User talk:Apokryltaros

/User talk:Apokryltaros Archive 1 /User talk:Apokryltaros Archive 2

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Boars

Male bears are called "boars". Look here http://www.ask.com/pets-animals/male-bear-called-3da11fdefbb04141. Cheers. Dger (talk) 00:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) So a male bear can be called a boar-bear? And if it's cold, wet, and hungry, it would be a poor boar-bear? Corinne (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, yes, and only if it it's being offered a fried oyster sandwich on sourdough.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

(I just saw this.) Is that a "poor-boy"? So if the cold, wet boar-bear were eating one of those, would he be a poor boar-bear eating a poor-boy? Corinne (talk) 00:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC) Or is it a "po-boy"? Corinne (talk) 00:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

He'd be a wet bear eating a wet sandwich.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Corinne (talk) 01:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Samotherium major

Hello, would you be able to make another picture of Samotherium major in light of this new article reconstructing its neck posture? I'm not sure if your current image is accurate. LittleJerry (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@LittleJerry:, so, have the neck held a little more horizonal like an okapi's, and not as vertically as a giraffe's?--Mr Fink (talk) 22:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, the article states that Samotherium was an important transition to a giraffe-like neck. Are you sure the length is right? LittleJerry (talk) 23:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

It's probably not the correct length, either. I'll get to work making adjustments tonight.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, do you think it would better to have Samotherium compared to the giraffe and okapi in the picture? LittleJerry (talk) 23:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll get to work on that, too, then.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Image coming along fine? LittleJerry (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

{ping|LittleJerry}} Now that I've remembered to scan it, what do you think?--Mr Fink (talk) 23:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Where is it? LittleJerry (talk) 00:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

@LittleJerry: I knew I was forgetting something [1]: Also, S. major is in the middle, Okapi at the bottom, and Giraffe, well...--Mr Fink (talk) 01:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Looks great! LittleJerry (talk) 02:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll get to work inking it, then.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Wait. Why doesn't Samotherium have legs? LittleJerry (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

It does have legs, it's just hard to see at this stage as it's behind the Okapi.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Is the image finished? LittleJerry (talk) 15:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll scan it in later today.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Ready? LittleJerry (talk) 02:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

@LittleJerry: Yes, yes it is. The official artsy reason why it's uncolored is because "the markings would distract from the comparison." The unofficial reason why it's uncolored is because life-events have left me pressed for time, and a little shaky in the hand.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:09, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! LittleJerry (talk) 13:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Grammatical number and taxa

Hi, my comment relates to this edit. At WP:PLANTS, we've discussed the grammatical number to be used with taxon names, but I can't find a discussion related to animals. The following points can easily be sourced:

• The names of taxa above genus, such as families or superfamilies, are plural in Latin.
• Taxon names are treated as proper names when writing in English.
• In English, plural proper names require a determiner (e.g. "the"), singular proper names don't take one (hence the difference between "the Rockies" and "Etna").

The contentious issue is whether the Latin number has to be used in English. There are many sources who argue that it does; see as just one example Encyclopedia of Entomology, p. 3302. Personally, I disagree; we aren't writing Latin but English, and can choose to treat plural Latin words as collective nouns.

However, there are advantages to the plural form in some cases. Thus I much prefer the opening "The Araneoidea or araneoids are a taxon of araneomorph spiders ..." to "Araneoidea is a taxon of araneomorph spiders ...", since the former allows "araneoids" (used later in the article) to be introduced early on as a synonym. We shouldn't assume that all readers know that "-oids" is a standard transformation of "-oidea". Regardless of my view, the use of the plural can't be said to be wrong, and should not be changed unnecessarily. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Alright.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry

I was putting Thunderclap's species (Nyctosaurus) on the cast list (it's mentioned in the plot that's on the article as well). So yeah, sorry about that. Let's keep it the way it is. Anyways I love your art, I also have since become a more mature person that what I did when I was on here arguing with you about the Australovenator-Dromaeosaurus (I highly agree with you now, although the BBC site claims that the Polar Allosaur was indeed the former, but it could likely be wrong). Anyways have a good December. 73.240.105.185 (talk) 15:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words and understanding: it's important that we try to avoid fan-identification, as that is WP:Original Research.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Miniopterus aelleni

Hello, Apokryltaros -- I saw a number of red links in the section Miniopterus aelleni#Taxonomy. I thought you might know of articles or sections of articles to which these terms could be linked. Corinne (talk) 03:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I opted to unlink "divergence" and replace it with "sequence divergence," the others are of topics that have yet to be made into articles yet (Faune being a Madagascar-themed biology science journal, and the other two being scientists).--Mr Fink (talk) 03:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks! Corinne (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

It's that time of year....

Christmas tree worm, (Spirobranchus gigantic)
	Time To Spread Some Happy Holiday Cheer!!
	I decorated a special kind of Christmas tree in the spirit of the season. What's especially nice about the digitized version is that it doesn't need water, and it won't catch fire.
	Wishing you a joyous holiday season... ...and a prosperous New Year!! 🍸🎁 🎉
	Atsme📞📧 15:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)	Pure pun-ishment. [2]

I wonder if there are red and green Christmas tree worms.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

About the piscivore page

Hello Mr. Apokryltaros; happy new year and Christmas !

I see the spinosauroids on the piscivore page; but The spinosauroids weren't obligate piscivores; as the iguanadon remains in a Baryonyx and a teeth belonged to a spinosauroid were found in the fossil records; so the spinosauroid diet is very similar to the alligator and seal you mentioned\write; may I delete the Baryonyx an Spinosaurus from the piscivores category but write them on the extinct piscivores as; spinosauroids were known to consume fish but from the fossil records its estimated that their diet consist any prey aviable or similar to alligators ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dredann (talk • contribs) 15:25, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Simply because Baryonyx and Spinosaurus were not obligate piscivores does not mean we should remove them from the list of prehistoric and extinct piscivores, especially since there is undeniable evidence of them eating fish in the first place. [3]--Mr Fink (talk) 20:27, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I didn't mean that; I meant I would write and note they had fish on their diet but that does not consist their almost entire diet like gharials. I meant some example like this : Some of the extinct animals, such as the spinosauroids, are not completely piscivorous, often preying on aquatic invertebrates or land animals in addition to fish.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3665537/ http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0065295 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dredann (talk • contribs) 20:47, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

