JurassicClassic767, you are invited to the Teahouse!

edit
 

Hi JurassicClassic767! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like MrClog (talk).

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

22:51, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Bulk edits

edit

Hello, JurassicClassic 767. I noticed you've been making a lot of edits to pterosaur pages recently. These edits are by and large useful, but you should know that making hundreds of little edits in a row can be considered suspicious behavior. Vandals often use this technique to overwhelm reliable editors or make it more difficult to track their work. I'm not accusing you of anything, but just letting you know that it's better to make your edits in large chunks rather than numerous tiny increments. If you're unsure about editing in large sections, you can work in the sandbox to prepare text for articles. Good luck! Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I actually knew that someone would realize about those edits, but the reason why I've done so many minor edits is that I often make mistakes like you said, specially in when putting references. If you visit my user page, you'll see that I put a userbox about fighting vandalism, and I'm not a vandal in any case. Anyway, I just wanted to contribute to pterosaurs, since there are mostly outdated or stubs, and I'm also part of the Pterosaurs task force, but yeah, I understand if someone would suspect about my little edits, and next time, I'll try to make larger edits with the mistakes corrected. JurassicClassic767 (talk) 15:03, 16 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
That's no problem, I appreciate your efforts. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 16:58, 16 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! JurassicClassic767 (talk) 17:13, 16 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ornithocheiromorpha, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Limb (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Your GA nomination of Ornithocheiromorpha

edit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ornithocheiromorpha you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria.   This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of IJReid -- IJReid (talk) 18:01, 20 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Your GA nomination of Ornithocheiromorpha

edit

The article Ornithocheiromorpha you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Ornithocheiromorpha for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of IJReid -- IJReid (talk) 21:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Ornithocheiromorpha cladogram

edit

Averianov (2020) does not actually contain a phylogenetic analysis. It's not only misleading to create a composite of two very different phylogenetic analyses (with portions of each arbitrarily chosen), add a couple other taxa without basis in analysis, and then attribute it to a third paper entirely, it is a violation of WP:SYNTH, as the resulting topology can't be found in any actual study. I've replaced those with the cladogram of Pêgas et al. (2019), with a couple additions after Kellner et al. (2019) (these studies both use the same base dataset and differ in only minor respects). Please keep this in mind for the future. Shuvuuia (talk) 01:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

