User talk:Dunkleosteus77

Hello Dunkleosteus77

Hello Dunkleosteus77. I should have introduced myself yesterday, but was still finding my way around Wikipedia editing. Thankyou for fixing those link issues. I am unsure as to your comment "that is not what Wikipedia is for" and I have no wish to enter into a changing each other's edits 'game', but I need to clarify that I was asked by the Society for Marine Mammalogy Education Committee, along with a team of marine mammal researchers to update and maintain species pages. That is not to say that your previous work is unappreciated, but the edits I have made follow the format requested by the SMM Education Committee and were published only after review by an expert on the species (in this case, Dr Robin Baird from Cascadia Research). I would hope that you can see the amount of work that has gone into making sure the info is current, accurate and reflects the important literature published on MHWs, not just by myself, but also Dr Baird and the Education Commitee. Best wishes, VickihamiltonVickihamilton (talk) 07:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vickihamilton: I know who you're affiliated with and you've added a lot of good information, but Wikipedia is not TripAdvisor, we don't say things like "it is important to choose a company that follows responsible whale watching guidelines". Giving out instructions for how to have a fantastic trip to Dominica is not what we're about   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Vickihamilton: so I'm going to delete it again. If you're adamant about it's inclusion, we can discuss further on the article's talk page and get other inputs   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dunkleosteus77: I am sorry if you have misunderstood the intent. Advising someone who has consulted Wikipedia as a source of info on melon-headed whales, and may want to see them in the wild to "choose a company that follows responsible whale watching guidelines" is broad, general advice, recommended by the Society for Marine Mammalogy and the International Whaling Commission. There are a large number of whale watching operators in the world that do not put the safety and wellbeing of cetaceans foremost, those that do follow guidelines set by an independent authority will obviously be a better option if an informed choice is to be made. If I had mentioned a specific company (in say Dominica to quote your example) now that would be akin to Tripadvisor, and completely inappropriate, we are in agreement on that front. VickihamiltonVickihamilton (talk) 10:07, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Cool page!

Alan Schlickmann (talk) 21:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.


To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

whales and cats

Thank you for quality articles about whales, baleen whales, porpoises (to name a few), for inviting to peer reviews and reviewing GAs, for redirects and the cat-life on your user page, infobox and all, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Truly well-deserved, congrats for the TFA! Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:24, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have the best userpage ever. That is all ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were recipient no. 1401 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for today's Steller's sea cow! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:33, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for today's Paleocene, about "the 10 million year period after the dinosaurs went extinct"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

... four years now --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia! BrightRoundCircle (talk) 14:35, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steller's sea cow

Brilliant work on this article. You should be very proud! Josh Milburn (talk) 22:36, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

F uyck you. 173.91.69.114 (talk) 23:46, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

For all the work on animals; here's another one!

RileyBugz会話投稿記録 00:34, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ursus rossicus article

Thanks for creating Ursus rossicus, Dunkleosteus77!

Wikipedia editor Animalparty just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

make sure taxon articles have a valid {{taxobox}} (I've already added one to Ursus rossicus). A quick and easy shortcut is to copy and paste a related taxobox, just changing the specifics. Cheers,

To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Also, make sure that sources discussing "cave bears" are actually referring to U. rossicus and not for example Ursus spelaeus, much more widley referred to as "cave bear". I removed the incorrect photos that were of U. spelaeus. lastly, you can group duplicate repeated footnotes of the same source with <ref name=...>.: see WP:REFSTART for more tips on formatting references and citations. Let me know if you have any questions (Wikipedia can be a tricky place at first), and welcome to Wikipedia! --Animalparty-- (talk) 04:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Information icon In a recent edit, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. This relates to this edit; could you also not mark edits like this as minor please? --John (talk) 16:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello John. Earlier you commented on how I changed the British spelling of words to English on the Whales article. I wrote that section that I edited and I accidentally used British English (along with some other errors) when I added it, so I went back and changed it. Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, no harm done. The article has been in British English for over ten years, so policy is that we leave it like that. --John (talk) 21:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Whale
added links pointing to NT, DD, LC, VU and EN

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello D. Your watchlist will show that I removed a "Page protection" tag from an item in your sandbox. I hope that you will forgive the presumption on my part. In doing that it removed your sandbox from Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. You will notice that your talk page is also on the list. In one of you collapsed sections above you have another PP tag that came over when you cut and pasted a whale article. When you get a chance if you could remove it that would be great. Now this is minor cleanup kind of thing so if you want to leave it that is fine as well. Thanks for your time and enjoy the rest of your week. MarnetteD|Talk 23:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've been meaning to do that, but I've always forgotten. Dunkleosteus77 (push to talk) 23:18, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Whale, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Richard Ellis. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Whale, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rostrum. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Hello, I'm Anaxial. I noticed that you made a change to an article, whale, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Note that wikipedia articles are not considered reliable sources on Wikipedia, and must not be used in citations.

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Cetacea. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Anaxial (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are many more than just 8 species of whales. Look at Toothed_whale for the 33 species in that half of Cetacea and Balaenidae, Rorqual, Pygmy_right_whale, and Gray_whale for the rest of the species of whales. I don't think we need a big chart on whale listing all of these. I've reverted your start of this chart. If you really insist, then I strongly suggest you get the chart worked up first in your sandbox first. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