The rule about posting only obligate piscivores applies primarily to extant piscivores, so that that list does not become a long and cluttered mess mentioning every single living animal that won't pass up a fish dinner. Again, simply because the spinosaurids were not obligate piscivores does not mean they don't deserve to be on the list of prehistoric piscivores, especially since there is notable evidence of their piscivorous habits in the first place.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:12, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you should bring this up at the talk page.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:22, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay than; I continue at that page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dredann (talk • contribs) 11:14, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

About that edit

Okay so I said that the sauropod in the movie "One Million Years B.C." was a Brontosaurus, so I know it got reverted, but the movie's trailer and a book about Ray Harryhausen confirms that it's a Brontosaurus, not an Apatosaurus (although Brontosaurus was a synonym of Apatosaurus at the time). Also the article for the original film the movie was based off of (I mean the 1940 film with Lon Chaney Jr.) claims that the rams in the movie were muskoxen. Is there a source for that (the movie never states that they are muskox and they appear to be sheep, not bovines)? --73.240.105.185 (talk) 16:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide a source that says this? If "yes," then please source it. If "no," then please stop making unsourced edits or risk the consequences.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

As far as Ray was concerned, it was a 'Brontosaurus' - that's how he referred to it. The recent scientific change occurred either after or right before his death. Just as the creature in 'Gwangi' is an allosaurus, according to Ray - not a tyrannosaur. This was his concept of these dinosaurs. This has been written up in many interviews. Several paleontologists have tried to re-write history as far as Harryhausen is concerned - but they didn't even know the man. I had the pleasure of sitting down with Ray along with my friend Jim Rodkey at a convention and we talked to him for a good 30 minutes. I would suggest such tomes as issues of Starlog, etc., to find a Reliable Source to confirm the Brontosaurus information. 98.67.182.239 (talk) 03:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

For now though, we're going with the official facebook posting.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Alright

I found a source, so would I just have to put it in the summary or show it to you first? Also would someone put it in the references (like I don't think a regular user can, but an admin I believe can)? Thanks for the help. But is there a source that says that the ram-like animals in "One Million B.C." (1940) says that they are muskoxen (that bugs me still)? --73.240.105.185 (talk) 17:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Why not show it on Talk:One Million Years B.C., first, so everyone can check and make sure, first?--Mr Fink (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! --73.240.105.185 (talk) 17:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Carcinology

Best wishes for a Happy, Healthy 2016! I've just learned a few new words that I had never heard before, including malacology, carcinology, and cirripedology. Corinne (talk) 03:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Mazel tov, and conchology to you and yours.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Redlichiidae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Xela (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) 09:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Mesozoic

I was just looking at the article on the Mesozoic era, and I was surprised to see an image with this caption: "Inaccurately portrayed Stegosaurus". What is the point or the educational benefit of including an image that inaccurately portrays an ancient reptile? Are there any images of Stegosaurus that more accurately illustrate the animal? Corinne (talk) 01:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree we should replace it with more accurate pictures, and leave the archaic reconstructions to the animal's "In Popular Culture" section.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, O.K. Good. Corinne (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Mammutidae

Apokryltaros, what's the difference between a mammoth and a mastondon? Is Mammutidae the main article about mastondons? If so, isn't it a little skimpy? Corinne (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Mammoths are any true elephant species of the genus Mammuthus, whereas mastodons are any proboscidean of the family Mammutidae, especially those of the genus Mammut.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Piscivore Page

Hello Mr.Apokryltaros; I don understand why you rechange the piscivore page but I fixed my changes with sources this time. Please don't rechange the page. There are direct evidence that proves Baryonyx wasn't an obligate piscivore and spinosaurus obligate aquaticness is really a debated subject especially after the sigilmassasaurus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dredann (talk • contribs) 17:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Except that the way you word the mentioning that Baryonyx and Spinosaurus were not obligate piscivores introduces WP:Weasel words that make it confusing to the reader.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The sources I linked were trustable; not false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dredann (talk • contribs) 22:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The sources you used were blogs and children's books. It would help if you used science journals as sources. That, and I never said your sources were false.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay. Its true. But may I also add legitimate scientific sources?

http://blog.everythingdinosaur.co.uk/blog/_archives/2008/05/31/the-thumb-claw-of-baryonyx.html my.abdodigital.com › abdodig › download https://books.google.com.tr/books?id=7t9M5TsmjOUC&pg=PA214&lpg=PA214&dq=baryonyx+iguanodon+remains&source=bl&ots=0GGnTh2WDa&sig=STauGD_uL_280MYhjvxB7Gpcwpc&hl=tr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi-8_TJ-7HKAhUFlSwKHXrbCcw4ChDoAQgjMAY#v=onepage&q=baryonyx%20iguanodon%20remains&f=false

-Dredann

You don't understand: I keep reverting what you've posted on Piscivore because you either try to remove mention of Baryonyx and Spinosaurus, or try to create unreasonable doubt on the piscivorous habits of those two dinosaurs, even though both are considered extremely notable, if not the two most famous extinct piscivores. Secondly, this first source here is not a good source to begin with, and this book you're mentioning does not discuss anything about Baryonyx preying on Iguanodon. Please understand that the fact that Baryonx preyed on Iguanodon belongs in Baryonyx's page, and not Piscivore, especially since there is undeniable evidence that Baryonyx ate fish, and that that section of Piscivore is about fossil animals confirmed to have eaten fish.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Sonoluminescence

Just checking to be sure this edit to Sonoluminescence is correct. Corinne (talk) 04:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Mantis shrimp belong to an entirely different order, would be akin to comparing a mantis and a mantidfly--Mr Fink (talk) 04:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh. Thanks. (Did you see all the red links in Mantidfly?) Corinne (talk) 04:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Chinese food therapy may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ''Chinese system of Food Cures'' (1989), Pelanduk Publications Malaysia Sdn Bhd, ISBN 9789679782530)
• Dietetics in Traditional Chinese Medicine'' (2008), [[Thieme Medical Publishers]], ISBN 3131309628)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Cyprinidae

I don't know why, but I've been reading articles on fish. In Cyprinidae, in the section Cyprinidae#Biology and ecology, second paragraph, is this sentence:

• This construction is also used to observe motion of the gas bladder due to atmospheric conditions or depth changes.

I'm assuming "this construction" is the Weberian organ mentioned in the previous sentence, but it is not clear to me who uses the Weberian organ to observe motion of the gas bladder. Is this referring to scientists who use part of a fish to observe motion in another part of the fish? It sounds a little strange (and unclear) to me.

