might like Wikidata. And/or you could focus on whatever else you enjoy in life. Or find new things to enjoy in life, learn a new skill, work on a project. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, I'll do just about that until my block expires! Magnatyrannus (talk) 03:25, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Tbh Bolivartherium and Urumacocnus did indeed have substantial edits by other editors, such as SlvrHwk and Larrayal respectively IIRC, so, according to Wikipedia:CSD#G5, they would actually survive G5 unless no one else edits substantially. Not saying that it should be undeleted for the moment, I'm saying it should've been spared IMO. Magnatyrannus (talk) 02:26, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I've looked at the deleted history of those pages - they did not have what I would regard as substantial edits by other users, each of those editors made single, fairly inconsequential edits to the pages, and there were one or two other gnomish edits to each of them, but those would not rise to the level of 'substantially edited by others'. I too would have implemented a G5 request on either of them. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:59, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: What about the redirects? How did the redirects I redirected to existent pages (as Patachonica) get deleted under the G5 criterion while the Furileusaur page I redirected (as Chiniquodon sanjuanensis did not get deleted? AFAIK, redirects only get deleted per a WP:RFD discussion or when they redirect to a nonexistent or deleted page. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 16:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Redirects are likewise subject to G5. We're often much more willing to "look the other way" on them, but the criterion still squarely applies.

I think you're overthinking this, Magnatyrannus. A decision was made. Personally I wasn't going to tag any of them, but another SPI clerk felt that that was appropriate, and that was a valid invocation of policy. Once you return to being an editor in good standing, we can sort this out very quickly, so I don't think there's anything to be gained by litigating the underlying decision, which, as both an RfD admin and SPI clerk, I can assure you was procedurally sound. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@Tamzin: Out of curiosity, how does an admin even reverse a G5? Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 22:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

On a technical level, they go to Special:Undelete/<that page's title> and click a button. Used to be the button was on the left side of the page. Now it's in the middle. Some people have very strong opinions on this. :P (Tone: whimsical.)

On a procedural level, it's considered best practice to get the consent of the admin who originally deleted the page, especially if the original deletion was procedurally valid. So that's why my initial comment was that I would talk to the deleting admin, rather than just saying I'd do it myself, even though I do have the technical ability to undelete. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:36, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@Tamzin: Are you saying that G5 is forgivable? Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 02:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

"Forgivable" is a strange word to use. A G5 deletion, like any other action on Wikipedia, can be reversed if it does not benefit the encyclopedia. The argument for G5ing articles that were created by sockpuppets but are otherwise not problematic is to deter those people from creating further articles with sockpuppets. It's kinda of mean—"Keep doing this and we'll keep deleting your hard work"—but it can be effective. But if a user is unblocked, then there's no need to deter them, so usually it makes sense to restore the articles that were G5'd. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@Tamzin: Also, am I allowed to remove the block notice on my talk page while still blocked? Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 14:33, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Girth Summit and Tamzin: thanks for the advice! It really helped me improve my behaviour. Magnatyrannus (talk) 23:11, 27 July 2022 (UTC)