User talk:Alnagov

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

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Yorgia. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Heisenbergthechemist (talk) 15:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Onega[edit]

Hi, many thanks for your edits to Onega! Just a request; when you add information to articles about the Vendian biota, could you try not to remove information that's already there? I understand if you aren't comfortable integrating your additions to the existing text, but if you could add content at the end of the article, it'll be incorporated quickly enough; this is better than potentially losing information, as almost happened at Onega. Many thanks, Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 02:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vendiidae Question[edit]

Is Pseudovendia also a member of Vendiidae?--Mr Fink (talk) 03:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two Pseudovendia fossils have been found:
  • P. charnwoodensis from Charnwood Forest, England. (Ford, T.D. & Boynton, H.E. 1979. "Pseudovendia charnwoodensis - a new Precambrian arthropod from Charnwood Forest, Leicestershire". Mercian Geologist, 7, 175-177.)
  • And undescribed fossil from Syuzma River, Onega Peninsula of the White Sea, Russia. That Mikhail Fedonkin has named Pseudovendia sp.. (Fedonkin, M.A., 1985. "Non-skeletal fauna of the Vendian: promorphological analysis." In: Sokolov, B.S. and Iwanowski, A.B., eds., "The Vendian System. Vol. 1. Paleontology". Moscow, Nauka, p. 70-106. (In Russian))
Russian P. sp. has been placed into Vendomiidae Keller, 1976 (Fedonkin, 1985). As Vendomia is a junior synonym of Dickinsonia, the use of the proarticulate family name Vendomiidae has been discontinued (Ivantsov, 2004, 2007), new name this family is Vendiidae. P. sp. is probably real Proarticulata but it considered as the uncertain form (Ivantsov, pers. mess.).
P. charnwoodensis are frond-like organism (Jankins, 1992) or pseudofossil (Grazhdankin, 2007) or anything another. -- Aleksey (talk) 11:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At first, I was skeptical that P. charnwoodensis was possibly a rangeomorph, but, then I looked at the fossil again... Hmmmm... Do you have a copy of the Jankins or Grazhdankin papers that discuss it?--Mr Fink (talk) 14:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for the delay for this reply.

  • Grazhdankin, 2007. (pages 15-16) http://www.le.ac.uk/gl/charnia2007/AbstractBooklet2007r.pdf
  • R. Jenkins, 1992. "Functional and Ecological Aspects of Ediacaran Assemblages", pp 131-176. In Jere H. Lipps, Philip W. Signor "Origin and Early Evolution of the Metazoa". 1992. Springer. Only this (p. 143): These comprise various discoidal forms, the frondose Charnia masoni and Charniodiscus concentricus, a comparatively large bushlike form with multiple fronds, and a putative arthropod, Pseudovendia charnwoodensis Boyton and Ford, 1979. I translated it into Russian inattentively. Henceforth I will be more careful. :-)

It is senseless to discuss the Pseudovendia charnwoodensis because this fossil represented by only one VERY bad preserved specimen and so it can be anything.
It is necessary some quantity of specimens to understand nature of Vendian fossil organism.
And not all frond-like organism are rangeomorph. Charniodiscus, Khatyspytia, Vaizitsinia, Pambikalbae it is not rangeomorph. Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 23:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

And only now did I finally get around to making that edit about Pseudovendia in Vendiamorpha.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yorgia[edit]

Hi, thanks for uploading the new Yorgia images! The trace fossil is particularly spectacular. All the best, Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 01:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Small shelly fossils[edit]

Yes, I actually prefer that name too :-)

Thanks for adding the Dzik (1994) citation. However it's not correctly formatted. The easiest solution is to use a citation template, andthere's a tool that makes it a very simple task well over 90% of the time. If you got to your "preferences" page, in the tab "Gadgets" there is a checkbox "refTools, adds a "cite" button to the editing toolbar for quick and easy addition of commonly used citation templates". Click this then click "Save". This places in the edit box a button that shows a form where you paste in the title, author(s), etc. Then place the cursor in the right place in the edit box' text, click "Add citation" and it does just that, including all the wiki-markup. Two notes:

  • The "Cite journal" option does not have a DOI box (I've requested this), and I always insert | doi=....... afterwards if the source provides a DOI.
  • If you specify a URL, you must also specify accessdate - in format yyyy-mm-dd, don't ask me why.