I was also looking at the captions to the images. In the section Cyprinidae#Subfamilies and genera, the first image has this caption:

• (Acheilognathus longipinnis: Acheilognathinae)

I'm just wondering if the entire caption should be in parentheses. Corinne (talk) 01:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I opted to rewrite it to be more specific, as I figure it's better to be more specific and wordy, than to be vague and poetic. As for the captions, I've systematically removed all of the parentheses, as they appear to be inconsistently applied.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Great! Thanks! I was just looking at the article on Physostome (linked from Cyprinidae), and I made a few minor copy-edits. I was thinking that there must be more material that could be added to this article, including some diagrams. I just thought I'd mention it just in case you ever have nothing to do and want a project. Corinne (talk) 02:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Warning a user a second time about the same edit

Hello! I noticed that you warned a user (diff) because of an edit that I already warned him/her about (diff) a few messages earlier. I don't think it's necessary to warn the user a second time about the same edit, so perhaps you might want to revert your own warning? --Dodi 8238 (talk) 16:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Sea Monsters

I just happened to see this at User talk:Casliber#Wikiproject Sea Monsters resturns [sic]. There are two statements in Spanish, followed by a translation of the second statement. There is a link in the first statement. It links to a new WikiProject on Sea Monsters. I thought if you hadn't heard about this, you might find it interesting. I haven't yet figured out if this is about real sea monsters, mythical sea monsters, or both.  – Corinne (talk) 01:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing it to my attention.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

That seems a bit problematic, the old version was redirected since it was redundant (and inactive), and the name is very ambiguous, and so is the scope. I think it should stay a redirect to the palaeontology project. FunkMonk (talk) 01:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Doubutsu Sentai Zyuohger

I just wanted to say that I made this edit because those Japanese terms are over on the character list now. As you can see, someone else edit warred with me over them without explaining why and Boomer Vial says I should talk with you about it because you put it in after I took it out in my rewrite.--2601:140:8200:DE:CC43:A3F3:6D4A:5BDC (talk) 05:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I put the Japanese terms back into that section because there is no guarantee that a reader will go over to the other page to see the terms. I would have re-put them back in, but I'm too tired to editwar tonight (and am trying to wean myself off of leaping into yet another editwar).--Mr Fink (talk) 05:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

That makes some sense. How about just removing the Japanese for "Blood Game" seeing as it's just the English phrase "Blood Game" in katakana?--2601:140:8200:DE:CC43:A3F3:6D4A:5BDC (talk) 05:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

That sounds fair enough.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Águas de São Pedro

Hello, Apokryltaros -- I'm almost finished copy-editing Águas de São Pedro. In the second paragraph in Águas de São Pedro#Geomorphology and hydrology, it says, "the Triassic and Eo-Cretaceous ages". I searched for an article that would explain "Eo-Cretaceous" and couldn't find one. First, is the term correct, and, if so, is there some article to which I can link it?  – Corinne (talk) 23:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, the first and third paragraphs mention a "Peripheral Depression", but the term is not linked. The article Depression (geology) seems like a quasi-disambiguation page. Can you suggest an article to which I can link this phrase?  – Corinne (talk) 23:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, in the third paragraph it mentions a "Medium Tietê Zone". Should that be linked to something?

Finally, in the third paragraph I added two conversion templates. Can you tell me whether either the square kilometres (in the case of the second one) or the square miles should be rounded off or just left like that?  – Corinne (talk) 23:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

A) I assume(d) that "Eo-Cretaceous" referred to "Early Cretaceous," so I amended it as appropriately. B) From what I can tell, a "peripheral depression" is a series of depressions that border an uplifted area. I looked through the depression disambiguation page, and could not find an article that describes such a formation. C) Perhaps you could use this template "{{Convert|1.3|km|feet}}" here, and round to the nearest one's place?--Mr Fink (talk) 23:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Apokryltaros. The last one was "D". You skipped (or perhaps deliberately ignored) "C", but that's O.K. I know how to change the number of decimal points and rounding in conversion templates. You add a -1, 0, 1, 2, etc. after a pipe before the last pair of curly brackets. See Template:Convert, the Rounding section. Also, Checkingfax wrote up a nice set of examples at... Checkingfax, where is that example list that shows the various combinations of conversion templates and the corresponding results? Apokryltaros, I was just wondering how detailed the square km and sq mi numbers should be.  – Corinne (talk) 00:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, the Tiete Zone. I'm not sure what it is.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Corinne. Not sure about the example list. Can you remind me a bit more?

As for decimal points the template will assume you want the same output as the input. You only have to force it if you want something different. Like in this case: {{convert|12568.72|km2|sqmi|0}} the convert template would normally show the results to 2 decimal places, but by adding the 0 it will show none. If you wanted 1 decimal place instead of 2 you would do: {{convert|12568.72|km2|sqmi|-1}} (i.e.- 2-1=1). If the input was 12568.723 and you wanted 1 decimal place you would do -2 (i.e.- 3-2=1). Personally, I let the output precision meet the input precision. In this example I would leave the 0 out. I am by no means an expert on this yet, so correct me if I my interpretation of the template output is wrong. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 01:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Trapdoor spider

Yes, your edit to Trapdoor spider was quite correct. It seems to me that "trapdoor spider" isn't sufficiently precise to serve as an article title. I wonder about moving it to the scientific name, Ctenizidae. Any views? Peter coxhead (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it would be better to move it to "Ctenizidae," then make "trapdoor spider" its own article, what with that term covering several spiders of several families.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it may be that something like Banana spider, perhaps a little expanded, is the best solution. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Opabinia ‎

See my comment on the talk page - can you make an improvement/clarify the text? Jackiespeel (talk) 13:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Edestus

I was just looking at the pictures on your user page, and I was intrigued by the two images of Edestus. When I looked at the photo of the fossil, I couldn't tell which end was the head and which end was the tail, or end. I saw what looked like a set of teeth to the left, and what vaguely looks like a mouth to the right. Or is this not even a complete skeleton? If not, what is it?  – Corinne (talk) 01:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Almost all fossils of Edestus are of its teeth: because it is a cartilaginous fish, only the teeth were more or less guaranteed to survive, while the rest of the body disintegrated due to decay. A partial skull has been found to hint/show researchers how the teeth were articulated in life (like blades of a pinking shear).--Mr Fink (talk) 01:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Is that fossil just part of a jaw, then, with a few teeth toward the left end?  – Corinne (talk) 01:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, as the animal aged, the smaller/older teeth were pushed forward towards the tips of the jaws.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I just looked at the image again and realized that that is just one tooth, not a lot of small teeth.  – Corinne (talk) 02:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that's one tooth/unit.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Stomata types

