@Lythronaxargestes: I apologize for not heeding the repeated requests for me to stop bolding. I had not refreshed in a while and therefore I did not notice your or Lusotitan's notifications, so I simply assumed that some kind of formatting error was responsible for my boldings becoming undone. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 02:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, if you change the parent of Yandangithiformes from Aves to Avialae (as you did at Template:Taxonomy/Yandangithiformes), then it can't be treated as an order, because in the "dinosaur classification", the order is Saurischia. It can be an order if the parent is left as Aves, because the "bird classification" deliberately skips this taxon. Compare the right hand table at Template:Taxonomy/Aves with the one at Template:Taxonomy/Avialae. So you can choose "order + parent Aves" or "clade + parent Avialae", but you can't choose "order + parent Avialae". I'm not competent to say which of the two is best here. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're entirely correct, I just left it as an order because the paper did. This is an issue related to the transition from the old, inclusive phenetic definition of birds (like Aves) to modern cladistic definitions, such as Avialae. The Yandangornis paper relied on older definitions and therefore some of its classifications (such as the creation of the order Yandangithiformes) are outdated and do not fit in with the current definition of order from a cladistic standpoint. But regardless, you're right to remove the order label from Yandangithiformes, even if doing so is not explicitly supported by any source. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 17:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jesairosaurus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Generic name (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.)
Sorry it took so long but no. I used to have an account known as wage gap but i forget the password two or 3 days after i started it. This was a few weeks ago. I started buublesorg a little bit after that. (User talk: Bubblesorg)
Hello Bubblesorg, I am (User talk: Richard.sutt). Please make sure you're writing in proper grammar and using the preview button. I am not you but if you continue to get into edit wars it will be bad for the both of us. We have a different IP address and everything but please follow the instructions of the administrators. I made the mistake of getting into edit wars and it could have cost me. For example, sign your messages. Richard.sutt (talk) 20:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Rhinesuchidae you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dunkleosteus77 -- Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 00:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Fanboyphilosopher. 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.
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hynerpeton you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dunkleosteus77 -- Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 04:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An article you recently created, Intertemporal bone, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CASSIOPEIA(talk)09:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Intertemporal bone, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nyctosauridae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alcione (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.)
Hi, thank you for notice me about this, I'll take your advise in consideration for future remades, I apologize if you got bothered/surprised by the change to your illustration, just wanted to improve it. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 02:54, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Im sorry for my bad behavior, but that Ip user is not me. But how do I reinstate trust with the community. I will try to make better edits, most of the time i am at school and I get distracted and make edits quickly so i don't get caught, thats why they are not very good. I will make eidts during the right time and will try to be more helpful like the time I was helping on basilosaurus. I dont want trouble and I will be nice and civil, but i cant have non cooparation from you like dunk, who said some Canadian Ip was me ( i dont like being accused). If you can actually help me, like really dont loose it on me, then I will be nicer and try to build something. I also talked with the guy who blocked me and he said I should just let it go, so that s my first step.--Bubblesorg (talk) 02:31, 14 October 2019 (UTC)?[reply]
We are rightfully suspicious because you have been caught doing these things in the past. I've been cooperating with you, but I agree with Dunk's points that you are acting similarly to the IP. Even though Ponyo doesn't see any overlap, I do. I think that the best direction going forward would be an SPI, but I don't exactly know how those are handled in regards to IPs. In the meantime, think carefully about every edit you make and the message it will send. Conversations with other new or anonymous accounts will instantly remind us of your Heynodonmiocene stunt, so I would recommend keeping those to a minimum. And if we warn you against making sockpuppets you will have to comply, if any new suspicious accounts appear and are traceable back to you, you will be banned. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 15:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and I said this to Funkmonk and I will also say this to you "Okay so you say dromeosaur (whatever hes name is) and edaphosaurus is me. However lets take this into considration, Starting with dromeo, hes account dates back to 2010, im 14-15 years old (not giving my real age for security reasons), I would have been 5-6 years old when dromeosaur was on this site. Considering i did not know how to create a wikipedia acount till 2018 and I lived in Singapore and dromeosaur seems to have lived in America, what are the odds. Next edaphosaurus, a user whos account dates back to 2014. Now given the fact I lived in Chicago at the time and I was 10 year old with adhd who was more concerend about godzilla, again what are the odds. Oh and final, his last edits seem to be 2017 (forgive me if I am wrong), I was active only a year later in 2018. Another thing Edaphosaurus may live in washington, but the population of that state is around 7.58, and the odds are stacked against him being me. The Ip as you and Funkmonk have stated is from canada and is unlikely to be me. So given all this evidence, what do you have to say? Or do we ditch all this information. I mean I am pretty big on privacy and I have given you this information, so I mean I am not just tossing it lightly"-me--Bubblesorg (talk) 17:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Its okay bro you are good. You dont have apologize, although Im thankful. Dont worry about it, lets just move one and we can improve my performance --Bubblesorg (talk) 19:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few grammatical and spelling issues (like mixing up "undescribed" with "unsubscribed") and issues with citations. In addition, you don't need to put the full description of an image in the taxobox, just a basic caption. I prefer using "Visual editing" (rather than "Source editing") when adding in citations, and I would recommend you do the same. For example, you shouldn't add in a new reference for a source every time you cite it, instead use the "re-use" feature attached to the cite button. The cite button also allows you to put in automatic citations, so you can keep a consistent formatting and create links. Automatic citations aren't always perfect for some sites, but I think they'll work for the sources you're using. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 19:37, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's decent enough, though I recommend doing your edits in large chunks rather than tiny increments. A flood of new tiny edits can be considered suspicious activity because it's harder to track changes than one big edit. That's one of the strategies that vandals or people engaging in edit wars like using. If you check up on Wikiproject:Paleontology, Symmetrolestes is at the top of the edit count with 52 edits, which draws unwanted attention to yourself. If you're not confident in your ability to make big edits in one go, try creating your next article in your sandbox, where numerous edits are unlikely to look suspicious. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 15:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thats why people thought I was a vandal, I should have realized, I use Microsoft Word before I put it into Wikipedia, but the sandbox should work.--Bubblesorg (talk) 17:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
It's controversial in multiple regards, as the human rights issues should not be ignored. The whole situation gives me a headache, but thank you anyways. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 14:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Hi Fanboyphilosopher. I recently regained access to my old Wikipedia account and have tried to improve my old drawings as I have improved some of my artistic skills over the years (artistry is a process of learning). I was aware that there could be problems with the drawing "Tawa hallae dino 01.JPG" back when I made it (especially the angle/shape of the head and legs), but it seemed to gain partial approbal at the image review page back then). As I was editing, I wanted to see when it was removed from the article at english Wikipedia. You removed my drawings in 2019 because you found them "ugly and inaccurate".
You have the right to judge my drawings as "ugly and inaccurate", but I would appreciate if you could tell me why you think so (I have never had the balls to tell someone that his/her drawings are ugly :-) ). (Conty~enwiki06:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I want to apologize for my statement, my phrasing was incredibly rude now that I look back on it. I never expected the images to be edited past their circa-2010 appearance, but now that you are here, I greatly appreciate the work you have been doing to improve your art. The edits you've made to the dino 01.jpg image look good, and you've already removed most of the problematic areas (exposed teeth, sharp scutes, strange proportions). I would recommend hiding the remaining exposed teeth, removing the edge of the antorbital fenestra, and shifting the ear hole forwards. Truth be told, the anatomy of Tawa has not been published on in detail, so most of my conclusions on its proportions are based on the skeletal published in Nesbitt et al. (2009). Based on that skeletal, the head and thigh may be a bit too short in your art. If all these edits are made to the therapsid.png image as well, we'll be in a good spot. Though do be aware that the Chinle Formation is unusually deprived of therapsid fossils, with only a few aberrant taxa known. So they were likely rare members of the fauna. But regardless, keep up the good work. Your will to improve is very admirable. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 17:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rude or not, but was it something particular that was ugly (apology accepted, just to make sure)? Regarding the thigh in "Tawa hallae therapsid.png", part of the femoral head and socket is fairly high up on the body (see skeletal drawing from the paper) and covered by tissue. I will think about the remaining teeth, fenestra etc. in the next update. (Conty~enwiki05:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, we seem to be the only two editors with interest in the weird and mostly obscure Eugeneodontids. I was wondering if you were interested in collaborating to get Helicoprion to GA, or maybe even FA? Significant research on the taxon has been published in the last decade, including the redescription of only known specimen that preseves the jaw cartilage [1] and a study focusing on the function of the whorl [2], of which the latter is not even cited in the article yet. The article has some structural issues that also need to be addressed, but I don't think will be too difficult. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really know too much about eugeneodontids and I may not be consistently available to help improve articles on them, but I'll see what I can do. And that gif is nice, I think it's decent enough to use. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 23:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, I don't think anyone knows much about the eugeneodontids, given their pretty scrappy fossil record. Even the 2019 paper says that the two main families Agassizodontidae (=Helicoprionidae) and Edestidae are essentially morphological classifications, stating that "phylogenetic details are still in their infancy owing to a general lack of cranial and post‐cranial characters among these fossil sharks" Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to be heading in the right direction, though there is still a lot of work to be done. Maybe "side view" can be replaced with "right lateral view" and put below the illustrations. We'll need to have some white space on the bottom edge for visual balance, and to fix the tip of the meckel's cartilage, which is cut off by the edge of the figure. The structures at the back of the dorsal view look much wider than in any reconstruction I've seen, in fact I don't believe the jaw suspension has ever been illustrated in dorsal view. Moreover, the articulation between the meckel's cartilage and the palatoquadrate lacks the two-part connection seen in the fossil. Are you using both the CT scan in Tapanila et al. (2013) and the graphical reconstructions in Ramsay et al. (2014)? I'll continue work on my skull diagram, so we can discuss both the diagrams and the Dmitry Bogdanov life restoration on the paleoart review page. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 01:06, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's based off the reconstruction given in figure 3 of Saws, Scissors, and Sharks: Late Paleozoic Experimentation with Symphyseal Dentition published in 2018. It looks pretty similar to the reconstruction present in the video. The main difference I note from the previous reconstructions is that the labial cartilage is assumed to be distorted and given a smooth shape, rather than the odd undulating shape present in the CT scan. I recall reading somewhere where it was noted that the back of the jaw widens to be for the flow of water through the gills, but I can't find the specific ref for this at this time. It might be worth just doing a direct labelled drawing of the CT-scan to compliment the reconstruction, as that shows the specific articulation points much better than the reconstructions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure where the labial cartilage is implied to be distorted, since the CT scan already corrects for displaced fragments. The CGI reconstruction in Tapanila et al. (2018) might be a schematic model rather than a fully accurate recreation of the CT data, since it has some discrepancies (like a short palatine ramus and the lack of the characteristic "limiting process" on the meckel's cartilage). Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 02:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly sure it is supposed to be a schematic model. While somewhat off topic, as I was reading about the identification of "Caseodus" from the Triassic of the Sulphur Mountain Formation, I found this paper about the neutron scanning of the specimen, by the same authors that had described the specimen and referred it to Caseodus. They seemed much more cautious about the identification. As although the lateral dentition was almost identical to Caseodus, the upper jaw had "roof shaped" symphysial teeth more similar to Aggasizodontid Sarcoprion. It's clearly a eugeneodontid of some sort, but I'm not sure we should definitively say it is Caseodus in wikivoice. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point, but the Sulphur Mountain specimen is far from the only potential Caseodus specimen with postcrania. Zangerl (1981) went into detail about how the skull and body of Caseodus is known from quite a few specimens found in the midwestern United States. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough with the removal of the cladogram. The only publications that seem to discuss the phylogenetics are Zangerl, 1981 and Stahl, 1999, which was in the infancy of cladistics. It would be good to note the shared characteristics of Eugeneodonts that Edestoids like Helicoprion have in common with the Caseodontoidea. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the considerable improvement of the classification section, though the specific pages of Zangerl 1981 you are citing should be noted. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for expanding the previous reconstructions section. I've managed to find an image on alamy stock photo illustrating the "tail position" hypothesis, apparently sourced from a December 1899 session of the Bulletin of the Belgian Society of Geology, Paleontology and Hydrology. I haven't been able to track down the particular source of the image, the actual society itself seems very obscure at least in english language sources. The image itself is very easy to clean via vectorisation, but I am not sure about using it given I can't find direct access to the soure. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Timezgadiouine Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conglomerate.