If you weren't aware that there are two species of minke whale (something that has been recognized for over 15 years) then why are you editing that article? GammaCepheus001 (talk) 02:10, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added that entire section originally... Dunkleosteus77 (push to talk) 15:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did you add it sixteen years ago? GammaCepheus001 (talk) 22:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind. You only added it a couple months ago. That's a little scary. So you weren't aware that there are two species of minke whale or that Omura's whale is a valid species? And you thought the pygmy right whale was considered "extinct" until recently?? Really? That baffles me. GammaCepheus001 (talk) 22:34, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I looked up "Minke whale", and it just came up with Balaenoptera acutorostrata; I didn't realize minke whale was two species until I looked up "Antarctic minke whales", I looked up Omura's whale (on http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/136623/0) and it said "Omura's whale is not yet recognized by in the IWC..." (Then again, now that I look closely at the references on that page, it dates back to 2003...), and it says on the Wikipedia article "pygmy right whale", "...which until 2012 were thought to be extinct..."; I realize now it meant reclassified... Dunkleosteus77 (push to talk) 01:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So you googled one, used a badly outdated source for another, and relied on the Wikipedia page for the last one. Did you have any prior knowledge of this subject before editing these articles? GammaCepheus001 (talk) 19:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an expert on whales, but I know enough to do a decent job, i suppose. Dunkleosteus77 (push to talk) 19:41, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To be completely honest, I googled everything I didn't already know (size, weight, random facts sometimes, binomial name...) Dunkleosteus77 (push to talk) 01:26, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you're going to do that please only cite books/websites written by experts or peer-reviewed papers. Whalefacts.org or a wikia of Walking with Dinosaurs aren't the best sources (the latter is like citing another Wikipedia article). GammaCepheus001 (talk) 22:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I suppose you're right. While on the subject, what would be an example of a paper written by experts (it would be helpful if it was a website); would sites like NOAA or National Geographic be examples? Dunkleosteus77 (push to talk) 02:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Any paper is going to be written by someone actually studying cetaceans, so that's not really the issue. NOAA is ok but in their species' pages they appear to often cite identification/natural history guides that don't cite any sources themselves (well, Shirihai lacks inline citations and the Audubon guide cites nothing). For example, the Bryde's whale page they have up says they get to 55 ft and 40 tons. The longest Bryde's was only 51 ft and no specimen has ever been weighed anywhere near 40 tons (that's just a made up figure appearing in the 2002 Audubon guide). Nat Geo is normally ok as well but they (or at least their magazine) also has trouble citing sources. Even the ACS species' pages are usually badly outdated or inaccurate. This is why I prefer books and papers (which typically cite extensive sources). GammaCepheus001 (talk) 22:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've done an excellent job with the addition of the species tables to the article. They look great and really add to the content of the page. Happy Editing! Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC) Thank you! Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LEADCITE & kittens

Do you like kittens? I made this one for you ;)

Re [1]: citations are usually not repeated in the lead per WP:LEADCITE. Cheers! jonkerz ♠talk 00:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That's an hour of my life I'll be needing back... Dunkleosteus77 (push to talk) 00:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch :/ by the way, why did you remove the previous comments you added a couple of hours back ago? Was this on purpose or did you perhaps edit an old revision of the page? Curiously, jonkerz ♠talk 00:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I based my comment on GA criteria; copy/pasted the GA criteria onto the page and made some comments on each one. I meant to delete the criteria list and just keep the comment, but I was in a rush and hit save, meaning to delete the criteria list later (which I did just now). Dunkleosteus77 (push to talk) 00:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see :) If you're interested in reviewing another ant article you should take a look at the FAC Banded sugar ant. jonkerz ♠talk 01:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you're interested in reviewing another animal article, you should take a look at Peer Review Whale. Dunkleosteus77 (push to talk) 02:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a few comments. I'll try to find time to read the whole article and return with more comments, if not, then perhaps whenever the article is a GAC, which I hope it will be soon! jonkerz ♠talk 14:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your time Dunkleosteus77 (push to talk) 21:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for expanding the article; I can only imagine how much hard work you've put in, well done! I've marked my comments as resolved. jonkerz ♠talk 21:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Even-toed ungulate, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Molar, Diurnal and Canine. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Whale

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Whale 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) 09:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look, it's the reviewer's job to decide if a comment is resolved. The nominator's job is to resolve each item to the best of their ability; the reviewer then decides if indeed the right action has been taken, or whether something more needs to be done. I have—repeatedly—reminded you of this but you're still at it. The article is not going to make it to GA if you keep modifying the taxobox, for example. May I suggest you now apologize, and state here that you accept the process. Thanks.

By the way, that applies a fortiori to the GA Table, where all signoffs are (I hope obviously) only for the reviewer's use. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, I've formatted a lot of refs in the article and fixed a few things. When I noted that the species list was redundant with both the List of cetaceans and the Cetaceans template (at the bottom of the article), I decided that the lists really had to go - sorry about this, but after looking at them every which way, it seems clear they simply aren't needed (and this isn't Cetacea, either) - I suspect the closeness of Whale to that article has caused quite a bit of the difficulty really. Similarly, I've removed some paragraphs about dolphins which may be relevant in Cetacea but don't belong here - at least, if dolphins are whales, then Whale = Cetacea and we need to merge the two articles, which I doubt is what anyone wants.

All that is left is a little bit of history and culture; the history of whaling can be derived from the Whaling and History of whaling articles, while a brief account of whales in art should not be too difficult. You might look at Werness 2006, van der Grijp 2009, Wallace 2004, Kaalund 1983, for example. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whale articles

Hello
I have been tracking down edits by User:GammaCepheus001 (who is now banned, and is probably a sockpuppet of User:Jonas Poole who has been banned for a long time) and I notice he left some here. I have been undoing them as they are more than likely to be disruptive, but There were some on the Bryde's whale and Omura's whale pages which I would be pleased if you s could review for me as you will know more about the subject than I do. If I have undone content which is actually worth keeping, please feel free to undo what I have done there. Regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 01:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You were correct to undo his most recent edit on the Bryde's whale page, but the edit he made on January 2, 2015‎ was correct since it's redundant to say "rorquals baleen whales". GammaCepheus001 was right to delete the sentence "notably within Komodo National Park" on Feb 12, 2015. All of his edits on the Omura's whale page was non disruptive and verifiable and should be kept. Glad to help, and good luck! Dunkleosteus77 (push to talk) 02:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Odd-toed ungulate, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lacrimal. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

European whaling in the South Pacific (Part II)