Hi Mr. A! I have a need to extend the stomata article with information about types, as these are regularly mentioned in plant descriptions. But rather than words only, it would be much better to have sketchy drawings to explain. Could I ask you to make drawings of these types. Some examples may be found in the following websites and articles:1 2 3 4 Thank you in advance for considering. Kind regards, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do/draw.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Deer

Hi! I plan to rewrite this article carefully and take this to GA status, an article as important as deserves that at the least. How do you like this proposal? And thanks for all your amazing contributions to Wikipedia! Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 16:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a fabulous plan, Monsieur. Where do we start, and what would you have me contribute, @Sainsf:?--Mr Fink (talk) 17:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a great collaboration is on the way! I don't know how you contribute, please let me know how you would like to help. I am mainly a content developer, and will try to rewrite the whole article in the coming days. Chiswick Chap may like to help us with the "Interaction with humans" part, he is amazing at that and I hopeless... Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 17:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

If worse comes to worst, I can always contribute some prehistoric deer reconstructions.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I will be working on the Evolution section tomorrow, will see what we can use. Come on, you will be valuable! Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 18:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

salute--Mr Fink (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Treponema spirochetes

The article Treponema spirochetes has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. CatPath (talk) 17:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Precious

decorating the extinct

Thank you for enlivening the long extinct with impressive illustrations and your contributions to Wikipedia. This had been long overdue, but has only become better deserved, for you are an awesome Wikipedian!

Sainsf (talk · contribs) 08:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

A year ago, you were recipient no. 1372 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me!--Mr Fink (talk) 14:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Cameroceras extinction datum

Greetings!

I write this message in regard to the extinction datum on the Cameroceras page. Namely, both the first and (especially) second source give an incorrect stratigraphic range. A paper by the U.S. geological survey, "Middle and Upper Ordovician nautiloid cephalopods of the Cincinnati Arch region of Kentucky, Indiana, and Ohio"(Frey,1995), which is also cited as a source on the article, mentions several times the (quite common) occurrence of Cameroceras specimens in rocks as recent as the Richmondian age, and if I recall correctly, also mentions their existence near the O-S boundary, possibly even beyond the boundary. Therefore, I suggest moving the latest definite appearance date to the Hirnantian, 443 million years ago. Random995 (talk) 00:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Random995 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

@Random995:Then it would be necessary for us to provide this source for this change in order to update the information.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@Apokryltaros:Ah, I see the problem now. Although the source I mentioned is already in the article's references, I didn't actually cite it directly when stating the stratigraphic range. I'll remedy that.

@Apokryltaros:I've just changed the page and added the required citations. Is everything in place now?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Randon995 (talk • contribs)

Yes, yes it is now, thank you very much.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, I created these two items you can take a look? Thank you. I do not speak English: Geochelone burchardi and Geochelone vulcanica.--CanaryIslands (talk) 17:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

@CanaryIslands:- Thank you for letting me know about those two articles. You did an excellent job translating both articles, I adjusted the wording to make them read more fluently in English.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help.--CanaryIslands (talk) 07:25, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Because giving someone a bowl of strawaggregateaccessoryfruits would just be silly! JohannSnow (talk) 00:21, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I wish that was a real bowl of strawberries: chipmunks keep eating mine.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:00, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Carnassial

I was just looking at the article on Carnassial teeth, and I looked at the two videos in the section Carnassial#Carnassial dentition. I was puzzled as to why the caption said it was of an otter while the image file says "weasel".  – Corinne (talk) 22:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

It looked like a weasel skull, so I adjusted it accordingly.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Great! Thanks. I forgot to say it was the image on the left, but you found it.  – Corinne (talk) 23:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Good Dinosaur talk page

If you have a chance, please check out the discussion I started on The Good Dinosaur talk page and offer your thoughts. Thanks! Wikicontributor12 (talk) 03:04, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
	Your dinosaurs are incredible. Iazyges (talk) 04:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you!

A second opinion

Please take a look at Talk:List of dragons in film and television and tell me what you think about the points I made. Deltasim (talk) 14:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Can we please also have your thoughts on the listing of multiple dragons from series on the talk page as well? Thanks for the edit thanks!ShadowDragon343 (talk) 11:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Bowhead whale

Do you feel like responding to this edit summary at Bowhead whale?  – Corinne (talk) 04:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Just another whining wannabe scholar puffing his chest by pointing some perceived flaw without actually doing something constructive about it.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Elephant

Re: this. My apologies. Quite a few people have been asking for unprotection (most recently here), and I suppose I wanted to prove them wrong, which is causing more work for others. I saw your note on the talk page arguing against protection, and I agree with you in principle. I'll keep an eye on the page and will most likely re-protect it soon. Airplaneman ✈ 14:14, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

It's a high-profile page that's attractive to vandals even without the Stephen Colbert nonsense. Ah well, if I could survive Banana getting unprotected and re-protected, so with Elephant.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Aaaaaaand it's reprotected. I've also posted on the talk page affirming the need for an indef semi. Cheers, Airplaneman ✈ 03:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

salute--Mr Fink (talk) 03:54, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Anastomosis

Hello, Apokryltaros -- If you have time, would you mind reviewing these edits to Anastomosis? There are a few spelling mistakes, but I'm not sure about the rest. For example, I'm not sure whether the more concise (normally a good thing) version without "to be able" is as correct as the version with it.  – Corinne (talk) 22:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

To me, it reads fine even without "to be able." On the other hand, I always got the impression that we should avoid using contractions unless absolutely necessary.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

O.K. I defer to your judgment about that. I agree that "don't" should be "do not". It is clear the editor did not like:

• in areas in which a large blood supply is not needed,

but which do you prefer of these two alternatives:

• in areas that do not need a large blood supply

• in areas where a large blood supply is not needed

(that is, simply changing "in which" to "where").

