User talk:Themanguything

Please read the source before you edit anything

I'm telling you this because I was just like you in the past. First off, your edit on Prenocephale is entirely false, because the book that is cited doesn't contain the mass estimates. I know this because I have the book myself; the book also has wildly varying estimates without specific reasoning. Second, the size estimate for Torvosaurus at 10 m in length and 4 to 5 short tons in body mass is only for T. gurneyi (as is clearly specified in the article). The consensus for T. tanneri size estimate is at 9 m in length and approx. 2 metric tons in body mass (even if you might say the reconstructions are inaccurate, without a proper source that's just a very bold, unjustified claim). Also, your edit on the Stegosaurus article is really problematic, as the 9 m length estimate for Stegosaurus was never established to any valid species, meaning that the previous edits of 9 m for S. ungulatus is unsourced. Finally, your edit on Amplectobelua is completely unsourced, so before you make any edits, at least give a source for your claim (a reliable one is required though, and by that I mean scholarly articles). Junsik1223 (talk) 13:25, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

understood, also was it possible for postosuchus to get 6 or 7 meters? Themanguything (talk) 03:21, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's already explained in the Postosuchus article that a "complete cervical series specimen (TTU-P 9235) from a very large individual" indicates a large size at more than 5-7 m in length. Junsik1223 (talk) 03:34, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hello could you do me a favor? someone has edited the arctodus page earlier and for no reason downsized the shoulder height for no reason like they made its shoulder height 1-1.5m which goes against what we know about it, so could you make sure the page stays right? Themanguything (talk) 16:37, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

they said the 6 foot height was unsourced but thats the height we get based off mass estimates, after all a 5 foot bear would weigh 1 ton, arctodus isnt that differently built than modern day bears. Themanguything (talk) 16:49, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That someone is me, and I wouldn't say that it has been for no reason. In none of the sources I've read and added (mostly published articles) does the shoulder height of the largest Arctodus begin to approach 1.8 meters. I appreciate what you are saying, however the academics themselves have probably taken this into account themselves when they calculated these figures. Additionally, we also have more than a couple of complete specimens to scale up fragmentary remains from. I have provided a citation for the 1.5 maximum shoulder height. If you have a paper saying otherwise, I'd appreciate it if you could send it to me- I am always willing to change information if there is a reliable, robust source. Was the shoulder height the only part of the article you had an issue with? SuperTah (talk) 03:28, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

oh as in the 1.8m is possible but until theres a source to verify it wont be included Themanguything (talk) 03:31, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it's possible (something closer to 1.65m is more likely), but yes if there is a good source, we can add it in. SuperTah (talk) 07:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i think the 6 foot shoulder height was given because we have claw marks from short faced bears that showed they could stand 12 feet tall and no 5 foot tall bear would stand that tall even on two legs Themanguything (talk) 03:50, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

especially since the back of arctodus was shorter than other bears, so no fossil specimen confirms a 6 foot shoulder height but circumstantial evidence does, specifically those claw marks Themanguything (talk) 03:53, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So this is a yes and no... the claw marks are actually 13 feet high on the cave walls, however I do recall reading in one of the sources that the cave floor had eroded due to water erosion, making it unclear exactly how high the claw marks were at the time of incision. Also, as Arctodus could stand 10 feet tall, a reach of 13 feet (excluding the shoulders and head) isn't too strange. SuperTah (talk) 07:49, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

Hey, just want to give you a heads up. Whenever you’re adding citations, you must put the URL of the study under the URL section. Also, don’t forget to put the name of the journal since it is required when you’re citing a journal (Using the journal template for citation). Colossal Cheetah (talk) 14:36, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

whats like the base template for any reference I might have to put in when editing

put it here and I'll copy and paste it so I don't fuck up in the future Themanguything (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you usually edit on mobile or on a computer? Colossal Cheetah (talk) 20:02, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

computer

I mean if the base template is "ref=ref" then just type it and send it to me and I will use if I put refs in next time Themanguything (talk) 20:12, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Base template is <ref> </ ref>

(Except you close the space between / and ref. Colossal Cheetah (talk) 14:45, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

but it needs Cite journal too

ad that to the template Themanguything (talk) 15:42, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, why don't you just cite using the visual editor? It's way easier, and has all the relevant categories you're looking for. SuperTah (talk) 23:43, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

no idea how to use it or what it is Themanguything (talk) 23:55, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the basis of this thread, it looks like your editing the source code. When I click on "edit", it's on the visual editing mode, with a simple "cite" button at the top. You can switch between both with the little pencil icon on the top right while you're editing (next to the preview button while source editing or next to the "help / page options" buttons while visual editing). It's so much easier, and lets you know everything that is necessary and that is optional. SuperTah (talk) 06:52, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 2025

Hello. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they failed to meet the necessary basic standards of quality regarding grammatical structure and formatting. Please test edits at your sandbox to ensure they meet these standards before editing pages. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks, -SlvrHwk (talk) 17:34, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In 2014 a new specimen of Amurosaurus was found from the bonebed. The specimen was a humerus and indicated a length of 10 meters (insert reference)

In 2013, zircon dating indicated a date of 66 million years ± 1mya for the Udurchukan formation (insert citatation)

are these better Themanguything (talk) 17:47, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Try:

"In 2014, [authors] referred a humerus to Amurosaurus (italicized), larger than humeri previously referred to this taxon. Based on proportional comparisons with Edmontosaurus annectens, they proposed a body length of 9 metres (30 ft) (length following the source) for Amurosaurus.(period before *properly formatted* citation)"

Do you have full access to the source for the second statement? As far as I can tell, the abstract does not explicitly mention the Udurchukan Formation. -SlvrHwk (talk) 19:41, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yeah youre right it doesn't mention it in the abstract. I researched the text "middle tsagayan group formation" and it turns out the formation the dating applied to was the bureya formation overlying the udurchukan so therefore the date isn't applicable to udurchukan. Themanguything (talk) 20:04, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

dont re edit the the second statement and put it in,please. it was my mistake Themanguything (talk) 20:06, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

also I have request, would you edit the following into the nanxiong formation.

a pair of poorly preserved didactyl tracks have, possibly a 3-5m deinonychosaurian ( dromaeosauridae or troodontidae) or poorly preserved tridactyl prints. list it in other theropods.

and a 17 cm pterosaur track. Its half the size of haenamichnus indicating a 5m wingspan.

http://www.xinglida.net/pdf/Xing%20et%20al%202017%20Nanxiong%20tracks.pdf Themanguything (talk) 20:57, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

actually it turns out the nanxiong might have to be broken up because apparently its stratigraphy got redefined completely in 2021 Themanguything (talk) 06:35, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]