Contents

User talk:LeGenD

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Alientraveller (talk) 17:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

I am not an administrator so I can not do anything, what you seam to want to do is semi protect the page, see Wikipedia:Protection_policy, it is questinable if Megalodon qualifies, the Wp:Five pillars of wikipedia states "Wikipedia is free content that anyone may edit" and it does not look like megalodon have much vandalism (ok everything is relative but e.g. Great_white_shark is not semi protected any more and it has much more vandalism), and I do not think that it qualifies the for the semi protect criterias, but you can always try to ask at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection, I'm not sure if it is easier now to get semi protection than before. Good work on the page!!! --Stefan ^talk 04:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I think does not matter, I'm just trying to tell you that I do not think it is 'enough' vandalism for wikipedia to appliy the semi protect template. Some people wants to turn off all editing for all 'IP users', but the basic foundation, i.e. the 5 pillars, states that 'enyone may edit' and that is a very strong principle in wikipedia, you can try, but I do not think it will be protected. --Stefan ^talk 13:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for GA, I think it lacks in grammar and language, I tried to help a bit, but it need a better writer than me :-) --Stefan ^talk 03:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LeGenD, whipped up this scale chart based on your specs. Let me know if you need any alterations. Cheers, Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. GrahamBould (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LeGenD,

I was wondering if you'd be interested in joining the Palaeo WikiProject? I really think you'd make an excellent contributor, especially after your work on Megalodon. Best, Mark t young (talk) 23:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message, I'll start on the GAR now. Since you've made huge revisions, it will take a few hours for me to put together my comments and check that they form a coherent package. I'll message you when I'm ready for you to respond - please remind me if I take longer than a couple of days (I have a few other reviews on the go as well). All the best, --Philcha (talk) 16:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LeGenD, I understand this is still a slightly controversial subject. I'm a bit uncomfortable re-doing my scale diagram based on information published in a book rather than a peer-reviewed study with detailed methodology, and I'm not really a shark expert to begin with. Maybe somebody else should tackle this one, I'd prefer to err on the conservative side. Have any of the more giant teeth the 20m estimate is based on even been published yet? Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Now if you use this tooth in the last two popular size yielding methods, we get a size of 17.7 m" I understand the method, my question is, who is 'you' and 'we'? Which paper used this new giant tooth and plugged it into those equations? Or is this all original research? If you can fill that sentence with "Blank et al. 200x used this tooth in the last two popular size yielding methods, and got a size of 17.7 m, which they published in journal x, volume y", I'll gladly do a scale chart for Wiki. If not, it's not really science, and I may do one but would have personal ethical problems releasing it under a free license. Dinoguy2 (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your responses on the Megalodon page. One last question as I'm re-doing the chart--how are sharks measured? Is the height of the tail fin taken into account in length, or is it to the tip of the tail minus the vertical fin? Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, do you happen to know which method Gottfried et al. had in mind for Megalodon? If not I'll probably use the most conservative option to err on the side of caution. Dinoguy2 (talk) 18:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's half done and necessarily low on my priority list below family, job, etc. Patience mate, this is only a hobby for me. Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the image has been updated to the new version, what do you think? The C. megalodon is a bit more gracile as it seems very unlikely that the size wouldn't scale allometrically as I did in the original. Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mena by not properly hosted?

"Though, scientists believe that Megalodon would ontogenetically become more heavily developed, as it would grow larger."

Which scientists? Are they saying a large Megalodon would be comparatively more robust than a large Great White? Must have been a very slow swimmer with such a bulbous shape vs its size. Dinoguy2 (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. New version going up now. Dinoguy2 (talk) 16:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to, but I'm recovering from an operation and present won't known when I'm unfit for reviewing. I'll advertise on WP:GAR as this is technical a GAR. Apologies for not completing the job, and best wishes for 2010, --Philcha (talk) 11:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Posted at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_reassessment#Please_complete_Megalon_GAR WAR Talk, all the best --Philcha (talk) 12:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there.

A while ago, you requested feedback in WP:FEED. Because it has been a while, and you'd received at least some response there, I have now archived the replies in Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/Archive/27. Please do not edit that page though; if you require further feedback, add a new request on WP:FEED.

I am trying to clear the backlogs; it would help us a lot if you could look at the requests from other users on WP:FEED and add any comments to help them out. Anyone can respond there, so please do take a look, and comment on the articles from other people.

If you want help with anything at all, you could either;

• Leave a message on my own talk page; OR
• Use a {{helpme}} - please create a new section at the end of your own talk page, put {{helpme}}, and ask your question - remember to 'sign' your name by putting ~~~~ at the end; OR
• Talk to us live, with thisorthis.

The last of those is particularly useful - please try it; pop in now and say hello. Best,  Chzz  ►  02:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you edit these - could you cast your eye over Leviathan melvillei please? I haven't added a taxobox as I haven't a clue, but I see the Polish version has one: [1] It's all Greek to me (well, Polish), but maybe it will mean something to you? I only made the article as it caught my eye on the BBC website; I know nothing about extinct whales. Thanks. Stronach (talk) 18:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article has come on in leaps and bounds since yesterday, and some kind soul has given it a taxobox. However, any input would still be appreciated if you feel like it. Stronach (talk) 12:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stronach, I will try to make useful contributions in this article whenever possible. Don't worry. If more sources come out, I would make modifications accordingly. LeGenD (talk) 11:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You made the following edit on the great white shark page. Your reference makes no mention at all of predation of this cetacean in the Mediterranean. It only mentions a single occurrence off central California in 1989. Did you read the paper?? SaberToothedWhale (talk) 22:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Megalodon, an article that you may be interested in, has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the good article reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Obtund^Talk 01:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pakistanis Wikipedians! Assalam-o-Alaikum, I hope you are enjoying editing Wikipedia and helping around. I want to join every Pakistani Wikipedian on facebook so I hope you would like to join us in our community. We would/could help each other and make Pakistani articles more better.

Join us:

• Group: Pakistani Wikipedians
• Page: Pakistani Wikipedians

And then sign my guestbook for memories.

Regards: -- Captain Wikipedia! ^{( T - C - G )} 13:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LeGenD!

Wiki Loves Monuments, the world's largest photography competition, will be taking place in Pakistan this September. The competition is all about capturing the cultural monuments and heritage sites of Pakistan and uploading these images on Commons to create an online repository which will be freely available to all.

Start taking photos of the sites enlisted here and upload them in September to be eligible for national and international prizes.

Email: contact@wikilovesmonuments.pk
Official website: wikilovesmonuments.pk
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/WikiLovesMonumentsPK

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC) on behalf of WikiProject Pakistan[reply]

Hi LeGenD!

Wikimedia Community User Group Pakistan is organizing an edit drive for Pakistani Wikipedians on Pakistani Cultural Heritage throughout the month of July.
Top three contributors will be given a gift pack containing Wikipedia merchandise.

You can read the event details here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message as a member of WikiProject Pakistan

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) 14:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]