I prefer "where a large blood supply is not needed". I think it's less clunky than "that do not need a large blood supply", but in this also I will defer to your judgment.  – Corinne (talk) 00:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

On second thought, I think I like "is not needed" better than "do not need," but, I don't recommend changing it back for a little bit, so as to not make it look like the first shots of an edit war.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

O.K.  – Corinne (talk) 03:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

uncivil editor at Ian.thomson

You might not have seen that the editor has been confirmed by a CheckUser as a sock puppet of Dimpz42 and blocked. Thanks for removing the post. Doug Weller talk 08:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

That's another reason to have given that schmuck the boot, then.--Mr Fink (talk) 13:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

engrailed (gene)

I am reading Evolutionary developmental biology, an article Chiswick Chap has been working on, and I was puzzled by the word "engrailed", so clicked on the link, and it led to engrailed (gene). I was surprised by how the word was used, as a noun with no article ("a" or "the") and in lower-case. Kind of unusual. I saw that there was another term where "engrailed" was capitalized. I also read the brief exchange at the top of the talk page, which probably explains the lower-case "engrailed" as the title of the article, but I noticed that in the heading for the talk page, the word is still capitalized. If the article title really should remain in lower-case, shouldn't the heading on the talk page also be in lower-case?  – Corinne (talk) 00:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I believe the italicized lowercase "engrailed" refers to the gene, whereas the capitalized, unitalicized "Engrailed" refers to the protein or gene-product of "engrailed"--Mr Fink (talk) 00:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I understand that lower-case refers to the gene and the capitalized, un-italicized "Engrailed" refers to the protein, etc., but now that the title of the article is engrailed (gene), shouldn't the heading on the related talk page be Talk:engrailed (gene) (or with "Talk" in Roman and the rest in italics), instead of Talk:Engrailed (gene)?  – Corinne (talk) 01:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

As far as I know, because engrailed is deliberately written in lowercase and italicized, that is why the article is titled as such.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

This situation isn't unusual. We have several articles where the first letter is lowercase and several that are partially or wholly italicised - at Engrailed (gene), we have both. This is done in the second line of wikitext, which is

{{DISPLAYTITLE:''engrailed'' (gene)}}

More information on this at WP:DISPLAYTITLE. The displayed name of the talk page is not slaved to that, and needs to be set independently: but it's not mandatory to do so. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

About Bear dog

Hello, this information could interrest you I think.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/10/bear-dogs-once-lived-southern-texas (Posted in: EvolutionPaleontologyPlants & Animals ; DOI:10.1126/science.aal0246)
--Lamiot (talk) 17:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you!--Mr Fink (talk) 20:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Evolutionary developmental biology

Hello, Apokryltaros -- If you haven't already seen it, you might be interested in this discussion: Talk:Evolutionary developmental biology#History in non-history chapter.  – Corinne (talk) 14:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:48, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Apokryltaros. 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)

Diurnality

Hello, Apokryltaros -- I was just looking at the latest edit to Diurnality. I was pondering the necessity of commas before "while" in both sentences when I realized, first, that I was not crazy about two sentences in a row with "while" clauses, and then that the first of the two sentences did not make much sense. Here are the two sentences:

• Different behaviors may occur at different times of year; diurnality is a cycle of activity with a twenty-four-hour period, while other cyclic activities are described as circadian rhythms. Animals active at dawn or dusk are described as crepuscular, while those active at night are nocturnal.

I clicked on the link at circadian rhythms, and I read this sentence:

• Processes with 24-hour oscillations are more generally called diurnal rhythms; strictly speaking, they should not be called circadian rhythms unless their endogenous nature is confirmed.

Thus, it seems that both diurnality and circadian rhythms describe activity that takes place over a 24-hour period. The difference seems to be in the presence or absence of an endogenous nature. I think the clause "while other cyclic activities are described..." doesn't really say much. There is a little bit at the end of the first paragraph in Diurnality#In animals, but I think that sentence in the lead could be a little clearer.

I also don't see the connection between "Different behaviors may occur at different times of year" and what follows it. It may be true, but if there is no direct connection with "diurnality is a cycle of activity...", there is no reason to join them with a semi-colon. What does "different behaviors may occur at different times of year" have to do with diurnality?

Do you see what I mean? Can you help to make these sentences make more sense?  – Corinne (talk) 04:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Diurnality differs from circadian rhythms in that diurnality is not endogenous, whereas circadian rhythms are. Let me think about it.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Cephalaspis

Would you be interested in doing anything to flesh out Cephalaspis#Evolutionary history and phylogeny? That section is in a rather sad state. Plantdrew (talk) 03:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Certainly. At the very least, I can dig up some references, too.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Plantdrew: what do you think so far?--Mr Fink (talk) 04:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Much better. Plantdrew (talk) 04:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

salute--Mr Fink (talk) 05:49, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

removal of threads on ID

I'm very uneasy with simply removing threads, as you did on ID for 2602:306:3653:8440:b90e:cc8c:6b12:7ec1. I think better to do as McSly did, say "see above", and close the thread instead. Such automatic removal, should it become common, could be dreadfully abused. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 16:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I've dealt with these Trolls For Jesus before throughout the years, and they always bring the exact same attempt at argument about how Wikipedia is wrong and evil because it is not a copyright-infringing mirror of Answers In Genesis or The Discovery Institute or some other anti-science propaganda mill for Jesus. And if they can not be bothered to read the boiler plate template warnings against using the talkpages for forum threads or Anti-Wikipedia screeds, then we must not baby them or reward them by preserving their pointless temper tantrums for all posterity, as per WP:DENY--Mr Fink (talk) 21:15, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

In terms of policy, I'm not sure there was enough in what they have said to invoke WP:FORUM (yet), which is why I'm uneasy. In terms of expectation of constructive argument, I certainly don't anticipate anything fruitful to come out of it — at best another Poodleboygate — so I'm still not sure whether to admonish you for shooting first and asking question never, or thank you for preemptively saving us a lot of time and blood pressure spikes. In doubt, I'll just leave it at that and bid you good <whatever is appropriate for your time zone>. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 21:45, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

You're overreacting on Intelligent Design talk. Just observe WP:TALKO, and if there is a rant, then the approach is to hat it. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Maybe I am overreacting, or maybe I don't want people to deal with having to deal with yet another Anti-Science Troll For Jesus ranting on and on and on about how Wikipedia is the liberal armpit of Satan for not being shamelessly pro-Creationism.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll suggest just having a some additional smaller hammers options for response ready. For this one, it was a short TALK bit with response by two other editors, nothing article or imminent disaster, so maybe add a third line highlighting the contentious history or perhaps leaving it as already handled might have been better. I'll suggest that if it goes to a screen-plus rant then it's due for a closing hat, and only go to delete for something where WP:TALKO says to. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

All right.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Triggerfish

Sorry about the edit. I was not meaning to vandaliza. I just thought the ip editor made a WP:good faith edit adding mythology. Doesn't Wikipedia deal with the anciet myths about animals? 2600:1:F146:981A:EC02:B27C:95CE:356D (talk) 00:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia deals with actual ancient myths about animals that have been verified and documented, yes, and not blatant bullshit nonsense made up by childish vandals who insist on ruining articles with their inanity.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Relevance

To do with West Africa, or at least talk about Western chimpanzees, since both are apes, no? Leo1pard (talk) 05:59, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Tenuously, yes, but, other subspecies of gorilla would be more relevant.--Mr Fink (talk) 06:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

It's a wonderful time of the year!

