User talk:PaleoFile

Welcome!

Hi PaleoFile! I noticed your contributions to Monquirasaurus and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Synorem (talk) 17:58, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 2024

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Sachicasaurus has an edit summary that appears to be inadequate, inaccurate, or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. Thank you. Bowler the Carmine | talk 15:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bowler the Carmine someone keep changes mass of sachicasaurus to 15 tons. while its correct mass estimate was 17 tons which is estimated by Zhao in 2024 PaleoFile (talk) 15:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that you used the summary Fixed grammar, which does not accurately describe the changes you made. In the future, please accurately describe your changes so editors understand what you changed and why. Bowler the Carmine | talk 15:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bowler the Carmine by the way who are you? something like developer? PaleoFile (talk) 18:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Sachicasaurus. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Bowler the Carmine | talk 18:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bowler the Carmine i know. i also know the person who edits to 15 tons. hes a hater and same guy who hates me. in fact he changes to 15 tons repeatedly. while im trying to correct it to 17 tons yet still changes to 15 tons because based its true estimate based on single skeletal of animal which is not made by expert. you better warn mei for giving misinformations. hes been my hater on different platforms thats why this happening. repeatedly trying to downsize this animal. i even have source for my estimate which is true and proven. backed up with tons of informations and massive scientifical pages. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378323944_Body_reconstruction_and_size_estimation_of_plesiosaurs PaleoFile (talk) 18:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do not edit war even if you believe you are right. I have also sent a notice to the other person, and I expect you two to talk it out. Bowler the Carmine | talk 18:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bowler the Carmine i will talk about it. by the way are you expert on these topic? PaleoFile (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm just an editor who happens to be a stickler for the three-revert rule. Since you seem to be unaware of that rule, I won't report you, but do not revert again. Bowler the Carmine | talk 18:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bowler the Carmine oh gosh he changed to 15 tons again. hes childish. im actually an expert on these topics but please turn the page to its old form which been stayed as 17 tons for months. report the other user please. PaleoFile (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I expect you two to talk it out on the article's talk page. Part of being a Wikipedia editor is working with other editors to resolve disputes. Bowler the Carmine | talk 19:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bowler the Carmine i talk with him on youtube and he surely way too stubborn for this. nevermind. i will change it back to correct information weeks later so he will forget about that. we been debating about sachicasaurus for over 1 years. now its hilariously turned into edit war on wikipedia lol thats all what i will say have a nice day PaleoFile (talk) 19:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Mei23448. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Bowler the Carmine | talk 07:24, 22 December 2024 (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. Bowler the Carmine | talk 20:55, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bowler the Carmine why didnt other people get banned for doing over 40000 edits on an article that only editing "into" or "Into" for months and im gotta get warning for editing same stuff 3-5 times PaleoFile (talk) 21:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whataboutism won't get you anywhere. You have been warned not to engage in edit wars, even if you are right. Synorem (talk) 23:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Synorem oh yeah sure wiki got lesson from that. and waited for it happen to change rules. "whataboutism" what a stupid word. a word made to blame facts that they said to your face. so other person might be seen as if its giving excuses on a topic that hes right on it. no. im telling your face how injusticed wikipedia is. even a random baby can change whole article with random words. so even if we try to correct it back then we are blamed. PaleoFile (talk) 00:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've linked the article for you in my message: Whataboutism is an example of a logical fallacy, a false argument point where someone avoids addressing the initial issue by pointing to another issue.
When the term was coined during the cold war, I do not believe they had this Wikipedia conversation in mind.

If you believe someone has violated our editing policy, please use the appropriate channels to report their actions and detail any discrepancies - as Bowler had done.
You were "blamed" for edit warring, not for 'correcting' issues. You can learn the difference at our policy page regarding edit conflicts/wars. Synorem (talk) 01:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Synorem how other people gonna reach true information without other articles standing with infos that there for years and never updated only because owner of article always being stubborn and trying to put outdated information back when you try to update it. people shouldnt be able to update articles randomly. theres should be something like exam. for example if i gonna make paleontology articles app might put me into exam. and if i pass exam about paleontology i could become editor. but people with literally have 0 knowledge about what they seeing shouldnt be able change articles. even if you gonna try to debate article owner its still gonna try to put old infos back stupidly. theres should be better system for this. users should be categorized as they choose their profession. then they should be put into small exam so after passing it user might be editor about topics that hes epxert on. PaleoFile (talk) 05:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This goes against one of Wikipedia's fundamental principles: anyone can edit. The Morrison Man (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Morrison Man you warn yourself too cuz you keep going on chat war PaleoFile (talk) 15:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as a 'chat war' on Wikipedia. I strongly urge you read through the policy link I attached in my last message.
If you believe he is participating in an edit war, again - please go through the appropriate channels. Synorem (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Synorem just let us do war its doesnt harm anything. PaleoFile (talk) 07:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. Synorem (talk) 20:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability and reliable sources

Hi PaleoFile, please have a look at the introduction to referencing. The edit summary of Special:Diff/1264152691 indicates that you have used an X post as a source, which is usually not considered a reliable source (WP:RSP#Twitter). Please cite your sources in the article directly rather than in edit summaries, and please do not add information that doesn't come from a reliable source. The verifiability policy contains further advice. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:12, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree X is reliable source. x itself not source The Paleontolgists studies that i mentioned is the source. these infos comes from reliable sources and im expert on these topics. PaleoFile (talk) 21:37, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant Special:Diff/1264151620. Which source exactly did you use for it, do you have a link for verification? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]