User talk:JoeliusCeasar

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome[edit]

Hello, JoeliusCeasar! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Brontosaurus[edit]

Hello... please do not change the redirect. The material you are adding is already covered in the target article. Thank you. --Ckatzchatspy 03:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please stop. If you need assistance in learning about how Wikipedia works, please feel free to ask. --Ckatzchatspy 09:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your source seems to oversimplifying and conflating two separate issues: that Brontosaurus is a synonym of Apatosaurus (first proposed in 1903), and that the skeleton was given the wrong head (suspected but not established until the 1970s). Brontosaurus, when given the wrong head, was a chimera (parts from two different animals), not a hoax (deliberate deception). Marsh named both Apatosaurus and Brontosaurus, and genuinely believed that he was looking at two different genera. He was not attempting to hoax anybody. When he published a skeletal restoration of Brontosaurus, he did indeed use the wrong skull, but he didn't know any better. That skull, incidentally, was not of Camarasaurus, but of a Brachiosaurus-like sauropod. Camarasaurus only became involved years later when the first skeletal mount of Brontosaurus/Apatosaurus was being prepared for exhibition. One group of scientists, led by Henry Fairfield Osborn of the American Museum of Natural History, preferred a robust Camarasaurus-like skull for the robust skeleton, while William J. Holland of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History wanted to use what would eventually turn out to be the real thing. Although the skeleton was in Holland's museum, Osborn had enough pull to dissuade him somewhat, so Holland elected to leave the Carnegie skeleton without a skull. It stood without a skull until Holland's death, after which a Camarasaurus skull was added. J. Spencer (talk) 14:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism warning[edit]

Feel free to discuss this on the Apatosaurus talk page as has been suggested, but your continued reversions and additions are vandalism if you do not gain consensus for the edits. --Kleopatra (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to the talk page was just fine. It appears the introductory paragraph to the discussion was crossed out some time before. Now, add some references to your comment to support it, and see what comes up. Thanks for putting in the effort for discussion. --Kleopatra (talk) 20:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing[edit]

Please stop... note that many of your edits have had to be reverted as they either do not meet with established consensus or do not fit within the project's style guide. You may find that your work is better received if you use more discussion and less accusation; blaming others is not a replacement for working out differences. --Ckatzchatspy 21:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is your final warning regarding disruptive editing. Any further incidents will result in the suspension of your editing privileges. --Ckatzchatspy 23:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You just can't make statements like "Despite fluoridated water being considered a danger to children ..." That statement would mislead readers, because as you know fluoride is generally recommended. Less by water fluoridation but still the success of this medical technology is not disputed by reputable groups. Yes, mistakes happen with fluoridation as with any technology, but such mistakes don't guide overviews. Even the article you (unwittingly?) helped with on dental fluorosis acknowledges the basic utility of fluoridation: "... appropriate amount of fluoride is essential to prevent tooth decay. But fluoride intake above optimal amounts can create a risk for enamel fluorosis in teeth during their development before eruption through the gums..."Interim Guidance on Reconstituted Infant Formula". ADHA. Retrieved 2010-11-23." If you feel very strongly about water fluoridation, many blogs and organizations exist that give you an opportunity to express your views, but Wikipedia is not the right vehicle.--Smokefoot (talk) 23:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

December 2011[edit]

Welcome and thank you for your contributions. This is a notice that your test on the page 5-Hydroxytryptophan has been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]