Christmas tree worms live under the sea...they hide in their shells when they see me, So with camera in hand I captured a few, and decorated them to share with you. Atsme📞📧 15:40, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Festive!--Mr Fink (talk) 15:53, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Illustration of Attercopus

Re your illustration of Attercopus at File:Attercopus fimbriunguis.jpg, it's good to have an illustration, but on my monitor the contrast between the blackish animal and the brown background is such that at the taxobox size, I can't see it. (I keep my screen calibrated using a hardware calibrator, so it's not my setup that's the problem.) Could you improve the contrast, please? Peter coxhead (talk) 09:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: I will get on it: would making the background more chartreuse-y help?--Mr Fink (talk) 14:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not good at colour names, so I'm not sure why more chartreuse-y would be like! Basically the background needs to be a lighter brown, I think; a colour on which black text stood out would also work for the black animal.

Currently like this

Black still doesn't stand out

Better something like this?

Peter coxhead (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: How about now?--Mr Fink (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Much better! Peter coxhead (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Hooray!--Mr Fink (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

IP Hopping vandal

Thanks for explaining. Please assume good faith unless the addition is obviously vandalism. And if it is, explain why in summary. Just because he has a reputation for "inserting garbage" does not make all of his edits "garbage". Furthermore, IPs are often shared, so it may not be the same person. 2600:1:F141:193E:69FE:B75C:4DB7:E763 (talk) 04:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I've dealt with this particular vandal for years and years and years, and it is just easier to undo all of its edits as soon it's identity is recognized, especially since it has favorite pages it likes to haunt, as sifting through all of this IP-hopping vandal's edits to search for those precious, precious few edits that are not so poorly written so as to be totally unreadable, or are not blatant original research nonsense, or blatantly counterfactual is tantamount to sifting for gold in sewage.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Mikasa Ackermann

Why did you call Mikasa Ackermann a moron troll? He appears to be a new editor adding to the List of fictional horses article. I reverted because you made the personal "moron" attack, but you gave no reason for reverting. Please tell me why. I am not hounding you. I just wish new editors were treated civilly and not called a "moron troll" for one possibly good faith edit. If they make a mistake, politely explain, but don't revert rudely assuming bad faith. So, why did you revert him? Remember, don't bite the newcomers, although I personally am no regular member of Wikipedia. 2600:1:F154:909C:D496:EABB:4B91:1C6B (talk) 01:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Mikasa Ackermann reinserted vandalism back into List of fictional horses, i.e., that "Jean Kirsch8tein, from Shingeki no Kyojin" is a horse, which is a blatant contradiction the source material. I'm assuming bad faith on his part because he's the latest in a string of over a dozen troll vandals who have been trying to insert, reinsert and edit-war to put this inane vandalism into the article over the course of several months starting last year, many of whom are IP vandals who made accounts solely to circumvent the page protection on the article, which would be quite clear after even a brief examination of List of fictional horses' edit history. And I'm not fond of wasting courtesy on people who blatantly seek to vandalize Wikipedia for their own inane pleasure.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for explanation. If it gets really bad, you could semiprotect the page. And there is no need to be rude. Just say in summary "Jean Kirsh8tein is not a horse according to source" or something along that line. And if its too long to say so in summary, you can always copy and paste the summary each time he strikes. So, try to stay polite even if the editors are in bad faith. Furthermore there, is always the intervention against vandalism board. Cheers. 2600:1:F154:909C:D496:EABB:4B91:1C6B (talk) 02:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Metatheria

I was just looking at the article on Metatheria, and I found the first sentences somewhat confusing. Here it is:

• Metatheria is one of two mammalian clades, the other being Eutheria, with extant members that diverged in the Early Cretaceous or perhaps the Late Jurassic, and which includes all mammals more closely related to marsupials than to placentals.

It's not clear whether "with extant members that diverged in the Early Cretaceous..." applies only to Metatheria or to both Metatheria and Eutheria. I assume "which includes all mammals more closely related to marsupials than to placentals" refers only to Metatheria, but with all the qualifying phrases before this clause, the sentence is a little confusing. Can you think of a wording that would be a little clearer?  – Corinne (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and excise that phrase altogether, as it makes the lede too difficult to understand.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Acristatherium

I noticed there was no image in Acristatherium. I found some on Google. Would any of them be appropriate for the article?  – Corinne (talk) 23:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Are the images in the original research paper allowable to use?--Mr Fink (talk) 23:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Saccorhytus coronarius.jpg

Hi, you uploaded this file on Commons few days ago. You indicated that it is an own work. Is it true or does it come from another work? If it is true, then some websites do not cite you as the author. Pamputt (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand, it's my own work, and I've released it for use under the creative commons license.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Manipulating one of your images...

Hi, I will at some point nominate Rodrigues parrot for FAC, so thanks for your restoration, but I'd like to ask for a modification, or whether it's ok I do it myself... The thing is, the image appears to show N. borbonicus[4] in the same tree, a species that, if it even existed, lived on a different island (Réunion), making the image geographically confused, you could say. It also shows a green tail, even though the only description says the tail was "the colour of fire". I have already modified the image before by making the head of the Rodrigues parrot larger (according to sources), so I was thinking that I could maybe change the misplaced, hypothetical bird into another Rodrigues parrot? Or would you like to do it yourself? FunkMonk (talk) 00:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

It's a very old picture of mine. @FunkMonk: would you mind waiting a week while I make and color a newer image?--Mr Fink (talk) 01:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be great too! Want any sources? Apart from the fossil images in the articles, these paintings[5][6][7] by Julian Hume should give good sense of the colours and proportions (though he suggests it would have had a red bill in one of his articles). And it supposedly may have looked like a great billed parrot, just with a longer tail and larger head. FunkMonk (talk) 01:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I have the book Hume's paintings are in! And just to make sure, Rodrigues parrot had no red in its plumage, whereas the Bourbon parrot had a red head and tail.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, the green and red Réunion parrot, if it was an endemic species at all, may nothave been related to the Rodrigues parrot... FunkMonk (talk) 03:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