Thanks for improving this article, I've wanted to overhaul the articles for major Mesozoic mammal groups for some time. I note that a new paper on Borealestes came out last month which includes full skeletal reconstructions which is published under a CC-BY license [4], and contains interesting comments about the groups ecology. Do you think these are worth uploading? Thanks again. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't notice that this was open access! Yes, I think these are definitely worth uploading, though I don't expect to be using most of the images (apart from the skeletals) in the Docodonta article. But they'd be useful for the Borealestes article, certainly. And I will definitely be citing the paper, it's good to have postcrania from a more generalist member of the group. Thanks! Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 01:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your diagrams that you made for Wikipedia and was enamoured by the use of coloured bone labelling for skull bones. I was interested in commissioning you to make a similar skull diagram for a basal dinosaur from the Late Triassic or Early Jurassic. My goal would be allowing people to easily compare between Dinosaur and non-Dinosaur archosaur skulls (notably some elements like the Postfrontal bone).
Before I get ahead of myself, do you have any sort of way where I could send you money for a commission? (ex. Paypal, bank email). I would love to support the work you do for Wikipedia!
Hello, and thank you. I've never made any diagrams on commission, but I would be happy to help with your project. I should note that most of "my" diagrams are derived from published works with only minor changes. Only a few are entirely of my own making, particularly the Bohaiornis, Luperosuchus, and Rugarhynchos pieces. I've enabled my email so we can discuss this off-site (see "email this user" on the left toolbar). Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 14:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, based on how Wikipedia's email system works for new users, it would be better if I contact you. Is there anywhere I can reach you directly? Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 16:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for responding! I'm the same user as above, I just forgot to log in when first commenting. You can reach me at mmannel4@uwo.ca. Thank you very much for your interest in a commission! --Mjmannella (talk) 13:24, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I could not help but notice my drawing of Volcanosuchus. Though I was incredibly angry at your review, I soon became rational and figured to ask for your advice. Now that my intention is stated, please do help me.
Hello Atharv Kaul, I apologize for rudeness from my end. I did not mean to have been personally insulting, and I apologize that I came off that way. The fact that you were motivated to create art for obscure species is something to be proud of, and I would certainly have jumped directly into more amicable recommendations if I knew that you were ready and willing to improve your contribution. Thank you for reaching out to me on this. There is a major learning curve for many prehistoric animals, especially animals such as phytosaurs which have few good drawing references. The original paper ([5]) has a reconstructed skull diagram at figure 11 C, and a good overview of phytosaur anatomy can be found here ([6]). I would recommend using sci-hub to bypass paywalls, which have hidden away many good pictures of the fossil. I'll elaborate on the issues I had with your art once at a time:
Phytosaurs eyes are located high on the head. Like other archosauriforms such as dinosaurs and crocodile ancestors, they have an additional hole in the skull (an antorbital fenestra) in front of the eye socket and behind and below the nostrils. In later phytosaur, the nostrils are shifted back so far that they may partially lie behind the antorbital fenestra, but Volcanosuchus has not yet reached that point. According to photos on google images, the skull seems to be a bit broken up around the eye socket, so I don't blame you for misidentifying the antorbital fenestra as the eye socket.
The tip of the snout is also broken off in the fossil, and it would have been longer than depicted in your illustration. Here is a good diagram of Paleorhinus cf. arenaceus, a phytosaur which is closely related to Volcanosuchus ([7]). You can compare it to a labelled picture of the Volcanosuchus fossil ([8]) and see where the broken areas are. "Orbit" is another name for the eye socket.
Alongside the broken eye socket area, the back of the skull seems to be a bit peeled up by erosion in the fossil. As you can see in Paleorhinus, the skull probably would have had a flat upper surface behind the eyes.