On an unrelated note, please avoid writing out entire references twice. You can define a reference once with
<ref name="example"> [insert reference here] </ref>
and then call it elsewhere in the article with
<ref name="example"/>
and it won't be listed multiple times in the reference section. Shuvuuia (talk) 06:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Shuvuuia: Honestly, with the cladogram, I was getting a bit confused, there were mentions within other references, but I guess those were just cross-refs and unrelated? I know the original research, but what happened really was that I just got confused with the cross-refs thinking their related or something. Also, thanks for replacing the cladogram and not just delete it directly. As for the repeated refs, I do sometimes miss several, but that article has like 90 refs? Anyway, I didn't do original research, I just got confused with the cross-refs thinking their all related. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 07:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
As a side note, Averianov 2020 may not have done a phylogenetic analysis of Ornithocheiromorpha, but he has done an analysis for Lonchodectidae, clearly stating that Serradraco, Unwindia and Prejanopterus don't belong to that family. Check it if you don't believe me, it's mentioned at the end of the paragraph. Also, when putting refs, it's better if you put them after any punctuation. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 13:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
Discussion of the taxonomic placement of Serradraco, Unwindia, and Prejanopterus is not the same as a phylogenetic analysis. The exclusion of these genera is not based on a computational analysis in the same vein as e.g. Pêgas et al. (2019), and it has yet to be seen whether this assessment will be followed up with by other researchers. For now it's fair to keep them out of the taxobox (I marked them as possible members in an attempt at neutrality), but I've added a section mentioning that they'd previously been considered possible lonchodectids. Shuvuuia (talk) 23:43, 30 May (UTC)
OK, so we're clear with Averianov 2020 not being a phylogenetic analysis, but what I've been wondering was that cladogram you made as a replacement. I know part of the sources do coincide with the cladogram, but stating that it's a "composite" just leads to the thought that it's some kind of OR, and none of the refs say that it was a composite. So what I've done is exclude the analysis by Pegas et al and keep the one by Kellner et al, that's because Kellner makes a deeper classification of the group, while Pegas just focuses on Targaryendraconia. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 00:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
By "composite" I meant "identical to Pêgas et al. 2019, with Mimodactylus added after Kellner et al. 2019". I should have been more clear with that. That said, it bears repeating that the two papers share the same base dataset, so their topologies are largely identical. Kellner et al. 2019 did not "make a deeper classification of the group" - both analyses sample virtually the same breadth of non-lanceodont pterosaurs, Kellner et al. simply shows more in the cladogram in the paper (the full analyses can be found in the supplementary material of each, and they both go back further than what the papers show). If we had to choose one, I'd argue the Pêgas cladogram would be better for at least the Ornithocheiromorpha page due to it having a greater taxon sampling of that clade (the Kellner analysis lacks Boreopteridae entirely and only contains one member of Targaryendraconia, and the only lanceodont it has that the Pêgas analysis doesn't is Mimodactylus). Shuvuuia (talk) 02:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
I don't want confusion with both cladograms, and there is a section of the analysis of Pêgas that I've missed because it's within the "supplemental area". If you're a new reader for example, and go to the reference, you may not directly find the cladogram. Now that I've seem the "Pêgas cladogram", I'd actually prefer that Targaryendraconia and Boreopteridae are included, even if we have to exclude Mimodactylus, so I should start putting it back? JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 05:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Shuvuuia: OK, I've made a cladogram based on Pêgas et al 2019, I've excluded Mimodactylidae, but included Targaryendraconia, Lonchodectidae and Boreopteridae. I've just placed the cladogram on Ornithocheiromorpha (the second cladogram), and practically every other subgroup except Mimodactylidae. Oh, and I apologize for my first reaction on this, though the cladogram I made based on Averianov 2020 was no original research, the refs that come below confused me thinking their linked or connected to Averianov 2020, so I've made a larger cladogram with those classifications included. I know I've mentioned this before, but I just wanted you to be clear. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 06:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pteranodontia, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages British and Blunt (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Incomplete DYK nomination

edit

  Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Nyctosaurus at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 05:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Your GA nomination of Pterodactylus

edit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Pterodactylus you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria.   This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Your GA nomination of Pterodactylus

edit

The article Pterodactylus you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Pterodactylus for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Euctenochasmatia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Needle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

A barnstar for you!

edit
  The Original Barnstar
Thanks for your contributions (especially on the Pterodactylus)! Afernand74 (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

A big Thank You! I really appreciate it! Keep up the good work as well! JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 16:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

RE: moving sections

edit

hi there! apologies about the structural problems i've caused. i haven't quite figured out how to move images yet, so i was afraid to try moving them anywhere else in case i made the issue worse. if there's something wrong with the structure next time i attempt to fix the sections, i'll leave it alone and post something on the talk page instead. thank you :) --Vaporwaveboyfriend (talk) 19:52, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Vaporwaveboyfriend: No need to apologize, just remember that when source editing (the one with wikitext), if you just put "thumb" to the image, it is placed on the right side of the article by default, and to put the image on the left side, just add a parameter that includes "left". Bear in mind that in articles about living things, there's a taxobox that occupies space, so that also might affect the image placing. Anyway, just keep up the good work, and feel free to ask any questions. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 21:14, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
@JurassicClassic767: Thank you! That's actually super helpful! I'll do my best! --Vaporwaveboyfriend (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Species names

edit

Could you please revert your changes in several articles where you replaced the valid species name by an old combination, this is incorrect. Thanks! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Jens Lallensack: By species, I meant the original combination of the type species, and the valid species (or new combination) is placed below. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 16:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Type species and valid species are the same. Please revert this! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Jens Lallensack: I'm doing it now, though is it necessary to put "originally (the previous genus it was assigned to; e.g. Megalosaurus)"? This is stated in several articles such as in Majungasaurus. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 16:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
I was a bit too quick, and now see what you mean, my apologies. Maybe we need to change that indeed, but we would first seek consensus at the WikiProject in any case since this affects a larger number of articles. Maybe the variant with the "originally" will be less confusing. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Jens Lallensack: So, for now we should just put "originally" to the ones that were previously assigned to other genera then? JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 17:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Ok, thinking about it, we are not citing the original type species in the taxonbox in the first place, but the current binominal name (you changed it to type species though). In the case of Dilophosaurus, it says Dilophosaurus wetherilli (Welles, 1954). The brackets around Welles, 1954 indicate that he is not the author of the species group name. This is the correct citation I think. I would suggest to just leave everything as is, with changing things in multiple articles that are not obvious errors you almost always step on the toes of people. You can ask of course (as this affects all life taxon articles, the WikiProject:Tree of Life might be the correct place). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, I'll keep that in mind for future changes! And yeah, if it's in parentheses, it means that he/she isn't the author of the current combination, but the author of the first combination for that specific name. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 17:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Koskinonodon and Anaschisma