• Just saw the new uploaded version, looks good! One thing, though, is whether we should stick to the colour scheme that the bird has previously been depicted with? In the new image, the coloration looks much like that of Newton's parakeet (a sort of blue green), whereas Hume has depicted it as a more "plain" green. Perhaps also more yellowish eyes, as in other psittaculines. The beak also seems a bit robust and blunt compared to the fossils[8], but perhaps this is too late to fix? FunkMonk (talk) 09:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:31, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Just help me to

Extrapolaris is recently removing the names or making false reports like squalodon only lives in Miocene (the reason is he says specimens in Westphalia labeled squalodon so may be distinct but squalodon barbrus and other species of squalodon were Oligocene animals, actually He even shortened theriosuchus' range! Fossils of theriosuchus also occurs in Jurassic beds. But he still says it's only from Cretaceous but it actually lives in Jurassic to Cretaceous, I'm edit warring with Extrapolaris, can't you let the names of the extinct or prehistoric animals stay as their names and stop letting extrapolaris destroying pages? Now you are my HERO although you wrecked my edits in Orthoceras, now I should realize that it only lives in the Ordovician beds of the northern hemisphere. Help me! Sincerely - Justcallmesam Feb 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justcallmesam (talk • contribs) 12:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Dickinsonia/Proarticulata In or Outside of Bilateria

My small commentary to D.A. Gold et al.. (2015). "Ancestral state reconstruction of ontogeny supports a bilaterian affinity for Dickinsonia". Evolution & Development. 17 (6): 315–397. (free PDF). I will remove those links after a while. Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC))

Thanks very much for the heads up and paper!--Mr Fink (talk) 15:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Guandong

This province is actually spelled "Guangdong" with a G before the D. Abyssal (talk) 02:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Can we delete it and replace it with the correct spelling?--Mr Fink (talk) 02:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Wordsighn

Sorry about the talk page I just did not understand why hedgehog were illegal and I also did not know that was inappropriate sorry once again for that . I am glad that you gave me a second chance . I hope that this does not happen again and you will be just as nice in the future . Yours Truly , Wordsighn Wordsighn (talk) 16:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Wordsighn: Thank you for the show of no hard feelings. Please remember that article talkpages are for discussing how to improve the article, and are not forum threads to post exclamations.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the second Chance I will keep that in mind ☺

Wordsighn (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Hancock Park

Hello, Apokryltaros - I'm nearly finished copy-editing Dire wolf, and I was reading some linked articles when I came across the article on Hancock Park. There is a paragraph that does not read well and thus does not make much sense. I'm wondering if you could smooth it out. It is the second-to-last paragraph in Hancock Park#History. It begins, "It was not until 1901".  – Corinne (talk) 14:53, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I just realized that the article has two "History" sections. It's the second "History" section.  – Corinne (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I decided to remove the first "History" section, as it's nothing but a duplicate of the first paragraph of the 2nd "History" section.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. This is the paragraph that needs attention. If you read it carefully, you will see that there are problems.

It was not until 1901 that the bones on the Hancock Ranch were recognized as fossils of prehistoric animals by William Warren Orcutt, a prominent Los Angeles geologist and petroleum pioneer. that the bones were (again) recognized as fossils of extinct animals Orcutt collected saber-toothed cat, dire wolf, ground sloth and other fossils from the site that the scientific community recognized the value of the La Brea Tar Pits in understanding the late Pleistocene fauna and flora of North America. Orcutt eventually gave his fossil collection to John Campbell Merriam of the University of California.

 – Corinne (talk) 01:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Nimravidae

I was just looking at the Nimravidae and reading about parallel evolution, and I thought it would be helpful if there were an artist's rendering of what paleontologists think the animal looked like so as to compare with the Saber-toothed cat and other "cats". There is one image showing an artist's rendering of a Nimravidae large "cat" chasing prey, but it is so small that it is hard to see the details. Is there any chance you could find such a rendering and add it to this article?  – Corinne (talk) 02:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I have a drawing of Quercylurus and Eusmilus I'm working on coloring [9] you think it would be useful for the article?--Mr Fink (talk) 02:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Ooo, yes! One is a false sabre-tooth and the other is a real sabre-tooth, right? I look forward to seeing it.  – Corinne (talk) 03:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC) I'm trying to understand this (without having read all the articles carefully yet). There was an animal that originally (i.e., its ancestors) was quite different from the sabre-toothed "cat" (which is related to modern "cats") but developed into an animal that was quite similar to the sabre-toothed "cat". (Something about the ear being quite different in the two.) Is that parallel evolution? It sounds like convergent evolution. Sigh. So much to learn.  – Corinne (talk) 03:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, both of them are nimravids. I need to get to work on a comparison of a nimravid and a true felid, then.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Help citing a website

Hi Ahecht, i need help citing a website in a foreign language: http://mayatan.web.fc2.com/bunrui.htm or the google translated page: https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fmayatan.web.fc2.com%2Fbunrui.htm&sandbox=1.

I havent seen an information that i could use to cite this website, but it lists a very comprehensive list of fish species and their synonyms both extinct and living. Videsh Ramsahai (talk) 23:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Generally speaking, whenever I have problems using a citation I need to use, I just type in along the lines of

<ref name=untranslatableexample>https://www.elexampleohere.com "Título no traducido"</ref>

and either leave it for a more knowledgeable editor, or then actively go ask help from a more knowledgeable editor. I hope I could help.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Mastodon

I don't think this edit to Mastodon is an improvement, but:

(a) some non-expert readers might not realize that "reported" means "reported in the scientific literature" and so think it is not the right verb to use; and

(b) I think the name of the extinct animal should be used at the beginning of a new section rather than a pronoun, don't you?

I've gone ahead and re-worded the sentence. I hope "mastodon" is the right word to begin the sentence. If you prefer "is generally reported" to "is generally thought", perhaps it would help non-expert readers if we add "in the scientific literature" after "generally reported": "is generally reported in the scientific literature".  – Corinne (talk) 01:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I re-reworded it to make it more concrete-yet-diplomatic sounding.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's much better.  – Corinne (talk) 16:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Micropaleontology

I was just reading Micropaleontology, linked on the main page, and I wanted to ask you about two things:

1) Since the link is given in connection with a new discovery of microfossils, wouldn't it make sense to mention that discovery in this article?