Hey, Dunky. As I said before, European whaling in the South Pacific didn't begin until 1789. American whaleships didn't reach the South Pacific until the early 1790s and British whaleships didn't reach Australia until the early 1790s as well. Read Dakin's Whalemen Adventurers and Colwell's Whaling Around Australia. SplashyHumpback (talk) 01:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry. Forgot to change that.
No, worries. If you need any help or need to find references for something just post something on User:Grimlock1986's talkpage or whichever one isn't banned. Apparently if I post anything constructive on someone's talkpage it gets deleted by certain simpletons. Oh, well. Good luck. SplashyHumpback (talk) 02:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I really need some help with the Conservation section of the Whale article to fit within the GA review suggestions. Dunkleosteus77 (push to talk) 03:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You could start with talking about Foyn's monopoly off Finnmark in the 1870s and 1880s and the British licenses in the Falkland Island dependencies in the early 1900s to reduce waste. Then you could mention the protection of right and gray whales, cows with calves, in the early 1930s; negotiations in the mid to late-1930s on quotas in the Antarctic; the formation of the IWC in the late 1940s and the use of the BWU (Blue Whale Unit) and why that failed. You could then mention the protection of various species and stocks in the 1960s and onwards; the "Save the Whale" movement in the 1970s; the UN asking for a moratorium on commercial whaling in the early 1970s; US protection in the same deacade; and finally the moratorium in the 1980s and the rise of scientific whaling. Oh, and how ship strikes, entanglement in fishing gear, and habitat degradation are now their main threats. This is off the top of my head and I haven't really taken a good look at the conservation section but hopefully it will help. SplashyHumpback (talk) 01:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Whale

The article Whale you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Whale 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) 07:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, congratulations on bringing Whale to Good Article status. Please do not spoil this achievement now by attempting to undo the hard work we have both put in, in the past week, as we sought to make the article conform to the required standard: such behavior is entirely unacceptable on Wikipedia and is not expected from experienced and committed editors. Unlike Cetacea, Whale is not a taxon article and it is not appropriate for it to duplicate the article on Cetacea. If you want to create detailed lists of whales with images and so forth, Cetacea and its subsidiary articles are the (plentiful) places for that - Whale is not. Thank you for your understanding. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cetacea image map

I will be changed the college image to add a beaked whale and a porpoise so you should change the image map. LittleJerry (talk) 15:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What?
Oh I see now. Done Dunkleosteus77 (push to talk) 17:31, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In captivity

Hey, Dunky. This section talks about JJ the gray whale, which was kept at SeaWorld in 1997-98, but your citation is from 1991. The citation is probably about GiGi, the first baleen whale to be successfully kept in captivity in the 1970s. It appears you (or whoever added it) confused the two. SplashyHumpback (talk) 01:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing that out Dunkleosteus77 (push to talk) 01:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Cetacea
added a link pointing to Papillae
Whale
added a link pointing to Norse

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Whale, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Beluga. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 14:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

Hi Dunkleosteus77, I notice you archived the talk page [2] for Dolphin, but I don't see where that is. cygnis insignis 20:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whale and citing sources

Hello, I see that you implied on the Whale FAC that citing sources will be a problem for you, so did you need any assistance with that? I'll be glad to help. Burklemore1 (talk) 15:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I really desperately need help on this. Thank you very much. Dunkleosteus77 (push to talk) 22:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'll get around to it shortly. I'll first take a look at what the reviewers suggested with some of the sources. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changes from American to British English

Information icon In a recent edit, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you.

I am referring to the changes on Whale and River dolphin. I am sure you were just trying to achieve consistency, but who's to say consistency should be achieved by changing everything one way or the other? Well, the way the issue has been resolved on Wikipedia is to stick to the first version of each article (unless it has strong ties to a nation, but I don't think that's the case for either of the articles in question). Since both articles were originally written using American English, and your edits changed a substantial portion into British English, I do not think it was fair to impose respect of that with "Use British English" templates: in fact, my research showed the opposite (meaning, American) templates should be used.

Hope you understand, LjL (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was informed that the Whale article was originally written in British English, and the template {{Use British English}} has been on the article (not the talk page) since April, when I tried to resolve British/American English inconsistencies by changing it to American English.
Uhm, well, I checked the article's actual history and as soon as it was no longer a stub (while it was a stub, there were no variety-specific words in it) it was immediately full of American-style words. Sometimes people just "decide" that an article is written in a given variety and slap a template on it, so maybe this was the case here. Hopefully the research I've posted on the article's original terminology solves this issue for good. The article should now be in consistent American English as I've used a nontrivial automatic tool (VarCon) to convert it. LjL (talk) 22:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll continue this debate over at the Whale talk page

Your GA nomination of River dolphin

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article River dolphin 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 Cwmhiraeth -- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of River dolphin

The article River dolphin you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:River dolphin 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 Cwmhiraeth -- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

River dolphin

Hi, I will finally clean up all of the refs on the article tonight. In the meantime, another Myrmecia ant species has been nominated for GA (Myrmecia inquilina), so feel free to check that out if you're in the mood for reviewing. Cheers, Burklemore1 (talk) 10:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

River dolphin DYK

Hi, I saw the requirements for DIY passing, and it says that the claimed tidbit must be present and cited with an inline citation in the article, but I don't see the word "turn" anywhere. Unless it uses different wording (but it should probably use the verbatim wording used in the did-you-know question), it ought to get added... --LjL (talk) 13:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks for taking on this review LjL

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/River dolphin at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see 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) 02:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of River dolphin

Hello! Your submission of River dolphin 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) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! SusunW (talk) 02:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for River dolphin

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Porpoise has been nominated for Did You Know

DYK nomination of Porpoise

Hello! Your submission of Porpoise 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) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Human3015TALK  09:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Porpoise

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Baleen whale

Hello! Your submission of Baleen whale 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) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! North America1000 20:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Monk seal

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Baleen whale (pass)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent job on this, keep it up!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Marine mammal

Hello! Your submission of Marine mammal 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) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! EdChem (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Admin top icon

Hi Dunkleosteus77! I noticed that you had the top icon for administrators ({{administrator}}) at the top of your user talk page. It doesn't appear that you are an administrator, so could you please remove it? It's misleading to editors, as upon seeing it, users might unwittingly approach you with requests for administrative attention. Thanks! Kind regards, Mz7 (talk) 23:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How'd that get there? Dunkleosteus77 (push to talk) 14:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