edit

Hello, JurassicClassic 767;

Since you've done the recent work on Koskinonodon and Anaschisma, I thought I ought to mention that the Gee et al. article is available for download at [1]. While the abstract is not entirely clear about the synonymy, the text of the article establishes that the synonymy goes the *other* way, e.g., that K. is sunk into A., and not the other way around. J. Spencer (talk) 21:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

@J. Spencer: I have understood it wrong then? So, we would want to resurrect the Anaschisma article, and make the Koskinonodon article a redirect. Actually, when I redirected Anaschisma to Koskinonodon, I've noticed that most (if not all) the article text is text copied from Koskinonodon (or maybe the other way around), so if we want to redirect (or perhaps merge) K. to A., there isn't really much to sort out since practically the whole article info is the same or similar, i.e. it would be an easy merge/redirect. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 08:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I think that re-instituting the Anaschisma article and redirecting Koskinonodon to it sounds like the best solution. J. Spencer (talk) 21:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
@J. Spencer: I've done it finally. Let me know if I have to change something. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 16:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Looks good to me! J. Spencer (talk) 22:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

DYK nomination of Pterodactylus

edit

  Hello! Your submission of Pterodactylus at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Awsomaw (talk) 00:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Your signature

edit

Hi. I noticed a problem with your signature here. Upon investigating, I also noticed that you're aware of the issue. I wanted to mention that, to make your signature safe for use in templates (such as DYK noms), you can fix it in your preferences by replacing that | between your "talk" and "contribs" links with &#124;. Your signature will look exactly the same, and will function correctly everywhere, including on templates. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 19:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Mandarax: Thanks, I didn't know there was another way of putting |! I'll change it right away. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 19:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Your GA nomination of Ornithocheiridae

edit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ornithocheiridae you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria.   This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

DYK nomination of Pterodactylus

edit

  Hello! Your submission of Pterodactylus at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 13:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Please see new note on your DYK nomination. Yoninah (talk) 22:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

DYK for Pterodactylus

edit

On 23 July 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pterodactylus, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the genus Pterodactylus (species depicted), the scientific name for a pterodactyl, had been considered a "wastebasket taxon" as many species were assigned to it and later reassigned? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pterodactylus. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Pterodactylus), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Cimoliopterus for FAC collaboration?

edit

Hi, I noticed you've had an interest in editing articles about old obscure pterosaurs, and for some time I've thought of expanding Cimoliopterus for GAN and FAC, and thought you might be interested in a collaboration? Could be a good practice for those processes if you want to nominate more articles yourself later. I have also talked to MWAK about this one, and though I know he might not have much time anymore, he's of course welcome to join in any capacity. FunkMonk (talk) 12:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