2) Next to the small sections treating each type of microfossil is an image of "Fossil nummulitid foraminiferans". At the end of the caption is a "citation needed" tag. Do you see the necessity for that tag? The information in the caption is taken from the image file (but there is a "citation needed" tag there, too).  – Corinne (talk) 19:58, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I removed the tag as, from my experience, it's inappropriate to put such a tag in an illustration caption, as you don't use an illustration of dubious origin in the first place. As for the first issue, yes, it would be appropriate to mention and or discuss the discovery in the article.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and your edits. I don't generally add content, so am hesitant to do so. Even if I could summarize the recent discovery (from the other linked article), I don't know if the same reference could be used. I think I'll leave it to you.  – Corinne (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

The same reference would be used: BTW, which discovery are we talking about in the article?--Mr Fink (talk) 22:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

List of Fictional Bears Edit

I think that I discussed the mascots on the talk page for the List of Fictional Bears page on Wikipedia. I spent a long time editing that and adding a lot of mascots for companies with bears. I do not understand why it was removed. Please discuss it on the talk page first. thank you for your understanding. Name13013 (talk) 01:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Actinopterygii, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Leaf fish (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) 10:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Dog

Apparently somewhere I read the incorrect name for the Lead section. That was my intention. I will revise my tag. Thank you. Russty11 (talk) 21:18, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:37, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

[[10]]

The user you reverted edited the same article[[11]] again. He seems to have added sources this time. I brought it here cause I am not sure if he is constructive or not. 2600:1:F14C:E4FA:10B9:7470:B6B6:10F2 (talk) 03:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Black-necked spitting cobra

After seeing a brief comment on Casliber's talk page, I started reading the article on Black-necked spitting cobra. At the end of the first paragraph in the lead, I see this sentence:

• The venom irritates the skin (blisters with little immunity) and can cause permanent blindness if it enters the eyes and after been bitten (neorotoxin).

I wondered whether "neorotoxin" were a typo or some toxin I had never heard of.  – Corinne (talk) 18:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

It should be "neurotoxin."--Mr Fink (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

That's what I figured, and I saw "neurotoxin" later in the article as I was copy-editing. I'm sorry I had to override your edit; I got an edit conflict, and since I had made so many small edits, I didn't want to lose my work. I then re-added your newly revised sentence. Thanks for your attention. (What do you think of the section heading at Casliber's talk page? User talk:Casliber#black-necked spitting cobra in europe (spreading) Is it really spreading into Europe?)  – Corinne (talk) 18:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

No worries, plus, I strongly doubt it, as the claim-maker in question looks like your typical original-research hack who goes "it's so because I said so."--Mr Fink (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks!  – Corinne (talk) 14:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Why were my edits reverted?

Why were my edits reverted? I modified the Cryptozoology article to have it represent a truly neutral point of view, as reflected in the sources. The present article, following the reversion of my modifications, misrepresents the sources cited, none of which explicitly state that it is a pseudoscience, but instead say something's like "Widely regarded as pseudoscience" or "Ranges from pseudoscientific to useful and interesting, depending upon how it is practiced", or something to that effect. And I cited sources, none of which could be called fringe or CZ proponents, for my changes. May I ask, why should the article go back to what it was before: biased original research that contradicts what mainstream scientific and skeptical sources have to say about the matter? 68.225.173.217 (talk) 00:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Your phrase "currently infiltrated by pseudoscience" doesn't sound very neutral to begin with, nor does it sound helpful in providing an accurate assessment the current state of cryptobiology on why it's not actually a pseudoscience, among other things.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Homo floresiensis

Hello, Apokryltaros – I was just skimming the article on Homo floresiensis, and I came across something I wanted to ask you about. The seventh paragraph in the lead (counting the first short one as one paragraph) begins:

• Two orthopedic researches published in 2007 reported evidence to support species status for H. floresiensis.

I don't recall seeing "research" used in a countable sentence (with a singular and a plural form) – "researches". At least in the U.S., it is always an uncountable noun, with no plural form. Is this a British English usage? You're more familiar with the scientific literature than I am, but I thought we would either use "research" or "a study/studies". If it is British English usage, and the article is written in British English, then of course we'd leave it alone, but if the article is written in American English or the plural "researches" is unacceptable, perhaps this ought to be changed.

Regarding the variant of English used, I see in edit mode it says to use "dmy" dates, which is British E. date style. I then did a search of -or/-our words and -ize/-ise words in the article. I found no -our words, and I only found one -ise of the type that would determine the variant of English ("criticise", third paragraph in Homo floresiensis#Endemic cretinism hypothesis section) but many -ize words (including "criticize"), so there is some inconsistency.

What do you think?

Also, I was puzzled by something in the "Life timeline" graphic in the Discovery section. It shows Flowers above Mammals, indicating that the earliest flowers developed after mammals were already present. I looked for earliest existence dates in Mammal and Flowering plant, and it looks like flowers appeared even before the earliest mammals, so I'm puzzled by this.  – Corinne (talk) 03:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

1. It should be "study/studies," rather than "research/researches," as, there can be more than one study, whereas "researches" is a verb-form.

Thanks. That's what I thought.

1. Eventually, it would seem we would need to go through and British-size that article.
2. The earliest true flowering plants appear during the Cretaceous, though, plenty of flower-like plants, including the ancestors of true flowering plants and transitional forms between these ancestral pre-flowers and their ancestral gymnosperms, are known since the Triassic.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!  – Corinne (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Cold seep

Just in case you don't have Cold seep on your watchlist, perhaps you could disambiguate the link. See [12].  – Corinne (talk) 19:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Azadirachta indica

Hello, Apokryltaros - I was just looking at the article on Azadirachta indica. In the Azadirachta indica#Other uses section, in the item headed "Tree", there is a citation needed tag regarding the tree serving as a "carbon-dioxide sink". I thought you might be able to find a source.  – Corinne (talk) 20:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Merger discussion for List of Dimetrodon species and Dimetrodon borealis

Articles that you have been involved in editing—List of Dimetrodon species and Dimetrodon borealis —have been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. 65.255.88.233 (talk) 01:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

New reply

Hello, Apokryltaros. You have new messages at Talk:Dimetrodon.
Message added 23:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.