Talk:Kaganaias

message: I've created the Kaganaias article from a PDF which is mentioned in the article. However, I have a few questions - 1) On the PDF it says Kaganaias has been assigned to Platynota because Sarah Evans did not know which part of Mosasauridae it went into. Is this correct, as I've never been heard of a single genus being assigned to a large group like that, usually families. 2) This brings up another question -  This site () says that Platynota is an infraorder, where as other pages on Wikipedia say it is a superfamily. Which is it? 3) And what the heck is Varanoidea? It was in a taxobox right next to Platynota (actually in the text of this article), so I assumed they both meant the same thing? If you'd be able to figure out what's going on, it would be a great help. It would have been better if the PDF had a better systematic paleobiology level thingy... :) Thanks, Spawn Man 00:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. Would it be possible to leave this tag here until the problem is resolved or someone with biological experience has looked the article over? Cheers, Spawn Man 00:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is your source a reliable source?  Also, this doesn't require a "help me," persay, but is a talk page topic for those who are interested in the topic. However, you should visit the reference desk for general quetions like this. Miranda 00:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ummm... I am an experienced user ya know, so I think I would know if my PDF was reliable... Thansk for the tips though, may be better in a reference desk... Thanks, Spawn Man 00:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not reliable if you made the PDF. See no original research. Miranda 03:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: <--Personal Attack Removed--> It's a PDF of the person who actually described Kaganaias - I don't think you could get more scientific than that! And stop linking to pages I've read a million times over my stay of two years here lol! Thanks, Spawn Man 04:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Re-read my answers, specifically response one, again and that would help your problem.   isn't supposed to be used to help classify dinosaurs, but answer questions related to navigating Wikipedia or problems with Wikipedia...not it's content. If you have any problems with content, go to WP:VP. Also, be civil. Miranda 05:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Can you stop bolding things? I can read ya know. I now know that the template isn't for this particular thing, but it said it was for wikipedians needing help. I was needing help, so my mistake for assuming a template for wikipedians needing help applied to me, a wikipedian needing help. I wasn't making a personal attack, I was asking if you knew english (I deal with a lot of people on here with english as a second language & I was asuming you were one of them as you didn't know basic rules. My mistake & I apologise). Now in regard to your "Re-read my answers, specifically again and that would help your problem" comment - No, I didn't misread your comment thank you very much, but instead you wrote the wrong thing. You said before "It's not reliable. See no original research. Miranda 03:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmmm... I love indents.... ;) Sorry you took the English comment as a personal attack. Also, I love how you link & Bold all the time - not Annoying at all!!! I don't even know how to format a PDF, & I've never had a problem with them before this. I'm going to asume you meant that if I reformat a PDF, it's not a reliable resource & that we can't use it. Well that's about it. Spawn Man 07:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions about the article: 

message: A sentence regarding the animal's habitat read: "...possibly a large floodplain which was covered with sufficiant amounts of water for most of the year." Sufficiant isn't a word, so I struck the phrase "sufficiant amounts of" from the text. While I'm fairly certain that the original author meant "significant," that word conjures its own issue, namely, what quantifiable depth of water is "significant?" Twenty centimeters, two meters, etc...Mtiffany71 22:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I meant sufficient - musta been a typo error. Honestly, I type really fast so don't notice when I've made a spelling mistake usually. In any case, I couldn't think of a better word, so removal was probably best. Cheers, Spawn Man 05:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Habitat