I indeed will not be able to make an important contribution.--MWAK (talk) 06:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
@FunkMonk: I sure would like to join a collaboration for a neglected pterosaur article to be leveled up to FA status, or at least GA. I didn't really expect Cimoliopterus for the collaboration, but whatever pterosaur article works for me. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 19:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
I thought this one would be cool because though it has a long history, it only received its own genus recently, and is only represented by limited fossils, making it less complicated than many other old pterosaurs. And it has a lot of images too, which is always nice! FunkMonk (talk) 19:48, 1 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
That makes sense. So, when should we start the collaboration then? JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 19:53, 1 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
If there are any sections you'd like to work on, you can begin whenever you want, and there's no rush really, usually we just chip away at articles over some time until it has all the info it needs. And we should be able to gather sources needed even if you don't have immediate access. FunkMonk (talk) 20:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
I think the best way would be to just begin from top to bottom (i.e. starting from the history section, and then continuing with the other sections), but of course, we could always try another way. Oh, I've also noticed that Cimoliopterus doesn't have Paleobiology or Paleoecology sections, I think mentioning how the animal fed or behaved, or what animals it coexisted with would be something worth saying? But again, sources may be limited for this. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 20:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
There might be something about behaviour in Witton's 2012 book. As for how to proceed, what usually works for collaborations, since it is hard for more than one person to work on a single section, is to divide sections between them. The order it is done has little consequence, so you can just start with whatever you find most interesting. I'd think the best place to start would probably be to add info from the 2013 article that named the genus:[2] The history section will no doubt be the most complex. FunkMonk (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
Yeah I agree. I was also thinking about the Rodrigues & Kellner, 2013 paper being one of the most useful sources, as you said above. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 20:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

A kitten for you!

edit
 

You are welcome.

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Heh! Looks funnier than cute. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 15:21, 30 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
Yeah  . I just select the one that comes in the middle of the three. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

August 2020 Tree of Life Newsletter

edit
 
September 2021—Issue 016


Tree of Life


Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!
Newly recognized content

  Horseshoe bat by Enwebb
  Siamosaurus by PaleoGeekSquared
  Australopithecus sediba by Dunkleosteus77, reviewed by Jens Lallensack
  Homo habilis by Dunkleosteus77, reviewed by Enwebb
  Tatenectes by Slate Weasel, reviewed by FunkMonk

Newly nominated content

  Black-and-red broadbill by AryKun
  Turtle by LittleJerry
  Symphyotrichum lateriflorum by Eewilson
  Dracophyllum fiordense by Dracophyllum
  Scarlet-and-white tanager by AryKun   Viatkogorgon by FunkMonk   Punctelia borreri by Esculenta   Chivi vireo by AryKun   Mountain kingfisher by AryKun   Kererū by Ambrosia10

  Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.


Delivered on behalf of Enwebb (talk) 17:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Your GA nomination of Ornithocheiridae

edit

The article Ornithocheiridae you nominated as a good article has failed  ; see Talk:Ornithocheiridae for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:02, 5 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Brontosaurus vs. elephant

edit

Hi, just responding to your undo of my edit on the Brontosaurus page re: comparison to elephants. You are correct that I didn't cite a source for the weight of an elephant in tons; I simply converted the article's given (also without citation) weight in kilograms to tons. While I'm an experienced editor, I'm not an experienced Wikipedia editor, and it is clear you are. So I'll definitely concede the point in regard to the deficiency of my edit. All I'd say is the current version also does not cite a source for the height or weight of an elephant, while giving the weight in different units than are given for the Brontosaurus (making comparison difficult when the whole point is easy comparison to an animal people are familiar with). Further, it unhelpfully gives the height at the shoulder of an elephant as something to compare to the total length (head to tip of tail) of a Brontosaurus. (I didn't get around to fixing that one because I couldn't easily find either the shoulder height of a Brontosaurus or the length of an elephant, to bring the measurements into line.) I suggest this needs improvement. Can't help editing (talk) 14:58, 22 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Can't help editing: Oh, I didn't notice that there wasn't a source for a 6 ton weight, maybe 'cause I just edit quite fast at times. The latter things that you said (the unhelpful comparisons and all), yeah, I totally agree, that should definitely need improvement or something. Another thing that we could do is just remove that unreferenced part, that way, we don't have to find sources or anything, whaddaya think? JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 18:29, 22 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Happy Diwali!

edit
  Happy Diwali!!!

Sky full of fireworks,
Mouth full of sweets,
Home full of lamps,
And festival full of sweet memories...

Wishing You a Very Happy and Prosperous Diwali.
Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Send Diwali wishings by adding {{subst:Happy Diwali}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

edit
 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Merry Christmas!

edit
  Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello JurassicClassic767, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021.
Happy editing,

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:57, 25 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

@Fylindfotberserk: Merry Christmas and happy holidays to you too! JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 11:25, 25 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
Thanks man  . - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:26, 25 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Santa Claws

edit
 
Merry Christmas, and uh, let's hope this image by Durbed doesn't offend anyone... FunkMonk (talk) 16:56, 25 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
Hahaha! JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 18:20, 25 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Happy New Year, JurassicClassic767!

edit

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

I forgot to wish you in time. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Fylindfotberserk: Thanks! And in your "merry Christmas" message above you already wished me a happy new year, so that kinda works too, right? But yeah, happy new year to you too! JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 09:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
No man, I had to wish  . - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
Hahaha! :) JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 09:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

False allegations

edit

Dear friend, How can someone be protected by others posting false allegations for him? Please advise. There must be a way. Otherwise anyone who has a reason to undermine an individual will be free to do so, unchecked.Thank you Alstamatis (talk) Alstamatis (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I was just patrolling for any vandalism, and saw your edit (where you removed text and a bunch of references, and you just said "deleted false accusations", without providing proof). I don't really know much about that article, but you can discuss it on the talk page. Anyways, do you have any proof that the allegations are false? I mean, it is cited, unless those references don't back up the info. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 23:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
@JurassicClassic767: That man's username is very similar to the subject of the article he edited, so he may have did it based on personal, but unverifiable information - a violation of Wikipedia rules. I'd say you report it at WP:COIN. Atlantis536 (talk) 03:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Atlantis536: Thanks! I've reported it, so now we just have to wait until someone responds I guess. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 10:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Copying licensed material requires attribution

edit

Hi. I see in a recent addition to Cimoliopterus you included material from a webpage that is available under a compatible Creative Commons Licence. That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material in the future. — Diannaa (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Diannaa: I didn't copy the exact same text as the one in reference, I reworded several of the sentences, as well as changed the order of some other ones. If you want though, I can reword more of the info. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 22:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
It's not necessary to re-word compatibly licensed text as long as you provide the required attribution. Here is an example of how to do it. Alternatively you can use the template {{CC-notice}}Diannaa (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
Hm, yeah, but I think I'll still stick to rewording it a bit, just to make it more original, and it also kind of seems more appropriate to me, even though it's not necessary. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 23:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cimoliopterus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Convex.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Revue de Paleobiologie

edit

Hey there, just making sure you saw this. Some of my pings haven't been going through lately for whatever reason, so you may not have seen my message. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Usernameunique: Oh, I haven't received any pings from you, but I'll check what you sent right now. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 21:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Anhangueria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Basal.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Can you rerate the article about Torre-Pacheco?

edit

Good evening JurassicClassic767,

the article about a Spanish municipality named Torre-Pacheco is assessed as start-class, but I think that it deserves a higher class.

The first link shows the site where assessing an article and the second one the criteria for choosing attributing a class.

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Torre-Pacheco https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spain/Assessment#Quality_scale

Regards,

--Yolanda95 (talk) 22:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)Yolanda95Reply

Since you're a member of the WikiProject, you're free to reassess articles within the scope, just remember, rate the article the rating that fits the best for it, in this case I think Torre-Pacheco should be a C-class. Additionally, you can use a script to make rating articles easier. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 22:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
@JurassicClassic767:I expanded quite the article and I am Spaniard, and that difficults objectivity. Owing to these reasons, especially the first one I prefer other person, not from the country of the article, if possible, to reassess the article. Anyways, I can reassess the article. --Yolanda95 (talk) 07:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC)Yolanda95Reply
Oh, yeah, I get what you mean, but apparently, I'm someone who also lives in Spain, so I'm technically from the country of the article as well. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 07:47, 8 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tapejaroidea, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tapejara.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Weird mammalian pterodactyls for you!

edit
 

The weirdest pterosaurs ever drawn? FunkMonk (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Haha, thanks! Imagine if pterosaurs turned out to actually be like this, it'll be oddly impressive I gotta say... JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 22:38, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Need help

edit

Hi, would you kindly verify these unexplained changes? Looks POV to me. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Fylindfotberserk: Sorry for responding so late! Yeah, apart from being unexplained, 7 to 7 tons doesn't really make sense, I'll revert the edit now. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 14:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
No probs. Thanks!. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Activity at WikiProject My Little Pony

edit

Hello, JurassicClassic767. At WikiProject My Little Pony, I'm trying to compile a list of active participants. Your name is currently listed on the active members list and you are active on Wikipedia. Would you consider yourself active on WikiProject My Little Pony? Please {{ping}} me in your reply and see our project talk page for the latest updates. Thanks! Pamzeis (talk) 05:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Pamzeis:, yeah, I haven't edited articles about MLP that much recently, mostly just about maintenance (e.g. fixing dashes, etc.) or reverting vandalism. Does this still count as "active" in the WikiProject, though? JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 18:36, 17 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
Well, I guess I can leave that decision to you but if you feel you no longer would like to actively contribute to MLP articles, I think you would not be "active". Pamzeis (talk) 00:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Edit Request Tool

edit

Hello, I renamed my script Edit Request Closer to Edit Request Tool a while ago and am now deleting the old page. If you wish to continue to use the script. Please change the link in your common.js to the following:

importScript('User:Terasail/Edit Request Tool.js'); // Backlink: [[User:Terasail/Edit Request Tool]]

Thanks, Terasail[✉️] 21:48, 23 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

DYK for Cimoliopterus

edit

On 29 July 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Cimoliopterus, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Cimoliopterus was among the first pterosaurs to be depicted as models (pictured) in Crystal Palace Park in the 1850s? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cimoliopterus. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Cimoliopterus), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 29 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Javelinadactylus

edit

Hi. I've noticed you've added quite some stuff from the Javelinadactylus paper, including some phylogenetic results. Where did you access the full paper? I have only seen the abstract. Atlantis536 (talk) 04:18, 7 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Atlantis536: I think you may have confused my edits with MWAK's? He has been adding lots of info to the article, while I've only done some cleanup. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 05:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
You did write that Argentinadraco was a thalassodromine sourced to that paper. Atlantis536 (talk) 05:30, 7 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Atlantis536: I've begun doubting my conclusion about that since my edit at Template:Pterosauria was only based on the edits of‎ ‎85.246.244.63 at Argentinadraco and Thalassodrominae, to which the IP referenced that study. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 05:41, 7 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
I see. Atlantis536 (talk) 07:09, 7 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Congratulations

edit
  The Featured Article Medal
By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this special, very exclusive award created just for we few, we happy few, this band of brothers, who have shed sweat, tears and probably blood, in order to be able to proudly claim "I too have taken an article to Featured status". Gog the Mild (talk) 10:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Deserved, and therefore:

  The Fossilized Barnstar
For your first FA and for being a great collaborator on expanding Cimoliopterus, a rather difficult topic. I hope it will make it easier for you to eventually do a solo nomination one day! FunkMonk (talk) 10:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
@FunkMonk: Thanks! There goes my first FA, I don't really know what to say apart from "wow", I guess? Haha... Hopefully someday I get to do a solo nomination if I can! JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 10:29, 17 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Promotion of Cimoliopterus

edit
Congratulations, JurassicClassic767! The article you nominated, Cimoliopterus, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.
This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 12:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Please do not remove my edit again

edit

The raptor family is used to describe birds of prey, dromaeosaurs', and a few other avian dinosaurs. No it is not just an "informal" way of saying dromaeosaur. Drawkingg (talk) 21:47, 19 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Drawkingg: But there's also no scientific group name to designate that exact definition of "raptor family". The "raptor family" basically doesn't exist since "raptor" is just a common name that either means bird of prey or dromaeosaur and related avian dinosaurs. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 22:18, 19 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Happy First Edit Day!

edit

Cimoliopterus scheduled for TFA

edit

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 11 November 2021. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to comment on the draft blurb at TFA. I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

A kitten for you!

edit
 

Hi, there!

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Fylindfotberserk: Hey man, nice to see you back, we've missed you! Hopefully everything is alright!   JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 20:33, 22 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
Thanks man. I was.. well..busy  . Everything was alright. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

edit
 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

WikiProject Tree of Life Newsletter – 018

edit
 
February 2022—Issue 018


Tree of Life


Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!
Newly recognized content

  Black-and-yellow broadbill by AryKun
  Papuan mountain pigeon by AryKun
  List of leporids by PresN
  Algerian nuthatch by 2001:4455:364:A800:C13C:8A64:1CEF:F186, reviewed by AryKun
  Jungle bush quail by AryKun, reviewed by Jens Lallensack
  Lycorma imperialis by Etriusus, reviewed by Ealdgyth
  Harry Allan by Dracophyllum, reviewed by Esculenta
  Banded bullfrog by DanCherek, reviewed by GhostRiver

Newly nominated content

  Queen angelfish by LittleJerry
  Red panda by LittleJerry and BhagyaMani
  List of lagomorphs by PresN
  Corsican nuthatch by 2001:4455:364:A800:39A6:A5D8:C903:5E1D
  Firefly by Chiswick Chap
  Mountain pigeon by AryKun
  Bonacynodon by Trilletrollet
  Golden eagle by Vaco98

  Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:45, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

WikiProject Tree of Life/Newsletter/019

edit
 
March 2022—Issue 019


Tree of Life


Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!
Newly recognized content

  Queen angelfish by LittleJerry
  Alaska marmot by An anonymous username, not my real name, reviewed by Ealdgyth
  Firefly by Chiswick Chap, reviewed by Ealdgyth
  Afrolychas braueri by OnlyFixingProse, reviewed by An anonymous username, not my real name
  Mountain pigeon by AryKun, reviewed by Ealdgyth
  Dracopristis by Fossiladder13, reviewed by Ealdgyth
  Bonacynodon by Trilletrollet, reviewed by AryKun
  Lichexanthone by Esculenta, reviewed by Szmenderowiecki
  Yellowtail flounder by Eviolite, reviewed by RecycledPixels
  Sexual selection by Chiswick Chap, reviewed by AryKun

Newly nominated content

  White-headed fruit dove by AryKun
  Mountain pigeon by AryKun
  Florence Merriam Bailey by GhostRiver
  Agelenopsis pennsylvanica by Kline
  Hypericum aegypticum by Fritzmann
  Guadeloupe woodpecker by OnlyFixingProse

  Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

WikiProject Tree of Life Newsletter – 020

edit
 
April 2022—Issue 020


Tree of Life


Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!
Newly recognized content

  Red panda by LittleJerry and BhagyaMani
  White-headed fruit dove by AryKun
  List of ochotonids by PresN
  Guadeloupe woodpecker by OnlyFixingProse, reviewed by Ealdgyth
  Magnetoreception by Chiswick Chap, reviewed by Mover of molehills
  Macauley Island by Jo-Jo Eumerus, reviewed by Ealdgyth
  Black-breasted buttonquail by Casliber, reviewed by Ealdgyth
  Florence Merriam Bailey by GhostRiver, reviewed by SquareInARoundHole

Newly nominated content

  Black-breasted buttonquail by Casliber
  List of birds of Tuvalu by AryKun
  List of cingulates by PresN
  List of didelphimorphs by PresN
  Stegotherium by Larrayal
  Resplendent quetzal by SadAttorney613
  Electroreception and electrogenesis by Chiswick Chap
  Muja (alligator) by Amanuensis Balkanicus
  Punctelia graminicola by Esculenta
  Siegfried Huneck by Esculenta
  Abiogenesis by Chiswick Chap

  Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Edit Request Tool changes

edit

Hello, I just made some significant changes to User:Terasail/Edit Request Tool. Since you have the tool active, I am informing you of this since it may affect you. To open the tool you will now have to click the "respond" button. The tool will load a similar interface as before. There is now a live preview of the response. These changes might have introduced some bugs so if you have any concerns / suggestions or run into problems please leave a note at User talk:Terasail/Edit Request Tool Thanks, Terasail[✉️] 15:33, 30 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Happy Third First Edit Day!

edit
  Hey, JurassicClassic767. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day!
Chris Troutman (talk) 19:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
 
Thanks! JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 11:37, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

WikiProject Tree of Life Newsletter Issue 21

edit
 
August 2023—Issue 021


Tree of Life


Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!
Newly recognized content

  Australiformis by Mattximus
  Rodrigues night heron by FunkMonk
  Titanis by Augustios Paleo
  List of lorisoids by PresN
  List of storks by AryKun
  Brontosaurus by Augustios Paleo, reviewed by The Morrison Man
  Eukaryote by Chiswick Chap, reviewed by Fritzmann2002
  Stramenopile by Chiswick Chap, reviewed by Fritzmann2002
  Titanoboa by Augustios Paleo, reviewed by SilverTiger12
  Antarctopelta by Augustios Paleo, reviewed by Jens Lallensack
  Anna Blackburne by Kusma, reviewed by Etriusus
  Anomochilus leonardi by AryKun, reviewed by Amitchell125
  Nyctibatrachus manalari by AryKun, reviewed by Sammi Brie
  Mimodactylus by FunkMonk, reviewed by Jens Lallensack
  Nyctibatrachus major by AryKun, reviewed by Etriusus
  Anomochilus weberi by AryKun, reviewed by Etriusus
  Plant by Chiswick Chap, reviewed by Cessaune

Newly nominated content

  Ohmdenosaurus by Jens Lallensack
  Polar bear by LittleJerry
  Mimodactylus by FunkMonk
  List of cercopithecoids by PresN
  List of tapaculos by AryKun
  Klallamornis by Larrayal
  Hypericum perforatum by Fritzmann2002
  Holozoa by Snoteleks
  Teloschistaceae by Esculenta
  Carcharodontosaurus by Augustios Paleo
  Nyctibatrachus radcliffei by AryKun
  Anomochilus by AryKun


  Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

WikiProject Tree of Life Newsletter Issue 22

edit
 
September 2023—Issue 022


Tree of Life


Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!
Newly recognized content

  List of cercopithecoids by PresN
  List of tapaculos by AryKun
  Polar bear by Little Jerry
  Ohmdenosaurus by Jens Lallensack
  Amargatitanis by Augustios Paleo, reviewed by Jens Lallensack
  Teloschistaceae by Esculenta, reviewed by Chiswick Chap
  Holozoa by Snoteleks, reviewed by Esculenta
  Ashy flycatcher by AryKun, reviewed by Jens Lallensack
  Nyctibatrachus radcliffei by AryKun, reviewed by Jens Lallensack
  Carcharodontosaurus by Augustios Paleo, reviewed by SilverTiger12
  Life by Chiswick Chap, reviewed by Jens Lallensack
  Apatosaurinae by Augustios Paleo, reviewed by Jens Lallensack
  Hypericum perforatum by Fritzmann2002, reviewed by Femke

Newly nominated content

  Mountain pigeon by AryKun
  List of hominoids by PresN
  List of cranes by AryKun
  List of tarsiiformes by PresN
  Lycorma meliae by Etriusus
  Aristonectes by Amirani1746
  Animal echolocation by Chiswick Chap
  Hyalospheniidae by Snoteleks
  Buellia frigida by Snoteleks


  Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:23, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

WikiProject Tree of Life Newsletter Issue 23

edit
 
October 2023—Issue 023


Tree of Life


Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!
Newly recognized content

  Mimodactylus by FunkMonk
  Mountain pigeon by AryKun
  List of tarsiiformes by PresN
  List of hominoids by PresN
  List of cranes by AryKun
  Outline of lichens by MeegsC
  Lycorma meliae by Etriusus, reviewed by Chiswick Chap
  Oak by Chiswick Chap, reviewed by Esculenta
  Animal echolocation by Chiswick Chap, reviewed by Primium
  Elke Mackenzie by Esculenta, reviewed by Moriwen
  Dwarf pufferfish by Primium, reviewed by Chiswick Chap
  Hyalospheniidae by Snoteleks, reviewed by An anonymous username, not my real name
  Paroedura maingoka by Olmagon, reviewed by Jens Lallensack

Newly nominated content

  Hypericum sechmenii by Fritzmann2002
  Teloschistaceae by Esculenta
  Nyctibatrachus major by AryKun
  List of sunbirds by AryKun
  List of platyrrhines by PresN
  Handicap principle by Chiswick Chap
  Slime mold by Chiswick Chap
  Punctelia by Esculenta
  Pulchrocladia retipora by Esculenta
  Anaptychia ciliaris by Esculenta
  Mocquard's Madagascar ground gecko by Olmagon
  Zavodovski Island by Jo-Jo Eumerus
  Chrysothrix chlorina by Esculenta
  Wood-pasture hypothesis by AndersenAnders
  Mammalian kidney by D6194c-1cc
  Lepas testudinata by Etriusus
  Teratoscincus roborowskii by Olmagon


  Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.

-MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Happy First Edit Day!

edit