Best wishes, --Philcha (talk) 06:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Aleksey, thanks for adding the Dzik 1994 ref to support the point about morphological variety. However that paper was already used below. I've followed the usual method on en.wp:

  • Given a name to one version that contains the full details, e.g. <ref name=Dzik1994 />{{cite ... }}</ref>
  • Simply used the ref's name elsewhere, e.g. <ref name=Dzik1994 /> - the / is essential when re-using a ref! --Philcha (talk) 19:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-pages[edit]

You seem to be using your Talk page to keep notes. I suggest it's better to use sub-pages of your user page for this, so that your Talk page is only for discussions. I use sub-pages a lot, see my sandbox, which is really more like a construction site. Then if you want to keep stuff private you don't link any of your other pages to it, or use a small and not-obvious link. --Philcha (talk) 06:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Small shelly fauna graphical timeline[edit]

Sorry, I seem to be pestering you a lot this morning. I suggest you create a sub-page to work on the timeline, so that its intermediate states are not visible in articles - then copy the sub-page version into the real one when everything's working OK. If you're concerned about someone else changing the real template while you're working on the sub-page version, put an {{underconstruction}} template on the real one. --Philcha (talk) 07:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Aleksey. You've been inaactive on en.WP for a while so I guess you're at work now. I've copied the SSF timeline to User:Alnagov/SSF timeline so you can work on it there, and will undo your changes to the main version at {{Small shelly fauna graphical timeline}} and then put an {{underconstruction}} template on it. --Philcha (talk) 08:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I don't know whether you do much on the Russian Wikipedia, but English Wikipedia seesm to have by far the most tools, guidelines, etc. - which is helpful once you know them, but a hell of a lot to learn. User:Philcha#Tools has a list of some of the things I've found most useful, you should make your own notes about those you find useful. Please leave me a message if you need any help. --Philcha (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Halkieria[edit]

I see you're back - excellent! Is there anything you can cite for the earliest Halkieriid fossils? --Philcha (talk) 16:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skolithos[edit]

I've nothing against the Russians! You'll notice that the comment on horizontal trace fossils is in fact cited to Fedonkin. I removed the paragraph as, as it stood, it seemed to contradict itself and was difficult to follow. I didn't have time to check the sources and re-write it at the time; I've gone back to them now and re-inserted a reference to Skolithos. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 16:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mollusca[edit]

Hi, Alexey! I suggest the detailed material you added to Mollusca about Helcionellids would be better at Helcionellids - Mollusca is already a long article, and cannot have room for details about all taxa. If the same material was at Helcionellids instead, you could expand there and then perhaps summarise the most important items at other articles, e.g. Cambrian explosion. --Philcha (talk) 14:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cambrian_explosion#Ediacaran.E2.80.93Early_Cambrian_skeletalization[edit]

Hello! I copy-edited the section Cambrian_explosion#Ediacaran.E2.80.93Early_Cambrian_skeletalization to add some wikilinks and touch up the grammar. Please would you review it to check I've understood your meaning (I didn't want to change the meaning at all). Also, I could not guess what "even-aged" means. Could you try another phrase please? Thanks very much --Stfg (talk) 16:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Aleksey. Thanks for reviewing it as I requested. I have changed "even-aged deposits" into "deposits of the same age" and for the tubes I've used the wording you gave on my talk page. Thanks very much for contributing your expertise so generously! Simon --Stfg (talk) 10:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Cambrian ISC[edit]

Template:Cambrian ISC has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji (talk) 15:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phoronids[edit]

