The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marek Kukula (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Hi, you reverted my edits to Al Jazeera, but I only moved some information from the introduction to the controversies section. I also added some positive information to the introduction, but you reverted that as well. The Al Jazeera introduction is written to attack the news channel, but all news websites have controversies, which can be discussed in the controversies section, just like in other articles.
ArbCom 2017 election voter messageCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).
Hello, Hemiauchenia. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
The welcome may be belated, but the cookies are still warm!
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Hemiauchenia. 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 benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.)
Thanks for uploading File:Cretamygale.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Howdy - we may be editing at cross purposes there :) The general consensus with monotypic fossil genera is not to make the article about the species, but about the genus (while presenting the type specimen of the single species, naturally). I have edited accordingly. Were you aiming for something different? Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's honestly fair, it was a mistake, I thought the current article was using "Dungeyella is a species of chironomid" and was correcting it, without realizing that you had corrected it first. I am aware that the syntax is supposed to be genus first I was just being careless, my apologies. Kind regards Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I understand why you reverted the edit. His age is not a particularly identifiable attribute though. The problem is that people will treat him as if he's much older than he actually is, and won't give him the slack he ultimately deserves for at least trying to contribute at such a young age.Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 18:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
Thanks 😃 for helping me out here. Spirits of the Ice Forests is outdated. Most of the dinosaurs are not from Southern Australia let alone Antarctica. Australovenator is from the Winton formation so that could be a polar dinosaur. I do agree with some of your general points.
I know that, "Spirits of the Ice Forest" even though it is inaccurate really typifies the typical dinosaur cove esque conception of "South polar dinosaur" with Leaellynasaura etc. I guess that your ill fated Australian Spinosaurid counts as a south polar dinosaur in this regard, given that both taxa originate from the same formation. In regards to Australovenator the Winton formation is supposed to have been warm enough that it barely ever frosted, having a more subtropical climate which doesn't lend itself to being being "South Polar" really.Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any expertise in Geology. Are you a geologist yourself. Or do you just have a good grip on the field. This is because Ashorocetus and dunkleosteus 777 said you did. We need you for the geology section for South Polar Dinosaurs. It might be key for the article to hit good article entry level.
I've just come to the end of the 3rd year of my Geology degree, I'm a bit busy at the moment, but will be able to help in a few days Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Hemiauchenia, thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, especially your recent creation of Grünbach Formation. Keep up the good work! You are making a difference here! With regards, AnupamTalk06:32, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for July 9
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
I strongly urge you to add additional content to these articles that you are creating. They are all notable, but something more can surely be found , even in the single source you are using. At the very least, who first described it. As they areu ndoubtedly discussed in multiple texbooks of British geology, there should be references. DGG ( talk ) 00:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a simple question of finding the person who named it, often times the unit may have been described by a different person earlier with a different name, with very similar definitions. In that case who would take credit? It's not as simple as you may assert. It's also not really an important detail for general readers, who are probably more interested in the lithology of the unit Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, together we are working hard I see. Thanks for following my steps and correcting hasty mistakes. Still a lot to add in new articles, but the maintenance of the South American, African and Oceania geologic formations is nearly completed now. Cheers, Tisquesusa (talk) 17:53, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've largely fixed the Jurassic-Cretaceous sequence of the UK at this point. I've tried to fix up some of the french articles, but their informal terminology of formations and lack of a stratigraphic database makes it difficult, also there are a lot of duplicate articles around which need to be dealt with. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:23, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification of the first appearance date of Trigonotarbids. However, the fact remains that 419Ma, as stated in the infobox, is Devonian, not Silurian. Plantsurfer13:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Hemiauchenia. 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, I noticed your SPI report was made manually and was missing the template that lists it on the WP:SPI page, meaning no one would have seen the report. I'd recommend using Twinkle to automatically fill out these reports, it adds all the necessary templates. Also thanks for pointing this user out to me, sometimes you know you're dealing with a sock but have no way of finding out who :) – Thjarkur(talk)12:06, 2 November 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.
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Jordan Peterson, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Doug Wellertalk 10:59, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Doug Weller Please don't send me automated messages for what was obviously a misclick, I have been a wikipedia editor for 3 years and have over 5,000 edits and to patronise me like a new user is incredibly rude. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I probably should have made it more personal and I've struck my warning and made the section heading explicit. But I'm surprised that with all those edits you are still misclicking. I've only looked at today and yesterday and see several content changes, including a fairly major deletion, marked as minor.[1] and [2] (and at least one more). I didn't even look at all your edits in the last 48 hours. Doug Wellertalk19:08, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doug Weller Thanks for the prompt response, In retrospect the blunt response for an automated message was rude on my part and I apologise. I tend to make repeat edits in rapid succession, which makes accidental misclicking more likely. I will be more careful in the future. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your gracious reply. I too will try to be more careful in the future. And I know all too well how too much haste here leads to errors. Doug Wellertalk19:46, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally we want one more reference for this article to help meet verifiability requirements (WP:V). Nice start on this stub though! Great images.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Insertcleverphrasehere}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.
Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
Look, it seems my "by the rules" attitude may have upset you, in that you may or may not believe that you have deserve priority over newer editors simply because you're an older user. However that is not how things work, and indeed your opinion (or the opinion of anyone else) is no more valuable than someone who registered yesterday. We are all equal. This is what I believe is the root of the problem in that you haven't shown any reasonable idea of compromise or engagement on whether "China Virus" is a widely used term or not, where is your evidence? When you revealed that you believe that the name should be removed because the Chinese government disapproves of it, that was an implicit admission from you that the name is indeed used, as the Chinese government itself would have no reason to comment on something that isn't seeing wide use. Furthermore, Twitter is not representative of the general internet. For example people outside of the millennial generation are extremely unlikely to use Twitter, so that reasoning doesn't hold up. According to basic Wikipedia guidelines the term qualifies for inclusion because it is in the relevant context and has been used by multiple major reliable sources, including Reuters, Washington Post, ABC news, Aljazeera, among others. We are not trying to deliberately include terms with stigma, it is just that think we that Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines dictate that we should not be censoring reliably-sourced information for reasons of personal editor dislike. Symphony Regalia (talk) 20:04, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Symphony Regalia:, you're accusing me of being unreasonable and showing no reasonable idea of compromise? Who is "we" exactly? Every editor who has expressed an opinion has opposed you, this might be the lamest appeal to authority I've ever seen. This response isn't even coherent it's a mish-mash of various other passage fragments, like some great pacific text garbage patch. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:26, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Um... Is there really need for aggressive scolding? I know that Symphony Regalia may be more than a little unreasonable, but calm down, please. It hurts just looking at the paragraph above. Foxtail286 (talk) 16:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please link to any kind of policy declaration that states that divergence times should be indicated in the fossil range section of taxoboxes. I'm not aware of any. Obviously, if there is one, it contradicts what is indicated as the intent for this parameter in the Template:Automatic_taxobox instructions. As one example, the tuatara article indicates a fossil range of 19–0 Ma, with no mention of any ghost lineage going back to the Mesozoic. I think you (and possibly others) are conflating two different things, and that fossil range is intended to indicate the date range of actual recovered fossils. If it wasn't, it obviously should be renamed to a term that more accurately reflects its meaning. I'd also appreciate not being falsely accused of being obstinate. WolfmanSF (talk) 22:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@WolfmanSF: Perhaps accusing you of being obsinate was aggressive on my part, but this is something worth a wider policy discussion, not simply enforcing your interpretation of its use. The Tuatara represents the genus Sphenodon, which only has a fossil record extending back into the Miocene, while the split of the lineage from other known Rynchocephalians obviously goes back much further, but it doesn't necessarily follow that the distant ancestors of the Tuatara in the Mesozoic would necessarily be members of Sphenodon proper. The Oligocene estimate is the divergence between Mullerornis and Aepyornis i.e. the origin of crown group Aepyornithidae, not the estimate of divergence of the Kiwi-Elephant bird split, which is around 54 ma in the Eocene, this represents the difference between stem and node definitions, I opt for the latter, as the most recent common ancestor of Mullerornis and Aepyornis is by definition an Aepyornithid, and therefore it is reasonable to state the origin of Aepyornithidae is at minimum in the Oligocene. Note that I didn't change the parameters for the fossilrange for either of the genera's articles, which was deliberate. While it isn't policy, fossil ranges widely use molecular clocks for extant taxa, especially those with a poor fossil record, for example, the article Bird uses a morphological clock to justify an Aptian origin for crown Aves, and many other bird group articles use molecular clock estimates for divergence. I note that Template:Automatic taxobox does not define the use of the |earliest= and |latest= parameters. If you want to dispute this then there needs to be a broader policy discussion involving the use of the fossil range parameter over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palaeontology and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds. Kind regards. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The documentation provided for both Template:Automatic taxobox and Template:Geological range is slanted towards displaying actual fossil ranges and neither explicitly supports insertion of last common ancestor dates into the box. Template:Automatic taxobox documentation describes the "youngest_fossil" and "oldest_fossil" parameters, while "earliest" and "latest" are not mentioned. The Template:Geological range document defines "earliest" as "earliest putative fossil" and similarly for latest, but does say that "earliest" and "latest" can be used to add ghost bars for "whatever you like". Allowing dates for things other than fossils potentially creates a muddle. One might use the date of the last common ancestor of a group, or the date of the split from a sister group. In the bird example, the "fossil range" of 121 Ma is not based on fossils, while the ghost bar going back to 161 Ma is based on avialan fossils, so the actual Aves fossil range is left out entirely. I'm not going to pursue this further, but I think consistency and transparency would be best. WolfmanSF (talk) 08:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki users like Hapa9100 and Shinoshijak suggested that I remove Huangdi and Bodonchar Munkhag from the blond wiki page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Blond ).
Hunan201p also hasn't replied me in talk page since May the 4th after I provided evidence there's nothing wrong with the book sources about ethnic Hmong and Miao being blond.
Can you give me your opinion. Queenplz (talk) 23:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am mighty confused, the account was not blocked when it posted this [[4]] yet within less than 12 hours they post this [[5]].
My issue is that when they posted the request they must have assumed they were blocked, yet had still posted (otherwise why ask if they can post because they are blocked?). This raises a number of questions. Moreover (and reviewing the block) it says "non. only, account creation blocked" yet they created an accountant at a time when they thought the block was still in place (which in fact it is). So I suppose they assumed (correctly, if only technically) they were block evading. As I said this raises some serious questions.Slatersteven (talk) 12:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Slatersteven: His Wikipedia account is OTRS verified and was created in 2018, well before current events to remove defamatory material from his page, it was never blocked. When he made the complaint at the BLP noticeboard he used an IP address rather than his account, and then made a legal threat. The Ip address was subsequently blocked for making the legal threat. When he re-activated his 2018 account to respond on the talk page. I reminded him that he needed to retract the legal complaint that he made on the IP address, as otherwise this would count as block evasion, and his account would also likely be blocked. I think he then confused the fully protected state of the page and my reminder to remove the legal threat with not being allowed to reply. Hope that clears it up Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, So yes then he thought when he posted my first diff he was in fact blocked (even though the account was not). It is what I thought, and why I said about this raises questions. He thought (in effect) he was blocked and still posted (twice in fact), so yes it was (in effect) block evasion (and they knew it, almost as if they assumed it was two different accounts as their wording (in the second post) implied they had not posted yet in that forum). This also (therefor) raises in my mind the suspicion they may in fact have more than one account in operation. This is all I will say, now.Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
About removing WatchMojo as a source
Hello. I've noticed that on three Lilo & Stitch-related articles, you've removed information that used WatchMojo as a source. However, you didn't provide a proper explanation as why they shouldn't be used or even linked to a discussion that outright says they cannot be used as a reliable source, only calling them "terrible" in your edit summaries, which makes it seem that your edits were solely motivated by personal opinion. As a result, I had to undo them.
I have independently found some discussions for other articles on Wikipedia (here and here) about using WatchMojo as a source. Based on these discussions, I do agree that it should not be used for objective information about any topic, since much of their content is opinion-based (i.e. their many ranking videos) and the objective information they receive for their topics are taken from many other sources. (I did find a 2017 discussion about the company and website on WikiProject Video games where one user deemed WatchMojo as unreliable, even for opinion pieces, but that's only for the scope of that WikiProject—i.e. video game-related articles—and not for Wikipedia as a whole, and it was only discussed between two users.) However, in the three L&S articles in question, WatchMojo was only used with regards to the reception of those topics (or for specific parts of them in the case of the Lilo & Stitch: The Series crossover episodes) and how they ranked each topic in their own lists. (I did rewrite their Leroy & Stitch reception entry afterwards because, upon a personal re-read, the way it was originally written did give them too much undue weight, making it seem like they were an outright definitive opinion when it's really just based on their own ranking. I've also done the same to a lesser extent for the other two topics.) In fact, to quote a user in that one of discussions I linked:
Context matters when determining reliability ... in this case, the ref to WatchMojo is a primary source supporting the statement that WatchMojo itself gave a specific ranking to the band [Girls' Generation]. Now, that information may or may not be worth mentioning in the article ... but that is a WP:Due weight issue, not a reliability issue. Purely focusing on reliability, WatchMojo is a reliable primary source for its own internal rankings.
Still though, I will ask you why do you think WatchMojo should not be used as a reliable source for even opinion or reception-based entries? And if you want an outright consensus on them, then should we get Wikipedia to discuss whether or not they should be used as a source for anything? –WPA (talk) 00:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiPediaAid: (Continuing from the discussion on your talk page). I agree that initially my edit summaries were bad, they improved in the second half of the ~200 WM citations I removed, my apologies. Thanks for the additional context. My issue with WM and opinion is that WM uses freelancers who have no expertise in the topics they are covering, and with no evidence of fact checking or editorial oversight, their opinion holds as much WP:DUE weight as someone's self published blog post. While many other more respectable media and entertainment websites published low quality listicle articles, their writers are more like to have expertise and therefore authority on the topic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just curious. If the Fox news RfC were to end today, would Fox News still be labeled as a reliable source? When do you think the discussion will end? Scorpions13256 (talk) 21:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea on both of these counts, the discussion will be open until the 7th of July at minimum, and I suspect that there will be a formal request for closure around then. It's up to the panel of closers to make their decision, which is based on the arguments rather than a straight vote, which I think would be firmly in "no-concensus" territory on a straight vote count. I think this RfC has challenged the nature of what the definition of a "reliable source" even is and why we even call RfCs in the first place. Fox News exists at the heart of public life in America in the same way that the Daily Mail does in the UK, so whatever the panels vote it will be seismic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
May I kindly ask you to take a look at Talk:Mustang#Final_draft? I’m not certain I got the right sources cited to the right content, there was so much discussion and many drafts. (Seems like there were two Weinstock studies, but am now just seeing one...?) And we need consensus to unlock the article and fix the contested content. Montanabw(talk)16:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcewatch?
Hey Hemiauchenia! I noticed in your comment here that you link out to Sourcewatch. Is this a generally good source for this kind of reliability question, or is it more like MBFC, where it isn't particularly 'reliable' itself, but is good for a gut check? Thanks in advance for your time. Jlevi (talk) 00:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jlevi:SourceWatch is run by the Center for Media and Democracy, a think tank. It appears not to be a totally-open wiki as you have to request to become a member. I only used it in the complete dearth of any other threads to pull from. The website appears to be mostly dead the recent changes section shows only 2 active users. Most of the information on the website appears to be lists of chief executives for companies. Like Wikipedia it is a collation of information from various places and I wouldn't consider it a reliable source in and of itself. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jlevi: It turns out that there were enough discussions about SourceWatch to create a perennial sources entry, most editors believed it to be akin to an open wiki and generally unreliable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sphilbrick: it was simply by using an in text search for all of of the "*'''Option" values in the responses section, obviously being based off a raw text search rather than manual counting the count was going to somewhat off due to formatting issues in the participants responses, I think in particular the 125 is likely to be an undercount. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Irish elk
We were working on Irish elk at the same time. I wiped out your changes. Sorry. Usually I painstakingly merge the other editor's changes into mine, but this time it was too complicated. Since you know what you were doing, it's easier for you than for me to do your changes again. Sorry again. —Anomalocaris (talk) 01:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for July 25
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Donghe Group, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conglomerate.
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Jianfengia, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Please do not remove a redirect without establishing consensus.P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you are familiar with BRD. An editor made a bold edit, (and refused to fix after a polite request) so I reverted. The next step is to open a discussion. Please do so.--S Philbrick(Talk)00:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hemiauchenia, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. However, you should consider adding relevant wikiproject talk-page templates, stub-tags and categories to new articles that you create if you aren't already in the habit of doing so, since your articles will no longer be systematically checked by other editors (User:Evad37/rater and User:SD0001/StubSorter.js are useful scripts which can help). Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Schwede6622:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Need help
Hey, hope its ok for me to ask you for help on RS from time to time. You have been quite helpful thus far.
Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.
Congrats on nominating for deletion the longest running hoax on Wikipedia! Amazing that nobody else managed to get it deleted. Thank you for actually CSDing it! MrAureliusRTalk!00:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
President of Azerbaijan
Hello, this is the account that you claimed has multiple sock accounts. I have nothing to do with the other accounts that reposted my edit. The reason they did this is probably because I think it is clear that this edit improves the Wikipedia page President of Azerbaijan by adding reliable neutral information. I think that the IP adress 109.93.13.102 is edit warring since they reverted the edits that other users published and when reposted, they removed it again. I hope by reading this you have understood I have nothing to do with the other accounts. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Editor331 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@The Editor331: Do you accept that the three accounts are sockpuppets of another user than? It seems unlikely that three separate people would all have the same formatting and spelling errors. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:43, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hemiauchenia, this litoptern you get for the continuing improvement of and attention for the fossiliferous formations of this world! Have a great weekend, Tisquesusa (talk) 16:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello- Below are a few editing suggestions to make it easier for you and others to collaborate on the encyclopedia. Please preview, consolidate, and summarize your edits:
Try to consolidate your edits, at least at the section level, to avoid cluttering the page's edit history; this makes it easier for your fellow editors to understand your intentions, and makes it easier for those monitoring activity on the article.
The show preview button (beside the "publish changes" button) is helpful for this; use it to view your changes incrementally before finally saving the page once you're satisfied with your edits.
Please remember to explain each edit with an edit summary (box above the "publish changes" button).
Look dude, I can't stress how embarrassed I am for you when I see you post. I'll tell you straight just once, so you can be a full and equal participant, if you want to be. Sometimes people want to be caught. It's all about the circumstances in which they are caught. Wikipedia routinely invading the privacy of people with real sounding names, simply because they post about the Daily Mail, regardless of topic, regardless of location, that's a bad thing for Wikipedia. I know it, the people CheckUsering me know it. It's big boy stuff. You can do what you want, but have a look around first. Get to know the field. Do the people who get sucked further and further into the sock hunter / sekrit keeper role, and further and further away from the content writing, do they look happy? Do they sound happy? Are they having fun? Is it a hobby still? If the name Jytdog doesn't mean much to you, look him up. I don't know why you edit Wikipedia, you might genuinely be one of those people who thinks it's an encyclopedia, and are doing what you do out of simple innocent enthusiasm. Don't let me shatter the illusion for you. Get into my business for long enough however, you will soon get to learn things about Wikipedia you probably never ever wanted to know. It can be quite cruel, opening people's eyes. I've seem them change. You're only three years in, which is no time at all. Keep your innocence for as long as you can, and allow yourself the most peaceful way to leave Wikipedia, by just getting bored. Because if you're honest with yourself, you're already nearing that point. Watching out for me, with your big boy's mallet in your sweaty palm all ready to go, that's getting to be more fun than writing about boring old paleontology, am I right? Choose life. Barry The Bat, But Not BatMan (talk) 21:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC) Note: User is a sock of Brian K Horton (talk· contribs), almost certainly the same user as JackTheJiller/Crow's Nest on offwiki forums and also possibly the same as the long blocked MickMacNee. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Barry The Bat, But Not BatMan: JackTheJiller, thanks for your unusually non-hostile post. I read your post on Reddit about me (which was quite hostile) before it got deleted, no hard feelings. Paleontology is hardly "boring". On such topics I have essentially free reign and pretty much nobody intereferes with my edits, so it's relatively stress free with little risk of burnout. In all honesty, I don't think that your socking is accomplishing anything, even your colleagues on reddit are embarassed by it. Your "Forename X Surname" socks fool no one, and I am not sure that they are supposed to. The Daily Mail is a contentious issue, and I understand that. Is it your goal to make anybody who comes in asking about the Daily Mail look like another sock? Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Given "free reign" and "nobody intereferes with my edits" on paleontology, and yet you only made your first edit to Wikipedia in your mid twenties most likely. I come here for nuggets like that, tbh. No hard feelings. Is this hostile? I don't mean it to be, but sometimes people don't like it when the realities of Wikipedia are laid bare like that. And you're not some kind of child genius, that much is painfully obvious. Robin Was The Real Hero (talk) 22:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Robin Was The Real Hero: Crow, My first edit on Wikipedia was in March 2013 as an IP user diff (the IP is dynamic, and is now no where near where my address at the time was, it is obvious I am a UK based user like you from other edits I've made anyway). Your age estimation is somewhat off. I'm not sure what you're trying to say about "And you're not some kind of child genius, that much is painfully obvious." You say that "Is this hostile?" but that sentence makes you sound like you're trying to call me stupid, and it's difficult to charitably interpret it otherwise. If your referring to my spelling errors, I've been having long-term neurological issues that substantially predate me creating this account that cause them, and I apologise for the resultant lack of tidiness.
Nobody on Wikipedia is a genius, me included. We are here to write a general purpose encyclopedia, not to write novel research. What I meant by "free reign" and "nobody intereferes with my edits" is that unlike Israel-Palestine etc. where your edit is likely to get reverted, I can get on with writing what is reflected in papers. One of the things that is nice about writing on obscure topics is that you know that if you don't write it nobody else will. It's also rewarding to see the consequences of my editing reaching the wider internet, it's hard to imagine this reddit post existing unless I created the Megaceroides algericus article.
I wonder what your take on the Wired piece Wikipedia Is the Last Best Place on the Internet. You've spent much of your time for at the last few years complaining about Wikipedia on various forums. Let me ask you this, you tell me to "choose life" yet you fail to make this choice for yourself, why? Why devote your time to something you know you cannot fix and that your efforts to do so are futile? I recognise that Wikipedia as a website is deeply flawed, Its incredibly small, white, 90% male insular community is totally unrepresentative of its readers, (and so are the even smaller criticism forums) but nothing that you are doing is going to help the deep issues that Wikipedia has, I'm not sure anyone can. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do what I do because I am having an impact. One man can make a difference. That Wired piece shows it, but only to those who have a working knowledge of Wikipedia's history with critics and the media. The piece is the usual dross otherwise, repeating the same usual myths, the writer clearly never have done his own research, or even his own thinking.
Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia, period. It has a commercial value of zero cents and zero dollars for a reason. Which is not to say there aren't now huge financial incentives for certain people and corporations to keep it limping on. And it is limping. Wikipedia is not deeply flawed, it is a complete and total failure. It is not crowdsourced, your statements on Paleontology prove it. You have complete and total freedom to choose what Wikipedia presents to the world. Because nobody else cares. That is perhaps the only saving grace, Wikipedia remains the preferred resource only of the lazy and the stupid.
