User talk:Cephal-odd

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, Cephal-odd, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  - UtherSRG (talk) 06:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Cephal-Odd. I came across a page on the articles for creation list Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/2006-08-23 that is not yet reviewed. To my it seems a valid and worthwhile contribution to wikipedia. But I'm not an expert in this area. I see that you made a lot of contributions in this field. So perhaps you could look at it? The article is named Ellesmerocerida /Cephalopoda. thanks. Sander123 15:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:Summit Ave[edit]

You mentioned that you have references to demonstrate noteworthiness for the Summit Ave article- do you think you could discuss them on the articles for deletion page or add them to the article itself? when the discussion was going on for Nottingham Co-op we added a bunch of references and i think it helped the eventual decision to keep. Acornwithwings 06:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

oh, nm i see you are doing that.  :) Acornwithwings 06:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion. Encouraged by the successful addition of documentation to the Nottingham article, I did add two more references to the Summit article. But in the end Summit arguably isn't as noteworthy a community center, since it hasn't hosted concerts or meetings of organizations. I'm glad things worked out for the Nottingham article, though. Cheers, Cephal-odd 15:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

article for creation[edit]

Hi. I didn't know about the article for creation list either. I stumbled across it when searching for info on orthoceras. I appears to be a list where unregistered users, who can't create pages yet can submit their pages until they are picked up by seasoned users. I guess you make it an article at the appropriate place and give credit in the edit summary, or on the discussion page. Thanks for picking it up! Bye Sander123 13:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


When you say that the shell of Tommotia is now considered to be a single sclerite, and that the original animal is believed to have had a whole suite of them, would it have looked something akin to Halkeriia or Orthrozanclus?--Mr Fink (talk) 18:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC) Nevermind! I have found a reconstruction [1] at Palaeos.--Mr Fink (talk) 19:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I apologize in the long time in getting to this, but, what do you think of the inked version so far? [2] ?--Mr Fink (talk) 04:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
If all goes according to schedule, I'll have Tommotia colored and ready to be re-uploaded this week.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Fossil range[edit]

I know you mean well. Believe me, I do, because I just was doing this for several articles the other day until someone stopped me.

While it's very tempting, please don't simply add a fossil range. Even if a daughter taxon's article explicitly states the fossil record and cites it, you can't carry it to the parent article without citing the source.

What you can do: cite your source by adding a link, as here:

|fossil_range = [[Eocene]] - Recent []

Remember that it's also important, even it it seems redundant, to put this information in the article somewhere. I usually create a subheader somewhere titled "Fossil record" and list the oldest known fossil (including the era) and the same with the newest, if appropriate. Also, mention what species this was. Be sure, again, to cite your source. If you cite it in the article, you don't need to cite it in the fossil_range.

Keep up the good work.

Happy tagging...Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


Hi, see my rambling reply at Talk:Orthrozanclus. Summary: the subject of the Halwaxiida is a mess; Conway Morris & Caron (2007) ssems to shift its ground (would not pass GA review!); precision about terms is not going to dispel the fog. --Philcha (talk) 06:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


...for your help with the article anteater.

* Southern limit of the distribution of the green anaconda[edit]

Good evening:

Please allow me to share an article with you. Maybe you will find it interesting: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 13:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)