I reverted your edits at Odd-toed ungulate because it is not how you put an image in a taxobox. It's supposed to be |image=image.jpg and not putting in some unnecessary image map voodoo in.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review of life

You should perhaps be aware that the article was nominated (in good faith, I'm sure) by an editor with very weak English skills and very little Wikipedia experience, who has not contributed to the article. Before investing a lot of effort you might wish to find out whether anybody is around who can act on the points you raise. Best wishes, Looie496 (talk) 12:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Porpoise

The article Porpoise you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Porpoise 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 Cwmhiraeth -- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 22:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 31 October

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Porpoise

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Porpoise 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 Cwmhiraeth -- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 15:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of cetaceans

Hi, Dunkleosteus. I noticed that you did substantial work on this list when it was at FAR and am interested in selecting it for a Main Page appearance in the near-future. The only concern I have is a shortage of references in the last two paragraphs of the new lead section, for passages that are not cited in the body of the article. I wouldn't want to see a bunch of cite tags being added to the lead on the article's big day. If you have some spare time, would you mind beefing up the referencing in the lead, so that my concerns over scheduling the list at TFL are eased? Thanks for any help you can provide. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with the references you provided and have scheduled the list to appear on January 8, 2016; you can review the TFL blurb here. While preparing the blurb, I did notice something interesting. It says multiple times that there are 88 species, but the IUCN counts only go up to 87 and it later says there are 90 living species (including one functionally extinct, but not two). Meanwhile, I count 92 entries in the various tables. You might want to reconcile the numbers before this has its main page date. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see what happened. I'm pretty sure the source you're referring to was published before the Yangtze finless porpoise was accepted as a different species by the IUCN. Also, there are 3 having a conservation status of "NE" (Not Evaluated), meaning they're not recognised by the IUCN, but I'm almost certain they're recognised by other conservation groups. I changed the "90 living species part" to 89, and changed "2 Critically Endangered" to 3

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Passenger pigeon/archive1

I think we have addressed all your concerns and them some. Please take a look at the improvements. I think we are done. User:Atsme should take a look, too. 7&6=thirteen (☎)

I think so too   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Would you kindly post a note? Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Bottlenose dolphin/1

Hello, Dunkleosteus77. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Bottlenose dolphin/1.
Message added Sainsf <^>Talk all words 04:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Dunkleosteus77. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by DES (talk) 23:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.[reply]


Toothed whale

Heres a book you can use for information on feeding mechanisms. LittleJerry (talk) 22:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation notifications

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited River dolphin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Morphological. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Porpoise, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page WWF. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 12:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of cetaceans, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vulnerable. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 13:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Amazon river dolphin
added links pointing to Black River, Croaker, Caroni River, Caura River and Fonte Boa

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Toothed whale, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Echolocation. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Monachus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sealer. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Baleen whale, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Seal, Sinus and Auditory meatus. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Baleen whale, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Rostrum, Canine and Lens. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bottlenose dolphin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page T. australis. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marine mammal, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Saint Paul Island and Monotrema. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Marine mammal
added links pointing to Echolocation, Norse, Poplar and Beluga

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:32, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marine mammal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barrier reef. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:31, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mammal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Beachmaster. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:34, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Heart into Mammal. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 13:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are still not adding the required attribution, as required under the terms of the CC-by-SA license. Please have a look at this edit summary as an example of how it is done. Please let me know if you still don't understand what to do or why we have to do it. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again I remind you to provide attribution when copying from one article to another. It's easy to do by mentioning the source page in your edit summary. Please start doing this right away; it's a legal requirement. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Monk seal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sealing. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Monk seal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cabo Blanco. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

List of parrots
added links pointing to Ono, Santa Cruz, St Thomas, Ambon, Washington Island, Gonâve, Middle America, Zanda and Kadavu

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prishibinsk tiger

Hi, can I ask why you removed the paragraph about the Prishibinsk tiger, in the article Caspian tiger? That was sure a huge tiger, compared to the one which had the greatest skull length amongst Caspian tigers. Leo1pard (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that was a uniquely large tiger because the average length is not mentioned. You can re-add it if you want   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of recently extinct mammals, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Knud Andersen. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marine mammal

Hi, just checked progress and see that all but Evolution, Adaptations, Protection, and Military sections are now complete. None require much work to get to GA. Hope all's well with you, if you need to hold for any reason just let me know. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome!

...for the edits I made to the article on porpoises. I so loathe words like "baby" when referring to newborn animals, and the milk squirting thing seemed absurd to me until I found a source! Seems it is true after all. I see you are the individual responsible for getting Whale to good article status— good show! KDS4444 (talk) 16:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Dunkleosteus77. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TFL notification

Hi, Dunkleosteus77. I'm just posting to let you know that List of parrots – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for March 13. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 23:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stellers sea cow

Hi there, I'm now through with my additions to your sea cow article! Please feel free to revert if needed. I would suggest requesting a good copy edit, and renominating it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017


An apology

Hi Dunkleosteus77, Just under a year ago, you kindly completed a very detailed GA review of an article I had just written, social immunity. Sadly near the end of the review I dissapeared from enwiki due to various off-wiki events, and I completely forgot about the article in the intervening period. However I now have, again due to off-wiki events, a considerable amount of free time for the next few months. Hence I've fixed the remaining suggestions you had made for social immunity (it was just a few cite/grammar issues e.g. dashes). If you do want to complete the review that would be great; equally if you'd prefer not too that's fine and please know that your efforts were not wasted!

Thanks, Acather96 (click here to contact me) 13:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mammal

Hello. I feel like the reproductive system subsection should include information on sex organs. In marsupials, male have a forked penis and females have three vaginas. LittleJerry (talk) 02:21, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@LittleJerry: I can take some stuff from Marsupial but I'm worried that it'd just be a copy/paste. Think you can have a go at it?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:02, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I could try. LittleJerry (talk) 13:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well alright then   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steller's sea cow scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Steller's sea cow article has been scheduled as today's featured article for September 2, 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 2, 2017, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:31, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You!