It is not an encyclopedia. Never forget that. The Nature study has been debunked, repeatedly. No better study exists, because nobody seriously thinks Wikipedia can or ever will be an encyclopedia in that one crucial way Brittanica still is. Because EB still exists of course, this idea that Wikipedia killed the print edition having been debunked many times too.
Wikipedia has it's own way of being like Britannica of course. Only a shaky approximation even at its best, only ever seconds away from doing serious harm. And it is failing to get even there. By your own internal metrics, so we know they would already be generous, only 0.1% of your six million articles would be good enough for Brittanica. And you are a few hundred million short of the number of articles you should have, if your current inclusion standards are applied to all human knowledge. Without even considering stuff like oral history. Nobody is paying for that on a pro rata basis as if it were remotely comparable to EB, nobody. Fantasy land stuff. Even the 01.% is far smaller than EB, and not remotely comparable in terms of topics covered. Not so great, for twenty years work. Even less, considering you had the 1911 edition as a freebie to start from.
All the best myths. Like this one about how controversial articles trend to the neutral. Well, sure. But where do they actually end up? Is it actually neutral? Not by your own measures. This is what the whole Daily Mail thing is all about. It took the community a good long while, but you finally hit upon the way to defeat Larry Sanger's orginal interpretation of how to achieve the NPOV. Eliminate the sources whose opinions you do not like. Then the balance better reflects Wikipedia's idea of neutral, which is pretty left leaning.
If you had just set out to do what you actually claimed you were doing, an objective assesment of the Mail's reliability when set against other newspapers, and you'll find people will leave you alone. Well not everybody, but the smart people. You try and do what you did over the CJR however take the smart people for fools, and the smart people will get annoyed. They'll push back, and it won't, as you wrongly believe, be about correcting the mistake at all. I mean, you could surprise everyone and willingly correct it yourselves, but that would be kind of a miracle. So the smart thing is not to even have that as the goal.
You would not even expect Wired to repeat such dross as this idea Wikipedia represents the original ideas of the internet. It is the complete opposite. Wikipedia, thanks to Google, is a monopoly. At least where the target consumers are the lazy and the stupid. A sick accident. The original vision for the internet, was one where hyperlinks actually connected sites, just as much as they provided internal navigation.
In an alternate universe, you could have been at this very moment, presenting your own idea of what an encyclopedia of Paleontology might look like. Your own work, or as a collective. If it's better than what money can provide, and better than any other hobbyists were doing, then yes, you'd be rewarded with Google juice, and links within whatever system or scheme serves that universe's need for instant free knowledge. This universe however, as Wired do get right, thanks to that sick accident, the market is saturated. So your problems, are free knowledge's problems. And yet you never ever seem to carry the required level of guilt or shame that implies.
Wikipedia became a walled garden, believing it's own hype and marking its own homework, precisely because it cannot really sustain the fiction, against external criticism, that it is somehow different, and yet still the same, as any other web page whose nominal purpose is knowledge provision. Not even those who do it on a non-profit basis. It has to treat criticism, even one hundred percent truthful criticism, as if it were acid itself. Because it is. I've said enough here that, if it were common knowledge, would mean your chosen hobby would end tomorrow. Tomorrow. Could you handle that? Scary stuff.
Wikimedia has had to create an entire separate ecosystem of projects, precisely because Wikipedia editors are hostile to even basic cooperative web concepts. The movement is a myth, a total fairytale. It serves only to pretend to Wired's gullible readers that Wikipedia's problems of the 2010s are fixed, it's time to move on to global issues. Strategy! Well, no. You're still the chosen project of Fram. Own it. He is a part of all of you. All your very worst actors are. One person can achieve a lot on Wikipedia, just by playing the game. And it's never usually good stuff. This is the price you will always pay, for telling the world you regulate your own. Bradv is your problem, not mine. I didn't elect him. I didn't authorise Newslinger to be a gaslighter. He does it because you let him. You. Actions, consequences.
The biggest lie of all. That Wikipedia is built on love. Look at you. You had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, spitting and clawing, to the point you were finally prepared to be civil, decent, open to new ideas. Perhaps only because you knew there's no stopping me getting in your face if I want to. Which I never do to anyone here, unless they show a willingness to get in my way. A thoroughly decent attitude, no?
Don't give me a reason to keep knocking your house of straw down, and I will stop. I am goal oriented, the fact it is fun is only added incentive. No goal, no interest, simple as that. I didn't fix my gaze on Wikipedia because it had small issues, or even moderately large but fixable issues. I do what I do because this is one giant scam, a total con-job. Prove me wrong. The statistical likelihood of a Mail story being a deliberate fabrication is.....what? You don't know? Sorry, unacceptable. Not when even The Guardian has been caught printing lies to suit their political agenda. It'a not one in five, certainly. Not that you let even a basic fact like that be uttered here. Arrrgghhh, acid, acid! It's hilarious.
But you have opened your door. Huzzah. Note that you still had to defy an Administrator to do it, though. Just to have this little exchange of ours here. This is not your talk page, remember. You just lease it. You might be punished for even encouraging this interaction with the enemy. I'm the Big Bad Wolf, come to blow your house down. You have no idea how brainwashed you are. You have been taught to blindly accept that sock-puppetry is Evil. The ultimate crime. The foolish concept of foolish minds.
As for your real age, it doesn't really matter. There's nothing personal here. Nothing you did to me here is unique to you, not to an experienced critic like me. Except of course, this interaction. It's nice, being able to talk to a Wikipedian. To have your views heard. It won't make a difference. Even if you have a personal epiphany, it will quickly pass, and you will course correct back to your assigned role around here. Footsoldier. That's addiction for you. Powerful stuff.
"this idea that Wikipedia killed the print edition having been debunked many times too" everybody knows that it was actually Encarta that killed Brittanica back in the 90's, I'm not sure why you place Britannica on some kind of pedestal, Harvey Einbinder showed that Britannica is also full of errosrs in the 1960's with The Myth of the Britannica. I like to read Britannica sometimes, but the articles are usually shorter and lacking depth compared to their Wikipedia equivalents, you could call that "brevity" or "focus" but its down to personal preference. For example Britannica's article on the Irish Elk is incredibly brief, to the point of being lacking, compared to the Wikipedia article (which I completely rewrote this year).
As you can see looking through my editing history, the Daily Mail is not something I regularly edit or discuss, nor really a hill I wish to die on. I did not open the thread about the Mail on Sunday, I merely opened the RfC because it thought that it warranted creating so that the issue could be settled. I did not participate in the previous "was the Daily Mail reliable historically" discussion. I do find Guy Macons endless going on about the Mail tiring, but I agree that its deprecation was ultimately a good thing.
"This is not your talk page, remember. You just lease it" I actually have the power to remove any discussion from my talk page at any time, but I choose not excercise it so that people can judge me from the interactions I have had with other users on the talk page. "The biggest lie of all. That Wikipedia is built on love. Look at you. You had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, spitting and clawing, to the point you were finally prepared to be civil, decent, open to new ideas" I have curteous interactions with most users on Wikipedia, and your patronising and condescending commentary has little to do with my tolerance of your attitude for the purposes of this discussion. Given your constant reference to "smartness" and "smart people" its obvious you have a very high (some would say delusional) opinion of yourself, and believe yourself to be on some kind of Hero's journey to expose Wikipedia, even though nobody actually cares. "I am goal oriented, the fact it is fun is only added incentive" it's fairly obvious that the latter clearly takes precedent over the former, even though you are probably among the most obvious and least disruptive sockmasters I've ever seen. Wikininger's joe jobs of you were actually more interesting that your socks by a country mile. Do you really think that many of Wikipedia's 250 million daily viewers care about who Bradv and Fram are? This is the problem with the Wikipedia criticism communities, which are largely filled with banned ex-users, they are mostly focused on internal drama like individual admins, RfA's, Arbcom, etc, rather than the structural issues relevant to Wikipedia's average users. The truth is that nobody writing about Wikipedia's flaws in the news looks to Wikipediocracy, or Sucks! or any other off wiki forums for criticism, because they aren't relevant.
If Wikipedia didn't exist another similar, perhaps commerical site would replace it, rather than the smaller communities that you imagine, the collaborative Wiki model is too successful for anything else to succeed, regardless of its flaws. The only really successful Wiki that I can think of that isn't fancrufty is the expert only AntWiki. In China, where Wikipedia is banned, Baidu Baike, a commercial website run by Baidu, the dominant search engine in China, essentially holds an analagous position to Wikipedia, it has even more articles, around 16.3 million in fact. Baidu Baike essentially functions the same as Wikipedia, except that administrators apparently do minimal vetting on all contributions before they are accepted. On Baidu though, all of the text is copyright to Baidu, rather than the contributors. (For further background information on Baidu, see these pieces in ThePointMag and SCMP, from what I've seen, Baidu Baike's content quality standards are even lower than Wikipedia's, with some articles directly machine translated from both the English and Chinese language Wikipedias, see Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Baidu_Baike. Ultimately your efforts are futile and will ultimately change little, just like mine. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Classification hierarchies for spermatophytes
Hi, just a note on your creation of Template:Taxonomy/Erdtmanithecales. There are two distinct classification hierarchies for the parent spermatophytes/Spermatophyta. Setting |parent=Spermatophyta produces a hierarchy in which "Plantae" doesn't appear (see Template:Taxonomy/Spermatophyta). Setting |parent=Spermatophytes/Plantae produces a hierarchy in which it does. The latter is preferred by WP:PLANTS, and seems to me more appropriate for an article whose opening sentence is "Erdtmanithecales is an extinct order of gymnosperm plants". However, if you don't agree, feel free to set the parent back to "Spermatophyta". Peter coxhead (talk) 10:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
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.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dream (YouTuber) (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jihad Watch
Hello! I noticed at WP:RSN that you were concerned with the amount of articles that had citations to Jihad Watch. I was also concerned. I've taken the liberty of removing or replacing every citation that wasn't used for pure aboutself reasons: [7]. Please let me know if I missed something. Happy editing!--Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 23:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Swag Lord was supposed to be observing an interaction ban with me, which they've broken several times. Their comment at the RfC was a violation which I understand is why they struck it, but apparently they decided their next step is to play games and be petty about it, fully aware I was being patient and allowing time for the RfC to finish after being attacked for even starting it.
I'm hanging my hat up for a while. There's no point trying only to be attacked, harassed, hounded, and then find myself put into "no option is the right option" situations every time I try to do anything at all. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@IHateAccounts: I think the pile-on for the JihadWatch RfC was unwarranted given the results of the Newslinger's previous post on the issue, and was mostly used as a venue for users (some of whom barely contribute to the RSN at all) soapboxing about how they don't like the deprecation process. AP2 is a contentious topic area and editing outside it is considerably less hassle. try finding something outside AP2 that you enjoy writing about and contribute there, at least for the time being. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on File:Dream icon.svg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{Non-free fair use}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file. If the file has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 17:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to determine whether Majid Rafizadeh, whose website calls him a "world renowned political scientist", is a reliable source. He seems to have ties to the Saudi government and his list of publications seem to consist only of op-eds, things published by Saudi agencies, and..."Harvard pub". This is an example of such a "Harvard pub" published article.
Would Harvard pub be considered an independent publisher? Would it be regarded as peer-reviewed? Thanks in advance and sorry for the bother.VRtalk19:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
@Dunkleosteus77: It's on the back burner at the moment. Jen's last significant criticism was that the extinction section should be reworked, which is something that needs doing. Given that you are bringing this up, are you interested in collabing to get the article to GA? If so, I would be happy to assist. I think that the article is for the most part comprehensive, and I'm not sure there is much else to say, aside from the aforementioned reworking of the extinction section. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I saw on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indigenous Ways of Knowing that you said that ""indigenous people" (a term rarely used outside a western settler colonialism context)", I have to correct you, "indigenous peoples" might not be a term found in da-to-day life but it is the legal term in international law and significantly fought for by indigenous peoples, because it legitimizes rights beyond mere minority rights, because they are recognized as peoples, which is significant particularly for international law. And it is not North America centric, at most Americas centric. Nsae Comp (talk) 13:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Concern
I noticed the other day on FTN links to RationalWiki, I can't say that I've looked closely if it applied, but just wanted to make sure that you knew about the WP:OUTING policy. I think you're doing good work and this is taken very seriously on WP (productive editors have been banned over it, some may also have been lured and took the bait). There's this paradox where we're often obliged to keep what we know (even if hypocritically, unfortunately, it's like AGF with obvious socks). —PaleoNeonate – 06:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@PaleoNeonate: I am aware of the WP:OUTING policy, but thanks for the reminder. What I did came under clause 2: at OUTING If individuals have identified themselves without redacting or having it oversighted, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest (COI) in appropriate forums. When you say productive editors have been banned over it I guess you are referring to Jytdog? As you are no doubt well aware, Jytdog had an extensive history of blocks for posting idenifying personal information, such as emails and linkedin profiles, and the final straw was when he rang a person based on off wiki research, which is way over the line, and not something I intend to do. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not only Jytdog, but a notable case yes. If the information was found on the Wikimedia projects then you're right that it doesn't apply, of course. —PaleoNeonate – 05:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hemiauchenia, you're an experienced editor. There has been a lot of heat at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis and I have a feeling your edits might – slightly – have fueled the fire. Without technically banning you, may I kindly request that you avoid editing that page for now? The discussion will be evaluated by an administrator (or multiple administrators) experienced with closing deletion discussions, and further comments are relatively redundant as you have clearly made your point. Thank you very much in advance; feel free to simply remove this message to acknowledge receipt. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the connection between a Wikipedia editor's account and their account on another website is clear (e.g. same username on both platforms), connecting them to that account (assuming they have not made the connection themselves) is still a violation of WP:OUTING. Please do not do that again. If you need to bring in off-wiki evidence of any sort, send it to ArbCom. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GeneralNotability: This is not what WP:OUTING says. Outing only applies to "personal information", which includes "legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, other contact information, or photograph" Billy confirmed his account was pseudononymous and there is no personally identifying information under the definition at WP:OUTING so therefore it does not come under OUTING unless it comes under "other contact information" which if so is very poorly defined and the wording should be revised to make clear than pseudononymous off-wiki accounts come under this. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Other contact information" absolutely includes accounts on other websites, and if you don't believe that's policy (or at least how policy is interpreted), I invite you to notice that several of your recent edits have been oversighted. GeneralNotability (talk) 03:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GeneralNotability: The account was almost immediately privated after I linked to it, and I privately emailed Boing an archive I'd found of them, but did not make the link public. I'm fine with them being oversighted, that's at an administrator's discretion. You oversighted most of them, but other administrators who saw them didn't oversight them, which implies that there are differences in opinion regarding WP:OUTING enforcement. ArbCom doesn't cover COVID-19, having explicitly rejected an arbitration enforcement request based on it. If what you are saying is the concensus view, then the wording should be improved to make it explicit. "other contact information" implies something more personal, equivalent to an email address rather than just another pseudononymous handle. Perhaps "Even if the connection between a Wikipedia editor's account and their account on another website is clear (e.g. same username on both platforms), connecting them to that account (assuming they have not made the connection themselves) is still a violation of WP:OUTING." should be incorporated into the article text, because as is, it is not clear. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no, I did not oversight them, I requested that an oversighter look at it and they agreed it should be oversighted - that's a permission that only a few administrators have. GeneralNotability (talk) 03:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hemiauchenia, can you please take a look at Bilorv's recent edits to The First TV? It feels to me like a backdoor attempt to ignore the consensus that we established and turn the article into an attack page, but I hesitate to confront the situation directly due to my COI - maybe you could assess it from a neutral vantage point. Thank you! D00dadays (talk) 13:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Based on that discussion I would say there was no consensus for inclusion. I've reverted the content from the lead. I'm not sure it should be in the body either but that wasn't the question. Springee (talk) 00:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
Fair enough, and I apologize, but you did use the word oversight in your request. The oversight email is monitored by oversighters for a relatively quick response. Sorry to disturb, good day. 331dot (talk) 23:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am so sorry
Hi, Hemiauchenia, I'm so so sorry for mistakenly indeffing you. I must've clicked on the user I reverted to, rather than the user I reverted, by mistake. That was completely my fault. Writ Keeper⚇♔ 00:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Writ Keeper: Nooo my clean block record! :P Don't worry, I found it more funny than anything else, wasn't long enough to cause any serious disruption. Thanks for being on top the vandalism. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! I noticed you had a bit of trouble using {{Requested move}}. Please substitute the template and include your reason, for example as below:
{{subst:requested move|Lineage B.1.1.7|It's clear that the term "Variant of Concern 202012/01" has fallen out of use and that "B.1.1.7" and related terms are now the common name for the lineage used by most sources, including the British Government [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nervtag-paper-on-covid-19-variant-of-concern-b117] [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nervtag-update-note-on-b117-severity-11-february-2021], as such I propose a move to a "B.1.1.7" related name.~~~~}}
Hi again, I think it would be better if you could answer in WP:ANI directly instead of leaving comments in summaries trying to defend yourself by insinuating I think there's a conspiracy behind this involving you. "People are misrepresenting my comment as if this is some kind of conspiracy, when it is just my opinion. As such, I have struck the comment in order to avoid the cause of more problems.".[10] For your information though there can be a generally concerted effort without the need for it to be a conspiracy. People with the same mindset usually tend to stick together. The difference with your comment is just that you made it explicit. And you said "as usual on Wikipedia"... As if it's ok to stonewall people into getting topic banned. Or if it was a thing you were into. I mean... In how many ways can someone misrepresent a clear statement like that? Anyway please come to ANI to explain yourself so we can get to the bottom of this, thanks! Feynstein (talk) 00:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hemiauchenia, thank you for your response on the discussion page. As mentioned, I'm reading up on criticisms of the theory, from both proponents of the plume theory and more impartial observers. I will add the criticisms section, along with making the other proposed revisions, in the next few weeks. The current page was just a starting point, my intention being to produce a page that is informative, well-supported by relevant literature, impartial, and critical. I realise that, as it stands, it falls short of at least some of these aims. Thank you for allowing me the time to make the necessary improvements. All the best, SphericalSong (talk) 15:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I find it ironic that someone should assume arrogancy in one case and then have it pointed out to them that edit conflicts can be missed. Izno (talk) 17:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But that isn't what happened. Hemiauchenia saw that there was an edit conflict but decided that it was someone else's job to fix it. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hurricane
Actually, the material was there before. It was removed. I restored it and sourced it better. And discussed.(BRD) The other editor removed it a second time. The concerns have been addressed and are under discussion. Your reprimand acts like there are reversions for no reason.Niteshift36 (talk) 18:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really think that intro is fair
You reverted an edit I made on TCM. The intro is an important part that sums up the entire article. TCM like Yoga, is an alternative therapy with many different practices. Some of it are Herbal drinks and tonics and others are exercises like Tai Chi.
I have issue with the current article intro as it fixates on an opinion piece who have provided Zero evidence that disciplines like ginger, Tai Chi, etc are useless and to be avoided. Are there evidence to imply that people should avoid Tai Chi and drinking ginseng. I don't believe there's any harm in doing so and instead the few studies have shown benefits.
The intro should be mindful that we currently don't know everything about the human body. Sometimes a natural herb that was later discovered to have benefits for the human mind can take decades for scientific research to understand..and even then it's more a lack of research rather than evidence that keeps us from knowing whether it works or not. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/5-Hydroxytryptophan
As long as there's a lack of research to confirm that Tai Chi, ginseng, etc are completely harmful or useless. I think it is harmful and downright closeminded to allow such a prematurely and unfounded solid conclusion of such a vast discipline, to be the top intro. Casualfoodie (talk) 09:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Casualfoodie, there is no medicine or food in the world that is not harmful under some circumstances. For essentially everything that does work therapeutically, there is also a level where it does not work, and in the other direction a level where it is toxic. There is also a difference between the pleasurable effect of a spice or an exercise, and its actual value in any specific medical condition. That some natural products have, when purified , been shown to be of therapeutic significance , is an active branch of biochemistry and pharmacology, but they need to be investigated under scientific principles. If one wants to talk meaningfully about these topics, one has to learn the science. The purpose of WP is to help people understand the rudiments of the science, not the popular rumor. DGG ( talk ) 21:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG: I think your comments will fall on deaf ears, Casualfoodie has not edited Wikipedia since the dispute, and I suspect that they are gone for good. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:49, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG No, I just don't have a lot of free time nowadays for editing and dealing with questionable edit revertions but I am not gone for good. Maybe later I will come back but just raincheck for now as I have my own private priorities to take care of and not interested in a petty edit war.
For example - Note the last edit that I did on this article, was undone. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Traditional_Chinese_medicine&oldid=1018200943 One guy first claimed it wasn't backed by solid sources. Then deleted it. He was wrong so I put it back in. Then another falsely claimed it was a commercial endorsement despite it's actually not. It's from an impartial government institution that after a review of the evidence, recommended acupuncture for managing chronic pain. They are not commercial but working for the public interest only to help sufferers reduce their pain so it's not a commercial endorsement but major historical and relevant facts. I will address that issue later but I don't feel this article has editors that are willing to be impartial but seem overly vested to delete any info that even remotely supports acupuncture like the edit I just mentioned.. Even if I add in that scientists successfully treat inflammation in mice recently ( which is true) , I am certain that adding such ture and well backed info, will get a lot of opposition and fighting before it finally gets added in. And I don't have time for that.
