User talk:Colossal Cheetah
Your recent edits
[edit]Hello, I just want to point out that the 129,000 light year radius for the Milky Way is not actually the radius of the disk, it includes part of the Halo.
That doesn’t make sense, the halo is literally used for millions of light years. 129,000 is the radius of the disk. Halo is for the 2 million light years, the disk is not. Halo is also technically for the mass as well. So you got the two confused.
Actually please read the source where it came from, and we need to discuss it, no edit war please.The Space Enthusiast (talk) 03:38, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
I did, and also asked someone about it, who’s more experienced than me, it varies person to person. I’m not trying to have an edit war here, I’m just telling you that.
Okay, but pls discuss this on Talk: Milky Way.
I didn’t know there was a talk section there, thanks.
Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
[edit]
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved content from Machairodus into Amphimachairodus. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content (here or elsewhere), Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 15:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
- My apologizes, I’ll keep that in mind next time ExplorerKing (talk) 16:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 19
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Simbakubwa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aquitanian. 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) 08:00, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- Is there way to link it to the Aquitanian Stage? ExplorerKing (talk) 13:37, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 19
[edit]An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Amphicyon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aquitanian.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
May 2025
[edit] Hi ExplorerKing! I noticed that you recently made an edit at Dinocrocuta and marked it as "minor", but it may not have been. "Minor edit" has a specific definition on Wikipedia: it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Why are you reverting my edits?
[edit]You are reverting my edits for no reason without providing any argument True narrator (talk) 14:24, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- Because none of these are even mentioned in any of the sources provided on the page. You can’t just say, “Oh well Arctotherium angustidens was probably smaller than 1.5 tonnes because of the pathological evidence” without saying the source. Colossal Cheetah (talk) 14:37, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- the source was common sense you can clearly see on the study that it uses obese captive bears which tend to grow larger then there wildlife counterparts yes its also muy fault too i have. To admit True narrator (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- It doesn’t matter, you MUST find a study that explicitly criticizes the study you want to argue against. Colossal Cheetah (talk) 00:35, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- Study? The study is the source although there isnt a study but you will find a ton of people actually arguing True narrator (talk) 02:30, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- You MUST add reference if you want to add information that is not in article. This is rule of Wikipedia. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 06:20, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- Study? The study is the source although there isnt a study but you will find a ton of people actually arguing True narrator (talk) 02:30, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- It doesn’t matter, you MUST find a study that explicitly criticizes the study you want to argue against. Colossal Cheetah (talk) 00:35, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- the source was common sense you can clearly see on the study that it uses obese captive bears which tend to grow larger then there wildlife counterparts yes its also muy fault too i have. To admit True narrator (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
September 2025
[edit] Hi Colossal Cheetah! I noticed that you recently made an edit at Epicyon and marked it as "minor", but it may not have been. On Wikipedia, "minor edit" refers only to superficial edits that could never be disputed, such as fixing typos or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not minor, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you.
The information was useful and definitely added to the article, but because it was new information, it shouldn't be tagged as a "minor edit". Please see: WP:MINOR. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:49, 14 September 2025 (UTC)