Hi, Aleksey. Do you think it would be fun to suggest that Temereva or another expert you know should use "How can such a small phylum cause so much confusion?" Then you could use it as a headline (e.g. blockquote) in Phoronid#Taxonomy - with a first-class citation. WP is too solemn and and needs some humour! --Philcha (talk) 12:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for updating the notes in {{Cambrian_graphical_timeline}}! I was thinking of doing it soon but you beat me to it. Do you maybe have time to look at: {{Ordovician_graphical_timeline}}. I'm having a little trouble with all the extra text inside of the box. -cheers --Tobias1984 (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Alnagov. You have new messages at Cyclopia's talk page.
Message added 22:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Cyclopiatalk 22:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great work![edit]

Thanks for your sketch of Andiva, brilliant! And thanks for all the support you're giving me on working through the Ediacara pages. --Cyclopiatalk 14:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you have a look at Arumberia now, by the way? :p --Cyclopiatalk 14:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Soft-Bodied Trilobite From Rawnsley Quartzite[edit]

Do you happen to have any information about the alleged "soft-bodied trilobite(s)" from the Ediacara Member of the Rawnsley Quartzite in Australia? Thank you in advance.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Australian "soft-bodied trilobite" is the Archaeaspinus fedonkini (=Archaeaspis fedonkini). Andrey Ivantsov wrote about this (Ivantsov 2001). In recent articles, australians mention this fossil as Archaeaspis (Droser et al. 2006)
  • Ivantsov, A. Yu. (2001). "Vendia and Other Precambrian "Arthropods"" (PDF). Paleontological Journal (in Russian). 35 (4): 335–343.

Australian specimens:

Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 09:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you so much for clearing up the creatures' identity for me!

Disambiguation link notification for February 11[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Proarticulata, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Onega (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trilobozoa[edit]

Since you've started reorganization of the page Trilobozoa, should we remove references to the conulariids beyond Vendoconularia?--Mr Fink (talk) 23:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, Vendoconularia is not Trilobozoa. I'll add comment about varied Ediacaran-Early Cambrian animals with three-radial symmetry in the page Trilobozoa. Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 08:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Good, then.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion[edit]

You think we should unlink the links of the synonymized/invalid taxa in the List of Ediacaran genera?--Mr Fink (talk) 15:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it is creates confusion. Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 10:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Pardon about the Charnia holdfast stuff concerning the ivesheadiomorphs: I read somewhere that (I thought) said that they were invalid taxa because they were determined/thought to be decayed holdfasts of either Charnia or some similar frond-organism.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You correctly remembered it. It is decayed bodyes. Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ivesheadiomorphs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Newfoundland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 13:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of Ediacaran genera[edit]

Hi, I'd like your comments on a proposal I have there. --Cyclopiatalk 10:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lossinia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Onega (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 16:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Smith609's bad articles[edit]

[1] User:Smith609 has created many nonsense articles, with sources not related to the article. I have no idea what to do about this. He claims to be a phd student an admin, but I wonder if the account is compromised or if he is creating hoaxes. I went through his edit history, and he had problems before when his bot created nonsense articles, and he aggressively defended them. --(AfadsBad (talk) 06:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Martin really a phd student (in paleonthology) and wiki-admin. But it does not matter. He's often inattentive and uses a strange references,... it is bad.
  • If article is a hoax - delete it.
  • If article like "Stomatoporina is a genus of stenolaematan bryozoans". I do not understand the meaning of the creation of such articles. There are special databases for this information. In addition, wikipedia clones create hundreds of copies of this meaningless articles, which makes it difficult to find good information.
Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 15:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Yes, the cloning is bad, but he won't fix them. I nominated this for deletion. He needs to stop, but I don't know how to stop him. --(AfadsBad (talk) 17:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Template:Cryogenian graphical timeline[edit]

This template is never looks updated yet. why you not update it?--27.111.58.61 (talk) 01:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning a Cambrian bogart[edit]