In regards to your comment. It's not up to us or the overly vested skeptics to conclude whether or not exercise or spices are good for us. It's still up to the scientists (who actually done research on the matter) first. And from what I read from research on acupuncture, scientists have made it clear that they are only just starting to understand the effects of acupuncture and newer systematic reviews are different from the older ones in that they conclude that evidence shows it's more than a placebo effect. Yet the current plus-related acupuncture wiki article page is heavily outdated. It only still shallowly shows the systematic reviews from more than decades ago as if that's the final study. It doesn't even mention the newer updated systematic reviews in equal detail that had concluded that evidence shows acupuncture as more than a placebo effect and its findings. https://www.aafp.org/news/health-of-the-public/20180521acupuncture.html I do plan to at least update and address the article properly and add in the newer systematic reviews but I am still just a volunteer and I have my own professional life to take care of. So you can still reply to me here and I will address it in a few months time. Casualfoodie (talk) 07:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus
Hi there. Sorry to bother you out of the blue but, looking at this, I just wanted to politely nudge you that it's conSensus rather than conCensus – that is, it's more to do with consent than census, very tempting though the latter is. Gah – I know it's a PITA when some unknown irritant shows up on your Talk page weebling on about spellings, but I just hoped it might save pain in the future! Cheers DBaK (talk) 20:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I just wanted to give some justification on my revert. BLPSPS does say to avoid self-published sources, however, it does have an exception for sources published my the subject of the article: unless written or published by the subject of the article.Thanks! If you don't object, I think I'll partially re-add some of the references. EpicPupper (talk) 16:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Hemiauchenia, thanks for your concern. However, I believe that this controversy is worthy of attention. After reading WP:NOTNEWS, I believe that this issue does not fall in that particular criteria for non-inclusion. Also, in addition, I'd like to point out that some of your edit summaries have been on the verge of a personal attack. If possible, please avoid this, as they have been quite negative on other editors. Thanks, EpicPupper (talk) 17:22, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@EpicPupper: Because you have not shown that you have the tact required to edit BLP articles. These are serious accusations and you don't seem to understand the care and sensitivity needed to write about stuff like this. WP:BLP states Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Diprotodon: Difference between revisions
I’m interested to know how an experienced Wikipedia editor might determine that ‘Sapiens, f***ing really?’ is an appropriate response to a novice editing a line in good faith? Would be glad to hear back on why you’re disparaging of ‘Sapiens’; and/or why the line I added isn’t more appropriate? Hope your health is continuing to improve. regards, Andrew @ajjmcd
@Ajjmcd: Read Sapiens:_A_Brief_History_of_Humankind#Scholarly_reception. Essentially the book makes loads of wild and unverified claims that are not backed by the scholarly literature, although it was lapped up by the popular press because they didn't know any better. It's a book for general audiences, and a big history one at that, not something we're really looking for as a source for claims like this. There's a lot of specialist literature on the topic (which I have extensively linked in the Diprotodon#Extinction section. The Australian Megafauna extinction is a controversial topic in the scholarly literature that needs to be treated with the appropriate nuance. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:31, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hemiauchenia: Thanks for the explanation. I appreciate ‘Sapiens’ is not academic, but neither am I in my dealings with the subject. Your view, I presume, is that the relevancy of the ‘controversy’ discussion belongs elsewhere, along with my perception of Harari’s observation? Speculation has no relevance in academic conjecture?
@Ajjmcd: Harari is a medieval historian by profession, he has no real relevant expertise in the topic area. Part of the reason the Australian megafauna extinction is so contentious is that the relevant data is incredibly sparse, to the point that it cannot be definitively determined when these animals actually disappeared. This is not the case for Diprotodon however, which does definitively postdate Aboriginal arrival, though the evidence of interaction is mearge, as discussed in the extinction section. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Response
I do not have a relationship to Alan J Cooper. I am a scientist and I found his article on the Laschamps Geomagnetic excursion. I was interested in doing further research on Dr Cooper and his work and I found that his Wiki page had no mention of this new work. I went to add this information as I feel it is important that his wiki page includes this new work. However I also checked the history of the page before making my edit and read through the previous edits and your immediate removal of said edits. I read the edit that Andersjames0921 made and chose to put back the section about the research into Laschamps Geomagnetic excursion as it was well written. While I was revising the edits I noticed the changes about his situation with the University of Adelaide. I read the two articles linked on the page and the edit Andersjames0921 made and I feel the edit Andersjames0921 made describes the situation in more detail and is a more balanced perspective.
I am curious as to why you are removing edits about published science labelling them as potential conflicts of interest, immediately after they are published. -- Ledgereyrar (talk) 02:57, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What is your connection to Dr Alan J Cooper? You seem to have some sort of connection, your reasons for undoing my edits seem to be based on emotional reasons, using words such as 'puffery', 'terrible' and 'crap prose'. Similarly your username is a fossil, so it appears you work in a similar field.
Courtesy notice - Sanctions for biographical articles
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
You've taken a sourced/fact-based edit, and deleted in favour of one that is rife with opinion. For example, the edit that you added calls a physicians claims "erroneous." This is pure opinion, and whose?
DYK for Love Has Won
On 11 June 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Love Has Won, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in April 2021, the body of the founder of the new religious movement Love Has Won was found mummified and wrapped in Christmas lights? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Love Has Won. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Love Has Won), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
"I would like to see discussion on the talkpage about whether this content is due for inclusion out of principle".
This isn't a valid reason to revert an edit, especially not given when I checked the talk page, there is no discussion on my edit on the article nor my talkpage, suggest you identify what part of the edit you have an issue with and why, post on the article talk page and also post on MY talkpage, rather than revert the whole edit for some undisclosed principle. Wikipedia works on the principle WP:ROWN.
@Hemiauchenia, if you assessed my edit was WP:UNDUE why have you not made any such comment to that affect on the article talk page or in your revert of my edit? Perhaps you can explain on the talk page why? If not I will add discussion to the article talk page later today. Aeonx (talk) 04:56, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is an editorial authored by article subject, but in a major newspaper, WP:SELFPUB?
The newest Israeli PM penned this editorial in the New York Times where he praises himself (like politicians frequently do) and this is used in Naftali Bennett. WP:ABOUTSELF says we can't used self-published sources if they are "unduly self-serving". But is this a self-published source? Given that NYT often publishes editorials from those they disagree with I doubt they edited Bennett's piece before publishing it. Or should we assume that everything NYT publishes, including editorials are always vetted for accuracy?VRtalk18:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Ok, a follow up question how exactly do I know what is an opinion piece? For example, how do I tell which article in The Atlantic is opinion piece? If all are opinion pieces does that mean I can't use The Atlantic for statements of fact? That doesn't seem right.VRtalk18:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent: I mean, their Science section clearly isn't opinion. A lot of what is written in The Atlantic is the analysis of the writers, not really straight factual reporting. I think it is usable in some cases, but you have to use your own judgement as to what you think is opinion and what is not. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who happened to come across this discussion I can say that this is very-definitely not self-published, as Bennett does not publish the New York Times, but this doesn't mean that it is not disqualied as an independent reliable source on other grounds. Whether something is an independent reliable source or not is something that needs to be decided for each individual source and what it is used for, rather than something that can be decided conclusively for any particular outlet. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:00, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Phil Bridger thanks for chiming in! I thought the measure of "selfpublished"-ness was how much editorial oversight there was on the piece. If the NYT didn't edit a piece and published it as-is with the disclaimer "we don't necessarily endorse these views", then it seems effectively self-published. Do we attach any reliability to advertisements published in the NYT?VRtalk19:39, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, we don't attach any reliability to them, but this is for different reasons than being self-published, which they very obviously are not. "Self-published" has a very clear meaning, which is much more restrictive than "something that is not independently reliably sourced", so is not the only reason for excluding sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I am curious as the edits you did on the Pleurodira and Chelidae. You have replaced ICZN nomenclature with PhyloCode. No living taxa of turtles use PhyloCode there official list of species as followed by CoL and Reptile Database, and Wikispecies is the IUCN Checklist of the Turtles of the World. This is also the nomenclature that is recommended to be used here. Names with Pan-... are actually nomenclaturally unavailable as they fail to conform to the rules of the ICZN which is adhered to by Chelonian Researchers. Turtles are Order Testudines, Sub-order Pleurodira for side necks and then it goes to families, you can put the Podocnemids and Pelomedusids into Pelomedusoides if you wish. This arrangement you have done does not follow the currently accepted taxonomy for these taxa. I know Walter Joyce and his recent paper, but it is not followed by Chelonologists. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk20:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is premature to include more edits, especially given the recent protected editing and ongoing discussions both in the above noticeboards and the talk page itself. I encourage you to participate.
I mentioned that Dream was criticised by some for not donating enough to the Trevor Project, since that stream was the only one he did for the entire month of June. Could I still mention it?
@GBAlph4: You need a reliable source, such as a news website discussing the controversy to show that it is significant. Why are you adding Dreams real name when as far as I can tell it has only been discussed on Kiwi Farms, a stalking forum? Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:19, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Misinformation, disinformation and Bret Weinstein
Hey, so what would be the Wikipedia equivalent of talking to your manager? I would like to dispute your unilateral closing of an open discussion, which has yet to arrive at any conclusions. Twice already. In the last one, which you may have missed, my point of view received a voice of support. Does that count for nothing? Dylath Leen (talk) 19:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, thanks. Although I do not think you are bad enough for an incident. Perhaps just careless and heavy handed in this particular case. I am going to try dispute resolution first, looks like fun. Dylath Leen (talk) 08:15, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
I'm sorry, but I am NOT "involved in a significant controversy or dispute with Grabowski", neither "on- or off-wiki", nor am I "an avowed rival of that" person. Likewise there is no "legal, political, social, literary, scholarly, or other disputes" I'm involved in with him.
The fact that HE chose to apparently mention my editor account in a absurd op-ed which HE chose to write does not create BLPCOI. I've been mentioned by Breitbart, Gateway Pundit and several other outlets but obviously I'm not about to stop editing those articles. This is not what BLPCOI implies. Volunteer Marek 18:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How do you say...
I'm struggling to find words for this situation. Suppose there is a WP:DISPUTE where users disagree on whether historical event X happened. We have 3 kinds of reliable sources:
Type A: a reliable source that says, in its own voice, that event X happened.
Type B: a reliable source that says, in its own voice, that event X didn't happen.
Type C: a reliable source that says, that person Y denies event X happened without endorsing person Y's view.
If, for example, X is the Holocaust we have plenty of sources of type A. We also have many sources of type C (which document Holocaust denial), but very few of type B (because not many scholars, if any at all, actually deny the Holocaust). Thus we say Holocaust is a fact, it is not "disputed", and we must use wiki voice for it.
So how do you explain a situation where someone "rebuts" sources of type A with sources of type C to argue event X is "disputed"? What policy or guideline covers this? Do I say "voice matters"? Do I say "a viewpoint's WP:WEIGHT isn't just judged by a source that covers it but the voice used by that source"? Is this something that is not covered appropriately by our policies? Thanks! VRtalk20:32, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Martinus Thomsen
Hi, You have deleted many weeks of work when you deleted parts of the article "Martinus Thomsen". You can´t just delete 38.165 bytes without conferring with anyone and without the consensus of administrators. Please don´t do that again.
The article is well balanced. See for example the section "spiritual science". I just report what Martinus teaches, just like the article "Martin Luther" just reports what Luther teaches. It´s not my personal opinion. If you talk about violating NPOV, I suggest you rather look at the article "Christianity and Theosophy". That article is unbalanced.
@Alexandramander: I absolutely can and will delete content that doesn't improve the article. I don't care about your "hard work" because frankly it's not very good. You don't cite sources for large parts of the article, a basic requirement of Wikipedia, and large parts of the article are cited to what Thomsen wrote, which fails WP:PRIMARY. Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX, and per WP:ONUS. While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, not all verifiable information needs to be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wellheim Formation: A clear statement against a mineral-only origin?
Due to your previous contributions to Wellheim Formation, I'd like to ask you for your input on its talk page. I made a proposal for a sub-section that cleary states that certain claims by the producer (and other sources repeating them, while referring to that company) do not represent the view of mainstream geological research. I feel that this is an important point for the article that will likely get challenged by the producing company in the future. So why not get consensus for such a clear statement now? --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have no affiliation with the Physicians for Patient Protection. I am a medical physician (thus familiar with news in medicine), and recently read an unrelated newsletter regarding vandalism of the page on Wikipedia. My intention was to clean up vandalism in medical articles, which I usually do anonymously but happened to be logged into my Chess account (EntmootOpening) at the time from WikiBooks. Thank you for your shared concern in ensuring pages are neutral.
Thanks for notifying me about the COI. I've opened a sock investigation into Science, Diamond and Bonafide. If you could add any further evidence or comments on the discussion then please do so and take a look: [13] Thanks. Inexpiable (talk) 19:50, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also if you can word anything better than me or provide better evidence/proof that they are the same person then please do so. Thank you. 19:51, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Helen Joy
Hi. Why were the changes deleted? what is the problem? I returned the data and added references, as suggested to me after the first deletion of my change. АРК9367 (talk) 22:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I got a notification from you about edit war in regard to a conversation with SunDawn. I am trying to underdand what I did wrong to prevent being an issue. From my point of you, the issue is that SunDawn keep deleting updates that I made to an article on President Jovenel Moise adding some facts on the basis that I did not provide proper reference. I managed to figure out how to provide proper reference and notified SunDawn so it doesn't get deleted. Please see the communication below to let me know what the issue is. In the process, I kindly pointed out a factually incorrect information on the article instead as to where president Moise died instead of just deleting SunDawn's work. I thought that was more polite. Please help us resolve any issues in the interest of freedom of speech for all Americans.
Hi Sundown, on the changes I made to the Jovenel Moise article. I added some links to help you with sources, and thanks for pointing that out as it lands more credibility to what I was saying for a person who don't follow Haitian news as closely as I do. So you know I am Haitian and follow Haitian politics closely, like everyday. I know about everything I wrote in that article, and they are facts. Please feel free to reach back out if you have questions instead of just deleting what I wrote. Thanks,
Hello MikeGHaitian (talk · contribs)! Hopefully you have a nice day! I reverted your edits here [1] because your edit did not cite any sources, per WP:CITE. If you have references for the material, please add it to the article, otherwise it can't be accepted. Happy editing! SunDawntalk 09:04, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I added the links to the sources in parentheses. That's a way to reference the work.
Hello MikeGHaitian that is not how referencing works. Please read about WP:CITE to see how to reference properly. Furthermore, most of your edits are just news pieces, and per WP:NOTNEWS most of the materials added can't be placed into the articles. So, you can't add every single infrastructure development on the country on the article page, though I would argue that major developments can be added. Finally, YouTube is not a reliable source per WP:RS so you can't reference to YouTube links.SunDawntalk 16:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi Sundawn I figured out how to properly add the references and it should be good to go now. By the way President Moise's home where he was assassinated is not located in Petion-ville. It is located in Pelerin 5.
I rolled your change back because I think it's incorrect to associate this subject with telecommunications. It's not a telecommunication device - it's just a scam. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:01, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We're over the limit
Think you haven't noticed, Hemiauchenia, but Level 5 Animals has been filled by myself and Larrayal to 2,400/2,400 [14][15], and your recent 3 additions has pushed that to 2,403/2,400. starship.paint (exalt)14:58, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You, 79.7.112.133, should stop falsely accusing Hemiauchenia of edit warring when there exists a complete absence of mainstream acceptance and proven "scientific facts" about the speculations about the prehistoric geopolymer-concrete. From what I have found, there is complete lack of reliable secondary sources supporting the ideas of Joseph Davidovits. The only papers promoting his ideas have Joseph Davidovits either as a senior or junior coauthor. Your claim that Hemiauchenia is involved in edit warrring a blatantly false as he is just inforcing the need for secondary reliable sources in addition to what is published by a single person promoting his pet theory. I do not see where in any of his papers that he has come to replicating prehistoric geopolymer-concrete. Your accusation of vandalism is nonsense, if not uncivil conduct. Paul H. (talk) 01:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
@Hemiauchenia:
Hello,
I partially reverted your changes in the introduction of this article.
The reason I felt this revert was necessary is this article is undergoing an NPOV noticeboard here.
(which I just noticed you introduced yourself on October 5)
And in the talk page here.
I think it is premature to include more edits on this subject, especially given the recent protected editing and ongoing discussions both in the above noticeboard and the talk page itself.
I encourage you to participate.
PS : However, I have reintroduced the list of English speaking sources you rightly added, to add up to others already presented in the article on this subject, and all the more because they also quote Zemmour other than "far right" for some of them.
cheers, --Emigré55 (talk) 05:28, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"undid revision 1051389870 by JJK2000 (talk) See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_343#Sportskeeda_generally_unreliable?, there is consensus that SportsKeeda is unreliable for BLPS"
@Hemiauchenia: regarding your edit here:
As stated by WP:NPA : « It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or one who has been blocked, banned, or otherwise sanctioned, as it is to attack any other user. »
Hence, I kindly ask you to remove your edit. Thank you in advance.
Also, WP:AVOIDYOU: « As a matter of polite and effective discourse, arguments should not be personalized; that is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people ».
This is neither about me, nor about my opinion. This is about the article and its content. WP:NPA: « Personal attacks are disruptive. On article talk pages they tend to move the discussion away from the article and towards individuals. Such attacks tend to draw battle lines and make it more difficult for editors to work together.»
Thank you, --Emigré55 (talk) 09:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hemiauchenia: Why reset here again what is a personal attack, as I showed you, quoting the rules here above? Is it not possible for you to do otherwise than personalize a debate on an article? To focus on the article, rather than on me? Why be openly aggressive, sending me so harshly back to ANI? Is it really necessary to go through ANI, to resolve this question? --Emigré55 (talk) 14:54, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Hemiauchenia,
the reason why i changed Mr. McDermott's korean name from Kim Chong-Nam to Kim Chong-nam is because of todays romanizations of korean names. The linked article (Source Nr. 3 on his page Disappearance of Patrick McDermott) is from the year 2000:
Back in the day Wikipedia etc. didnt exist. And the author of this article used a romanization which is outdated since many years. Not just Wikipedia, but also the United Nations and the International Organization for Standardization writes korean names either with lowercase after the hyphen, or in some other romanizations as one name together. It's Ban Ki-moon, not Ban Ki-Moon, or Kim Jong-un and not Kim Jong-Un. It's up to you, but dont you think it would be ok to change Kim Chong-Nam to Kim Chong-nam? Best regards. --Alleingänger (talk) 12:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Error in Template:Reply to: Username not given. That you have been on Wikipedia for over a decade yet don't understand basic concepts like WP:BRD, WP:ONUS and WP:SYNTH (in the original edit), genuinely astonishes me. It shows a a genuinely severe lack of understanding of Wikipedia guidelines and policy. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be involved in an WP:Edit war at Big John (dinosaur). You will soon be up against WP:3RR. This can get you blocked from editing. 15:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Big John (dinosaur). This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.Two can send condescending, patronising edit warring notices Indeed, your edit summary was the well spring. Figure it out. 7&6=thirteen (☎)15:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Quite enough of that
We've all been here long enough to realise disagreements happen, and sometimes we lose our temper a bit (I know I do!). Take a step back and grab a cup of tea or something, please. I've left the same message to them as well ~TheresNoTime(to explain!)16:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! Not sure if I replied adequately or represented the various positions and concerns I have on the article, but hit me up if you need more information before making your edits, I've actually been studying this question for quite awhile academically and also have lived in several of the most affected areas / am an indigenous & "indigenously-interested" person, so there's plenty more that could be said for sure and you seem like the type of person who is genuinely interested in digging deeper, so just let me know.
I don't mind one-on-ones with you or other serious editors to figure out the best solutions, I'm just not sure how much detail is expected by people commenting on the Talk page right now: from what I can see, the answer is "not very much", and I've already possibly overcommunicated for that forum.
Fatbatsat (talk) 06:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. By changing the rank on this template you're creating incosistencies that show up here. Also your changes are unreferenced. Can you explain what you're trying to achieve? YorkshireExpat (talk) 20:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@YorkshireExpat: It's long been known that Phthiraptera is nested within the barkfly clade Troctomorpha, see this 2020 paper in Systematic Biology for a recent example. Linnean ranks are no longer really followed by most taxonomists, as it leads to inconsistencies like this where higher ranks are nested within lower ones. I have changed Troctomorpha to a clade, which should fix the inconsistencies. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, ok, but if the automatic taxoboxes aren't satisfied terrible things happen. Just looking here Phthiraptera is represented as a parvorder which might satisfy things, but also send me down a rabbit hole, and also there's lots to do with the main space articles on the subject. Alternatively I could just leave it alone. YorkshireExpat (talk) 20:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly a hot topic. I don't feel particularly strongly and I'm not an expert, just that whatever is done it should be internally consistent. I might just do it but feels like a weekend job. YorkshireExpat (talk) 20:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note that I monitor the categories that track errors in taxonomy templates most days, and revert any edits that generate inconsistent ranks. I have no views on what the ranks should be, only a strong view that taxoboxes should never show inconsistent ranks. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Hemiauchenia, I noticed that after the new redirect was made after the Kate Miller article was deleted, it had an effect on the now closed AfD [17] - If you click on the Kate Miller name in the old AfD, that now directs to the notable Kate Miller-Heidke, which may be confusing if anyone needs to look at the AfD. Do you think there really needs to be a Kate Miller redirect page? Netherzone (talk) 00:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have made a mistake, which could cause confusion esp. since there are still issues to deal with regarding her block. I think you should undo your own redirect because it's contributing to an already sticky situation. It's an error. Netherzone (talk) 00:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Netherzone: Dorierosie never edited any article other than her own, now that the article is deleted, she no longer has any reason to edit the encyclopedia or request an unblock. The situation is resolved. If you still have issue, take it to RfD. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The point I am trying to make is that there is an error in the historical record. The redirect messed up the historical AfD, and messed up the Deletion Log record. Respectfully, it is perplexing to me why you won't simply undo your own error to resolve this, and are expecting me to fix your mistake for you. Netherzone (talk) 00:52, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, it felt to me like we were all very close to mild improvement on the Eskimo page. Now I don't know where we are. There seemed to be almost unanimous agreement to move the page closer to being about the term, if not the whole way. I assume the A B lead discussion requires an uninvolved administrator. Then we could have a formal discussion about either page name or page intent. How do you see us moving forward? Dushan Jugum (talk) 20:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dushan Jugum: I think a request should be made at WP:RFCLOSE for someone uninvolved to close the RfC, given the lack of new comments. I have no investment in the etymology dispute, and probably won't comment further on that.
I am thinking of also opening a second RfC on scope, which I think will be the best way forward. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:08, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Eskimo
Obivously, this[19] was the best temporary remedy. But a pity for the Reich paper. I'll think of a short and handy way to reintroduce the gist of the paper (as far it concerns the circumpolar peoples) in a more sensible way. –Austronesier (talk) 19:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. But the whole section is still a mess. E.g., Flegontov et al. is cited from a pre-print for a pretty ambiguous statement ("...the Dorset people, who [...] are a likely ancestor of Inuit and Yupik people today"). I'll go into it at another time. I prefer to read these things thoroughly, even if it's eventually just to support a half-sentence of Wikitext. –Austronesier (talk) 10:26, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for November 14
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Roproniidae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oxfordian.
Your previous comments on Forbes as a reliable source for Wikipedia. The current distinction of Forbes print copy being reliable and Forbes.com being unreliable does not appear to be a useful guideline for most Wikipedia editors. Especially since all of the articles (print copy version or dot-com version) are generally accessed through Forbes.com anyway. My own experience is that the articles are almost always reliable and match one-for-one on numbers reported with other reliable sources. This leads to editors needing to mechanically redo sources which match up one-for-one with other reliable sources and switch for no other reason than this "red light"/"green light" policy on Forbes.com being red-light and Forbes print edition being green-light. Many editors are losing much edit time apparently for no reason. If Wikipedia editors are losing their contribution time to this odd distinction of a red-light and green-light policy for Forbes, then should the distinction be re-evaluated? ErnestKrause (talk) 17:08, 17 November 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.
@Chiswick Chap: I realise that, the "parent" parameter isn't exactly clear. I interpret "parent" for a paraphyletic group to be "the least inclusive clade that includes all members of the group", which in this case is Apocrita. One I suppose could also argue for Euhymenoptera (the least inclusive clade containing Orussoidea and Apocrita). There's been some major shakeup to the hymenopteran taxonomic tree in recent years, see Evolutionary History of the Hymenoptera (2017) (Open access), which presents a phylogeny radically different to that present in the current articles. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding the citation to the NY Times in this edit at Eric Zemmour, regarding the announcement of his candidacy. Thanks also, for using an *English* source, instead of the French sources that others have been adding; Wikipedia prefers English sources when available, so by adding this one, you are supporting the best possible WP:Verifiability of the article. (The French sources added by others are not wrong, they are just not optimal.)