In modern reptiles, holes in the skull apart from the eyes and nostrils usually do not show up as indentations in the skin. Skin-and-bones restorations are often called "shrinkwrapped", as if the skull was wrapped in vacuum-sealed plastic. We recommend to avoid this style. Search up some comparisons between lizards and their skulls to see what I mean: just because the skull has a hole doesn't mean that it looks "holey" once you put on all the skin and muscle.
Phytosaurs, unlike modern crocodiles, had only a single paired row of bony plates running down the spinal column. These plates were low, broad, and closely-spaced, more like overlapping shingles than triangular spikes. Here's an art piece to show what I mean: [[9]].
I hope these are good guidelines for reconstructing phytosaurs. I think you're doing good work and I don't want to imply that you don't deserve to contribute. Any mistakes you made were from a lack of knowledge, and not a personal issue. Please feel free to contribute more to the site, and the rest of us will do our best to critique your art in a constructive manner, rather than an insulting manner. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 00:40, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited the drawing, yet I wish to know how to get the a skull diagram from the original paper, can you send me the link for it?
Unfortunately I don't know an easy way to transfer a diagram out of a paywalled paper and across the internet. Fortunately, if you're willing to wait a while, I know that there's another Wikipedia user who is working on a freely accessible diagram for Volcanosuchus. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 02:49, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.
You're right! I looked into it further and realised the close match, thinking to revert my change but you got there first. I'd been attempting before to match group for group but of course it's not that simple. cheers Geopersona (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I disagree with much of the revision that you just published on the Dissorophoidea. It is misleading to talk about a consensus when out of about 12 scientists worldwide who work on the origins of lissamphibians, about 10 or so (max) still accept the hypothesis that they are rooted in Dissorophoidea. This is neither growing, nor a consensus. I don't want to engage in an edit war with you, but I have worked quite extensively on this topic, and I feel comfortable stating the the bulk of the evidence favors an alternative hypothesis. Of course, 10 or so of my colleagues would disagree, but I don't think that any of them has looked at all the relevant evidence as closely as Marjanovic or myself. Michel Laurin (talk) 21:34, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Dr. Laurin. First of all, I want to say that I strongly respect the work of you and your colleagues, and I think that the lepospondyl hypothesis is a scientifically sound interpretation with enough academic leverage to justify continued discussion on Wikipedia. I do not mean to imply that your interpretation is a fringe theory, nor that majority support in a scientific field is a reliable indicator of truth. I am keenly interested in vertebrate evolution, and I hope to see further research into the question of lissamphibian origins, from both the perspective of you and researchers who support the temnospondyl hypothesis. That said, as a Wikipedia editor it is my duty and goal to conform to the standards of WP:NPOV, including principles of due and undue weight. In such a small research field as your own, an approximate 10-2 balance between "anti-lepo hypothesis" and "pro-lepo hypothesis" workers would qualify as a consensus, in the opinion of myself and most likely other editors and paleontologists. As a result, I would argue that, as a more-or-less independent observer to the debate, I am justified in prioritizing the temnospondyl hypothesis as "probable" or "likely" in the context of amphibian and tetrapod-adjacent articles. I should be honest in saying that I do subscribe to the temnospondyl hypothesis according to my own perception of published research, as well as conversations with colleagues who have published scientific papers on the topic. Nevertheless, I have made every effort to prevent these personal opinions from altering my work as an editor. I sincerely do not want to incite any conflict between us, and if you feel that your work deserves greater weight then I recommend starting a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palaeontology. I also recommend taking care to avoid WP:COI violations. NPOV and COI guidelines exist for very good reason and must be presented consistently and fairly, regardless of credentials. I am not in a position to resolve your concerns on my own. Thank you, Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 22:25, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your explanation and for having changed again the page on dissorophoids; I can guess that you are a well-intentioned editor. I understand your argument and I plan no further actions here; I cannot afford to waste my time in lengthy debates on the Wikipedia community. I occasionally contribute to Wikipedia to update pages when I find obvious gaps, but this is not among my primary duties. Technically, I simply want to draw your attention to the fact that there is no simple relationship between majority view and probability, which has a precise mathematical definition. Allow me to illustrate this with a quote from one of my papers, which quoted a great scientist (and this does emphatically not imply that I claim any similarity with him): "This is illustrated by the pamphlet “100 Authors against Einstein” (in which case the reason for the high number of authors was clear, contrary to the present situation), which attempted to refute Einstein’s theory of relativity. Einstein reportedly replied (Hawking, 1993, p. 98) “If I were wrong, then one [author] would have been enough!”.