My dear friend Alnagov, do you happen to have or have access to any pictures of the Lower Cambrian stenothecoid mollusc Cambridium?--Mr Fink (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mr Fink! I have found several paperts about stenothecoid molluscs on english EARLY CAMBRIAN STENTHECOID MOLLUSCS FROM CHINA.pdf, Stenothecoida 1969.pdf. And papers on russian Stenothecoids 1984.pdf, Stenothecoids 1985.pdf. I have added translation to english for some figs. Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Thank you so much for the papers! I was starting drawing Cambridium, but as I was looking through my own references, I found that the only reference I could find was the picture in my copy of the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology.--Mr Fink (talk) 19:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another Cambrian Question[edit]

Have you ever heard of a Cambrian poriferan genus called Korovinella (syn=Kazachstanicyathus)? I've been looking for information about it, and have gotten conflicting results, namely that some sources refer to it as a (kazachstanicyathid) archaeocyathan, while others refer to it as a stromatoporoidean, even though it's from the Lower Cambrian, and literally all sources state that the earliest stromatoporoideans are Ordovician.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Charniodiscus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page C. spinosus. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Alnagov. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Alnagov. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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]

A Request/Question[edit]

Alnagov, my friend, how are you doing? You don't suppose I could ask if you have any information or photographs of Affinovendia?--Mr Fink (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Stanton! Good, we with Andrey Ivantsov and Mikhail Fedonkin are preparing a new joint article about Onega stepanovi, and other more intresting papers. Affinovendia arctosa specimen comes from Rusophycus avalonensis ichnozone of the Mattaya Fm, uppermost Fortunian Stage, Early Cambrian, Olenek River, Siberia. At present, this fossil has been reinterpretated as trace fossil Treptichnus lublinensis. Photo, scale bar 1 cm. Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 22:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC))[reply]
Thank you very much! Please let me know when your paper on Onega is out, so I can update a book I'm working on that will feature it.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 08:18, 29 March 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Another Question/Solicitation of Advice[edit]

In the paper on the Iranian Precambrian fauna in Kushk and Chama, the organism Gibbavasis kushkii is described as being similar to Ausia fenestrata. Would you think it would be original research to reconstruct G. kushkii as being a tunicate on the assumption that Ausia is a tunicate, too? At least, as per the paper about Burykhia?--Mr Fink (talk) 05:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It will be an unstable pyramid of assumptions without any facts. If you take away one assumption, the whole pyramid collapses. Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 09:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC))[reply]
True, a pyramid made of sea squirts would not be a stable tomb.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are doubts that the Iranian fossils are Ediacaran in age, and that they are imprints of soft-bodied organisms. Patricia Vickers-Rich was bringing Iranian fossils to Moscow... Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 15:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 24[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Ediacaran genera, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Astra (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:05, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Vendocomrade[edit]

Have you seen this paper [2] and how it sorts Dickinsonia in Petalonomae as a sister taxon to Swartpuntia?--Mr Fink (talk) 16:50, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mr Fink! Please note that the authors compare Swartpuntia and Dickinsonia only on one attribute (thin segmentation) and they ignore other members of the Proarticulata closely related with Dickinsonia. It's not serious. Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 10:23, 18 August 2018 (UTC))[reply]
The paper about Onega is accepted for publication. In September we will submit an article about ugly Dickinsonia specimens (see abstract "The first evidence of disability in the ”Garden of Ediacara”" on p. 294 [3]). Aleksey (Alnagov

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Alnagov. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Alnagov. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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]

Nomination for merging of Template:LEG?[edit]

Template:LEG? has been nominated for merging with Template:Question. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.. See discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 April 27#Template:MoreInfo. Gonnym (talk) 13:24, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proarticulata Census[edit]