Two tips:
language parameter – there is no need to use the |lang= or |language= param in your citations for an English source; i.e., adding |language=en-US= to that citation isn't needed, so you can save a few characters that way.
date wording, with the – you added, "Zemmour announced his candidacy for president on the 30 November 2021" but that's slightly off—the word the is wrong here. You have two choices here in standard English:
...on the 30th of November 2021
...on 30 November 2021
Both of these date wordings are correct in English, but the second one is preferred by the Manual of Style's guide to date formats and does not contain the. As long as one format is used consistently throughout an article, there is some latitude of choice; usually, the first major contributor sets the tone, and others should follow. If there is no prior pattern, I would use the most international version, "30 November 2021". For more on this, see MOS:DATEFORMAT and Wikipedia:Overview of date formatting guidelines. Thanks again for your contributions to the article. Mathglot (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathglot: I was just using Visualeditor's autocite via Zotero function, so I didn't intentionally add those parameters and you are free to remove them as you wish. As for the format for referring to dates, I have no strong preference, whatever floats your boat. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I was wondering if some tool was doing that automatically. I wouldn't worry about it, if the tool is adding them, it doesn't hurt anything, so can just be left as is. I'm pretty sure I've seen a bot go around removing them, but whether it does or doesn't, it doesn't hurt anything if it's there. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 22:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Re: this closure - I appreciate you wanting to prevent further degradation of the discussion, but I don't think the summary properly reflects what happened there, nor am I sure that the discussion should've been closed (rather than having portions of it collapsed), since votes are still coming in. I think closure should've been done by an admin; included a summary of the consensus; and considered that PAs were heavily one-sided. What do you think? François Robere (talk) 13:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, regarding your revert here, there was nothing about soap opera there. The liberal media is a big source for Wikipedia, it is biased according to respectable sources and Wikipedia itself has a liberal bias. This is a serious issue, not a drama, and your revert is just an attempt to shut down a serious conversation about the reliability of the sources - and subsequently about the neutrality of Wikipedia. It means suppressing the views that are not mainstream. The topic can be discussed and the conversation can be eventually closed. But your revert means trying to pretend that opposing views do not even exist. Please restore my edit. Thank you. -- Barecode (talk) 09:44, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So what you are trying to say is that today liberal bias actually doesn't exist or it's absolutely insignificant, right? And your "proof" for that is the fact that a comedian made that quote about a horrible Republican president, 15 years ago. Continuing your logic, that means liberal media bias will never exist from now on, for the next 500 years, simply because Colbert made fun about Bush in 2006. Sorry but you are wrong. The media lied about Rittenhouse and about Sandman, they lied about the Russian-Trump conspiracy, pushing their conspiracy theories every day for years, they instructed the public to see riots as peaceful demonstrations, Media Supports Calling Parents "Domestic Terrorists" and so on. Nearly half (46%) of all Americans think the media is very biased - this is the data collected in 2020. I am presenting reality facts, not some fringe theories.
If there is no liberal bias in the media that Wikipedia should worry about and if there is no liberal bias at Wikipedia, then you have nothing to worry about and you allow the conversation to exist and arguments to be made by those who support opposing views. But you are not doing that, and that is a strong indication that such a debate is making you feel uncomfortable. Your attempt to not only shut down a conversation about a real situation but in fact to completely erase it like it never existed shows an authoritarian reflex, in line with calling worried parents about their children education - "domestic terrorists". Forcefully removing conversations about possible Wikipedia issues does not help building a neutral Wikipedia but it helps it to become a tool used to push the liberal "truth", a "truth" calling for racist hate ("Everyone I don't like is a white supremacist Nazi!") and for calling to hunt down the "terrorists" who dare to disagree. Please restore my edit. Thank you. -- Barecode (talk) 02:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aostachuk
Response to Hemiauchenia
Wikipedia policy regarding "Citing yourself":
Citing yourself
Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason , but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. You will be permanently identified in the page history as the person who added the citation to your own work. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion: propose the edit on the article's talk page and allow others to review it. However, adding numerous references to work published by yourself and none by other researchers is considered to be a form of spamming.
The paper being cited (Ostachuk, 2019) in the "Crab" page is relevant: it has been published in the journal Evolutionary Biology, it has been cited 4 times so far, and it has been downloaded 418 times from the publisher page [24].
Hemiauchenia has been extremely violent with his/her commentaries from the beginning. He/she (who knows who he/she is?) has been trying to accuse me from unethical behavior ("Wikipedia is not a place to promote your own work"), when it is clear according to Wikipedia policy on "Citing yourself" that this not a crime or violation of the terms of use . I advice Hemiauchenia to be more respectful and polite, as I have been, and not to accuse me of false denunciations. In my edits, I have not only cited my own work but others too (5 different citations in the article "Crab"). I will not further discuss the quality of my work with an unknown person with unknown academic formation.
It seems to me that you do not want to accept Wikipedia's own policies: "Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP: SELFPUB, and is not excessive". It seems to me that there is not much more to add, just accept the reality of the facts and evidence. If citing yourself were a conflict of interest or a crime, you would not be allowed to cite yourself in scientific publications. If this is allowed in true academic publications, it does not make sense that it is not allowed in a general information web page, the content of which is not considered academic or scientific literature.
It is clear that all my edits are in my name, since my username is my name, so it is quite redundant to clarify that the edits were made in my name. I have nothing to hide and I registered on Wikipedia with my name. This gives transparency and clarity to the system, and automatically eliminates any type of conflict of interest (since everything is in view and registered). The use of pseudonyms only contributes to confusion, turbidity, opacity and impunity, and does not make it possible to reveal the conflicts of interest and the hidden interests that these people are defending. I don't think security has anything to do with this. This is not Wikileaks. Aostachuk
I take issue with your assertion that I'm adding original research to this article. I'm not. This has been discussed exhaustively by a large number of people. The ICZN has clear rules - all I did was point out the ICZN rules that pertain to this situation and indicate their implications, which are as clear as a bell.
I'm far from the only one who realizes this.
I'm not interested in what may or may not be said on Darren Naish's blog. Blogs are not legitimate sources of information.
I stand by the text I added.
not trying to be a jerk, but I'm basing my text on my 30 years of experience as a professional systematist. I didn't do "research;" I saw immediately what the situation was and pointed it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabrochu (talk • contribs) 19:09, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Cabrochu: Professor Brochu, I have nothing but respect for your work on crocodylomorphs and I appreciate your expertise in this area, and I have no issues with the rest of your edits. My issue is that your edits regarding the ICZN guideines violate Wikipedia's policies regarding the publication of original thought, and do not have unilateral support amongst taxonomists. When you edit Wikipedia, you release all edits you make under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License, which means that you do not have a right to totally irrevoke the edits you have made. That said, if you wish to systematically undo every edit you have made to Wikipedia, you are free to do so, see Special:Contributions/Cabrochu For a complete list of all your edits. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:40, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies
Hey, apologies for moving that redirect without a prior discussion. I just stumbled on it and saw that it redirected from "religion" to "Christian denomination" and thought that was a bit strange, so I moved it without thinking anything of it, not realizing that there would likely be templates that used the redirect. Thanks for reverting and clarifying the need for discussion. Where would I start something like that? Would it be in the talk page for the redirect itself? --Grnrchst (talk) 14:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hemi! I wanted to take this time to thank you for all you do at Wikipedia, and especially for your help at BLPN. It's such an important policy, and I'm glad we have you around to help. I wish you a very merry holiday season, and may the new year bring great happiness and joy. And, if you don't celebrate Christmas, then please take it as a Happy Hanukkah, a great Dhanu Sankranti, a blessed Hatsumode, a really good Saturday, or whatever holiday you want to insert there. Zaereth (talk) 08:57, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Saint Bathans mammal
I understand that the mammal lived long before human presence, but I included it because the section of text does not make it clear that it is referring only to recent history. I think it wouldn't hurt to include the link, since it does not disrupt the flow of the article, and the SBM article has relatively few other articles that link to it. An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Monotypic taxa
Hi. I see you reverted my edits at Janzenella. I've fixed the taxobox for you (again). No need to thank me ;); but I left it as a {{Automatic taxobox}} this time.
I've had a discussion about this sort of thing before. It appears there is no consensus on how to do taxoboxes when there is only one extant species, but a fossil record of others. I guess the question I would ask is, would and of the species (fossil or extant) get an article of its own, or is this unlikely; I feel the latter in the case of this wasp. Therefore, a speciesbox feels better to me, as it makes the species a topic for the article too. I'm not too precious about it though.
Regarding my use of EB: not sure what warrants its removal.
I think you may have misunderstood what ["The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica"] refers to: per EB, "The vast majority of articles attributed solely to the editors have been written, reviewed, or revised by external advisers and experts, and the lack of formal acknowledgment of their contributions was an editorial policy dating to the 1970s." Not a crowdsourced entry.
The piece of information I referenced is just being used to support the categorization of the Afar language as part of the Saho-Afar language group. KaerbaqianRen💬23:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@KaerbaqianRen: Cite a proper source then rather than a general encyclopedia. Britannica is not a good source in my experience, having read many of it's articles. If it were up to me I would remove every reference to it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
you can I would like a refund please I need your help with this matter as soon as possible I will be there at the same time I don't have a pictured in the hospital with my mom in the hospital with 105.112.217.105 (talk) 11:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Antarctica featured article review
I have nominated Antarctica for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Skepticism and coordinated editing arbitration case opened
Re: Undid revision 1066560509 by SVTCobra (talk} It's not outing in this case, as the editor themselves was linking to the material in their edits
Sorry, but it had every appearance of being exactly that. There was no mention of it in the COIN post. I don't think anyone should be required to search all edits by users before reporting outing. But if you are right, you are right. --SVTCobra01:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WorldCreaterFigher socks
Just an update for you: I have been familiar for quite some time with the socks of WCF editing from an Austrian IP range. For some strange and silly reason, the disruptive editor DerekHistorian was confirmed as a sock of WCF, even though he actually geolocates to the UK (as can be seen from numerous Google books bare URLs) and must be a different person also based on editing behavior that's different from the Austrian IP edits. Vamlos exactly fits within the behavioral profile of @DerekHistorian, and I have been looking for sexy diffs to prove it. Even though the problem editor is blocked now, I think @valereee has dug up a diff that might be useful to disentangle the WCF SPI mess. –Austronesier (talk) 13:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't find anything interesting, and I guess ST47 or Dreamy Jazz didn't either. What I can say is that I found nothing that pointed to any other accounts--though it is possible that someone familiar with the case might see something I didn't. I know that doesn't help much, but I can't say more. Drmies (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: I have started to collect some diffs that at least point to certain idiosyncrasies in citations, plus overlapping edit ranges. I guess most of the earlier accounts are stale, so I try to build the case on solid behavioral evidence. –Austronesier (talk) 17:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi.
So adding a comment from the academia is accepted as self promotion but a random guy can decide wheter it is a promotion or not. I strongly find your actions on the revisions offensive as I believe that even the knowledge that you have is not only exist but also does not exist. ForTheScience (talk) 19:50, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In regards of Bison and Bos
-"American Society of Mammalogists including bison species within Bos". The fact that a certain group of people place Bisons within Bos does not make it valid. Bisons as a whole are still placed in their own genus by the vast majority of scientists and biologists. Not to mention that during an edit war all participants in the conflict must be called out. Yet apparently i am the only one, which proves the bias of Hemiauchenia. It takes multiple studies to confirm the classification of organisms. And genetic analysis already found genetic similarities between American and European Bisons. Not to mention the morphological and genetic differences between Bos and Bison species (extant and extinct). So my edits are justified. The bias of Wikipedia users is the reason why so many information in articles is incorrect.
"If the American Society of Mammalologists includes Bison within Bos, then we should too" That has to be one of the worst biases I've ever seen. Just because one study says so doe snot mean every other study will agree. And am sure your only saying we should believe it because it has the word "American" on it. Look, i have nothing against nationalism but for god sakes, when it comes to scientific research one must be biased to multiple articles that have the most logical explanation. One article who study did not took in consideration the incomplete lineage shortage amongst Bovini is not very trustworthy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:56FireLeafs
How about we solve things like this
If its true that Bisons are within Bos, then i need you to explain me the relationships between modern Bison species and extinct ones (its worth noting that a study pointed out that the Wisent is possibly the descendand of the Pleistocene Woodland Bison, who in turn looks very similar to the Wisent). And i also want you to show me to morphological similarities between the genus Bison and Bos. If both are concluded to be morphogically and genetically similar enough i suppose we could reclassify them as part of Bos. But we should probably talk about this with more scientists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:56FireLeafs— Preceding unsigned comment added by 56FireLeafs (talk • contribs) 02:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain your analysis of the reliable sources regarding bison at the article talk page. That strengthens your argument enormously. Cullen328 (talk) 05:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Less experienced editors who may find this dispute of interest will have a hard time finding a WikiProject talk page. Most new editors have no idea that WikiProjects even exist. A majority (though not all) of WikiProjects are inactive. We actively teach new editors to discuss article content on article talk pages. Why are you resistant to this standard practice? I sincerely want to know. Cullen328 (talk) 05:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328: In my experience most wikipedia articles on animals and in particular animal taxonomy tend to be edited by a small pool of experienced editors, and it is better to get their attention on an active WikiProject (WP mammals is very active compared to most Wikiprojects, but potentially WP:TOL would also have been a good place to post). The last post about the taxonomy at Talk:Bos didn't receive much input, suggesting that it is not widely visible. I've added a note to the WP mammal post on Talk:Bos, [25] hope that's enough for you. Thanks again. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Better than nothing, although I would have preferred more at Talk:Bos. Such as a brief refutation of the other editor's argument. But we all do what we want to do, don't we? Cullen328 (talk) 06:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pan-Carnivora, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now 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 . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Hi! I was wondering, would you be able to provide your perspective regarding my move proposal on the talk page of Short-faced bear? Although I proposed it a while ago, none of the page watchers have replied. I would appreciate your honest feedback. Thanks. SuperTah (talk) 14:12, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies in regards on Bisons place din Bos
I've checked the evidence you and other users showed me and now that i think about it it makes sense that Bisons are placed within Bos. The fact that Yaks have shaggy fur like Bisons confirms they speciated from yaks. Multiple species of Bos like Gaurs, Zebus and Aurochs have spines similar to those of Bisons. They fact that they can safeley breed with cattle proves their effectively part of the Bos genus. Not to mention many people question if Bisons breeding with cows was even a problem. Ive checked the skeletons and morphology of both extinct and extant Bison species and all of them are very similar to Bos species. So yes i can now udnerstand they are part of Bos. I am so sorry for the trouble i caused last time, now i want to be part of your project to understand the placement of Bisons within the Bos genus. 56FireLeafs (Use talk:56FireLEafs)
Considering you PROD'd this article and the PROD was contested, the next step if you wanted to pursue deletion must have been AfD. Draftification should never be used as a backdoor for deletion, and articles over 90 days old should not be draftified. Curbon7 (talk) 06:18, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you know, this is not "your way or the highway". I explained thoroughly the issues with this draftification. Additionally, because I objected to the draftification, it is a lot like a PROD wherein it cannot be re-draftified. This is per WP:DRAFTIFY. I have no issue with this being listed at AfD. However, your edit summary states "This should die in draftspace". This is a clear violation of the notion that draftification is not a backdoor to deletion. If you continue to show that you are incapable of following the simple restrictions that WP:DRAFTIFY lays out, your ability to draftify articles may be jeopardized. Curbon7 (talk) 01:15, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Curbon7: I did not draftify the article this time. I moved it to the userspace of the user who created the article, who provided their consent to the move [26]. If people aren't willing to put the effort into having a remotely complete list then it should remain in their userspace. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An arbitration case regarding Skepticism and coordinated editing has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
Rp2006 (talk· contribs) is warned against a battleground mentality and further incivility.
Rp2006 is indefinitely topic banned from edits related to living people associated with or of interest to scientific skepticism, broadly construed. This topic ban may be appealed after six months have elapsed and every six months thereafter.
A. C. Santacruz (talk· contribs) is reminded to remain collegial in editing and interacting with others.
Roxy the dog (talk· contribs) is warned to remain collegial in editing and interacting with others.
GSoW is advised that a presence on English Wikipedia, perhaps as its own WikiProject or as a task force of WikiProject Skepticism, will create more transparency and lessen some of the kinds of suspicion and conflict that preceded this case. It could also provide a place for the GSoW to get community feedback about its training which would increase its effectiveness.
You are asserting something as a fact for which there is no consensus. I have not asserted an alternative, just removed the suggestion that no alternatives are in play, which there clearly are, including among experts. StN (talk) 02:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input - I am aware and looked at User talk:Akram GameYT#Cr1TiKaL, but I wanted Akram GameYT to acknowledge there was no supporting edit summary for the deletion. There has been a rash of new users wanting to weigh-in on bios of gamers, etc., including uploading copyvio images. I don't agree that British public records are violations of privacy, they know when registering that details are available to all. I was mouthed-at by an admin many years ago, but that was equally WP:SYNTHESIS. rgds,--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 01:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
June 2022
Hello, I'm Fasscass. I noticed that you made a comment on the page The Grayzone that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Preceding undated comment added 03:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at The Grayzone. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fasscass (talk • contribs) 04:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are days I wonder why I try doing things by the book. It just gives others an opening to be anal-retentive. I'm sure you understand what I'm talking about. Kent G. Budge (talk) 13:56, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kent G. Budge: In future, It is probably better to just WP:BOLDLY move in cases like this when we have already gained unanimous consensus on the geology talk page, rather than go through all the hassle of a formal move proposal. Yarrabubba crater should probably be moved as well, as the paper establishing it as the oldest impact structure states: No circular crater remains at Yarrabubba; however, the structure has an elliptical aeromagnetic anomaly consisting of an even, low total magnetic intensity domain, measuring approximately 20 km N–S by 11 km E–W (Fig. 1)18. The present day exposure represents a deep erosional level, as neither impact breccias nor topographic expressions of the over-turned rim or central uplift are preserved. Therefore, the ~20 km diameter magnetic anomaly has been interpreted to represent the remnant of the deeply buried central uplift of the structure, which is consistent with an original crater diameter of 70 km. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Patachonica: Most contemporary academics specialising on extinct sloths have accepted the new molecular phylogeny of how the major sloth groups are related to each other, and Wikipedia should attempt to reflect the academic consensus. The historic inclusion of the Antillean sloths should definitely be discussed as part of the taxonomic history of the Megalonychidae, just as the historical inclusion of the living two toed sloths is. The paper describing Urumacocnus was published before the molecular studies came out, and subsequent papers by the same authors that still include Antillean sloths within Megalonychidae, such as Megalonychid Sloths from the Early Late Hemphillian (Late Miocene), Curré Formation, San Gerardo de Limoncito, Costa Rica published in 2021, over a year after the molecular results came out, don't even mention either of the two molecular papers. So it's not clear whether the authors of the papers even dispute the new molecular phylogeny at all. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Patachonica: Exactly. You can read the 2021 paper for yourself [27]. There's not a single mention of either of the two molecular papers, "Palaeoproteomics resolves sloth relationships" and "Ancient Mitogenomes Reveal the Evolutionary History and Biogeography of Sloths", you can check the references. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:03, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Patachonica: I would say so because molecular analyses don't have issues with homoplasy, unlike morphological ones. You'd never cite a morphological analysis for the relationships of major mammal groups for instance because the results strongly contradict the molecular ones. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:55, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If they are strongly contradicted by equivalent molecular results, no. But morphological cladistics are the only real way to understand the relationships of most extinct organisms. They might be flawed but they're the best tools we have. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Palaeoloxodon is a complex one. A later study published in 2018 found that 64% of its ancestry lies outside either of the two living African elephant species, while 34% of it's ancestry comes from a lineage more closely related to L. cyclotis than to L africana. Just looking at the mitochondrial results alone is misleading. It has extensively hybridised with them of course, but all modern taxonomists who work on Palaeoloxodon treat the two genera as separate. Given that the hybridisation between the two genera likely took place over 800,000 years ago, before the migration of Palaeoloxodon out of Africa took place and that the two groups have remained separate since. Separating the two genera is convenient for taxonomic purposes, which is what really matters for taxonomy, and we should follow the current taxonomy that keeps them separate. Complex hybridisation or incomplete lineage sorting leads to all sorts of complex phylogentic discrepancies. For another example, we know that the mitochondrial DNA of the European bison is only distantly related to the American bison, and closer to modern domestic cattle and aurochs (this appear to be ancient, going back at least several tens of thousands of years), but the full nuclear genomes show that the two species are each others closest relatives. Does this invalidate "Bison" as a concept? Arguably not. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:10, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They said they didn't know, which seems like non-answer to me, which is fair enough. I honestly don't know what to say to you at this point. You really need to try to get others opinions at WT:PALEO because this conversation is just going in circles now. I will not reply to further questions on this topic unless they are at the WT:PALEO talkpage. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Chicxulub
Hi Hemiauchenia, I was just attempting to address specific issues raised by SandyGeorgia, but I've no problem if you want to rewrite the whole section, it could probably do with it. Mikenorton (talk) 19:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hemiauchenia: Hello, I noticed you reverted my edit on the Valgipes page because the image is from a paper that is for non-commercial uses, which sadly cannot be used on Wikipedia. But the problem is, this version links to the same paper (which is NC) while the one I linked is CC BY 4.0. Patachonica (talk) 03:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand now and have resolved the issue. The copyright status for PE papers is confusing. I didn't understand that some of them were CC-BY. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In cases where it's not clear from the url of the paper itself, absolutely. If it's blindingly obvious from looking at the url? Meh. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:57, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying that, if two of the same sources are of a different publication, with one being CC BY SA and the other being CC BY NC, then I'm allowed to use the images from the SA one right? Patachonica (talk) 21:49, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
lareferencia isn't a source though, it is just a repository, which doesn't actually reflect the underlying license of the journal. Always go by the license of the journal. Sometimes a preprint uploaded before the paper is published will have a CC-BY license, while the actual paper might be CC-NC or closed access. In that case as the preprint is published first, it is totally fine to upload images from it. 21:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
You should always cite the ultimate source of where the image came from. Lareferencia doesn't even mention paleo electronica, so it's not really a useful way to provide a direct link back to the image. I can't find any way to get direct access to the paper from Lareferencia, so it's a much less useful reference than the actual journal link would be. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be annoying, but why does Lareferencia mark the publications as a CC-BY 4.0 license when the actual paper shows otherwise? Patachonica (talk) 03:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not marking the publication as CC-BY, but the database information itself. That's fairly standard, and has no bearing on the copyright of the contents of the paper. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
File:Chinese paddlefish paddle closeup.jpg listed for discussion
I tried to refactor the RFC to address the concern instead of closing it. I see that you've closed it but I did move my comment into the survey. Would you consider reverting the close and instead addressing the concerns? Andrevan@15:26, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No dice. I don't have a problem with you making a new RfC but you need to carefully read WP:RFC before making one, as it will likely attract hundreds of comments, and the structure of the RfC needs to seriously be thought out ahead of time. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I tried to address all the objections. I didn't realize that there has to be an affirmative consensus on the talk page to even open the RFC. Please let me know if you have other objections or discussion. Andrevan@18:25, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Why are you posting a link from the noticeboard to its talk page? Do you have a specific objection to the version I added or are you just trying to prevent such RFC from being posted at all? Andrevan@18:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's only been minimal input so far from the community, it definitely needs more input. You act like opening a Fox News RfC is no big deal, which is absolutely crazy. The last RfC that I opened generated hundreds of responses and acrimonious discussion, news coverage from major outlets like CNN and required a panel close of multiple administrators. All things that are likely to be true of any RfC you open. You're putting huge burdens on other people without thinking about it, and that requires more input. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:56, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to tell me what was specifically wrong with the version I posted. I didn't say it wasn't a big deal or that others won't have a lot of work and burden to deal with it, but these are not reasons to revert what I added. Andrevan@18:58, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Brief and neutral"
Hi, I noticed you closed my WP:RSNB RFCs because it did not meet the requirement for a "brief and neutral statement". I am trying to figure out what is not neutral about this because the statement that is copied by Legobot is brief and is neutral (formatted as "Should we do X?"). If there are ways to improve it please let me know. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis23:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Awesome Aasim: You seemed to open the RfC haphazardly without any idea about the likely consequences. Any serious RfC about Fox News is likely to attract hundreds of responses as it did when I opened one in 2020. There is a serious responsibility to make sure the RfC is well formatted BEFORE it is published, which yours was not. The whole idea of a "dual RfC" was totally unworkable from the start, and would have turned the whole thing into a massive clusterfuck. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Second_Fox_News_RfC about the formatting for a potential new RfC. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hemiauchenia Ok I see. Btw I was working a little bit privately on my computer on the RFC beforehand but now that I see that yes there will be a lot of attention and heated comments, we ought to make sure that it is formatted in a way that is both easy to understand and that gives all the background needed for why the RfC was started. The downgrade in the NewsGuard rating is one factor, but it was not the ultimate reason that I thought about starting one. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis23:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some concerns
Hi Hemiauchenia. I see you are concerned about the state of some "Evolution of" pages, including Evolution of fish which I wrote a decade ago. I have no particular background in fish evolution. I wrote the article only because no one else seemed willing to write it. No one has advanced or corrected the article much since it was written, so it would be excellent if you have a background that allows you to do that.