Thank you very much for picking up the common loon for a review! I noticed that you just put Sirenia up for a review, so would you mind if I picked it up (not so familiar with the topic, but could give it a go)? Adityavagarwal (talk) 06:01, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why not, thanks   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:06, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there! I hope you are doing great. Could you also pick up the Yunnan hare for a review (I think it is a shorter article, so might entail lesser work than the common loon)? However, if due to any reason you are unable to, I understand that too. I hope you have a great rest of the day! Adityavagarwal (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you are doing awesome! Would you also like too have a go at the common loon FAC? As always, if due to any reason you are unable to, I completely understand that, and have a colourful rest of the day! Adityavagarwal (talk) 02:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there, Dunkleosteus! While reviewing Megalodon, I came across the species Dunkleosteus which might be the reason you chose the username. It is really cool! :D All the more reason to push it to FA hood. ;) I have one more request for you, that the brown pelican article is currently at GAN, but the reviewer is really busy in real life and is unable to complete the review. Would you like to take it on from there? I would be much obliged. Also, I am looking forward to contributing to extinct species after finishing all my current GANs/FACs! Have a wonderful rest of the day! Adityavagarwal (talk) 07:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Your GA nomination of Yunnan hare"

I look forward to working with you. Thanks for taking this on. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bat

Hello, would you be interested in joining me and Chiswick Chap on Bat as a possible FAC. I feel we could use another higher (monophyletic) mammal taxa. We're not in any hurry at this point. LittleJerry (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@LittleJerry: sounds fun, alright   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Our biggest issue is that since we don't write most of the article, we may have trouble with sourcing. Also, Chap says that many of the source are primary. LittleJerry (talk) 17:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Megalodon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mega Shark (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steller's sea cow reversions

Why are you persisting on this? It is preposterous, citable as MOS or not. It just adds wildly annoying and distracting clutter to a page. This is neither a common sense nor, crucially, a user-friendly approach. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 16:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding alternative text for images isn't a user-friendly approach? Call me confused. As editors we should be willing to navigate clutter while editing for the accessibility of our readers. Compared to the "wikiclutter" that citations generate, what's a couple sentences on an image link? – Rhinopias (talk) 17:15, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sea mink scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Sea mink article has been scheduled as today's featured article for November 6, 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 6, 2017. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:46, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, since Swpb wants the joy of being on the main page asap ... I've swapped sea mink with Rotating locomotion in living systems, so you're now scheduled for the November 22, 2017 date. Sorry! Ealdgyth - Talk 17:28, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for "a species of mink that went extinct in the 1800s, and everything about its behavior and biology comes from skull fragments and stuff fur traders said"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:44, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Megalodon FA nom

I was randomly reading through it and I saw you said you were busy. Figured I could attempt some quick ref fixes… :X – Rhinopias (talk) 22:07, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

it was kinda funny how I started editing directly after you’d fixed everything   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:08, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My bad for confusingly jumping in. I think "fixed everything" is an overstatement though. ;] – Rhinopias (talk) 01:00, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A word

Hi, just to say I'm disappointed to see you starting a hare running during a GAN that we are conducting together. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

as an American, I do not know what that means   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, not trying to be needlessly obscure. I mean, starting a new thread which might lead to extensive informal discussion while we're hard at work trying to close down a formal discussion. It's something always best avoided in my view. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Invite

Hello, you are one of the finest contributors in this community and take keen interest in prehistorical topics. I run a community named The World of Animals (http://theworldofanimals.proboards.com/). Assuming that you are not a member, please consider joining. We can discuss paleoecology and paleobiology of any prehistoric animal in detail there. --LeGenD (talk) 10:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Natural History Museum of the University of Pisa

Hey Dunkleosteus77. I moved "Museo storia naturale di Pisa" (which contained at least one mistake) to Natural History Museum of Pisa... but the official website names the museum as "Natural History Museum of the University of Pisa". Do you agree with that name? seems to be official regarding the English language... Kintaro (talk) 22:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kintaro: well if that's what's on the official website I guess   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done!! Kintaro (talk) 23:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Bat

On 25 November 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bat, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the diets of different species of bat include frogs, fish, other bats, nectar, and blood? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bat. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Bat), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Encouraging Vandalism

What was THAT??? Never ever do that again!2001:A61:370B:2E01:B514:F2DE:9FAC:EF30 (talk) 09:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Dunkleosteus77. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Megalodon FA

Kudos for getting it through. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 18:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

Wish you a Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year 2018!
A very Happy, Glorious, Prosperous Christmas and New Year! God bless!  — Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bat FAC

I'm going to need your help at the FAC page, since Chap is out for Christmas. LittleJerry (talk) 16:41, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I’m also out for Christmas   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:24, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptid whales listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Cryptid whales. Since you had some involvement with the Cryptid whales redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 20:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptid whale listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Cryptid whale. Since you had some involvement with the Cryptid whale redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 20:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Janjucetus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mya (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) 11:15, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am thinking

I will clear up some time to help and check over your article. Thanks for asking.

statement for the talk page for polar Dinosaurs

I think what we should do is put a list of Cretaceous polar dinosaurs and ones from the late Jurassic. All dinosaurs in that list should be 145 mya at the oldest and the youngest 66/65 mya for the list. This is stated in the article that the polar forests formed 145 mya and lasted into the end of the Maastrichtian.


Think this is good?