Alnagov, my friend, may I ask you: what is the current number of described proarticulatan species?--Mr Fink (talk) 05:25, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good day, Mr Fink! 19-21 species are described under their own names, and about 10 unnamed and undescribed species.
  1. Armillifera parva Fedonkin, 1980
  2. Andiva ivantsovi Fedonkin, 2002
  3. Archaeaspinus fedonkini (Ivantsov, 2001)
  4. Cephalonega stepanovi (Fedonkin, 1976)
  5. Cyanorus singularis Ivantsov, 2004 (= Lossinia lissetskii Ivantsov, 2007)
  6. Dickinsonia costata Sprigg, 1947 (= D. minima Sprigg, 1949; D. spriggi Harrington & Moore, 1955; D. elongata Glaessner & Wade, 1966; )
  7. Dickinsonia tenuis Glaessner et Wade, 1966 (= D. brachina Wade, 1972; D. lissa Wade, 1972; D. rex Jenkins, 1992)
  8. ? Dickinsonia menneri (Keller, 1976) (? = D. costata Sprigg, 1947)
  9. Ivovicia rugulosa Ivantsov, 2007
  10. Karakhtia nessovi Ivantsov, 2004
  11. Marywadea ovata Glaessner et Wade, 1966
  12. Ovatoscutum concentricum Glaessner et Wade, 1966
  13. Paravendia janae (Ivantsov, 2001)
  14. Podolimirus mirus Fedonkin, 1983 (= Valdainia plumosa Fedonkin, 1983)
  15. Praecambridium siggilum Glaessner et Wade, 1966
  16. ? Tamga hamulifera Ivantsov, 2007 (? = Praecambridium siggilum Glaessner et Wade, 1966)
  17. Spriggina floundersi Glaessner, 1958
  18. Vendia sokolovi Keller, 1969
  19. Vendia rachiata Ivantsov, 2004
  20. Yorgia waggoneri Ivantsov, 1999
  21. Phyllozoon hanseni Jenkins et Gehling, 1978
Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 18:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]
Thank you so much! You don't suppose I could get information about the 10 unnamed species, too?--Mr Fink (talk) 19:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For example
  1. "Dickinsonia tenuis" (M.A. Zakrevskaya, A.Yu. Ivantsov (2017). "Dickinsonia costata — the first evidence of neoteny in Ediacaran organisms")
  2. "Dickinsonia lissa" (A.Yu. Ivantsov (2007). "Small Vendian Transversely Articulated Fossils")
  3. "Dickinsonia cf. menneri" (A.Yu. Ivantsov et al. (2019). "Cephalonega, A New Generic Name, and the Systemof Vendian Proarticulata")
  4. "Dickinsonia sp." (A.Yu. Ivantsov (2004). "New Proarticulata from the Vendian of the Arkhangel’sk Region")
  5. "Yorgia" (D. V. Grazhdankin et al. (2005). "The Ediacaran White Sea Biota in the Central Urals")
Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 22:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:LEG?[edit]

Template:LEG? has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:LEGinv[edit]

Template:LEGinv has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:LEGjs[edit]

Template:LEGjs has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:27, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:LEGval[edit]

Template:LEGval has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:27, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pomoria (disambiguation)[edit]

Hello. Noting your recent redirect of Pomoria to Tribrachidium and your cited statement on the former's talk page that "The only known specimen of Pomoria is currently recognized as a poorly preserved Tribrachidium", could I ask you to take a look at Pomoria (disambiguation) which you created 4 years ago, and also at Pomoria rhomboidalis which you also created? I don't feel I have the experience or understanding in this obscure group to separate out synonyms, taphomorphs and form genera.

On the latter point, I noticed a modern source referring to Aspidella as a form genus (ref), but there is no mention of this interpretation in the article yet, nor of the taphomorph, Wigwamiella, at all. I wondered if this was something you might consider reviewing and resolving? I feel my role is better spent fire-fighting to keep more confusion out of the Ediacara fossils from amateur sleuths reading old books than resolving existing confusion and updating interpretations.

Note that I have removed the 'under construction' template you added to Trilobozoa as the page hadn't been edited for a couple of days. I have serious doubts about the relevance on that page of using fanciful, amateur artwork (like this one) as a main picture to illustrate groups, the interpretation of which has evidently changed significantly over the last four decades. I am aware that particular colourful image, or cropped parts of it, have been inserted into numerous articles in various language Wikipedias, yet there are no links to any scientific sources on commons to show how these pictures are derived. It could theoretically serve a purpose to illustrate how palaeontological understanding has changed over the years, especially as some of the so-called species in it (like Wigwamiella) are now seen a taphomorphs of probable form genera, and are evidently not discrete organisms in their own right, as suggested in the fancy drawing.

Regards Nick Moyes (talk) 14:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your hard work! Unfortunately, I have little free time to write and thoroughly edit Wikipedia articles.
Pomoria Fedonkin, 1980 is animal fossil now recognized as a poorly preserved Tribrachidium. Pomoria Sivertzeva et Jankauskas, 1989 is cyanobacterial fossil. Zoological and botanical nomenclature are independent of each other and are regulated by separate codes (International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants). This allows the simultaneous existence of the same generic names among animals and algae.
I did not set the 'under construction' template, I will update Trilobozoa article with one edit next week. Best regards, Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 16:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Artsy Head's Up[edit]

Hi hi, Alnagov! I want to let you know that I'm going to update my picture of Trilobozoa soon, what with some of the subjects in it having been synonymized or invalidated. My new version will include Tribrachidium, Albumares, Anfesta, Rugoconites, Hallidaya and Skinnera. I'll show you it before I replace it on Wikicommons.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Apokryltaros That would be very welcome indeed. I recommend including in your description full citations to sources to permit verification against scientific literature, and avoiding over-use of gaudy colours. Thanks (TPS), Nick Moyes (talk) 09:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[4]--Mr Fink (talk) 00:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's good! A year ago I drew sheme of Tribrachidium, maybe it will come in handy for you . Unfortunately, the Australian colleagues have some kind of childish scribbles, not reconstructions, sadly... Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 10:08, 24 February 2022 (UTC))[reply]
I'll see if I can amend the lineart to include Tribrachidium gliding.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Work on the article Trilobozoa and their drawings is being delayed. Now I spend all my free time separating the heavy fraction from a very large sample of Ediacaran volcanic tuff from Onega Peninsula and selecting zircons for ID-TIMS dating. Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 07:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Another Favor[edit]

Hi-ho! Would it be at all possible if I could ask you for a pdf of "Fedonkin, M. A. (1980). "New representatives of the Precambrian coelenterates in the northern Russian platform". Paleontologicheskii Zhurnal. 5: 7–15."?--Mr Fink (talk) 15:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good day! I do not have this article, because the same description of fossils is given in Fedonkin's 1981 book. And Fedonkin's 1980 article does not have an English version. In this article was described Ramellina pennata, Armillifera parva, Nimbia occlusa, Pinegia stellaris (Hiemalora stellaris), Veprina undosa, Paliella patelliformis, Pomoria corolliformis, Bonata septata, Protodipleurosoma rugulosum. There are no reconstructions of these fossil organisms in the article, the description and interpretation of most of them are irrelevant. Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 07:29, 28 March 2022 (UTC))[reply]
This pdf is still very informative, thank you anyhow. Have fun in Onega in the meantime.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My separator https://drive.google.com/file/d/16JeGjFcbM-EH3XU-izo5jVR2b3T1u29S/view?usp=sharing Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 18:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC))[reply]
The Vendian System. Vol 1. 1990 (english version of russian book 1985) https://disk.yandex.ru/i/IsxKFNf_xzRoD Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 18:46, 28 March 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Permission to use "Kimberella quadrata.jpg"[edit]

Hello, I want to use the image your uploaded under the name of Kimberella quadrata.jpg to make an icon for WikiProject Ediacaran and to use it on the main page for the WikiProject, May I have permission to do so? With all gratitude, Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 18:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish. Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 19:00, 29 October 2022 (UTC))[reply]
Thanks. I'll be sure to mention the original image in the description of the icon for the WikiProject, and also give the same licence as the image you posted. Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 19:08, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help[edit]

I've been trying to put this table into the Palaeopascichnid article for a while now, but every time I do so it just goes underneath the citations. What should I do about this? And also, I copy-edited the table from the List of Ediacaran genera so I can more easily do it.