Over the last three years there has been a tidal change in the availability of CC-BY papers in many science research areas, such as marine life and microbiology. There are excellent CC-BY papers, including reviews, some with superb illustrations. If these papers are leveraged appropriately, Wikipedia can make huge gains in its ability to document these science areas. When I noticed that, I made efforts to use the CC-BY articles to expand articles or start new articles that ideally would have been written years ago. However, you say using substantial passages from CC-BY papers in articles without paraphrasing them is "intellectually and morally murky at best". Can you explain your grounds for thinking that?
I agree some more recent use I made of CC-BY papers needs trimming and grooming. I was feeling the priority was first to get the relevant material into an article. Then I, or some other editor, could later better integrate it. I am old now, constrained by terminal health issues, with neither the energy nor the concentration to do a lot that is useful. But I hope to spend some remaining time better integrating some of these more recent articles. Regards. — Epipelagic (talk) 00:20, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Epipelagic: I had no idea that you have terminal health issues, and I would like to offer you my condolences for that. There are a lot of problems with the Evolution of fish page. One of the main issues is an obvious lack of inline citations, which makes it hard to verify claims. Look at the Jurassic article I wrote, pretty much every sentence or block of text is cited. When you try to rewrite an article with a lot of unsourced sentences, it is becomes very onerous to trying to find citations that verify the claims, and is often easier just to throw out the text entirely. Another major issue is the fact that it essentially stops at the end of the Devonian. Major developments in fish evolution occurred after this time, like the radiation of modern sharks and rays during the Jurassic, or the radation of teleosts, which make up 99% of living ray-finned fish, during the Jurassic and Cretaceous. There are also some obvious errors, like the claim that coelacanths are entirely marine group, when Mawsoniidae definitely had freshwater representatives.
As for the direct copying of text from Journal articles, I feel it's dubious because I don't think that incorporating it into the text without quoting it, even with the "this incoroporates text from" disclaimer in the references, is sufficient disclosure, especially without the consent of the authors. That's definitely subjective, though I am not sure that my opinion represents that of the broader Wikipedia community. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:31, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a legacy article which has been viewed by more than a million readers. It was a first pass at an article someone needed to get started. No editor challenged or extended or updated it in any basic way for a decade, so I doubt it was as unreasonable as a first pass as you are making out. In earlier years, you could leave material uncited unless someone challenged its veracity. If you look at articles I've written in more recent years, you won't find them particularly less cited than your recently written Jurassic article.
An IP address (who I believe is our good old friend Lapitavenator) went ahead and created the page. It's mostly duplicated from the Kronosaurus article, so do you think it should be redirected again? 2001:4453:5F7:6400:5802:EED6:7415:A623 (talk) 12:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is something we are currently discussing on the discord. [29]. Also, it's a bit weird for an IP user to treat me with such familiarity, you are obviously not a new user. Did you forget to log in, or are you blocked or something? Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I used to be 49.144.x.x. My IP started flickering quite fast a few months ago. I've been removing quite a lot of Lapitavenator's... problematic edits for a while now (such as repeated claims that "Cetiosaurus" mogriebensis is Atlasaurus and that "Rebbachisaurus" tamesnensis is Jobaria and/or Nigersaurus). They're quite hard to spot given they use make good edits, though I'm seriously starting to wonder if all the unsourced dates they add are due to first hand observations of the past (in short, they might a time traveller) 2001:4453:5F7:6400:340F:4871:87C2:51F5 (talk) 05:32, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possibly to give some of your exact previous addresses? To be honest, I really don't see the reason you haven't created an account. You're just as anonymous as registered user as you would be as an IP (and arguably more so, as where you live wouldn't be revealed), and it would mean that you wouldn't disappear into the ocean of the various other IP users and wouldn't experience the prejudice that Wikipedians often have towards IP users, and could more easily interact as part of the community we have at WT:PALEO.
The fact that Lapitavenator won't discuss at all outside of the occasional edit summary is a big problem. He can't be really reasoned with, only edited around, but you always know that even if he's blocked he will always be back. Such is the nature of anonymimity on the internet. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:48, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I prefer anonymity. I don't make edits that frequently, anyway. 2001:4453:5F7:6400:2D12:44A1:1D3:7134 (talk) 07:53, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Heaven's Gate
Hey Hemiauchenia,
I don't want to start revert wars and basically I'm not an expert in writing Wikipedia content so probably can learn something. Just curious, why did you do this revert? "No evidence of significance" is like the most subjective explanation ever :) I believe the cult's mention in a song by a rather popular band is no more or no less "significant" than its mention in some random series. Basically this bears a thought that the subject was referenced in both movies and music. Psfinaki (talk) 12:46, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You've cited "genius", which is a lyric database site, which is effectively equivalent to citing the song itself. In order for the reference to be significant it would have to be commented on in a reliable source. Numerous musicians have referenced the group, and playing "spot the reference" is not useful addition to the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:53, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lyrics on Genius have comments, and I gave a link to the particular comment about a specific part of the song related to the topic. Moreover, I gave a link to the live performance on YouTube, to a particular timestamp where the singer explains what the song is about. Have you clicked the links?
As for usefulness - I actually do judge significance of some subject by the fact how much it influenced or inspired somebody. In fact, I often learn about random topics from reading song lyrics, and I often start listening to particular artists after reading similar "in popular culture" sections of some random Wiki articles. So this can be useful, maybe just not for you. Psfinaki (talk) 07:46, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Genius is unreliable per WP:RSP, because the comments are user generated, making them ultimately no more reliable than Wikipedia. "in popular culture" sections are not for WP:Trivia, like random song references. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:52, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mhm right, this seems reasonable, I'll keep the article as it is then. Thanks for finally providing links to the guidelines (and not thanks for the rude vibe - but that's secondary). Psfinaki (talk) 18:20, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have been working on Trans-Himalayan themes for the past year, and during that time, I noticed that Tsergo Ri's page was missing. As a result, I reconstructed this page. While carrying out the execution, I discovered your redirection and made the appropriate adjustments. I hope that you will well receive my contribution. If you believe the page still does not have sufficient trustworthy elements, you are welcome to change it back to a redirect at any time. RPSkokie (talk) 13:43, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for supporting the NPP initiative to improve WMF support of the Page Curation tools. Another way you can help is by voting in the Board of Trustees election. The next Board composition might be giving attention to software development. The election closes on 6 September at 23:59 UTC. View candidate statement videos and Vote Here. MB03:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
September 2022
Your recent editing history at Kiwi Farms shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 0xDeadbeef12:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CPBE
Can I readd the paragraph on the CPBE in a sub-subheading under the subheading dealing with Marine Invertebrates on the Permian article? I think that would be most appropriate given the CPBE only extends to the Permian's earliest part and is really relevant only to marine invertebrates. Anteosaurus magnificus (talk) 16:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@YorkshireExpat: Paraphyletic group taxoboxes are finnicky to deal with at the best of times, so I wouldn't bother trying to include it in the taxobox. The idea of Dictyoptera sensu stricto/lato should really be discussed in the article text itself, as without context the meaning is unclear anyway. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:41, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The "Families" section in the text of this article now conflicts with the infobox. I'm not sure of the best way to resolve this, so I'll leave it. Bob Webster (talk) 17:16, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Velikovsky
I have undone your undo as Marinus rens van der Sluijs is a credible historical linguist and comparative mythologist, who has a page awaiting moderation. His articles were critical of Velikovsky, not supportive of him. I guess you may have misunderstood this? A more reasoned explanation might have been sensible. Rens points out that others have forwarded ideas similar to Velikovsky before him, and that Velikovsky failed to credit them. This is pertinent, and rarely if ever mentioned in other criticisms of Velikovsky.--David Highfield (talk) 09:55, 7 November 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.
Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:50, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The revisions you've made re the classification of Chimerarachnida, Araneida, etc. don't make sense. For example, the taxobox at Tetrapulmonata has Araneida as a suborder but it includes the order Araneae. The overwhelming majority of sources treat Araneae as an order, so this is fixed. The only way to make sense of the ranks is to treat the higher ones as clades, at least in the taxonomy templates and the taxoboxes. Obviously all alternatives should be mentioned in the text. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Peter coxhead: My apologies, the reason for the confusion is that Wunderlich proposed two contradictory definitions for the clade (the first (2015) with Araneida a subclade of Araneae, the later (2019) definition had Araneae as a subclade of Araneida). I was working from the later 2019 definition. Sorry for the confusion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the underlying problem is a general one of conflicts between classifications that only involve extant taxa and those that attempt to include extinct ones as well. Lowering the rank of extant taxa to fit in the clades needed to handle extinct ones is usually not accepted by the majority of biologists who only work only with extant species. So it might be necessary to have two systems: spider taxoboxes would treat Araneae as a class and taxoboxes for extinct taxa basal to spiders would treat Araneae at a lower rank. My only concern is that taxonomy templates have a consistent hierarchy of ranks. (As with birds/reptiles, variant and skip templates can be used to avoid clashes.) Peter coxhead (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Hemiauchenia, in the image under subhead 'Morphology', the last line of the description states, "Black bars for B,C,E = 1mm D = 0.6 mm" to denote scale. However, there are no letters (B thru E) within the image. Please clarify. Thanks. Woodlot (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Woodlot: There are letters in the original Polonica paper pdf, but they are text within the paper itself that overlays the image, and thus are not properly exported when the image is extracted from it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. But without the "letters", it seems like the last line ("Black bars for B,C,E = 1mm D = 0.6 mm") of the image caption is meaningless. Perhaps "scale" could be incorporated in the descriptive text above the last line. Woodlot (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I have reverted an edit of yours on this article, and would like to remind you about WP:BRD. When your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the recommended next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss the dispute on the article talk page with other editors, but not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring, a disruptive activity which is not allowed. Discussion on the talk page is the only way we have of reaching consensus, which is central to resolving editing disputes in an amicable and collegial manner, which is why communicating your concerns to your fellow editors is essential. While the discussion is going on, the article generally should remain in the status quo ante until the consensus as to what to do is reached (see WP:STATUSQUO).
Please remember that as the person attempting to make a change to the article, the WP:ONUS is on you to justify the change, and to get a consensus if it is disputed; and again, please do not edit war. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:03, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you always revert the people who ask you questions?
It doesn't seem like best practice. For the record, I am taking it that the answer to my last question is no. No worries, that was all I needed to know. And thanks for the discussion, however dysfunctional.Elinruby (talk) 00:25, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Removing edit on the Gymnosperm page
Hi good day, I saw you removed an edit I made (adding "Template: Acrogymnospermae classification" ) on the Gymnosperm page. You made mention the taxonomy is "abysmally bad regarding fossil taxa". I know it is hence I created one, because:
1. No where else on wikipedia is there a consensus classification of fossil gymnosperms.
2. Can you point me to what you would deem a satisfactory classification.
3. The intent was to bring gymnosperm pages up to standard as in Bryophytes, Ferns and Angiosperms all have a Template classification. So rather than just wholesale removing badly created content, you can help improve it by either fixing errors/adding content or suggesting how someone could improve it.
See the comments at Template talk:Classification of Acrogymnospermae. When you make classification templates, the WP:ONUS is on you to make sure the content is accurate before it is linked to an article. I think the idea of this template is fine, provided that only the extant groups are included. As I said there, extinct seed plant taxonomy is a mess (i.e. there is no consensus classification for most extinct groups), and is best avoided, especially given the topic is "Acrogymnospermae", which is explicitly about extant taxa only. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hemiauchenia. You recently reverted my edit on this page, in which I removed dates next to taxon authorities within the taxobox, in line with accepted customs of botanic taxonomy. Your edit summary was Do they really hurt, though?, and my answer is - its not just about customs of boranic taxonomy, but also uniformity of the presentation of articles across the entire Wikipedia site. I don't recall seeing any other botanic taxon page that includes dates in the taxobox/speciesbox − this page as it is now appears like a leper in the markets. Please revert your reversion. Junglenut |Talk12:07, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Chimerarachne.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Chimerarachne.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
@UtherSRG: Looking at [30], the claim that the Lemon sharks extend back into the Miocene does indeed seem to be correct. I'm normally very suspicious of using fossilworks/Paleobiodb as a source for taxon ranges (particularly for large clades) due to the potential for dubious or erroneus entries skewing the age, but it appears to check out in this case. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:25, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking more about the formatting. The other editor prefers a format that ends up having no links in the edited area for my view on the PC. - UtherSRG(talk)10:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Adding the page to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion to gain a broader consensus on the matter
Hi, I noticed you extensively edited Zygadenia after Kirejtshuk (2020) a few years ago, so I wondered if you might be able to help me figure out if a separate article should be made for Notocupes or not. Kirejtshuk (2020) treats Notocupes as a synonym of Zygadenia, but in a number of other articles both before and after they are treated as separate genera. In particular I'm thinking of articles such as Ponomarenko & Ren (2010), Strelnikova & Yan (2021), Lee et al. (2022) and Strelnikova & Yan (2023). Some of these suggest that Zygadenia should include only the isolated elytra fossils (there are currently 11 species for these), and Notocupes is therefore implied to be only for complete body fossils (the other >60 species). Does this seem consensus enough to split Notocupes from Zygadenia on Wikipedia too? Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would create an article on Notocupes but keep the full list of species included in Zygadenia by Kirejtshuk in that article, while noting that other authors consider the list of species in the genus to be much more limited. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Wouldn't that just make Notocupes' species list almost a duplicate of Zygadenia's? If it helps, Strelnikova & Yan (2023) includes what appears to be a complete list of species in Notocupes and Zygadenia up to the present year (except for Z. alexrasnitsyni, which they described themselves in 2021), unless I'm mistaken. It at least has the type species of Notocupes, N. picturatus, which for some reason was missing from Kirejtshuk's list of Zygadenia species. Monster Iestyn (talk) 21:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough then. In that case I'd split Notocupes out, and then truncate the list at the Zygadenia, while noting that Kirejtshuk considers Notocupes synonymous with Zygadenia. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay good, that's what I was thinking of doing to begin with. I just needed to make sure it was fine, since it also means the image at Zygadenia would have to be removed (they are both Notocupes species outside of Kirejtshuk's list). Monster Iestyn (talk) 21:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Proboscidea
I think you should expand and get into more detail on the evolution in that article and frame it some it is less centric on the modern species. LittleJerry (talk) 10:44, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I tried to reverse the redirect on this article using "Db-move", and you suggested that it go through a proper move request. Do you know what template I should use for that? Thanks in advance for your help. Bob Webster (talk) 02:31, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, I wanted to ask what the criteria is for categorizing modern politicians as fascists. I've seen some classified as fascists, like Bjorn Hocke. Firekong1 (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is the criteria for adding common names for animals? Does it require a source? An example is when I add the name “European marten” to the page of pine marten, but it’s always removed by the user bhagyamani. I would like to know if we require sources for something like this. Firekong1 (talk) 21:34, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to let you know that I just closed this discussion that you started. Also, on my own as an editor, I created a redirect from this page to Second American Revolution because they seem to be related concepts. This was not part of the AFD closure and if you disagree, you can nominate it at WP:RFD. Again, this was my own decision as an editor, not a consensus decision.
If you see this redirect turned into another version of this article, please let me know or tag it for speedy deletion, CSD G4. Thank you. LizRead!Talk!22:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hartebeests
Hartebeests are now two separate species: the Northern Hartebeest (Alcelaphus buselaphus) with six recognized subspecies: the Jackson's Hartebeest (Alcelaphus buselaphus jacksoni), the Lelwel Hartebeest (Alcelaphus buselaphus lelwel), the Senegal Hartebeest (Alcelaphus buselaphus major), the Swayne's Hartebeest (Alcelaphus buselaphus swaynei), the Tora Hartebeest (Alcelaphus buselaphus tora), and the †Bubal Hartebeest (Alcelaphus buselaphus buselaphus) and the Southern Hartebeest (Alcelaphus caama) with three recognized subspecies: the Coke's Hartebeest (Alcelaphus caama cokii), the Lichtenstein's Hartebeest (Alcelaphus caama lichtensteinii), and the Red Hartebeest (Alcelaphus caama caama). 172.243.156.245 (talk) 17:54, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, far be it from me
to get between someone and being shit all over at the drama boards, but yes, I do think it needs to be said. That account is obviously sus, and I think the only real objection anybody has is that it's rude to say it out loud. Perhaps it is impolitic for you to have said it, since that person is in the thread as well, but you are right. I highly doubt anyone would be surprised if it turned out a nefarious character was back for some lulz. jp×g09:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kilimangoro: It's not just that they're MS Paint images, it's just that on a technical level, they are not good. We all have to start somewhere, but we don't have to include complete amateur-level art in wikipedia articles. Look at the other images at WP:PALEOART and WP:DINOART, they blow those images out of the water. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kilimangoro: Everybody has to begin somewhere, but it's probably not a good idea to upload art that you make when you're just starting out to Wikipedia. I'm not much of an artist either, but I know my limitations so I create technical diagrams [31], which require a lot less artistic skill, but still look good. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not related to 73.115.150.4(talk· contribs · IP contribs ·WHOIS). We're located on completely different continents. The other IP has only edited one page while I've been editing Wikipedia for months now. And I'm not sure why providing two concrete examples of MR republishing blatantly WP:FRINGE and false articles is "not helpful". (As a funny sidenote, half a month ago I was accused of being WP:BKFIP's sock.) 93.72.49.123 (talk) 06:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the itchy trigger finger, both you and the IP sock were going on about the monthly review, so I hope you can understand the confusion. When you use an IP address, it is easy to conflate you with other IP users, which is one of the benefits of creating an account. It's relatively trivial to spoof IP user locations using stuff like vpns which is why I didn't think much of it initially. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:51, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't appreciate your tone at all. You already broke WP:NICE by using profanity against me, then you WP:EDITWAR on the article that I'm simply trying to fix an image of. What is your problem? I don't know what it is, but don't take it out on me. I was never mean to you, I don't know why you're being like that. Chumzwumz68 (talk) 22:23, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Chumzwumz68: I did not realise WP:SANDWICH applied to infoboxes. I've merged the image into the the gallery and moved the gallery up into the description section, which I hope this solves the issue. Kind regards. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:42, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting Chumzwumz68's edits regarding Bison
I'm sorry that I made unnecessary moves, however, I have been reverting Chumzwumz68's edits that have to do with Bison species. You're right that most bison species are in the genus Bison not Bos and that is why I am in the process of reverting of his or her edits, who thinks that all bison species are now in the genus Bos when they are still in their own respective genus Bison. Aceater (talk) 13:27, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Aceater: I agree with you regarding bison, and I made a post at WT:TOL to discuss the issue. Both articles are pending a technical move request, which means that they will hopefully be moved back to their original title within 24 hours. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Stephanorhinus extinction
I consider the issue as settled, but what I was alluring to in the Stephanorhinus-article as evidence for human-induced extinction are recent global analyses. Most recently Lemoine et al. (2023), who find strong statistical support for human range expansion as the driving factor for late-Quaternary global megafauna extinctions. -AndersenAnders (talk) 20:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AndersenAnders: The Late Pleistocene megafaunal extinctions are a contentious topic that has a voluminous literature dedicated to it with many people on both sides of the issue, and it's not really useful to look at a single recent study as proof the needle has shifted one way or the other when it comes to broader consensus of experts. The relative importance of human and climatic factors are likely to have varied on both a geographic and per-species basis. I think there are good reasons to think that the extinctions of S. hemitoechus in Europe c. 40 kya, was driven by a synergystic combination of cooling temperatures reducing habitable area, combined with some level human hunting (this is just my personal speculation based on the literature), but the Late Pleistocene distribution chronology in the enormously broad-ranging S. kirchbergensis is just too poorly known to say anything meaningful about its extinction causes, other than glacial cooling obviously caused significant contraction of its distribution. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hemiauchenia I know it's an incredibly contentious topic. However, it seems to me that there is a slight favouring of anthropogenic causes in the recent literature. This is, however, only my subjective opinion. Personally, I am with Lemoine and his team in that I believe that human influence was the by far more important factor, because otherwise the stark difference in extiction magnitude between the last glacial turnover on the one, and all the glacial backs and forths proceeding on the other hand, is hard to explain persuasively. While I agree that this recent paper is no proof whatsoever to end the discussion once and for all, I do think it can be a game changer. Unlike most studies preceeding it on the matter, this is a global analysis, and one with statistical power, too, drawing on a sizeable set of data. And they don't find climate to have played any major statistical role.
