Welcome to Wikipedia, Dromaeosaur Dude! I am Allmightyduck and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. Thank you for your contributions. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! 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! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!
I can't edit articles because another user that has a shared IP adress with me, Troodon58, got blocked. So I didn't do anything bad to get blocked. May I please have my account unblocked? Dromaeosaur Dude 20:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, the block just expired. I can edit pages again now. Dromaeosaur Dude 17:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't have support for your actions, don't perform them. It was explained to you before why Madagascar was included with India. Despite this, you went ahead and moved them anyway. You are now doing it again. This is not constructive, and it's unfortunate that you have chosen to do so because you have otherwise produced some useful edits. J. Spencer (talk) 02:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC) (revised 03:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Also, the "possibly" is attached to the Tanzanian Allosaurus because the species A. tendagurensis may or may not actually be Allosaurus. J. Spencer (talk) 02:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, but one or more redirects you created have been considered disruptive and/or malicious, and have been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. FeinohaTalk, My master 23:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop introducing jokes into articles, such as those you created at Troodontidae. Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia, and contributions of this type are considered vandalism. Continuing to add jokes and other disruptive content into articles may lead to your being blocked from editing. mgiganteus1 (talk) 00:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Troodontidae. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. J. Spencer (talk) 02:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Nqwebasaurus.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. MMartyniuk (talk) 04:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why have you been engaging in vandalism lately? Why not try to be productive? We need the effort and would like you to make helpful edits. Abyssal (talk) 21:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been doing vandalism. What are you referring to? Dromaeosaur Dude 19:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For example, you repeatedly remove the line about troodontids being partially herbivorous, which comes from a cited, well respected source (not to mention direct evidence of seed eating in some fossils proving this without a doubt, if anything the article should state that some were partial herbivores period), over and over again without any comment. That's vandalism. MMartyniuk (talk) 01:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, troodontids were only partially herbivorous. Partially herbivorous means the same thing as omnivorous. Omnivores eat both plants and meat, so they are partially herbivorous. So it's not necessary to say that troodontids are herbivorous. Dromaeosaur Dude 20:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know for certain that Jinfengopteryx ever ate meat. It probably did, but we can't be sure unless we find a specimen with bones in its gut. We know for a fact it ate plants though. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And the unilateral page movement, and the Indo/Madagascar/Africa thing; while these are not vandalism in the sense of changing text to nonsense, they are certainly a form of disruptive editing. J. Spencer (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Along those same lines the Antarctica/Australia list splitting. --Kevmin§ 02:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have two sources that say Madagascar was part of Africa during the Mesozoic Era. Dromaeosaur Dude 21:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What are the sources and what evidence do they supply for the contradiction of the more commonly accepted combination of India and Madagascar? --Kevmin§ 02:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are two books: The Evolution and Extinction of the Dinosaurs and Famous Dinosaurs of Africa. The former has a chapter about dinosaurs through time and space. It says which dinosaurs lived on every continent during each time period. And it includes dinosaurs from Madagascar in Africa. The latter is about famous dinosaurs discovered in Africa. And it includes Majungasaurus and Masiakasaurus, both of which were discovered in Madagascar. Dromaeosaur Dude 21:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does the text of either specify that Madagascar was part of Africa during the Mesozoic or do they have Mad as part for convenience, rather then delve into the plate tectonics involved? --Kevmin§ 04:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the former says that has maps of the world as it looked during various time periods. And it doesn't show Madagascar as being close to India. In fact, it doesn't even show the island of Madagascar at all. There's just Africa and then India off to the east. Also, an excerpt from the book says, "The Late Cretaceous of Africa is known primarily from Egypt, Morocco, Algeria, Kenya, Madagascar and South Africa". It doesn't say anything about Madagascar being separate from Africa and closer to India at that time. Dromaeosaur Dude 15:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For contra, see for example page 14 of Krause et al. (2007) "Overview of the history of discovery, taxonomy, phylogeny, and biogeography of Majungasaurus crenatissimus (Theropoda: Abelisauridae) from the Late Cretaceous of Madagascar" (pdf here), which features three different reconstructions of the landmasses in question over time, and p. 15 for a more schematic view. Also of interest are the websites of paleogeographers Ron Blakey (for example the Cretaceous reconstructions here) and Chris Scotese (for example this reconstruction). The point is that people working on the nitty-gritty have documented the Indo-Madagascar connection, and their work is more reliable than general reviews like the two books you brought up. J. Spencer (talk) 03:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop page-moving the lists of dinosaurs, DD. Please. There are good reasons why I wrote them as they are, and there's also a consensus that they're correct as they are now. So please, please, leave them alone. Thanks.—S MarshallT/C 22:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File:LateTriassicGlobal.jpgTriassicFile:LateJurassicGlobal.jpgJurassicFile:LateCretaceousGlobal.jpgCretaceousThey are two different continents, but the question is what they were. Over the time scales we're talking about, continents move. Throughout the whole dinosaur age, Antarctica and Australia were one continent. I've put some maps on the right hand side so as to explain it.
Does that make sense now?—S MarshallT/C 23:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Welll, Africa and South America were also the same continent for much of the Mesozoic Era. How come they are kept separate? Dromaeosaur Dude 18:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where did you hear of these genera? I'm no hadrosaur expert but based on the description you wrote, it sounds like this "genus" was simply a typo for Hadrosauroidea indet., if anything. As for Tarbodon, I'd be pretty shocked if Mickey Mortimer had missed an entire genus in his Theropod Database, even, no, especially a dubious tooth taxon. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Both of these dinosaurs were discovered in the Dakota Formation of south-eastern Nebraska. Hadrosauroides was discovered in the 1920's, and Tarbodon was discovered in the 1980's. Both of the fossils found had no names, so I named them right now. That's probably why you've never heard of it. Dromaeosaur Dude 19:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That counts as original research and is not permitted on Wikipedia. DS (talk) 00:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, but one or more redirects you created have been considered disruptive and/or malicious, and have been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. Feinoha Talk, My master 23:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Please stop introducing jokes into articles, such as those you created at Troodontidae. Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia, and contributions of this type are considered vandalism. Continuing to add jokes and other disruptive content into articles may lead to your being blocked from editing. mgiganteus1 (talk) 00:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed by CheckUser: