Mike.BRZ

Largest organisms

I suggest reducing the use of templates there, as much as possible, because the template parsing limit is an issue with that article (i.e. slow loading, blue wikimedia crash screens, and related problems). There is no difference in functionality between

{{Convert|15|kg|lb|abbr=on}}<ref>{{cite web|title=Southern muriqui (Brachyteles arachnoides)|url=http://www.arkive.org/southern-muriqui/brachyteles-arachnoides/#text=Facts|date=2006-02-13}}</ref>

and 15 kg (33 lb) <ref>[http://www.arkive.org/southern-muriqui/brachyteles-arachnoides/#text=Facts Southern muriqui videos, photos and facts - Brachyteles arachnoides]. ARKive (2006-02-13).</ref>

but the code is much lighter to parse for the latter. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 10:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: my edit to African bush elephant

Hello Mike - I did NOT change the AVERAGE height! Somebody else had already changed it before my edit. In fact, what caught my eye in the first place was that the average height was taller than the maximum recorded height! So I knew something was wrong. Since I don't have a copy of Wood (1983), I went to the other cited source, the Washington Post article, which gives a height of "6 inches taller" than "13 feet 2 inches". So I converted 13' 8" to meters and put that in the article (using the automatic conversion) for the MAXIMUM height. I see that you have since corrected ("lowered") the average height so that now the article makes sense. Thank you! In good faith 108.17.71.21 (talk) 03:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The comment I made was in general, not solely directed at you, but now I reread it and it indeed sounds quite accusatory, sorry if it looked like that, don't worry, it's all fine, cheers! Mike.BRZ (talk) 03:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Inostrancevia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mya (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sarcosuchus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saltwater (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Deinosuchus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Daeodon

Thanks a lot for the expansion in the Spanish version! I planned make the translation by myself, but you beat me. I made only some little changes in the grammar. Cheers :).--Rextron (talk) 08:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

No problem, after all, Spanish is my first language so when I make that kind of expansions here I'm planning on doing an Spanish version too, sadly my grammar in my mother tongue has took a hit by browsing mostly websites in English haha. Mike.BRZ (talk)

By the way, I'm writing a expansion for the article of Langstonia in my user page in Spanish... if you want to help with a translation to English or with observations about the content, I'll appreciate it. --Rextron (talk) 07:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll check and I can certainly help with an English translation, hey, you are Zimices on Deviantart right? Mike.BRZ (talk) 11:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am! Do you have an DA account too?--Rextron (talk) 19:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm blazze92 haha. Mike.BRZ (talk) 20:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

That's explain a lot, hehe! Saludos!--Rextron (talk) 01:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Saludos! jaja Mike.BRZ (talk) 02:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Cool, just checked your Deviantart page, ever considered uploading some of your images here? FunkMonk (talk) 00:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I've always wanted to do that but not before I overhaul them, they might be ready this summer if I don't procastinate too much, the bane of my existance haha. Mike.BRZ (talk) 13:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

That would be great! FunkMonk (talk) 13:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lurdusaurus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mawsonia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

thanks for the edit

Thanks for your edit on brown bear. Actually the content you wrote was similar to the original content i corrected in several other mammal articles but consensus was made by 2 other contributors to write that way (i.e. 22 cases vs 12 cases to keep it concise, although i didn't entirely agree). As for that ip editor, his actions were originally identified by me as a long term vandalism attempt inserting the same bear superiority misinformation in multiple articles by source misrepresentation, referencing to forum posts and cherry picked statements from otherwise reliable sources. I started to correct those articles and he retaliated by copying and pasting the same attack message in most of the talk pages. Since his ip changes all the time it is difficult to stop him completely and other editors and admins have been protecting those articles he vandalized with his bear superiority theories, i haven't taken further actions against him and I choose to ignore him completely as he could not be communicated at all (as he always insists his forum posts and fan site links are more reliable than the peer reviewed journals I use). There are other similar animal superiority propaganda going on in other articles (e.g. our leopard article - in the interspecific competition section lots of the content is based on reliable sources studying tiger and leopard interactions. However, someone has been replacing the word tiger entirely with lion in the content). I don't care which animal is more superior, I just care what information is correct. Thanks again for your help. Big Cats - talk 18:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed your message sorry for the late reply and thanks! and thanks for the clarification. I see, I wonder why the two other editors decided to leave it that way, it's clearly not accurate to the reference. I'll continue the comment in the brown bear talk page because I have some things in mind with that whole section. Mike.BRZ (talk) 03:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Spinosaurus

I forgot to read the + signal next to Spinosaurus aegyptiacus in Dinosaur size so I oversized it. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 00:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

New messages on Talk:Dinosaur size

Loads of new sections are posted on the page! And most of them doesn't have answers. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 07:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I've been away for a while, I'm going to answer them but please, read previous topics before posting a question in the talk page, a lot of your enquires have already been answered.Mike.BRZ (talk) 15:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Oh, you'd better watch out, you'd better not cry, you'd better not pout, I'm telling you why Christmas Velociraptor is coming to town He sees you when you sleeping, he knows when you're awake, he knows if you've been bad or good, so be good for your life's sake Oh, you'd better watch out, you'd better not cry, you'd better not pout, I'm telling you why Christmas Velociraptor is coming to town Merry Christmas, and watch out for the Christmas Velociraptor, IJReid (talk) 25 December 2014 Dashing through the prehistoric, In a one-t.rex open sleigh, All the teeth we go, Roaring all the way, Bells on Sharp Teeth Rings, Making dinosaurs bright, oh what fun is ride and roar in a one-t.rex open sleigh, Hey! Jingle teeth, Jingle teeth, Jingle all the prehistoric, Oh what fun is ride and roar in a one-t.rex open sleigh, Hey! Jingle teeth, Jingle teeth, Jingle all the prehistoric, Oh what fun is ride and roar in a one-t.rex open sleigh, Merry Christmas, and watch out for the Tyrannosaurus who pulls Santa's sleigh! Dinosaur Fan, 26 December 2014

To share the songs, type {{User:Dinosaur Fan/Christmas Songs}}

Ooops, I forgot to sign ... Dinosaur Fan (talk) 06:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Gregory S. Paul's estimate of C. iguidensis

G.S. Paul estimated C. iguidensis at 10m, according to you on Talk:Dinosaur size. Did Paul estimate the weight? Dinosaur Fan (talk) 07:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Are there any published sources for Spinosaurus marocannus size estimates? Dinosaur Fan (talk) 12:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas! haha, yes, Paul estimates C. iguidensis at 4 tonnes but he provides no estimates for S. marocannus, he did not recognize it as a valid species.Mike.BRZ (talk) 23:39, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

So does any one estimates S. marocannus? And is this a fake dinosaur?

P.S. Paul puts the estimate in The Princeton Field Guide to Dinosaurs, right? Dinosaur Fan (talk) 00:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any estimate for the type of S. marrocanus, the taxon was named but its validity is disputed, Ibrahim et al. (2014) treated it as synonymous to S. aegyptiacus but it is possible the new specimen and the big snout actually belong to this species rather than S. aegyptiacus as they show some differences to the original Egyptian remains. And to the last question, yes, Paul's estimate of C. iguidensis is in the Princeton Field Guide to Dinosaurs. Mike.BRZ (talk) 00:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Is this a fake dinosaur? Dinosaur Fan (talk) 01:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC) S. nigerannus? Is that a fake dinosaur? Dinosaur Fan (talk) 03:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, didn't read the full thing at first, yes, it's fake. Mike.BRZ (talk) 04:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Is Spinosaurus rex in Wikispecies also fake? Dinosaur Fan (talk) 08:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

That too, the only named species are aegyptiacus and marrocanus. Mike.BRZ (talk) 13:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Stegosaurs and Ankylosaurs

Shall we separate them now? Or we shall wait for more people to vote? Since nobody started voting already. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 01:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I guess we could separate them now. Mike.BRZ (talk) 17:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Coria & Currie

Why shouldn't we use this source for Mapusaurus? Because someone did and if I have to revert that guy I would have to explain. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 00:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Is not that se shouldn't, we should, is just that a lot of people use it incorrectly, 10.2m is the estimate for the owner of the largest femur in the bonebed but Coria and Currie (2006) make clear that a fibula and fragments of maxilla and pubis suggest individuals as big if not bigger than the type of Giganotosaurus, that Mapusaurus fibula is actualy longer, I suppose that's how Holtz estimated 12.6m. Mike.BRZ (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

So how many meters does the sources exactly says? I can't read the language in the link. I'm Chinese. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 11:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Coria and Currie (2006) is in English but I'll quote the relevant parts.

"Nevertheless, Mapusaurus n. gen. is an animal of comparable size to Giganotosaurus (Coria & Salgado 1995)..."

"Approximately the same size as Giganotosaurus carolinii Coria & Salgado, 1995, Mapusaurus roseae n. gen., n. sp. ..."

"Measurements of MCF-PVPH-108.83, the neu-ral arch of an axis, show it is about the same size as that of the Giganotosaurus holotype."

"The minimum shaft dimensions of MCF-PVPH-108.145 are 7.5 by 10 cm, which is 10% greater than those in the holotype of Giganotosaurus. This suggests that the specimen represents the largest individual of Mapusaurus n. gen. from the bonebed."

"MCF-PVPH-108.202 is an 860 mm long fibula that is actually 2 cm longer than the fibula of the 12.2 m long Giganotosaurus (MUCPv-CH-1; Coria & Salgado 1995). The shafts of a scapula (MCF-PVPH-108.185) and a pubis (-108.145) have similar dimensions to the same regions in the holotype of Giganotosaurus, whose estimated length reaches the 12.2 m. These bones suggest the presence of at least one individual that is larger than the animal represented by the largest metatarsals, and increase the minimum number of individuals to nine."

10.2m doesn't even appear in the text of the publication itself but in a table in the appendix. So, the publication doesn't exactly say how big in meters the largest individuals in the bonebed are but they do say it was at least as big as the holotype of Giganotosaurus if not bigger. Mike.BRZ (talk) 17:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Does that mean 12.4m? Dinosaur Fan (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I guess the text "comparable to" or 12.2m. Mike.BRZ (talk) 01:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Link for Coria and Currie? Dinosaur Fan (talk) 03:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Here. Mike.BRZ (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

A clock for you

The time in my country:

It is approximately 12:33 AM where this user lives.

To let you know if your message will have a quick respond. I am active on Wikipedia from 3:00-6:00p.m. and 7:00-8:00p.m. in my country. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 13:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Paul

Someone edited Dinosaur size and put Giganotosaurus at 14m and Tyrannotitan at 13m with Paul's book. Is that incorrect? Dinosaur Fan (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

It is correct, sadly, Paul's own reconstructions have longer tails than all others, it should be included. Sorry for taking so long to answer, I had no internet connection for the past few days. Mike.BRZ (talk) 23:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

New Username

Hi Mike, I changed my user name into Spinosaurus75 (Dinosaur Fan). If you see anyone editing with the user name Spinosaurus75 (Dinosaur Fan) or signing like this: Spinosaurus 75 Dinosaur Fan, it means it was my edit or my signature. Spinosaurus75 Dinosaur Fan

Understood :thumbsup: Mike.BRZ (talk) 07:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Where did you learnt :thumbsup:? Spinosaurus75 Dinosaur Fan

Well, lots of messaging services have emoji/emoticons that are a hand doing a "thumbs up" gesture and in some forums writing it like I did usually brings up said emoticon, I knew this isn't the case for Wikipedia but I wrote it like that anyway. why? Mike.BRZ (talk) 00:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

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) 16:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

About your latest edits

Mike, I had been trying to reach consensus by showing respect and trust to you as any editor should show the other. However I don't know why, but for some reason you are trying to turn a mutual goal into a war edit, I hope that isn't your goal here. I don't know what got the better of you, but please if you are going to remove large chunks from an article, and it has been objected with an active conversation in the talk page, please first discuss then revert. I am showing a lot of goodwill here, trying to adhere to your debate as much as possible, removing debunked sources as long as they are consistent, however it seems to me we don't share the same goal. One thing you need to know though, synthesis happens when two irrelevant information are linked to one another, not when two confirmed information with different sources are used in separate statements linking the logic between them. If the aim of Wikipedia was to plagiarise, then entire paragraphs from sources would be copy pasted from articles. Berkserker (talk) 03:32, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I guess this is what happens when I try to make edits in the middle of my exams, the stress got the better of me, sorry if I have been rude, you are right, I will take your advice and discuss any large edits in the talk page first. In the latest instance I said that it was a case of synthesis because WP:SYN says that "Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source", following the text it seems to me that the only reason that article by Dr. Britton was referenced was to further strengthen the point mentioned before about the weights of crocodile increasing exponentially with length, the explication given by "Insights into Crocodile Lifestyles" then was combined with an original assessment made from looking at the weight estimates appearing in Dr. Britton's article, he himself didn't make the connection about the weights that the assessment did, this actions to me seem to conform to what's described in the quote above from the WP:SYN article. I know that we are not supposed to copy paste unchanged text from sources.

About Leach et al. (2009), here it is: Link, like a said, there's no mention of 6-7m specimens or weights of 1000-1800kg. What I said about it that conservation publications like this do not produce new zoological research, they summarize existing research and use the data to present management and conservation plans, the focus then, is not things like the biological characteristics of the animal, which are only mentioned very briefly and are not original to the publication itself. In a publication like this you will never find a sentence along the lines of this: "we the authors are convinced and have come to the conclusion that this animal has indeed or it is possible for it to get this big ", instead you'll find a little breakdown of its measurements like weight: x, length: x, at best that will be expanded into a sentence.

Lastly, I found The Wildlife Year, I made this screenshot and blurred the text about other animals because, well, you have to digitally borrow it, I imagine I'm not supposed to just go on and show full pages of it. The main page (it's literally a single page) on the saltwater crocodile in the book is titled "A saltwater crocodile makes a good mother" which talks about their nesting behavior. It is like I thought, there's no study here, there isn't even a bibliography, not that I think the information in it is all wrong but its not information beyond what you find in your average printed encyclopedia. Mike.BRZ (talk) 04:34, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Mike, thank you for the objective consideration. It is ok, exams have put all of us in a lot of stress :) You have some very constructive reasoning, this is why I was confused at first when I saw the latest edits, now it is clear after learning about your finals. These issues (very common in wiki) all begin due to some sloppy editing done by someone in the past. Years later some other editors like us try to validate the sources without having access to a lot of the original work. Therefore I want to thank you for your effort to find each source and confirm the findings. All I wanted to point out was to be sure the information/source is incorrect or irrelevant before removing it from the article. Instead putting citation tags would be more accurate, when the source doesn't match the information presented in the article. Also I want to say that you are very good in finding virtual copies of printed sources on the Internet, I would be glad if you could share some of that talent to help me find e-sources faster. Berkserker (talk) 05:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Now I reviewed the two sources you provided above. Here is my take on it.

- About Leach et al. (2009), either someone totally came up with those figures on their own then citing this source, or they were at separate parts of the paragraph, and during a sloppy editing session, the sentences in between were cut down and the irrelevant source ended up with that sentence. Either way we can never know, therefore until we find the alleged study, that sentence should be removed. I will go ahead and remove if you haven't done it already.

- About "The Wildlife Year", a similar issue, either the user who added the source made up there was a study, or there were more than one source and it was deleted. Again we don't know the truth, therefore this figure as well should be at least temporarily taken out until the alleged study is found. Berkserker (talk) 05:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I made the changes. Also you are right that conservation reports do not contain new research other than the focus of their project, however they are official documents and they take already existing information from other research papers and publications, mostly citing them (not every detail of course). However these are scientific papers written by scientists and researchers, therefore they should be taken as valid until a newer original research shows up debunking the existing information. Berkserker (talk) 05:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

As for the "getting bulkier" statement, it is very common knowledge in crocodilian biology. I tried to find a quick source for it, I could only come up with that scientific blog, which doesn't go into details that much. But what he means by "big crocs and gators" and "after some point" isn't about the size of the species, but the age of the individual. Since it is a blog the writer doesn't use very scientific language, but he has made serious research about the topic and cites different authors, including the age/bulk statement. If you can find the original work, it would be great though. However it is a common knowledge that almost all vertebrates (including humans) increase in bulk/weight/bone mass even after they have reached their max length/height. (in crocodilians growth slows but doesn't stop completely though). I used the bone mass terminology to explain that crocodiles don't only grow in bulk (fat/connective tissue/muscle), which is the only determinant of crocs with stable territories weighing more (access to better/more food), however age/bone mass correlation has nothing to do with that. Simply you can compare skulls of same species/length individuals and see the difference for yourself. It isn't true only for salties though, same for other crocodilians, even the gharial. It is mentioned frequently in scientific literature, so it will be good to find a source talking about skulls/bones of older specimens. In fact this issue has caused some of these specimens caught in the past, like Sweetheart (5.1 meter at 800+kg), to be type specimens for possible subspecies of C. porous (such as pethericki), due to a big head/weight vs short body, but later proved to be the same nominate subspecies, confusion caused by the morphological changes older crocodiles go through. If you can find this source it would be great. Berkserker (talk) 07:33, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses and comprehension. About Leach and The Wildlife year, I went back in the revision history and found that all of this problematic use of references we've discussed in the last couple of days can be traced back to massive additions to the article made by a single user a year ago, the article went from 62kb to 107kb in 2 weeks, I don't doubt that plenty of the information was valuable but overall the edits are somewhat messy and as we've seen, the use of some references leaves much to be desired. Also I want to say that I do know about most animals getting bulkier after linear growth has stopped but my intention of removing that text was more along the lines of removing it temporarily, to bring it back later in a more appropriate section, I think some of the content currently in size should be in its own section, either called growth or development or perhaps include it in reproduction and changing the name of that section to reproduction and development. Mike.BRZ (talk) 23:37, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Btw, I saw you also found the latest publication by Dr. Britton, which I was going to implement in my future edits, congrats! Berkserker (talk) 10:16, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Mike, btw we need to work on the other "prolific" animal articles as well. There are many problematic articles when it comes to this size issue. For now good luck on your finals! Berkserker (talk) 04:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Indeed and thanks! they are already over, it all went well, I just had a couple of lazy days and that's why I didn't reply sooner. Mike.BRZ (talk) 04:34, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I just love the first couple of days after an academically busy period, especially the finals. Those few days feel equally long as the rest of the summer for some reason. Berkserker (talk) 04:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, they are the best haha. So, what are we going to do now? regarding the saltwater crocodile, maybe clean up some of the stuff elsewhere on the article, I'm eyeing a bit of text about Deinosuchus. Should we put up a vote about removing the "Examples of large unconfirmed saltwater crocodiles" subsection? several of the references we have mention how pervasive is the size exaggeration of this animal and that anything short of tape measure from scientists is unreliable, maybe we could write a paragraph explaining this so we can get rid of the dubious claims, the green anaconda article has a similar explanation but completely misses the opportunity by still describing several dubious claims. Mike.BRZ (talk) 17:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I did organise and regroup the size section for the white shark article as well. I gathered the unconfirmed reports and created a similar "folkloric" title. We can do the same for the anaconda article as well as others. Once scientific and folkloric examples are separated, then we can vote like you said. First we need to separate facts from hunter tales so that we don't have content dispute in the future. I'm trying to be cautious since these content disputes can then become really problematic. Berkserker (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok then, we'll do that and yes, sadly there's people that look at these animals like sports teams rather being interested in the actual zoological facts about them. Mike.BRZ (talk) 23:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes it is unfortunate and yet there are forums dedicated to these kinds of discussions, Wikipedia is not the place for subjective opinions. However due to the editing policies of Wikipedia, this will always be a problem. I just hope more and more universities and academics take a leap of faith and create accounts on Wikipedia. At least the consensus will tip in favour of science. There is a problem with the admin system of Wikipedia as well. Even if some claim does not have the appropriate sources, plus the user engages in edit wars and exceeds the 3RR, still the admins may decide it is a case of dispute resolution.. They just don't take the time to read all the talk pages nor do they review the sources.. I just had a similar situation with a "hoaxing vandalism" and edit warring case which I reported. Berkserker (talk) 06:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Btw I agree with the Deinosuchus case, since the article is specific to C. porosus and not crocodilians in general. Dr. Erickson's study on the other hand is not specific to C. porosus, rather a study on the bite force of crocodilians in general. It is a little saltwater crocodile centric due to the obvious size reasons, since it is the biggest extant species. However those values for crocodilians in general, as well as the regression analysis are better displayed on the crocodile article instead. I am rather busy these days, therefore sorry if my replies are a little late. Berkserker (talk) 07:04, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Mike, need your help. I'm dealing with a case of disrespect and immaturity, and obviously this discussion (if there was ever one in the first place) needs a third party. I trust your assessment skills when you review any given topic, therefore I am inviting you to the Athens Riviera page. Here is the link. Please review the changes on both the article page, its talk page and both user talk pages in the right chronological order. This has become really ugly. Such behaviour makes Wikipedia unbearable at times.. You know how patient I am but even this case is beyond me.. Berkserker (talk) 05:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The other user is indeed behaving immaturely and while I agree that the gov metereological page is not doing an stellar job labeling the graphs, after looking at them carefully you can get a sense of what is supposed to be what and the other user is right in that is not inconsistent. I don't think we as editors are supposed to apply a value judgement to the possibility of the graph being hard to read and that page seems to be as official a source as you can get on those measurements o I don't think there is a good reason to dismiss it. However, this line of the article "thus it falls in the BSh hot semi-arid climate category with strong Mediterranean influences according to the Köppen climate classification." does need a citation, none of the references mention that fact (or do they?). I will make comment about that tomorrow, I was just going to sleep and I don't think I can engage in much discussion right now. Mike.BRZ (talk) 06:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that page is as credible as it can get. At first I missed the second indicator (the thin blue line) as I was busy with other things at the same time, thus could only have a brief look at it, but when I had a second chance to look at the page I immediately saw that there are two variables on the y axis. This is why I stopped contesting the credibility/consistency of the site even though it requires a value judgement as you suggested. But the thing isn't about the content, it is about respect..

About the referencing issue, in reality climate classifications don't need a reference, it is simple arithmetics. What needs a reference is the methods of classification, which are present on the Köppen climate classification article. Once you have the weather station data from a credible source, and is sourced, you can apply the method on the main article to each and every city/region separately. Berkserker (talk) 07:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Mike, a lot has changed since you went to bed. I wanted to bring another user i trust into the discussion as well, but i see that wasn't the best choice.. Berkserker (talk) 11:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Why it wasn't the best choice? seems like everything has been resolved now, or isn't that the case? At that point I think it was for the best that both parties agreed to move on even if not completely in agreement with each other. Mike.BRZ (talk) 21:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Nope, that wasn't what I meant. I am glad the case is closed. It was what I was trying to do from the first minute. I am just disappointed with cases where the person who is asked to step in (an admin or another user) ignores the facts and chooses the easy path to find "middle ground". I was disappointed in this case because he is a user whose judgment I trust. Berkserker (talk) 05:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

As I predicted, the user was encouraged and continues engaging in disruptive behaviour. I would be glad if you can join the discussion on Talk:Athens Riviera and on Talk:Köppen climate classification. Best regards. Berkserker (talk) 21:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Mike.BRZ. 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)

Hey Mike

Hey Mike, how is it going? Hope all is good. I am dealing with yet another senseless fanboy and/or sock/meatpuppetry case. Instead of addressing the discussion they are being kids about it. We need logical people who can constructively add to the argument. Please let me know if or when you can help. Best regards. Berkserker (talk) 00:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Mike.BRZ. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of tallest buildings in Mexico, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Curtain wall (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Mike.BRZ. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of tallest buildings in Latin America, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Point (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)