In any case, as with most late Quaternary extinctions, the same is true here: if environmental deterioration and human hunting collectively led to the demise of the narrow-nosed rhinoceros, a speculation I am principally willing to agree with, then the human factor was nonetheless decissive. Because if we accept the populations of animals to have been subject to ups and downs dictated by the glacial advances and retreats, then we should also accept these swings in population and distribution size as natural. If, then, the introduction of a novel factor (Homo sapiens) coincides with he extinction of these animals during climatic conditions that they were expected to have survived, based on our knowledge of their faring during previous glacial turnovers, then the anthropogenic factor is indeed the effective culprit.
But in the end, none of this is very relevant to the encyclopedia, and I think the wording in the article now is neutral and therefore acceptable to both sides. -AndersenAnders (talk) 09:54, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indian Ichthyosaur
Hi,
I saw that you deleted everything on the Indian Ichthyosaur page. I wish to ask, how do I get it back.
Wikipedia does not, as a rule, have articles for unnamed fossil taxa or specimens. And as Hemiauchenia said, there are other ichthyosaurs from India so the title was entirely inappropriate. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 22:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm not at all familiar with this source, but if it is as poor as you suggest in your comparison to infowars, might it be worth taking it to RSN? Though, in this instance, it is correct that Wikipedia erred. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've already made a post at RSN. I think a better comarison would be the (also deprecated) RT, but with a specifically pro Hezbollah/Syrian government bias. It's definitely not really usable unless to relay the views of Hezbollah or Syrian government imo Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:39, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
David Gokhshtein article deletion
Hi, I noticed in the deletion discussion for David Gokhshtein (in which we both voted Delete) you highlighted some suspicious accounts participating in the AfD. I found it very suspicious, too. I did a little digging today (out of boredom), and found a post by the "Director of Ops at Gokhshtein Media" (I won't name her, but you can find this in Google) on LinkedIn asking for 'Wikipedia experts' to get in touch with her. She posted this two weeks ago, right around the time of the AfD, and David Gokhshtein himself reposted it. The top reply to the post is by a Nigerian whose profile describes him as a prolific Wikipedian. So, it's safe to say her post is what led to the ...unusual... activity.
Hey there, I was under the impression that a closure which ended 'no consensus' could be continued if new info came up without having to take it to the admin noticeboard. I fully expect you know better, but would you mind pointing me to the relevant policy? I don't actually have an issue with how the close was handled. Riposte97 (talk) 04:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Theres no reason to think a new discussion will have any different result, especially given that there is no time gap between the discussions. Effectively reopening the discussion almost immediately after it was closed is disrespectful to the closer, disruptive and arguably a failure to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, I think there are good reasons to think a consensus might emerge, for several reasons. For example, the video is now verified, which was one of the principle objections to it. I meant no disrespect to the closer, and I am not entirely sure it is appropriate for you to accuse me of disruptive editing without a more concrete policy citation. You are and I were on opposite sides of the first dispute. Riposte97 (talk) 04:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I am aware I didn't even vote in the poll. Maybe we can revisit this in like a few months, but the discussion regarding the video was already extensive and well attended.
A California IP has been editing articles on taxa in the subfamily Machairodontinae to call them "tigers". I've watchlisted several of those articles, and I figured I should let you know if you weren't already aware. — SamX [talk· contribs]07:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Perchtinger: What's your point? These guys have been promoting these claims for years, but have been widely ignored by everybody else. According to their website, they were recently rejected by MDPI of all people at peer review. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
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.
Hi. I'm curious as to your thoughts on the recent rewrite of this page. It involves claims that bird mites can carry Lyme Disease, among other things, and I'm suspicious that the sources being used are not WP:MEDRS compliant. A few more eyes on the article seem warranted, given that it has strayed into very definitively medical territory. Thanks. Dyanega (talk) 17:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is really outside my area of knowledge, I would consult Wikipedia talk
In a prior discussion of Ad Fontes Media you indicated that it was a "self-published sources with no editorial oversight". Hence it was not RS. I just added the following updated description of their methodology to their Wikipedia article:
As of 2021:
The Ad Fontes methodology consists of multi-analyst ratings of news sources along seven categories of bias and eight of reliability. Each source is rated by an equal number of politically left-leaning, politically right-leaning, and politically centrist analysts, whose scores along each dimension are averaged (after any notable score discrepancies are discussed and scores adjusted if the outlier is convinced) (Otero, 2021).
Each analyst completes a political identity assessment; all analysts hold at least a bachelor’s degree—and most hold a graduate degree—with one-third holding or in the process of obtaining a doctoral degree (Otero, 2021).
Analysts are selected by a panel of application reviewers consulting a rubric of candidate qualifications—including education, political/civic engagement, familiarity with news sources and United States government systems, reading comprehension and analytical skills, among others (Otero, 2021).
Once hired, analysts complete a minimum of 20 training hours to learn the content analysis procedure before contributing ratings to the data set (Otero, 2021).[1]
According to Natasha Strydhorst of the College of Media & Communication, Texas Tech University, the ratings system provides "a viable operationalization of audiences' media selections". However, "It does not (and cannot) measure objective media bias and reliability, but it also shares this limitation with other available measures of the phenomena."[1]
Based on this methodology, would you still consider Ad Fontes to be a self-published source with no editorial oversight?
@Hemiauchenia Thanks for getting back to me. Yes, I've been contemplating creating a new entry in WP:RSN, but before I did so, I wanted to be sure I understood the specific concerns people have had in the past. The biggest one seems to have been that Ad Fontes is "self-published". The original version of The Chart certainly was, but I think they have effectively addressed that. If people still disagree, however, then I'm hoping to understand more fully what their concerns are. Nowa (talk) 13:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In case you're collecting examples...
This is a great example of the usual end-of-semester rush to add stuff however in order to get their grade. It reads like a high school term paper (and not a particularly good one either..) Ealdgyth (talk) 23:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A tip
Let me teach you something.
Let's say you have a strict budget and cannot pay all the subscription fees on all of the news sites you may need to access from time to time.
Don't handle blatant vandals at AIV then, where basically all of the listed people with accounts deserve indef blocking. This is somebody who has repeatedly shown, after being warned and having several days cooling off, that they are not here to build an encyclopaedia. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After spending a few days reading AIV, I'm inclined to admit you were right and I should be more open to indef blocks. I appreciate your bluntness. Sometimes. BusterD (talk) 23:12, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Invitation
Hello Hemiauchenia, we need experienced volunteers.
New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, it basically boils down to checking CSD, notability, and title). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us.
If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions. You can apply for the user-right HERE.
If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message at the reviewer's discussion board.
okay, remove the name Armenian mammoth from synonyms, but let’s remove the skeleton??? Is he bothering you with something? Or are you confused by the fact that he is in Armenia????? You are ALL trying to remove him. Armen888 (talk) 20:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am confused as to why you believe that extinct animals (like Camelops) do not have common names. Many do ("woolly mammoth," "American mastodon,""woolly rhino," "dire wolf," "giant ground sloth," and so forth). It turns out that Camelops does, too, which you can look up yourself; see, for example, its entry at The San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance Library, and you will see other museum, library, and scientific sites list and explain the popular names as well. Since it is factually correct that the animal has popular names, how is it advantageous to Wikipedia users to prevent them from knowing these names? Is there a constructive purpose to making Wikipedia users find out about the popular names only by looking the names up outside of Wikipedia? Mdnavman (talk) 01:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC)mdnavman[reply]
"Yesterday's camel", "Western camel" at al, are names that was invented by scientific researchers who felt compelled to invent "common names" for prehistoric animals that did not have them. They have almost no use outside academia, unlike "woolly mammoth " or "mastodon". The number of publications that use the name "Yesterday's camel" or "Western camel" is much lower than the number of publications just using "Camelops". As such, I think they're undue to include in the lead, but I would not oppose their addition to the taxonomy section. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:36, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because I think you're an extremely valuable contributor
...I'll remind you that the personalized rhetoric at BLPN is only going to hurt you. I get your frustration, but it's probably best to be the bigger person and strike that "low quality editor" comment yourself. If it were me getting heated in this way I'd want you to remind me too. Best wishes, Generalrelative (talk) 05:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think its actionable, given what I saw when I read Nableezy's topic ban discussion and appeal, though the other comments that NG redacted might be. I'm not planning to restore the comments that NG redacted, so I think that's the end of that. Thanks for your concern though. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, 'Unjustified reversal of the description of S. emiratus'. the species is called in its complete form: Stegotetrabelodon syrticus emiratus Khalaf because it was Norman Ali Bassam Khalaf-Prinz Sakerfalke von Jaff who described it in 2010 in the article, available online according to the reference I have indicated, and not Sanders in 2020. As for the reference to Futura in French for the footprints, it only repeats, in French, what the article by Norman Ali Bassam Khalaf-Prinz Sakerfalke von Jaffa says in English (and so many others after him just as available in English), specifying moreover, these fingerprints have been known since 2001. It is fundamental in science to respect the true authors of research work and not their commentators. Sorry for the form, I am not English-speaking but French-speaking. Obviously Petrochii, who was the first to define the genre, and Mackaye deserve to be cited. Sincerely 2A01:CB1D:3CF:CA00:C55F:BEE0:9538:A67F (talk) 17:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stegotetrabelodon emiratus was described as a distinct independent species of Stegotetrabelodon separate from S. syrticus by William J. Sanders (a well respected fossil proboscidean expert) in the 2022 book "Sands of Time: Ancient Life in the Late Miocene of Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates" published by the academic press Springer in the chapter "Proboscidea from the Baynunah Formation". The book itself is closed access, but an open-access version of the chapter can be found here. In this chapter Sanders considers the 2010 description of S. syrticus emiratus by von Jaff to be a nomen nudum, and therefore not valid in terms of naming priority. Given that Gazelle : The Palestinian Biological Bulletin is founded and run by von Jaff, I think it's reasonable to consider the original 2010 description to be self-published, and to be honest the journal does look like essentially a self-publishing outlet for von Jaff without any evidence that publications at the journal undergo any serious peer review. I therefore, like Sanders, do not consider the authority of von Jaff to be valid. Your removal of any mention of this book chapter was completely unjustified and unexplained. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Babri Mazjid
Advice you to keep Wikipedia a source of neutral perspectives. Present facts of both sides. Your recent deletions on Supreme Court judgment which is a fact makes the article would be wrong since it missed key point for the context in the page Wikidrifterr (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikidrifterr: Deleting the judgement of the supreme court was not my intention, my intention was to remove extraneous material regarding the archaeology, which is better covered at Archaeology of Ayodhya. Would you like to withdraw the blatantly false accusation of vanadalism you made against me previously? Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the interest of net neutrality I have kept the context added by you previously to the page and added the judgement and findings of ASI and Supreme Court.
This I believe covers both the sides and archives neutrality.
The “extraneous material” you talk about is vital and important to be kept in the page, without which the article’s tone of writing and objectives of writing can be questioned to have personal motives and agenda Wikidrifterr (talk) 20:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure which is why I have added the official judgment of Supreme Court of India, provided on its official website as citation and covered facts in the article based on the same.
This addition is vital and important to be present in the article since its first the official ruling of the court and its findings and second to present neutral facts and keep article healthy and presenting both sides of history.
Thank you for going through all edits and reaching a consensus on most of them. I would argue that we should need more sources to claim "that location of Ayodhya is contested" in the lead itself. Factpineapple (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hemiauchenia Hello, the oldest reference for the site being the birthplace of Rama is from 1717. Jai Singh II's map refers to the site as Janmasthan.
well that's your opinion, why should your opinion about reputation of Debrief suprecede others? Not sure why you're looking to provide cover for psudoscientific views of Kirkpatrick and want it to go unchallenged. Samir-Tabarrok (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found that you added an authority for the name "Amphioxiformes" in this edit. However, I cannot find any mention of lancelets in the journal volume you linked (searched for terms like "Leptocardii", "Branchiostoma", "Amphioxus", "Cephalochordata", found nothing). You also linked to a ZooBank page, but it merely lists the name with no authority.
As far as I have been able to find, the name "Amphioxiformes" was first used by Berg in 1937. Do you remember any details about this 1886 citation? Ucucha (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ucucha: As far as I recall the paper was linked from the Zoobank Amphioxiformes entry, but that no longer appears be the case. I would assume that this was an error and Berg is the correct authority.
I only have a Google books snippet. There is a fuller use here in 1940 also by Berg. I got the references from different Google Books snippets from Fowler's Catalogue of Fishes.
There is a separate question whether we should use the term "Amphioxiformes" at all. For example, WoRMS doesn't recognize any order name for the lancelets, just the class Leptocardii and family Branchiostomidae. Others use "Amphioxi" or "Branchiostomiformes" for the order. That's a more subjective question, though. I'm actually thinking of writing a paper on the nomenclature of the lancelets, as there are a few other issues that need to be cleared up. Ucucha (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Process
I'm not sure about your way of proceeding. I think it's going to be confusing if you keep changing the proposal in light of the discussion. Wouldn't it be easier just to discuss your proposal for a while and then post a new proposal? Thomas B (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can't you just hold off on changing your proposal until we've talked about it for a couple of days? Just self-revert back to version with my comment and wait for others to weigh in. Then decide what you think would be a good version. (Btw, it was not Hunt, but Hunt's wife, that got the job in Japan.)Thomas B (talk) 21:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I will be participating in your proposal if you keep changing it in real time. Sorry. You can still just revert back to this version [34]Thomas B (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the abstract for the original describing paper, you'd see that it's very clearly "Duplapex", not "Duplaplex" [35] Why are you citing a paper for the name change when you're really using IRMNG? IRMNG provides no clear reason for the name change. This needs discussion at WT:TOLHemiauchenia (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Go back and read the edit notes. The only 'edit warring' was from your side, claiming there was a 'consensus' and then just reverting instead of pointing out where that consensus was in your notes, on the talk page, or on my talk page.
I mean, yeah, blanking generally is a Bad Thing and you feel strongly about that particular page. I'll waste my time some day going through formal merge procedures... but you could (a) point out where that consensus was—it's not on either page's talk or linked from either one—or (b) just look at the content. I wanted the Jazeera in Algeria which is at the other list of the exact same words by a slightly different English translit. There's no daylight at all between the two pages and the laundry list of automated search tools dumped at the bottom doesn't really justify the needless and very unhelpful fork. — LlywelynII23:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LlywelynII: The wikinav analysis shows that you're an outlier. Over 90% of people clicking on the Al Jazeera disambig went to articles related to Al Jazeera Media Network. [36]. The correct thing to do here would be to call a RfC to propose a solution with 3 options:
1. Redirect Al Jazeera to Al Jazeera Media Network.
2. Redirect Al Jazeera to Jazira
3. Keep Al Jazeera as a separate disambiguation page.
Yeah, I already said if I have a day to waste (which I don't at the moment) I'll set up the merge request.
As is, there was a needless and unhelpful fork and I was solving it. You maintained the fork based on a claim that there was "a consensus" for it... and don't seem to be able to show where it is. Maybe you're too busy too; fair enough.
Regarding the non sequitur: I'm sorry for being unable to follow but how do you "click on" a disambig? Fixing those incoming links might be the real solution to the problem you're trying to look for. — LlywelynII23:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added text that is more or less directly from the American Politics Research source. This is the part of that source I'm drawing that from: "Richard Spencer, who popularized the term alt-right and was identified as one of the movement’s leaders, disavowed his white supremacist beliefs in a text exchange with a journalist (Bassett, 2022) nearly five years after the Unite the Right rally. This is only the most recent example of Spencer’s fluid policy positions. He has repeatedly countered his own previous statements about what he believes and how he identifies himself ideologically." Fred Zepelin (talk) 01:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would strongly advise that before you make any more changes aimed at sanitizing Spencer's branding, you ask about them first on the talk page. I do not see any other editors that are looking to use Spencer's self-serving statements to put things in wikivoice in that article. Discuss it first. Thank you. Fred Zepelin (talk) 01:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm extremely familiar with BLP, thanks. The more I look at the history of that Spencer article, the more rock-solid the case for the status quo looks to me. Nothing in that article is untrue. All of it is well-sourced. Attempting to sanitize the "white supremacy", "white nationalist", or any any other label that Spencer may be attempting to clean off his record is simply not feasible, given the volumes of sources that describe him with those words and phrases. There is literally nothing in BLP that makes the lead even the least bit offensive to a good-faith Wikipedia editor. Again, if you want to clean up Spencer's image, start on the talk page. Fred Zepelin (talk) 02:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Southern Policy Law Centre pretty unambiguously says he largely withdrew from the Alt Right in 2018 [37]. Would mentioning this be an attempt to whitewash him? Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your framing of what that article says is the whitewashing. The article says "Spencer’s efforts to stage events, and the alt-right movement around him, crumbled in March 2018". That's not the same thing as what you said. How does one withdraw from a movement that no longer exists? Fred Zepelin (talk) 02:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Listen, you're getting into dead horse territory here. Again, I'm telling you - before you add things to the article that are transparent attempts to make him look better, discuss it on the talk page. If you decide to do it to the article before discussing it, I'll revert it. If you edit war, I'll point to this discussion as my explicit request that you discuss changes first. I'll stay off your talk page. Have a good day. Fred Zepelin (talk) 02:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dangling sentence.
Hi, I noticed that your edit here left a dangling sentence that reads:
Please quit with the condescension and passive-aggressiveness
Listen, I don't know what I did to earn your ire. I understand that fossil fish taxonomy is a tricky subject and perhaps some of my contributions may not be to your liking and you see fit to correct them, and that's all well and good. I'm perfectly fine with all that; I promise that I'm one to generally defer to the expertise of others and don't start edit wars. But with the hours I spend searching online for sources (e.g. to back up the stub pages I'm improving at the moment), I'm at my wit's end with you constantly being WP:UNCIVIL towards me and implying that I'm too dumb to do research in your responses to my edits. Here are some of your comments towards me from the past few months:
"Please actually do some research before blindly following a book." (the book I "blindly" followed in question is the taxonomy system that the whole site follows, and I was doing what I assumed would be proper)
"No. Please expand (other page) if you want to do something useful." (Implication that I'm wasting my time with the edits I choose to make. I initially had a good faith reading of this but now I'm not so sure.)
"Your slapdash editng is really starting to get on my nerves. It's obvious that you do not conduct proper literature reviews when you make taxonomic changes." (unnecessarily hostile and threatening first sentence, and see my comment about looking for sources for hours. What decides what is a proper taxonomic resource? If we are talking about a stem-group lineage here, one could either consider it a separate sister lineage or a basal member of the crown group. If you disagree, simply revert the change with your reasoning instead of accusing me of misconduct.)
I contribute to zoology/paleontology Wikipedia because it serves as a rare bit of solace for me in hard times and I can contribute to public communication of a subject I love and hope to pursue, and the stakes are low enough that even if someone disagreed, I assumed they wouldn't be hostile about it, but it seems I was wrong. I appreciate all your work, I really do. But please disagree with my edits nicely. I don't know why you're treating paleoichthyology like politics. I'm just trying to do my best. Geekgecko (talk) 04:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Geekgecko: Fossil taxa are different from living ones. While it is OK to rely on strictly following authoritative catalogues for living species, for extinct species if there is some kind of dispute regarding taxonomy then you need to represent fairly represent both positions, rather than just taking the position of the catalogue as the correct one. If you read the academic literature, recent papers that discuss Chondrosteidae since the 2016 catalogue publication still consider it to be a member of Acipenseriformes (e.g. [38], [39], [40]) Only two publications since the 2016 catalogue have used the order Chondrosteiformes [41], so I hardly see a consensus in favour of this taxonomic scheme. I wouldn't be bothered if you just mentioned these alternative classification schemes. What annoys me is that you change them without mentioning what the other positions are, and checking to see if other researchers follow them. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I generally do follow a variety of sources for fossil taxa (see: the numerous fossil fish genera I am currently adding to the classification system), it's necessary when something like PBDB is the only other source, and in most cases I do mention if there's a dispute over classification. But in this case, the reason why I didn't mention any opposing classifications was because in the papers I read, I did not see any active disagreement with FOTW's position, only a retainment of the old classification. In addition, even if I did mention the alternative taxonomy, only one of those would show up on the taxobox. The treatment of Chondrosteiformes as a separate order made sense to me at the time, given both its basal nature and the major differences between it and Acipenseriformes in terms of bone and cartilage presence. While I probably should have mentioned the typical classification, there were nicer ways for you to suggest that to me, and that doesn't give the right for you to assume and publicly allege that I did not do any research. Geekgecko (talk) 05:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I could (and probably should) have been more diplomatic about my complaints, sure. My point is that if you are seeing a retainment of the old classification in recent papers, then you should follow it while noting alternative schemes. Also, Lance Grande, one of the authors of FOTW 2016 and an expert on Acipenseriformes who probably wrote the Acipenseriformes part of the classification section in FOTW 2016, co-authored a recent paper (2023) saying that Chondrosteidae were in the Acipenseriformes. [42]. PaleoBioDB is a terrible resource for taxonomy because it is completely unable to handle multiple contradictory classification schemes so often the taxonomy collapses into a complete mess. The best way to learn about the classification of any specific organism is to read a selection of recent research papers and see where the consensus lies. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I appreciate that. I do try to use as many references as possible and note differing viewpoints, but sometimes stuff may fall through the cracks, especially if it's not accessible via say Google Scholar, and thus there may be things I overlook. This is especially the case when I'm trying to update several hundred pages one-by-one like I'm doing now and don't want to spend too long on a single taxon. I agree with PBDB being a terrible reference for taxonomy, that was a jab at it, although I do sometimes go by it if the reference it uses is recent and/or comprehensive enough (though I only do that after first checking it). Geekgecko (talk) 22:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When you make taxonomic changes you need to do enough time to researching the recent literature in order to make an informed decision. Not want[ing] to spend too long on a single taxon is not a good enough excuse. What's the point of making rapid edits to hundreds of pages if a good portion of them are going to be problematic? Nobody is setting the timeframe for your edits other than yourself, so you have no need to hurry. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eemian landscape paintings
I notice that you have uploaded two paintings from "Substantial light woodland and open vegetation characterized the temperate forest biome before Homo sapiens". Firstly, I would like to thank you for this, and I would like to ask how you did this. I wrote to Science Advances asking for permission to use these images, but received no reply (presumably because you were quicker to ask?). Also, could you upload the other two images (fallow deer and aurochs) to use in e.g. the relevant articles? AndersenAnders (talk) 10:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw it was redirected from my watchlist -- looking at the previous revision, I can kind of understand why. It's a big fat nothing! It is hard to imagine how much rancor there was over this little article back in the day, when all it ever amounted to was that. Oh well! C'est la vie. jp×g🗯️07:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
I am reaching out to you because of your previous participation in one of the discussions regarding the reliability and neutrality of HuffPost/Pink News/ProPublica as sources used on Wikipedia.
Currently, there is an ongoing issue with the Edelman Family Foundation section in the Joseph Edelman Wikipedia article. The section appears to be biased and lacks a balanced representation of the foundation's activities, as it primarily focuses on a single controversial donation while neglecting to mention the organization's numerous other significant contributions to various causes.
i noticed that you reverted my edits on the Late Pleistocene. You said that it was incoherently written could you expand more on this. what can i do to make it more encyclopedic? I would like to understand this more because my edits is used for a class. Frances Mamman (talk) 23:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Frances Mamman: I know you've got a class, but you've picked an article that over 10,000 people read every month [45]. Ultimately the thousands of people who read this article come first over your class. If you had picked a less widely viewed article I would have been less inclined to revert.