Name Authors Year Taxonomy Validity Short description Country
Curviacus Bing Shen 2017 Benthic modular organism with crescent-shaped chambers.  China
Orbisiana Sokolov 1976 Believed to be a close relative of Palaeopascichnus and is similar to a string of beads.  Russia
Palaeopascichnus Palij 1976 Although once thought to be a trace fossil, it's now considered a body fossil.  Ukraine
Yelovichnus Fedonkin 1985 Junior synonym of Palaeopascichnus, although chambers are different.  Russia

this is the table in question Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to put the closing tag |} after the table. In my opinion, it can do without a table, it will be enough to give a general brief description of palaeopascichnids, a generalized history of views on their nature, to mention the differences between major genera from each other. Almost all palaeopascichnids were once considered traces (meandered traces, chains of fecal pellets), including the sandy form of preservation of Orbisiana. So it will be compact, without unnecessary repetition and more beautiful than a bulky table. Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 11:35, 7 November 2022 (UTC))[reply]
I've had that idea in my mind for a while now, do you think I should make multiple sub-sections on the genera one in the Palaeopascichnid article? Because I've also had the idea of what the original suggestion for a table for the List of Ediacaran genera that had an image, although It would combine multiple sources into one table which would basically exclude the possibility of having to create too many sections. I would also like to mention that some of the supposed Palaeopascichnids on the List of Ediacaran genera don't cite references as to their affinity; should I include those genera within the article by citing sources for them and then add those sources to the LoEg (got too tired of saying List of Ediacaran genera, so I just created an acronym for it). Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 19:04, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do as you see fit. I do not undertake to write and edit articles about palaeopascichnids, because I do not agree with existing ideas about their nature and taxonomy. Little by little I am collecting fossil material, including new species, perhaps someday I will publish a paper about them. Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 19:16, 9 November 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Update about Medusoids[edit]

I've been reading The Dawn of Animal Life: A Biohistorical study recently and I've noticed that Glaessner uses the term "Medusoids" to refer to the now outdated idea of disc-shaped forms (such as Cyclomedusa) as being Jellyfish. This may be where @Prescov found his idea to make an article on a term describing fossils of dubious nature and affinity and then claim that it possess a taxonomic rank. Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 19:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else's head - darkness. One can only guess what he was guided by. Do not fill your head with other people's quirks :) Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC))[reply]
Most likely guided by the idea of the discs being the medusas of Jellyfish. Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 20:54, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sinoflabrum paper[edit]

Is there any way that you're able to supply me with the publication that Sinoflabrum antiquum is described in? Apparently it is Zhang & Babcock, 2001. Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 16:47, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have this article. Try to request it from the author on the researchgate.net. Usually sent. It has nothing to do with Ediacaran organisms, it even looks not similar. Some scientists want something amazing or hype on the popular theme of the Ediacaran fauna. It's most likely a eldoniid, see see Page 149. Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 09:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Dickinsonia[edit]

Hi Alnagov, sorry about the dispute we had a few years ago about the segment/isomer articulation in Dickinsona, I regret the way I behaved in that interaction. I've gone and reworked the Dickinsonia article, based on the recent description given in "Body plan of Dickinsonia, the oldest mobile animals" [5]. I trimmed back the stuff regarding Retallack's lichen claim, as this seems to be supported by nobody but him. Do you have any critiques/recommendations for improvement? Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:00, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We all make mistakes at some point. So don't worry about old words. Truth is born in disputes :). Your edits are correct, do what you see fit. Unfortunately, I don’t have free time for Wikipedia. Gregory Retallack became a slave to his fantasy, which he is no longer able to abandon. This is senile. Retallack's articles continue to be published in memory of his past achievements, but experts have not paid attention to him for a long time. Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 18:34, 1 October 2023 (UTC))[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alnagov&oldid=1187202071"