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talk

D'you think the guy's bats (talking only encourages him) or has any sort of rational point? His argument doesn't make a lot of sense to me: happy to oppose, if it'd help. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand any aspect of his argument at all. I assume he's planning the same layout as Whale vs Dolphin vs Cetacea (which I hate, honestly), so I think I'm opposing   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Megalodon scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Megalodon article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 22, 2018. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 22, 2018, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A question ... you removed "sometimes" (which I had added) from "puncturing heart and lungs". This is a model of Megalodon's jaws and teeth; this is the skull of a blue whale. How do those teeth reach that whale's heart and lungs in one bite? I can't form a mental image of what's going on here. We may need a different verb. - Dank (push to talk) 14:59, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dank I don’t understand, how is the skull related to puncturing the chest cavity?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The problem may center on the meaning of the word "puncture". The largest tooth discovered so far is under 3 inches. I have no trouble visualizing a shark with 3-inch teeth chewing on a whale until it reaches vital organs, but that's not the image that "puncture" suggests. If I take a 3-inch knife and use it to carve up a house until I reach the bathtub, then stick the knife in the bathtub, that's not "puncturing" ... puncturing would be driving something 10 feet long into the house until it hits the tub. - Dank (push to talk) 16:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can make an edit taking the "puncturing" part out, if that will help. I'm sure we can come up with something that will work for you. - Dank (push to talk) 16:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It punctured the chest cavity by targeting the abdominal region as far’s I know, so would “crush” work? “Targeting the heart and lungs” maybe?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:54, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. - Dank (push to talk) 20:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the article! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Whats an Informal Grouping in a biological or scientific sense of the word?

Example of your usage of the word. [3]

it’s not a taxon so there isn’t one   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic taxoboxes

It's not so much that the automatic taxobox system is complicated but that it looks complicated, especially if one's already used to manual taxoboxes. The sheer amount of documentation might be a bit off-putting as well, even if much of it pertains either to the back-end of the system or to highly specific, complex circumstances that one's not very likely to run into frequently. Since you expressed difficulty learning from that documentation (again, understandable), if you'd like, I could help you learn how to use it. Even if you end up never adding any automatic taxoboxes/speciesboxes it to articles yourself, it's good to know how it works when something needs updating or when someone adds a mangled automatic taxobox somewhere. Alternatively, feel free to ask me if you ever need a hand with one (but I'm prone to random longer absences, so it might be a good idea to check if I'm active first). If you're not interested in either, that's fine too, of course. AddWittyNameHere 19:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's really my problem with mandating automatic taxoboxes: I'm pretty familiar with how this whole Wiki stuff works, and even I can't figure out one thing about how this works   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:25, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, I think it's in part because you're so familiar with how Wiki works. I found it hard to get used to automatic taxoboxes while I kept the way "normal" taxoboxes worked in mind. I was like "okay, so this is like manual taxoboxes...except this, and this...oh and this, this, this, this and that over there", which basically boils down to "how the hell am I supposed to memorize all of this, let alone work with it?".
So I let them be for a bit, then came back to it but this time approaching it as an entirely different system with the same purpose and some similarities (such as some of the parameter names)—rather than essentially the same system with "some" differences—and suddenly it was fairly easy to "get". AddWittyNameHere 19:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can't even figure out what page I'm supposed to edit for automatic taxoboxes   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:39, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the slow-ish reply. Was afk due to eating dinner.
In regards to your question:
  • If the underlying infrastructure (the taxonomy templates) exists—something that will become increasingly the norm if/as more areas of the ToL adapt to using the automatic taxobox system—and is up-to-date, then all you need to edit is the relevant article. This is what much of the adding of automatic taxoboxes/speciesboxes is like, as well as what repairing a lot of wrong automatic taxoboxes is like (e.g. when someone added the wrong binomial or authority, or misformatted the taxobox)
  • If the underlying infrastructure doesn't exist, then you'll need to edit 1. the article and 2. create the relevant missing taxonomy template. This sounds harder than it is: what you'd do is add the automatic taxobox just as you would if everything *does* exist, then follow the link in the error message ("Click here to enter the taxonomic details for [taxon]", with "Click here" having a light blue background). This brings you to the taxonomy template to create, with much of the code already pre-formatted. At that point, all you have to do is add to the already-existing-but-empty parameters the rank and parent taxon information, as well as (preferably but not mandatory) a reference. This is the second-most common situation when adding a speciesbox/automatic taxobox to an article in most areas; in some highly speciose areas with sizeable portions of the lower-level infrastructure not yet in place—such as Lepidoptera—it is more common than in areas with a high level of infrastructural coverage.
  • Now, sometimes the parent taxon also doesn't exist yet. (Though the higher the taxon rank, the more likely it is that someone already created the relevant taxonomy template, regardless of whether or not they're actually *used* in the relevant articles. Eventually, the sole higher taxon templates that will not exist are those recently erected or of which the rank was recently revised and that involve name changes.) The system gives you another error message with, again, a link to create the template at the correct location with all the code pre-loaded. Barring large-scale taxonomic revisions involving the name-and-rank change of a taxon, you do the same here: create, then add rank, parent (and preferably, reference) to the pre-loaded contents. If that parent taxon doesn't exist yet, rinse and repeat. Not very common any more in most areas
  • If the underlying infrastructure *does* exist but isn't correct, you click the pencil icon on the taxobox. This leads you to the relevant taxonomy template. On the right-hand side is a long Ancestral Taxa table. Check where the error is occurring (that is, which taxon has the wrong parent information or rank information, e.g. if Felinae is listed as subfamily of Canidae, or if Felinae is listed as family), click the link to edit that template and correct the information. Second-most common when repairing an existing automatic taxobox
  • If the case is especially complex (e.g. due to a revision or a mistake on the side of whoever created the taxonomy template, the issue also involves the taxon's name), it may require moving or going through a larger number of taxonomy templates to fix issues—but that's no difference from mainspace, where large numbers of articles would *also* need checking and some would need to be moved to the new name. Those cases do require some familiarity with the system, but they're fairly infrequent and generally aren't something we would want new editors to handle in the first place—much like we wouldn't want new editors to handle the moving/renaming of its mainspace and category-space counterparts. Uncommon.
Essentially, in all cases it is "start from the article that needs a (change to its) taxobox, and follow the links the system provides". AddWittyNameHere 21:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Refactoring the RM

I was going to say it's no big deal, and just start a discussion on this edit as being misguided. There have been many, many RM discussions in which discussion is intermixed with the Survey section (whether marked as that or not. However, the Discussion section never contains !votes so far as I have seen. When the discussion becomes complex, it's quite common to start a separate section without refactorinng the existing discussion, as I did. I appreciate the logic of what you've done, but AFAIK it's unprecedented and will only serve to make the closer's job more difficult. It's not just this RM that is affected. Others will see !votes in the Discussion section. If you disagree with the established practice, discuss this, and perhaps we can change it.