My issues with your additions (as seen in this version) are as follows:
All of your additions to the article are underlined. I get that this is for your class, but over 350 people read this article everyday, and they don't care about your class, this doesn't serve them and is against Wikipedia guidelines.
The section on Africa adds a whole lot of information that is completely irrelevant to the topic of the Late Pleistocene.
Many of the additions lack inline citations and there are also blatant spelling errors e.g. "sowing signs of human activity"
Some of what you have written is genuinely incoherent e.g. This period is also important in the study of human origins because this was when the human ancestry began to evolve shown in genetic and fossil evidence from Africa dated back to 300Ka. There is also a significant amount of evidence showing the evolution of a Eurasian species called the Neanderthal
I don't think all of your additions to the article are bad, but to be honest the article was not in a good state to begin with, and on the balance your additions would need to be fundamentally and deeply reworked to be acceptable. Can you not just show your instructor your sandbox? Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for the response. I will ask the instructor about that, but would it still be okay for me to make edits using the recommendations you gave me? Frances Mamman (talk) 02:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for April 22
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Palaeoloxodon cypriotes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Molar.
Hi, I want to acknowledge that my editing on Hamas might have been controversial, I wanted to let you know that I apologize for the mistake I’ve made for that editing. Thanks. Justin L. 1230 (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please help with my changes
Rather than revert can you please help support the copy editing improvements. Reverting is not the most constructive way to approach the feedback you are sharing. Tonymetz💬04:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you interfere in Babri Masjid issue? it has been proven by ASI and even new temple built?
I highly recommend you to check online for Evidences. There are many in fact I can't stuff in everything here. I Have already left some Evidences in your talk page.
And they're not reliable sources? I mean those from ASI and Supreme Court? Do you mean the judges took wrong decision?
According to you what are reliable sources? They're image proofs and text proofs collected by ASI. (Eg., Hindu Inscriptions, bells, temple like structure under the Masjid, Hindu designs which found in other temples, "ram" written on enternece, etc)
These are not "Reliable Sources" and what else are?
Is your false babur propaganda that it was "believed" or "claimed" is "RELIABLE" ?
And thanks for advices/recommendations but I don't need anything. Most of my edits are unsourced? well I CAN prove they're real but lacking more reliable sources. Leave my past but, ASI reports along with pictures are definitely RELIABLE, or better travel to ayodhya and have a look
And sorry for calling you an idoit (maybe I should have reported instead of "attacking" You)
My intention is not anything bad , or to harm anyone.
Please reply about it, that if it's just claimed/ believed, then why do mousqes have Hindu Inscriptions or please just give "reliable sources" to prove its just an " claim" by Hindus.
Thanks for uploading File:Hamas logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you're interested in new religious movements, is there any chance you'd be interested in joining this WikiProject and improving JW articles? There's very few of us active in the topic area and the more the merrier. Clovermoss🍀(talk)23:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JW is very much outside my comfort zone. My interest in NRM's relates moreso to "New Age" movements rather than to Christian sects. Thanks for the offer though. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SFR has declared me involved (an interpretation which I think is not unreasonable, even though I have not voted in the current RfC) as such my close is moot, though I continue to express my exasperation at DavidA for hijacking the RfC to contest the results of another RfC held only a few months ago. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi Hemi - have you considered in your close of Talk:Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza#Three options that the RSes have significantly changed since February/March, specifically that a number of scholarly papers and reports (cited in the discussion) have been published since then, which would merit revisiting the issue? Also, unlike the last RM, there seems to be an actual consensus in this discussion. Also also, for {atop} it isn't |reason=, it's |result=. Templates are wonderfully consistent. :-) Levivich (talk) 01:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My main issue is that I felt the RfC had been hijacked with an attempt to relitigate the argument that "genocide" should be in the title in wikivoice that I thought had been decisively rejected in the previous RfC, and whas not the aim of the original RfC proposer, which is why I didn't close the entire RfC, only the section where the attempt to relitigate "genocide" in wikivoice was proposed. Given that Wikipedia has been moving away from describing events as genocide in wikivoice when the argument about whether an issue is a genocide or not is contentious (see the recent move of Uyghur genocide for example), it seems unlikely that the argument is worth revisiting at this time while the war is still going on. For whatever reason the closing rationale has not showing up with both "reason" and "result" as parameters, not sure how to fix this. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that you do not seem to be a Wikipedia administrator, do you truly have the authority to unilaterally decide on your own to close an extremely active ongoing, and extremely important, discussion with a very considerable number of votes in it?
There have also been considerable new international developments since the discussion that you cited was closed in February, with the ICC, the ICJ, and the UN, and various human rights organisations, making official statements regarding the issue.
I have undone the close, it is quite impossible after all this time has passed and all the editor comments made, to close this procedurally. Of course , you may add comments to the effect that this is an attempt to relitigate but that should be a matter for an administrative close in due course. Selfstudier (talk) 08:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now another editor has redone the "close", which is also only a close of half of the discussion, this is completely ridiculous. @Hemiauchenia:, if you will not undo this, then at least close it properly so that we can conduct a move review. Selfstudier (talk) 08:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My edit was already undone. What are the appropriate avenues exactly? And do Wikipedia's rules genuinely allow any editor to just decide on their own that discussions that they personally disagree with should be closed by them? David A (talk) 09:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Since I’ve been asked to comment here, I’ll just say that it’s highly inappropriate and disruptive for involved editors to be reverting the close of an uninvolved editor.
And you need to stop edit warring a close revert, you are just as involved as anyone else here. Actually, that could well be a 1R breach when I think of it. Selfstudier (talk) 09:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Clovis Culture rewrite
I am frustrated with your "comprehensive rewrite" of the Clovis Culture page. As you may have noticed in the editing discussion, the page was entirely overhauled about two weeks previous to your rewrite. The overhaul was an extensive university class project which provided a significant amount of new and relevant information. Many citations were unformatted, but that was still being completed.
Your rewrite removed a substantial amount of relevant and well-researched subject matter, and I want to let you know that I will be working that back in gradually with better formatted citations. In the future, please at least reach out to previous editors (as I did) before removing large amounts of content. SpringDraw (talk) 18:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also @SpringDraw: of the content of your students that I left in the article, Prof. Gary Haynes, widely recognised as an expert on the Clovis era, has recently complained that it misrepresented his position about what was the earliest discovered Clovis site [46]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did see that exchange, but according to my master document that content regarding G. Haynes and the Dent site did not come from me or my class. SpringDraw (talk) 14:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not see that attempt to reach out to me, so I regret being unable to respond (incidentally, I was in the field working on a Clovis site). In answer to what were you supposed to do? I guess I might have hoped that you would chip in on formatting citations, but I see that you don't see that as a reasonable request (surely that would have been no harder than rewriting it from the ground up? All those citations are easily found by googling them.). Anyway, Let start off on another foot. As I find time I would like to start working our content back in and correcting some inaccuracies I see. I will try to do it gradually, formatting the citations as I go. Assuming that's agreeable to you, I'll try to keep a better eye out for communication from you and other editors. I am not a regular Wikipedia editor/contributor and this has been my only project (we did receive a Barnstar for the project, for what that's worth). SpringDraw (talk) 14:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that the citations were unformatted that was the issue, it's that you didn't provide me enough information to determine what the citations even definitively were, and I didn't want to engage in guesswork. In my experience your "author, year" citations without any other information were not "easily googlable". The information was therefore essentially uncited. Also in your version, several sentences just lacked citations entirely. Ultimately, from my perspective I had no guarantee you were coming back. You could have just disappeared forever (as Wikipedia users often do) and left the article in that state indefinitely, in a state which I felt was unacceptable due to the citation issues. I personally spent many hours of my time reading the literature and rewriting the article. Obviously some of the content from your old version is now redundant with writing in the current version, but there is still good content that I hope you can include in the current version. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I concede that I was incorrect about your students being the source of the content that Haynes objected to. That content seems to have been in the article for over 15 years, my mistake, apologies. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP is somewhat misleadingly named. It actually refers to information about living people anywhere in Wikipedia. In this case the living person of concern is her rapist, even if he's not a particularly sympathetic figure. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:50, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on English Defence League. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
@Awkwafaba: Sorry about treading on your toes about this. I don't really feel confident in my skills about fixing the wikidata so I'll leave that to you along with the other remaining handful of caffra/caffrum related species articles. I noticed that when you updated Harpephyllum that you didn't include "caffrum" in the synonyms box. I don't know whether that was an oversight or intentional, but given that these species names were widely used for a long time I think they should be included in the box. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh don't worry, you weren't stepping on my toes. I'm glad someone is taking interest. POWO doesn't list the c versions as synonyms anymore, and that's the source I used for the synonyms. I think they're technically classified as misspellings now. I figured between the citation in the lede and the problematic name in the taxonbar that folks wouldn't get too lost, without keeping the offending names to much to the fore. Probably no way to keep everyone happy. cheers. awkwafaba (📥) 01:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wildlife of India
Hi! Greetings! You had earlier removed few lines at Wildlife of India without leaving any comments. As an experienced editor, you understand well that leaving comments helps others understand the reasons. In the second revert, you had left a comment stating it as simply "crap" and "vague". I want to understand where your concern lies with. Is it that the source is unreliable or is it that the extinction event mentioned is implausible or is it that the connection of the event to the endemicity is not right?
The deccan trap event and extinction seems to be well referenced across multiple sources. I have corrected the time frame and added other citations to the same as of now. I do understand that it indicates no direct connection to the lower endemic %, so have omitted that part now.
I was primarily referring to the 20 million climate change when I meant "vague". I couldn't find any good references to this when doing reading. Also the Deccan Traps doesn't seem to have had a major effect on India's biota that is extricable from the impact of the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event caused by the Chicxulub impact. Obviously in this case we could write about the extinction of dinosaurs in India, but that feels a bit tangential for an article about the wildlife of a modern country. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Once sentence I particularly object to is which persisted for at least 20,000 years after the arrival of the early hominids. "the early hominids" is not gramatically correct, and "early hominid" here apparently refers to modern humans. "early hominid" is just really a strange and confusing way of describing modern humans. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deccan trap event thoory has arguers for and against. Let is keep it as is now. I have moved the mega fauna part above the last para to be in chronological order. I have added back the reference to Gondwanan species, which I guess you have no objection to, but have removed it when restoring your older version. Thanks! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 12:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hemiauchenia! A recent comment of yours in Talk:Homo floresiensis and the fact that you occasionally edit articles about archaeogenetics made me think that you might be interested in a little "project" that User:Fylindfotberserk, User:Tewdar (currently on Wiki-strike with a self-requested temporary block) and I have dubbed the dechronologification of articles and sections about population genetics. For instance, have a look and shudder at Funnelbeaker_culture#Genetics, and you'll immediately get what is bugging us :) Another reference has just been added today with a text that literally (and I mean it literally) starts with "Another 2024 study...".
It's a hell of a job in that topic area to produce encyclopedic text that ensures due weight when there are relatively few secondary sources and review articles at hand (in this rapidly evolving cutting-edge field, review articles often appear to be perfunctory exercises as they do little to sex up one's publication list). But maybe you might want to consider joining the "fun". Austronesier (talk) 12:42, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In paleontology there's basically no review papers either so I'm very familar with writing (cautiously) primarily based on primary sources. Part of the problem with population genetics is that the papers can be very confident in their population statistics, but when you have a lot of admixtures involved there are often multiple equally vaid interpretations of the data (as this 2023 paper goes into great detail about [47]). I've run into this issue a lot when writing about the evolution of wolves and dogs based on genetics, which is plagued by many of the same issues that human population genetics is. Following your comment, I've taken a scythe to the Funnelbeaker article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:14, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Feels like a fresh breeze going through these articles. Yeah, Maier et al. provides a good caveat to overconfident admixture topologies. Editors who only look at the graphs without understanding the statistical methods often taken these topologies and their admixture rates at face value. And many editors only comb population genetics papers for haplogroups. Gonur_Depe#Genetics is probably the most ridulous example of extracting the least important part out from a very important paper. Giving a better summary of Narasimhan's work on BMAC-related and specifically Gonur Tepe indivduals is on my very long to-do list. –Austronesier (talk) 17:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've just gone ahead and replaced the Gonur section with some more useful text (Narasimhan et al. largely only mentions Gonur in passing so I didn't see a good way of incorporating it, so I replaced it with Shinde et al. which discusses Gonur in some more depth). I really don't understand the obsession with haplogroups either. It's not very informative on how particular groups of people are related in any way. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Narasimhan et al. (2019) is tricky in this respect, since much valuable information is "hidden" in S2 of the Supplementary Materials. The majority ancestry profile found in 38 out of 47 indivduals from Gonur is simply labeled "BMAC" in the main article (clustering with 46 indivduals from other BMAC sites) so it's easy to miss, while the explicit mentions of Gonur refer to the three Indus Periphery Cline outlier indivduals that are also discussed in Shinde et al. While Shinde et al. only have ADMIXTURE data for the BMAC-cluster Gonur indivduals, Narasimhan et al. have distal qpAdm modelling for the main cluster and the Indus Periphery Cline outliers. I'll tweak that later. –Austronesier (talk) 18:33, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, it is regarding this edit. Is it necessary to mention the bold part in the line - Later, ANE populations migrated westward into Europe and admixed with European Western hunter-gather (WHG)-related groups to form the Eastern Hunter-Gatherer (EHG) group, which contributes significantly to the ancestry of many modern Europeans, when the following para (fourth para) in the lead already mentions the significant presence of ANE in Europeans and others? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:03, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Dream icon.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Back on 13 March of this year you made pretty massive changes to the referenced article, for which I can see no adequate Talk section coverage, or even a reasonable edit summary. Large blocks of sourced content were simply removed without explanation. (I am less concerned about the deletions representative of much of the article, the unsourced "Durant fought for..." and "He worked to..." paragraphs, but even in those cases, a respectful approach—as I did today in other places—might have been to call for citations, for those statements; if true, they very well might deserve to be stated.) With the deletion of blocks of text, follow-on editors are left to work de novo (with no suggestion of contents other editors thought worthy of mention).
If the bolus I describe (sourced quotes and other content) was not to your liking, given the significance of the edit, the change should have been proposed and discussed, no? I would ask that you go and create the Talk section, explaining why the sourced content you deleted did not belong in the article. Clearly others thought it did—i.e., the editors offering the sourced content in the first place—and I join with that consensus in asking that deletion of their substantive edits be explained. One cannot work on material that is seemingly impusively taken away. (No issue is taken with your other additive edits.)
Finally, forgive if the perspective that underpinned the deletion edits was based in expertise (in history, on Durrant, etc.); it may be that as a Durrant scholar, your perspective is valuable, and should carry the day. But I'm told, despite my absence, that such still does not matter here; that we are still a place that operates on prevailing respect for prior work, and mutual respect for other editors (made clear through explanations of our edits). Signed, a former faculty member and logging editor of longstanding. 98.193.42.97 (talk) 03:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@98.193.42.97: You are right, it is my bad not to have used a proper edit summary for that edit. My objections to the content are: 1. It was either entirely unsourced or sourced to Durants own works, which in my opinion fails the guidelines for the use of primary sources (which in this context they are) at WP:PRIMARY. 2. I was unable to find any secondary sources that commented on these aspects (there's surprising little academic literature on Durant) so I didn't add the content back. If you are able to find and sources that comment on Durant's views (that aren't his own works) then I have no objections to adding the content back. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It framed the incident unduly negatively towards Rowley, when there's suspicion that Gideon Falter was looking for confrontation with the protesters (rather than just strolling by as he claims) and that Falter was deliberately looking to "catch out" the Met police. [49]. I'm not saying that there should be no discussion of the incident, but it needs to present a balanced perspective. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
not familiar with the case but it feels immaterial when even the prime minister says he needs to get it under control and rowley himself admits it was clumsy NotQualified (talk) 22:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hemi you removed text saying it was uncited but the source is the same as the rishi source right above it. also is it really undue to give one sentence of response by the victim, esprcially as it implicates the subject? NotQualified (talk) 14:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Second opinion requested regarding new user
Hi Hemiauchenia, looking at your edit history you seem to be knowledgeable in areas of paleontology and taxonomy; would you mind reviewing some of the recent edits made by Mdj112233? I've already reverted a few for being unsourced or adding commentary, but I see that the user has also made a lot of changes to taxonomy and fossil ranges; the edits seem to be in good-faith, but I don't have enough subject-matter expertise to evaluate them. Thanks! OhNoitsJamieTalk15:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ohnoitsjamie: A lot of their edits in this area are problematic, take their edits to various placental clade articles. [50][51][52][53]. All of these dates are unsourced and appear to be based on projected molecular clock dates (though without any source) when there are no fossils that old that are unambiguously assignable to these groups. As far as I can tell, there is consensus among established Wikipedia that estimated molecular clock ages shouldn't be used as the main age parameter like this.
Another big problem is that they don't communicate at all. For instance on the Lancelet article, they changed the fossil range to Permian based on Palaeobranchiostoma (to be fair, at the time this animal's article unambiguously stated that the fossil was a lancelet, but this taxon has only been mentioned a few times in the recent scientific literature and I can find a number of sources stating that it's affinity to the lancelets has been doubted, e.g. [54][55]) so I reverted it [56]. They then a few months later without providing any edit summary or attempt at communication changed it back [57].
They also recently edit warred over the Artiodactyla article to exclude Cetacea (see [58] and [59]), which was disputed by multiple other editors (see [60], which was before the second set of Mdj's edits and [61]), again this is against the current scientific consensus and there was no attempt at communication on Mdj's part.
Ultimately communication is a really important part of being a Wikipedia editor, and if an editor continually makes problematic edits and refuses to communicate the only remedy I see working unfortunately is to block them. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was having the same thoughts regarding the lack of communication, and will implement a short block if it continues which hopefully will get their attention. Thanks much for your input regarding the edits! OhNoitsJamieTalk16:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A person's own words are not considered as a source in Wikipedia?
Hey, what is the reason of BLP violation? Why does adding the person's own words to wikipedia considered vandalism? Have you checked the link that I added? I can provide you the exact minute and second where he states that. I am really having hard time to undertsand the vandalism here. Furkan.onal (talk) 12:05, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hemiauchenia did not call your edit vandalism; the edit comment was simply "Unfortunately these have only been noticed in self-published sources, which are unsuitable as sources." The "Professor Dave" source is a self-published source, and cannot be used for information about third parties per WP:BLPSPS. That leaves the main source, which might be usable if we had a reliable-third party source noting the importance of that particular quote showing us that that one particular item from a long video is worthy of discussion.
The "Tags: possible BLP issue or vandalism" entry was attached to your edit by an automatic system that calls attention to things that might be of concern... correctly so, in this case, as that was on the edit where you added the self-published source. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:13, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay so if I only add the quote with the source but without any comment on that, it should be fine right? Or is it still be considered as unreliable? Furkan.onal (talk) 07:13, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The question is not whether it's reliable so much as whether it's due. Someone could go through just about everything someone's ever written or said, and pick out the stray mistakes or momentary horrible things, and build a really nasty and unrepresentative page about them. That's why we rest on reliable, third-party sources to tell us not just what is accurate, but what is important enough to cover in an article. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 12:16, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. I edit the 'Neanderthal' article so it includes the fact that Neanderthals are probably not a species, because they were able to procreate with h. sapiens, proven by neanderthal DNA in sapiens genome.
2. Hemiauchenia reverts this edit, saying 'Species definition does not include creating offspring'
3. I kindly inform Hemiauchenia that Wikipedia Species article starts with the definition 'able to create offspring'
4. Hemiauchenia blocks my IP Adress from Editing the Talk page, saying "Wikipedia is not a reliable source."
I'd rather have this account removed for toxic behavior and abuse of administrative powers.
Evolutionary biology section has to be reworked in order to removed racist misguided belief systems. Greetings from Germany, I can gladly tell you what happened back then when people were allowed to make up races on the go. 77.183.64.48 (talk) 02:47, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd appreciate a PM re: Malkani names and ICZN compliance
Hi. I just came across an older (2021) archived discussion regarding the questionable Code-compliance of Malkani's publications, and hoping to hear from someone familiar with this to contact me via email in my capacity as an ICZN Commissioner. The Commission is looking for more examples of cases where an e-only journal is not compliant with Code regulations, but still publishing new names anyway. My contact info is on my user page. Thanks, Dyanega (talk) 16:32, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I'm going to do a minor rewrite the atmospheric oxygen levels section again to better reflect the nuances in the scientific literature, but given your interest I wanted to flag this to you first so we can discuss if need be. That there is disagreement over the levels of O2 in the atmosphere during the Carboniferous is clear, but there is consensus over the increase in levels during the Period. Brand et al 2021 is being used as evidence for low levels throughout the Period. However, the measurements apply to the Visean only, the authors call for further research to expand the use of halite. Importantly, two of the authors of this paper, including Brand, are also authors on the Cannell et all 2022 paper (info from which I'm adding in), which incorporates the halite data with the pyrite data to show an increase in O2 levels through the early to mid Carboniferous with values up to 30% before decreasing again. So it is correct to say models show an increase in O2 levels during the Period, but by how much and for how long is the subject of ongoing research. I'll put this explanation on the Carboniferous talk page when to publish it too.
Thanks Silica Cat (talk) 17:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Silica Cat: Sure that's fine. My main concern is that the article should make the uncertainty about the estimates in recent literature clear and shouldn't uncritically repeat the claims about Carboniferous atmospheric oxygen concentration that are often asserted as fact in sources that aren't specifically about prehistoric atmospheric oxygen concentration. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to restart (with your feedback), a new RfC for the blog "Science-Based Medicine". Could you help me to write the opening so that it does not violate the neutral part? I will then publish it. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Iljhgtn: Fundamentally. you must not present your opinion in the opening section of the RfC. You are free to give your opinion in the voting section, but the actual question itself should be short and brief. My advice to you is that the question should be something like Is the website Science-Based Medicine in whole or in part, a self-published source? You can then give your reasoning as to why you think this is the case in the voting section. You also need to add a {{rfc}} tag to the top of the RfC, as elaborated on in Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Creating_an_RfC.
I am trying to do this now, but the RfC tag does not seem to be working properly. I picked two of the categories from the Science-Based Medicine page for instance and it is giving me error messages. I am going to publish it for now since it seems to mostly be a straightforward request other than the RfC tagging which I am hoping you will be able to correct on for me? Iljhgtn (talk) 01:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is writing from a external, non Islamic perspective. Muhammad is most notable from an external perspective as being the founder of Islam, not as being Islam's last prophet. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:43, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have a bit of an editing situation at Animal, with a daft phylogeny that claims to be a consensus but actually sits on the fence between 2 competing views, one of which has garnered quite a bit of support in the past few years. An editor has plonked a 'don't change this' note in the text, which is not helpful in this situation. Ideas? Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly haven't been keeping up with this dispute over the last year or so. As I recall the support for deuterostomes is much lower than that of protostomes, and I have no idea what's going on currently in the ctenophore v. sponge as earliest diverging animal group dispute. If a node remains in serious dispute, I would just code it as a polytomy, or provide multiple sourced trees with competing hypotheses. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An apology
Hemiauchenia, I owe you an apology for characterizing as a threat (on the Ian Stevenson talk page) a message you left for me on my talk page. I have posted an apology to you on the Stevenson talk page. Since my original posting didn’t mention you by name, I haven’t mentioned your name in the apology. So please accept my message here as my personal apology.
