User talk:Tylbrooks1998

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Tylbrooks1998! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! UtherSRG (talk) 19:57, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Titis and such

Good job with the recent edits you made to some titi articles. I followed along behind to make some additional changes. You might want to take a look at what I did and add those kind of edits to the work you are doing. Also, you might want to consider joining the Primates project. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC) (Please reply on this page. I'll be watching it for a while.)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome! I am doing work on primates and mammals in general, I'm glad you noticed and went through and added those. I think that synonymous descriptions and names are so interesting. I'll be sure to join the Primates project :) thanks again! - Tylbrooks1998 (talk) 20:45, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Von der Decken's sifaka - neat! Can you provide the references for the change to the authority? UtherSRG (talk) 20:15, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sahamalaza sportive lemur - Again, good job. When updating scientific names, it's good to look at the incoming links (the sidebar of every page has a "What links here" link). There, you'll see both the direct links, and the articles linking in via a redirect. It's a good idea to also update the other articles so that they also use the new sci name. In this case, I had to make the new redirect page, Lepilemur sahamalaza‎, which is also something you should make sure is in place when updating or adding new sci names. (I don't intend this as a criticism; I know there's a lot to learn in coming up to speed on being a wikieditor...) Cheers! - UtherSRG (talk) 11:14, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'm trying my best, I figured there would be something I missed on when updating L. sahamalaza. I'll be sure to check out the side bar for future updates. Thank you for the support and advice :) Tylbrooks1998 (talk) 18:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sandhill dunnart

Hi,

Can I ask why you have deleted all of my peer reviewed and published scientific research from the sandhill dunnart page?

In the interests of current science it should be restored.

On a personal note, I have a three-year-old who I am often solely responsible for, and I am also working.

Hence, I do not have time to keep re-editing this page.

Thanks,

Dr Joanna Riley Dr Joanna Riley (talk) 12:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend continuing discussion at Talk:Sandhill dunnart where I have initiated a discussion. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudacris ocularis

Hi. For the time being, I reverted your change to the authorship, as I am finding no clear consensus in the published literature regarding the rejection of Bosc & Daudin's name for this taxon; as far as I can see, this was suggested way back in 1946, and largely disputed by subsequent researchers. The most recent systematic study I could find, from 2005 (see SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF THE FROG FAMILY HYLIDAE, WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO HYLINAE: PHYLOGENETIC ANALYSIS AND TAXONOMIC REVISION," Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 2005(294), 1-240, (1 June 2005) - sorry I can't post a link, the link URL will not work in WP), recognized Bosc & Daudin as the authors. I cannot access a copy of the 2014 catalog to see how it is treated there. The AMNH amphibian website, which lists Holbrook as the author, discusses this but does not give a summary that suggests this change in attribution has been broadly accepted. Again, the 2014 catalog would probably be the crucial source to check to see what the present consensus is. The AMNH website is not a published source, and it's disputable as to whether it constitutes what Wikipedia considers a reliable source. Dyanega (talk) 23:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your interest in amphibian authorship. Wikipedia supposedly uses the AMNH website as the backbone for Amphibian taxonomy seen here WP:AAR#Taxonomy, so I was following the recommended taxonomic backbone. SCIENTIFIC AND STANDARD ENGLISH NAMES OF AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES OF NORTH AMERICA NORTH OF MEXICO, WITH COMMENTS REGARDING CONFIDENCE IN OUR UNDERSTANDING from 2017 lists Holbrook, showing that modern authors will use Holbrook too. My personal opinion would be to follow the recommended backbone to avoid adding more to the confusion, but that's just my opinion. Tylbrooks1998 (talk) 00:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an ICZN Commissioner, so my interest is in the authorship of literally every zoological name. ;-) That aside, If the work you refer to is published, and accepts Holbrook, then go ahead and revert my edit on the Pseudacris article, and add the citation. Where the tricky part will be is in the article for Psedacris ocularis itself, which presently lacks a "Taxonomy" section, but it definitely will need one that explains the disputed authorship situation. My concern, again, was that there was no peer-reviewed recent source to back up the change in authorship, since the most recent work I could find online (2005) still listed Bosc & Daudin. Thanks. Dyanega (talk) 20:44, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah you seemed more "official" of a taxonomic historian than I am, hence when I figured I'd let your decision stand above mine haha. I'll add P. ocularis's taxonomy section to my growing to-do list. Thanks for clarifying with me, feel free to do so for any of my edits you stumble across :) Tylbrooks1998 (talk) 22:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Tylbrooks1998. Thank you for your work on Dark four-eyed opossum. Another editor, CFA, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Nice job!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|CFA}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

C F A 💬 01:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CFA: thank you! :) Tylbrooks1998 (talk) 01:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]