Between us, I have devoted most of my energy to other paleontological topics in the last decade because I have said what I had to say (mostly) about lissamphibian origins, but obviously, most of our colleagues are simply not interested and have not taken the time to carefully evaluate our arguments. This is easy to demonstrate: not one of the recent matrices supporting the temnospondyl hypothesis has incorporated, or even commented on, the numerous updates and corrections that Marjanovic did on the Gerobatrachus matrix. Part of the reason may be that the publisher of our 2009 paper had removed the supplements (which contained this detailed data) from its web site! But nobody wrote to us to request it, either. So, the community is more than 12 years late in attempting to incorporate our findings. In another 12, I will be retired. So, I prefer spending the little research time I have left to try to advance other fields, where perhaps what I publish will really be taken into consideration (not the simple mention "I support the TH, but note that some weirdos still support the LH"), with some luck...
Thank you for the reply. I understand your frustrations even if I do not share your convictions regarding the state of amphibian research. The Einstein quote is a good reminder of the stasis encouraged by the scientific community (often for the better, in a few cases for the worse). I certainly believe that the lepospondyl hypothesis is not "off the table", and I eagerly await any papers discussing the question. Only time will tell how the proportion of paleontologists supporting the idea will change. But that is a question for the future, rather than the present. I do not plan any significant change with how I handle the "debate" on this site, but nevertheless I appreciate the discussion. Best of luck to you and your future endeavors, academic or otherwise. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 18:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would love to connect with you offline about something you didn't remove in a recent refurbishment of yours... My contact details are available though LinkedIn...
Thank you for writing the article on Wikipedia! I genuinely appreciate your efforts in creating the article on Wikipedia and expanding the sum of human knowledge in Wikipedia. Wishing you and your family a great day!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Hello NGPezz, when trying to revise a bad translation of the English page Diplovertebron into Dutch, I came upon this edit of yours. Under 'History' (last paragraph of it in that edit) it reads: "Hemichthys problematica, a supposed fish skull described in 1895, was later found to be an anthracosaur skull. Klembara et al. (2014) petitioned for a redescription of Hemichthys, which they regarded as a nomen oblitum." You give a reference to Klembara et al.'s paper there. Now this edit is nearly five years old but can you remember why you stated that Klembara et al.petitioned for a redescription? I'll add your talk page to my watchlist, so it's OK if you answer my question here. Cheers, Wikiklaas14:27, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thank you for catching this. My choice of the word "petitioned" was probably intended to be colorful language rather than any formal statement regarding the ICZN. Looking back on the source in question, I realize I misread the authors' statement that "Hemichthys has not been studied since Fritsch’s description". I also didn't realize that the Hemichthys specimen was referred to Gephyrostegus. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. NGPezz (talk) 19:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your quick reply. I was a bit confused when I first read your text about 'petition for a redescription' because that is not what taxonomists usually petition for. After I could lay my hands on a copy of the 2014 paper, it became clear soon enough. In the Dutch translation, I then closely followed what Klembara et al. had to say about it on p.776. After that, I was bold enough to also change the text of the English page, as the message should be that Klembara et al. once and for all declared Hemichthys problematica a nomen oblitum and hence Gephyrostegus bohemicus a nomen protectum when the two names are competing with each other. Wikiklaas20:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dunkleosteus77 -- Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 00:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
; see Talk:Rhinesuchidae for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dunkleosteus77 -- Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
![[8]](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/8c0c56b1-bdd2-4329-ae2a-1b9fe09041db/spp21292-fig-0005-m.jpg){kind=link}
![[9]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/Smilosuchus_adamanensis.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Augustios Paleo -- Augustios Paleo (talk) 22:43, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
; see Talk:East Kirkton Quarry for comments about the article, and Talk:East Kirkton Quarry/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Augustios Paleo -- Augustios Paleo (talk) 14:21, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