But the more I looked at your edits the more concerned I became. I have therefore reverted them both. The refactoring, merging the previous discussion into the RM, destroys the stringing.

Please discuss. Andrewa (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Rajasaurus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Spine, Punjab University, Generic name and Specific name

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

hey want to get back to work?

Should we work on the south polar region of the Cretaceous article? Also Editor number 4 is not editing for a while so we will have to ask Hemiauchenia to help us.

Bubblesorg All I can see that’s left is the Geology section and expanding the lead. How about you finish those up and we can co-nominate it for GA. Also, make sure to use reliable sources, not just the first ones you find after googling it (unless those happen to be reliable)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:00, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bubblesorg can you do that?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure let me just get finished with camp which in 1 day and i will be ready--Bubblesorg (talk) 20:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good I think I will make a list of things rather thanks to camps and tuitions.15:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Bubblesorg What? I don't understand   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh

What an unfriendly comment! Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chiswick Chap Hold up, it’s a good article, just a couple things   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thanks. If you did that IRL I'd have spilt my coffee all over your lap! I'll tweak the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ok i am working on the geology draft

Yeah takes me some days but i will submit after completion

how and where exactly do you draft your articles? I think I should see your finished product before you publish it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

yes i will show you the draft after i am done with it on word.--Bubblesorg (talk) 17:41, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You could always use your sandbox if you need to draft first   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:01, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks i will submit the draft day after tomorrow.--Bubblesorg (talk) 17:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Put it up on your sandbox first so I can read it and I'll tell you if anything needs fixing, and then after that little process, you can put it on the article   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So how's that geology going for you?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:47, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bubblesorg: Hey   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bubblesorg: Okay don't bother with the Geology section, I just wrote it. Do the lead instead and we can continue with this. All you need to do is, in 3 paragraphs, give a nice summary of the article information without getting too specific. I recommend doing it in one editing session, just sit down and do it, so you don't delay yourself so long   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bubblesorg: do you still wanna do something on this article or no?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:09, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will kep working and i have some what.

Bubblesorg, from what I can tell, everything you’ve written has either been deleted or rewritten, so let’s try to get whatever you write for the lead to stick   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:37, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok sure. I will work on it more later.

Could you help

I am trying to link the genus of the false killer whale to its genus article but I am seeming to be unsuccessful could you help thanks Bubblesorg (talk) 22:14, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t understand what you’re trying to say, where are you trying to wikilink Pseudorca? Also editing questions can be answered at the Teahouse   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actias luna GAN - thanks

Thanks. This is my second insect GA nomination. Not my professional area of expertise. Given widespread fascination with Luna moth (masks, poems, tattoos...) I was surprised how little content there was at the article. David notMD (talk) 20:54, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question: I just received a note on my Talk that the nomination has failed, but I do not see any comment at the article talk about that. Am I missing something? Is it possible that because the name change was accepted and implemented that I should reapply with a nomination for "Luna moth"? David notMD (talk) 00:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As of this morning, looks as if the GA nomination has been reactivated for "Luna moth." I am going to wait a day, and then continue with the revisions. David notMD (talk) 10:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are we done with the GA review? I replied at Talk on the owl and egg predation questions. David notMD (talk) 12:41, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, brevity is a virtue, but not a requirement. This is not an overly wordy article. I appreciate your diligence and time put into this review process, which has gone on for more than ten days, but we clearly have different preferences for detail. I would prefer that you fail the GA nomination so that I can renominate it for a new reviewer. David notMD (talk) 09:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wordiness doesn’t necessarily fail an article, I would’ve just liked it to be more concise and straight to the point before I passed it, but if you’re not moving, I guess I’ll just go on ahead and pass it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciated. I did shorten the parasite content a bit more after my note to you. David notMD (talk) 18:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note for the future, word count doesn’t matter. And also I just realized there’s no Taxonomy section which should probably be there   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

is this article of any use?

https://depositsmag.com/2017/12/05/australias-polar-cretaceous-mammals/

Well the author’s a museum curator so I’d say it’s okay. Why? What’re you planning?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:59, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just stuff on the mammal section.--Bubblesorg (talk) 15:26, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay just remember not to get too detailed on individual species and such. They all already have their own articles. And check your spelling before publishing   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:08, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bubblesorg, so how’s the lead coming along?

is this ok "Dinosaurs from these region are known as south polar dinosaurs"--Bubblesorg (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, that’s a given. It’s like South Polar mammals or South Polar plesiosaurs   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:38, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bubblesorg so how's that lead coming?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:45, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK--Bubblesorg (talk) 17:02, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bubblesorg When do you think you'll be done with it? It shouldn't take you more than 10 or 15 minutes since you just have to summarize what's already in the article   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:44, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bubblesorg, you don’t need refs in the lead because it’s summarizing what’s already in the article. The refs you added are not formatted right (use template:cite journal for those). Keep going on the lead, and I thought you said you’d show it to me before you added it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Luna moth up for DYK

An FYI that Luna moth in in Prep stage for DYK, should move into Queue, then show up on the main page evening of the 12th (assuming I have the date count right). With picture. Curious about how many extra views that will gender over the ~750/day it gets now. David notMD (talk) 02:52, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And it's on the main page. And I meant "engender." David notMD (talk) 01:03, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pisco Formation