By the way, I answered on my Talk page the message you left for me there, but I neglected to ping you, so you may not have seen it. My apologies for that too. (I am not fishing for an answer to my answer. No further answer is needed. I just don’t want to be discourteously negligent.)
@CoastRedwood: Please see WP:1AM and WP:IDHT. This is a featured article that editors have poured a lot of time into, and you're just mucking it up and making it worse. Literally nobody else has supported your edits. You really need to learn to WP:DROPTHESTICK and just move on when you are consistently opposed during a dispute, even if you think you are right. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:22, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not easy to tell at this point, because not many editors have really engaged with my posts at this point. Consensus doesn’t exist, but there’s no way to tell what it will look like when it does CoastRedwood (talk) 11:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, one of the edits you undid was information about the exact use of the term elephant. Whatever the subject of the article, isn’t that worth a mention? CoastRedwood (talk) 11:53, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Probably. I'll go and check my copy of Evolution and Fossil Record of African Proboscidea for its coverage of Loxodonta tomorrow, as it's around bedtime currently in my timezone. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:36, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome-arbpia
I put together a new user welcome template, {{welcome-arbpia}}, that has less legalese and more prominently explains ECR. I don't know how much it actually helps, but I leave that welcome with the ARBPIA alert for new editors. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:48, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
re: Encyclopaedia Metallum RfC
Thank you for correcting that. I hadn't originally formatted the question as an RfC, and then tried to change it when I read that deprecating requires an RfC. I didn't manage to fully reword it correctly, thank you for correcting the formatting.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 16:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am well aware of the outing rules and how they let people get away with blatant conflict of interest editing. I am not intimidated by you or your warnings. I mentioned nothing about these editors real-life identities or their personal contact information, so I am not in violation of the outing rules. The bright-line rule for outing is directly linking to offsite material, which I again didn't do. If people can be oversighted for merely accusing a user of being associated with a particular organisation, what's the point of even having COI rules? Should COIN just be shut down then? Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:02, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm following this with interest (also at the talk page of solar radiation modification). What would be the correct procedure then to investigate undeclared (suspected) COIs, other than voicing that one might have a feeling or suspicion? I've already learnt that even if the user name is a real name it means nothing. And is it sufficient for someone to state on their user profile page their affiliation or current research interests, or would you expect an explicit mention of the COI and how they plan to handle this? EMsmile (talk) 08:28, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, the editors I mentioned on the talkpage appear to be affiliated in some way with organisations associated in some way with solar geoengineering. Some have engaged in blatant COI editing, like removing criticism of an organisation they are associated with, without disclosing their affiliation. I would reasonably expect users to disclose the particular organisations that they are associated with, rather than just say "I am affiliated with a geoengineering organisation". Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:57, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Depends. If a user is citing their own research papers or adding content related to or removing content critical of an organisation they are associated with then it isn't enough. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DISCLOSE says nothing about giving your employer or your real name, nor do the templates associated with a COI disclosure. "I have a COI with respect to XYZ" might be the bare minimum for disclosure, but it is all that is required. Primefac (talk) 15:23, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One could argue by this standard, Tenebrae did nothing wrong because he vaguely admitted he was an entertainment journalist. The community thought otherwise. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:57, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tenebrae is an interesting example because I think it undermines the point you're making. ArbCom acted on the off-wiki evidence and then the community acted by going further. The community didn't directly act on the off-wiki evidence. I have been concerned with ways that editors can weaponize our OUTING policies to protect themselves against COI issues and think there is no great answer here (other than the fact that we're no longer suppressing reliable sources when they report on editors) but there is a balance to be had and COIVRT is the least bad answer we've come up with so far. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:05, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The opaqueness of COIVRT, including whether or not actions are taken based upon it makes it impossible to know whether reporting COI violations to it is actually a useful use of time. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:23, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair critique. Hopefully the arbitrator present in this discussion will think on that; it would be good for ArbCom to produce some kind of report on how it's working (or not). All that said while I know you said you didn't care about the warnings, I'll just close that the OS team has definitely backed blocks of longtime longterm productive editors who've violated OUTING disclosures. I hope you don't let that happen to you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:27, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If functionaries are defending editors subverting Wikipedia with blatant conflicts of interest over the editors trying to keep Wikipedia a useful and neutral encyclopedia, then I'd say the functionaries are the ones who should think long and hard about why their priorities are so wrongheaded, not the longtime editor who has contributed a mountain's worth more content than them.
(As an aside, the whole recasting of Tenebrae as 'the system worked' is hilarious bullshit. If Wikipediocracy denizens hadn't pushed and agitated it would have been swept under the rug like so many COI problems have been. So far COIVRT has not demonstrated any utility whatsoever, and it's up to the systems to justify their existence, especially when they were created as a tacit acknowledgment that ArbCom and functionaries had consistently and habitually failed.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk18:38, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the Daily Dot hadn't chosen to publish a WPO contributor you're correct the system probably wouldn't have worked. But of course there wasn't the current structure around handling this issue at that point either. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:21, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know that like any experienced editor that I can be discarded like trash at a moments notice for basically any reason. You accept that as an editor of this website. What I meant by I am not intimidated by you or your warnings is that I will continue to warn other editors about potential conflicts of interest within reason and within the outing policy as I understand it, rather than be scared I might be banned for inadvertent violations of the outing policy. Upholding the integrity of encyclopedia is one of the important aspects of being a member of this website. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth my initial statement was nowhere near a warning, just a note; contrary to popular belief it is fairly rare that we OS block without any warnings let alone those who are attempting to uphold our policies and guidelines. Primefac (talk) 19:05, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When you've been indef blocked for outing without any warning or any previous non-accidental block, and forced to use VRT after having your talkpage access revoked trying to defend yourself (which, I might add, was solely for adding Tenebrae as a connected contributor to his RL identity without any attempt to say that it was actually him), and also seeing what happened to Kashmiri recently, you tend to take personal talk page "notes" about outing as deathly serious warnings. I understand that wasn't your intention now. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:32, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! So much going on in the background. And such a difficult fine line between "outting" someone and detecting/suspecting undisclosed COIs. I feel for you; it must have been a really tough situation (to get yourself unblocked)! Hope it'll be more plain sailing from here on and fewer of such controversies. I had my own AN/I recently and there was also the issue of accidental outting, COI and other stuff, and it was very stressful for me, so I know a little bit what it's like. EMsmile (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
H., how come you didn't actually out anyone, yet you have received a warning notice (which, as you note, can easilly be interpreted as one of the severest one can receive, regardless of the language it's couched in or the intention behind it), while, over at AN/I, a "20-year admin" has actually outed a user—to the extent of requiring redaction!—yet not a word from O/S? Per policy, even just an "attempted outing is sufficient grounds for an immediate block". I wonder what differentiates a 20-year admin who OUTs IPs to those who, as acknowledged above, "are attempting to uphold our policies and guidelines"...? Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi13:29, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An oversight (lowercase O) on my part, I was discussing it with some of my colleagues and the matter of actually leaving the warning was... sidetracked. Thank you for the reminder. Primefac (talk) 13:44, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There are plethora of replications regarding the ganzfeld experiments with consistent estimates over time (more recent experiments that are more rigorous have actually better estimates, so the current meta-analysis reported in the article is a conservative estimate). Aganon77 (talk) 21:19, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am well aware of how scientific research works been a published author in top scientific journals myself.
"Parapsychology is pseudoscience"
Pseudoscience is defined by lack of rigorous methods and that has not been the case for the ganzfeld experiment, been developed in conjunction with skeptics.
"its experimental results violate"
Most experiments test assumptions, PSI experiments test assumptions about reality. Likewise, the double slit experiment violates our understanding of reality. That does not make it pseudoscience.
One should not claim an experiment has not been replicated with 78 known studies in the last ~50 years, all showing consistent estimates since 30 years ago. I provided each one of the references to prove it. Please be rational. Aganon77 (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Parapsychology is a walled garden of like-minded people who are largely ignored by the scientific community at large because they consider its premise to be false. The double slit experiment does not violate our understanding of reality, it violates human intuition about reality, which is completely different. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you are characterizing a whole field and not the experimental design, introducing external bias into assessing this single experiment that has been designed by skeptics (Hyman) and replicated by skeptics.
See
Hyman, R., & Honorton, C. (1986). A Joint Communiqué: The Psi Ganzfeld Controversy. Journal of Parapsychology, 50(4), 351-364.
Wiseman, R., & Milton, J. (1997). Experiment One of the SAIC Program: A Critical Re-evaluation. Journal of Parapsychology, 61, 197-207.
Milton, J., & Wiseman, R. (1999). Does Psi Exist? Lack of Replication of an Anomalous Process of Information Transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 125(4), 387-391.
Bierman, D. J. (2000). Consciousness Induced Restoration of Time-Symmetry (CIRTS). In Toward a Science of Consciousness Conference.
Regarding the double slit experiment, you’re right—it violates intuition, not necessarily established physical laws. But psi experiments, including Ganzfeld, test models of information transfer rather than assuming violations of physical laws outright. That’s why replication, effect sizes, and statistical methodologies matter more than how the findings "feel" intuitively.
On replication: if 78 studies over decades show a consistent effect size, then dismissal should be based on an empirical counter-analysis, not a priori rejection. I completely respect skepticism, but I’d be interested in what specific methodological critiques you believe remain unaddressed after 30 years of refinements. Aganon77 (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As per discussion in Talk:Rendang#Origin and Talk:Rendang #Gusti Asnan’s theory is a theory, not facts, (joined by multiple editors) the text of Wikipedia articles should assert facts, not fringe theories that is not supported by any Scholarship. This is supported by inline citations from reputable and reliable sources. User Sayurasem refused to communicate in Talk Page and only provided their OR as the reason. The only communication happens in edit summary. I appreciate if you could join the discussion as the Third party. Thanks. MrCattttt (talk) 01:44, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, as per the lasted discussion in Talk:Rendang#Origin and Talk:Rendang#Gusti Asnan’s theory is a theory, not facts, the inclusion of Fadly Rahman's article, "Tracing the Origins of Rendang and Its Development," was welcomed by three users who are actively in the Talk Page. Meanwhile, sayurasem commented, “However, it’s important to question whether the word ‘rendang’ at the time...”—which clearly reflects original research and personal opinion. With a 3-to-1 agreement, isn’t this sufficient for a page with limited user input to include these references?
we are moving to positive direction. also please let me know the errors you are referring to in the previous cultural significance section. Thanks MrCattttt (talk) 01:04, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I trust Austronesier's judgement and support his position. The users who have supported the change are not established users and therefore their opinions count for less. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:08, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, there’s already a consensus by 3 users including Austronesier to include Fadly Rahman’s journal in the page. Read “In a nutshell: Fadly Rahman's article Tracing the origins of rendang and its development is definitely a welcome inclusion here.” So are we good? Thanks. MrCattttt (talk) 02:45, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MrCattttt: From edit-warring to gaslighting? To talk about "3-to-1 agreement" by including me in support of your POV stunt is delusional. Yes, Fadly Rahman's article (the only scholarly source from an international journal that treats Rendang as its main topic) is a perfect source for bringing nuance to the article, but I fully object to the way you distort its content to downplay the role of the modern, Minangkabau-origin version of rendang that is the source of all kinds of rendang whereever they are served now (including Malaysia). Fadly Rahman is very explicit about it: The widespread culture of wandering among the Minangkabau people in the nineteenth century unwittingly helped spread their unique rendang to each region they visited. With no exception, Negeri Sembilan in Malaysia, which since the fifteenth century has been a migration destination of Minangkabau people, has also received the influence of rendang. I see nothing of this in your version. –Austronesier (talk) 09:47, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken responsibility for the edits now. If the police complain to you then you can explain that you tried to revert the edits and other editors did not agree. If Wikipedia's content can be dictated by authoritarian regimes intimidating editors via legal action then the integrity of the encyclopedia is dead. My message to the Maharashtra cyber police is that they can kiss my ass. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I saw you reverted my edit stating that: Linked Vice article did not verify quote. addition to Rothschild family as thinly veiled is unsourced POV.
A couple of things:
1. I cited the NYT article about alice walker, not a vice article. The NYT article has the quote. What's showing up for you?
2. How is a thinly veiled dog whistle any more POV than "with his theories of reptilians being alleged to serve as a deliberate "code", something which Icke has denied" Delectopierre (talk) 06:13, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's something strange happening. I tried re-adding the quote from the NYT with the correct citation. I double and triple checked it, then when I published, it led to the citation from the VICE article, not the NYT. Going to try to troubleshoot. Delectopierre (talk) 06:25, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I saw you had opened one. Is this the standard now or did you just decide to leave off deprecation sua sponte? As far as I am concerned this is very much for the better -- deprecation is supposed to be an absolute last resort for extenuating circumstances, not one of the default options... so if you did this on purpose, then hats off. jp×g🗯️07:41, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would be wise to include a link to this discussion in any edits that reduce an entire article to a redirect. Understandably, editors take a dim view of such edits without an edit summary indicating why they are happening. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!!17:39, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to be involved in this further and will not.
Your current discussion, don't forget the other Kloor piece for Issues. It's what made all hell break loose when I discovered it IMHO as Kloor point blank puts him there. It's cited heavily in the article. Good luck. I don't envy anyone there. Just letting at least one neutral person know to make of it what you will. This is the last time I intend to remark on that article again. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
This is a continuous problem you and I have regarding editing and I want to make it abundantly clear. This whole situation is happening because you haven’t been reaching out to me at all, what’s making it so hard for you to reach out at all? Or even making a discussion? You mentioned my editing pissed you off, so why didn’t you reach out to me?
Not to mention you complain about being bad at evaluating scientific analysis, but in the same edit removed things explicitly mentioned within that study, but didn’t rephrase it. Even though some sentences like the typical prey mass was used in the study, we had this in the Homotherium but in the same edit page for example. When I mentioned its diet overlapped with C. ultra, you also erased that without trying to rephrase it at all, but you had the same thing in the same page I mentioned before. This is another problem, the way you decide what’s good and what’s not is inconsistent and I’m generally confused.
ExplorerKing (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ExplorerKing: When you change the attribution of species to something that isn't mentioned in the text of the citing paper at all, that is really confusing for someone who may look at the paper to verify the information. For something with a taxonomy as complex as Megantereon we need to be clear about who has stated what opinion and the differing intepretations and try to interpret that as neutrally as possible, and not to overweight the newest papers. The article did not previously adequately deal with this, something I have now corrected. I regret my language in that edit summary, but I was deeply frustrated by your changing of the species attributions. Now that you have over 500 edits, you now have access to the Wikipedia Library, meaning you can now read many previously paywalled academic sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:28, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see, I understand now. I do apologize for repeatedly editing in M. adroveri the diet and ecology subsection. So from now on, would it just be better to just say Megantereon as you did in the diet and ecology subsection?
I have recently added Paleogeography and Paleoclimate sections to Pangaea's article in an attempt to get it to the 'Good article' class. Since you are much more experienced as a Wikipedia editor than me, do you think Pangaea's article is suitable for nomination?
@NectarLupine Looks okay, but the article should really mention the "Pangea B" dispute. Based on paleomagnetic data, some authors have argued that Pangea was initially configured differently, with North America displaced westwards relative to South America, and then shifted. There's a bunch of papers discussing the topic eg [63], but you should be careful to frame it as a hypothesis and not as fact. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:09, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I will look into it and update you if I make any progress on that!
I have added the Pangaea B hypothesis to the end of the Paleogeography section. You are free to make any changes as you see necessary :D. NectarLupine (talk) 03:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Thanks to whoever on French Wikipedia collated the genera" for Campterophlebiidae
Maybe not super important, but it turns out to have been by blocked user Caftaric (talk· contribs). Knowing their C. elegans editing history, it's not at all a surprise they also created Campterophlebia on both en.wiki and fr.wiki, and I wouldn't be surprised if fr:Campterophlebiidae was created merely just to give Campterophlebia elegans a home. If the same genus list wasn't also on PBDB, I have would said to be wary of Caftaric's work, as I've known it to be badly researched at times. Monster Iestyn (talk) 21:38, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I normally would have copied out the genera from the Paleobiology Database by hand, but 40 genera is a lot to do manually, and I was interested in getting an article out there quickly in order to get rid of the erroneous redirect to Camptoneurites. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:45, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough! I would go through the genus list properly myself to ensure PBDB's is even uptodate (not just for en.wiki but also for Wikispecies where Caftaric also left their mark...), but I'm supposed to be recovering from surgery so I probably shouldn't dive into that for now. Monster Iestyn (talk) 21:52, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...Nevermind, since I feel a little better now, I just went and checked the list of genera in Campterophlebiidae: it seems fr.wiki's list was a little out of date (and Archithemis seems to have been placed there in error as far as I can tell), but the list of genera should be correct and uptodate now I believe! Monster Iestyn (talk) 14:39, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I’m trying to update the taxonomy box of Barbourofelids, because after doing research, majority of the recent studies agree that Barbourofelids were Nimravids, and I’m worried the current taxonomy boxes aren’t caught up with this current consensus. Do you know how to do taxonomy boxes specifically for genus? Like for Percrocuta and Dinocrocuta, for example. ExplorerKing (talk) 16:26, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Last I checked the majority of the recent studies only represent a portion of the researchers, so it's a weird state of apparent consensus but maybe not really, because some paleontologists take longer to publish. Ideally it would be fully explained on the Nimravidae and Barbourofelidae pages. SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:14, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I can do a discussion there, and during that discussion come up with ways to explain it within the Nimravids and Barbourofelids pages. ExplorerKing (talk) 23:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's important to indicate in the taxobox that birds are nested within living reptiles as relatives of crocodilians and as living members of Dinosauria. Pinging @NGPezz who I discussed this with previously. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:56, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a situation where two different yet partially overlapping definitions compete for the same concept. Honestly every single paraphyletic group can be reclassified as monophyletic if you simply include the descendants, so this discussion could go much further than Reptilia. As for the template usage on the page in question, honestly I'm of a mixed opinion. On the one hand, birds do indeed qualify as "Cladistically included but traditionally excluded taxa" relative to other reptiles, so a paraphyletic template wouldn't be unwarranted in execution. But on the other hand, the taxobox in its current state seems to summarize the structure of the group well enough by illustrating the nested structure of major extant clades, birds included. I'm mostly neutral on the question though I lean towards the status quo since it's more direct about the nuances. NGPezz (talk) 00:09, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Hemiauchenia. As my userpage explains, I work for Cohere and have been collaborating with the Wiki community to improve and expand the article. You made some great additions to the Cohere article in February 2025; thank you for that. I recently posted a draft for Cohere co-founder Nick Frosst in my userspace and I'd be grateful for your review and publication in mainspace if you think it is ready. Thanks again, LivingInaCloud (talk) 12:53, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty obvious that you made a hard pivot into editing almost exclusively about the Israel-Palestine conflict almost immediately after you got the 500 edits required to do so. It brings into question whether you are actually WP:HERE to build an encyclopedia or actually here to push an agenda. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:16, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hemiauchenia: I understand the importance of WP:RFCNEUTRAL in RfC openings. My concern is that the closure may prevent discussion of unresolved content and sourcing issues that have not been addressed elsewhere on the talk page.
If the main problem is the opening statement, I’m willing to re-frame it to comply fully with RFCNEUTRAL and resubmit it in a revised form. Would you be open to either reopening this RfC with a neutralized lead post, or allowing me to immediately re-file with corrected language so discussion can proceed?
My goal is to ensure the matter is considered in a way that follows both process and policy, particularly WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:MEDRS.
The RfC is dead in the water, and I'd advise to not to bother recreating it, even if it was compliant with RFCNEUTRAL, because it will almost certainly fail anyway. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:29, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for help in getting the troll article removed. It took years and years, but nothing happened until you spoke up. Means a lot to me. Take care. -JB Noyoudont123 (talk) 19:38, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. At this point it's obvious that Atsme is a POV-pusher and a net negative to the encyclopedia, and I have no qualms about expressing this opinion. She was topic banned from AP2 once before and should be again. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:05, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hemiauchenia, please don't commit seppuku over something trivial. I appreciate your input on the noticeboard, but that kind of comment is going to hinder your participation. I agree with ActivelyDisinterested and recommend amending or retracting it. — Newslingertalk23:27, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hemiauchenia! I wanted to message you here because I was hoping to continue the discussion on the Our Rescue talk page. It seems to me that both Mysecretgarden and myself see spots for improvement on the page without reverting it to how it was before. However, I appreciate your insight so I wanted to hear your thoughts on what was previously presented. Let me know what you think! AChalin (talk) 18:35, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Hemiauchenia. I also keep an eye on the Lepidodendron article, and I noticed that an "about" tag was added to the Lepidoptera article as well. I removed it, but it seems that two different, new users that happen to edit the same few articles have both reverted me. I'm not experienced with handling new/disruptive editors, but I agree with you that I believe the hatnotes to be superfluous. Kind regards, Pagliaccious (talk)00:11, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
this is a huge osteoderm from a titanosaur in turkana. I might add this to the page. not the picture but the line "huge osteoderms have been recovered"
File:Turkanatitanosaur1we.pnggiant osteoderms from a turkana titanosaur
BECAUSE YOU CANNOT JUST UPLOAD IMAGES YOU FIND ON THE INTERNET TO COMMONS, BECAUSE THIS IS COPYRIGHT INFRINGMENT. IT EXPLICITY STATES THIS IN PAINFULLY OBVIOUS TERMS WHEN YOU UPLOAD IMAGES, AND YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED THIS. I WILL NOT WASTE MY TIME TRYING TO HELP YOU FURTHER. I HAVE HAD ENOUGH OF YOUR INCOMPETENCE. I WILL MAKE A POST AT ANI TOMORROW THAT I HOPE WILL RESULT IN YOU BEING PERMANENTLY BLOCKED FROM THE ENCYCLOPEDIA. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:47, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
no no please don't I didn't know about that rule, i genuinley had no ideal I'm sorry please don't have me blocked.
@Themanguything: It's much easier to add table entries if you use visual editor. When using visual editor, click on a table cell, and then click on the ">" arrow that appears on the left hand edge of the table, then click "insert above" or "insert below" depending on where you want the new cell. Hope that helps. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:05, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
§
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
.jpg)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Lab_leak_COVID_conspiracy_theory,_again regarding unjustified and false accusations. The discussion is about the topic Topic. Thank you. Billybostickson (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Feynstein (talk) 18:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Big John (dinosaur). This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
~TheresNoTime (to explain!) 16:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at The Grayzone. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fasscass (talk • contribs) 04:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Huddersfield sex abuse ring, you may be blocked from editing. FoxtAl (talk) 14:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)