Hey, with your GAN in progress for Thalassocnus and the other articles you worked on, Livyatan (FA), megalodon (FA) and Acrophyseter (GA) and many more possible articles to boost, I thought it was time for an own category, as the other important Lagerstëtten of South America have too, see Category:Pisco Formation. I will work on the geology part of it in the coming weeks to get it better and focus on the paleo-environment, as I think that will be useful for the other articles. There is just still so much to do, until now I have mostly focused on re-organizing, categorizing and infilling existing formations, so a little break from my earlier work on for instance the Honda Group and Cocinetas Basin, as important other fossiliferous formations, but we will get there. Bahía Inglesa for sure needs proper coverage, as do many others in the SALMA lists. Good luck with getting it to GA, if you want me to review, I am happy to do it. One thing I would like to see is a better use of references, not these walls of unreadable text inside the paragraphs, but rather how I refer to the bibliography, also because then you can refer to the specific page, which is more professional than just quoting a full paper 20 times over. Cheers, Tisquesusa (talk) 22:39, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, I’ll get to adding that category around articles (lotta sharks), and you can review Thalassocnus if you want to. I didn’t realize how many Pisco Formation articles I did, I just like marine mammals. Also I did that specific-page format for references at whale and I find it very confusing. What I could do, if you want, is put those especially-used references in Further reading, that’d work I should think   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:15, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On the last point, that is what I am doing now with the South American (and African) geology articles, adding the articles as Further reading for now, so they can be incorporated later into the articles. On the point of mammals, I like the land mammals and hence the SALMA expansion, but there is such a lot that is missing, even for well-known Lagerstätten. We have some work to do, which is nice. I will start the review this weekend, and I am sure it will be good to pass soon. Have a good night Tisquesusa (talk) 03:23, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

done with the lead

Is there anything more?--Bubblesorg (talk) 01:32, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, the lead. You can add a lot more there and condense some things you’ve already added. Get to 2 to 3 paragraphs   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:03, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

is this formation good? Hidden Lake Formation--Bubblesorg (talk) 16:22, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:25, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have an idea for tree frog article

You know what you did to the Whale article right? where you replaced the taxon box with the object box. Could we do that with the tree frog article?--Bubblesorg (talk) 20:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

you could. You could also do it how they did it in jellyfish   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:37, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah i did that and some users who no nothing about taxonomy took it down saying it is not appropriate for an animal page.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tree_frog&action=history--Bubblesorg (talk) 19:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then make your case if you’re really adamant about its inclusion (but remember other stuff exists is not an argument here)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of mammal species/navigation

A certain editor is beginning to get to be a pest. Would you believe that I got a smiley from CF today for deleting a random irrelevant picture which they had added to List of mammal species? Narky Blert (talk) 22:59, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

&$%£! [4] Narky Blert (talk) 23:58, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Persistence

Hi, I have searched for reliable sources for persistence hunting and have found nothing about non-human animals, and (especially) nothing about orcas. If you know of any such sources, I'll be happy to use them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:04, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

this doesn't specifically use the words "persistence hunting" but it describes a pod of orcas pursuing a sperm whale over the course of several hours   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:38, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but we'd be committing collective OR if we assumed such a connection. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay but I’ve still left other examples on the nomination page that specifically use some synonym of “persistence hunting”   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:36, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied there. "Cursorial" (which just means running) is not a synonym of persistence; that's easy to see with spiders, as they can't breathe when running, so they cannot be persistent in the run-for-five-hours-across-the-Kalahari sense. Any predator with running limbs is cursorial, including short-burst cheetahs, the antithesis of a persistence predator. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
However they contrasted it with ambush predation, meaning they defined cursorial predation as the opposite, and when appendaged with "hunter" the word refers to endurance running   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:29, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's really not right, and you mustn't try to argue by synthesis. A cheetah certainly isn't a persistence predator, and it's certainly cursorial - indeed they use the cheetah as their example of a cursorial predator. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

so where is it?

where is the GA i don't see it?

I wanted your go-ahead first, I nominated it just now   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will start in just a bit i am in school--Bubblesorg (talk) 16:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

what do you mean ‘start’? There aren’t any comments yet. We just need to wait now for somebody to review the article and do last-minute fixes on the article if you see any   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:27, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are we complete on Jellyfish?

Hi, we think we've done everything here, unless there are any more comments? Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:52, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Baleen whales

Hi ... tomorrow I'm going to try to tie up some loose ends at WT:TFA. I want to give people some examples from previous TFA blurbs, and ask for opinions on whether any part of the given text is redundant or not. I'm usually completely rewriting these examples so that no one will feel like I'm doing any public finger-pointing, but for this example, I'm not sure how to rewrite it ... do you have any objection if I use the following text with just a few modifications from Baleen whale? "Once relentlessly hunted by commercial industries for their meat, blubber, baleen, and oil, cetaceans now have some protections under international law. [Besides hunting,] baleen whales also face threats from marine pollution and ocean acidification." (I actually have no idea how people will vote on this one ... both the original and my modified form are fine in a Featured Article, I think ... the question is whether I did the right thing in removing "Besides hunting" when I did the blurb.) - Dank (push to talk) 20:40, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, go on ahead   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Dunkleosteus77. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Dunkleosteus77. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

a cup of tea

I'm having one, thank you for your patience in the face of my exasperation. cygnis insignis 07:07, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you review thanks

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maiabalaena

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Parrot article

Hi, a reply has been posted onto the request on 'parrot' that you made a while ago for a review! PS: yes, cats are very nice?

Qwerty number1 (talk) 23:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oceanic dolphin

Hi there. My edit to oceanic dolphin was not vandalism, and frankly I fail to see why you would think it was. It did three things:

  • It moved the opening comment tag (<!--) up. The way it was before created a double line break and therefore created extra white-space, which was clearly not what it was intended to do.
  • It added a closing italic tag ('') to the genus name Steno in one of the citations, which was erroneously omitted.
  • It moved the refs up so that they appeared on the same line as the text they referred to. If there is a good reason for them to be separate then I apologise, but I am not aware of one.

If you have any reason to disagree with any of these changes that is fine and they can be discussed if necessary (although it probably isn't worth the bother given how minor they are). However, vandalism is defined as behaviour/edits which are deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose. Unless I have missed something, nothing that I did is even potentially disruptive (all were minor formatting changes), let alone counter to Wikipedia's purpose, and it certainly wasn't done with malicious intent. Please assume good faith and try not to accuse other editors of malicious behaviour without a strong justification.

In that spirit I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you either mis-clicked or misunderstood the edit. (Perhaps an edit summary would have helped.) However, some clarification would be appreciated.

Thanks, Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alphathon It looked like a hidden comment that you for some reason made unhidden because I saw in the wikitext that you took off the ”<!--“ but not the ending “-->” so it would have displayed “[text]-->” and seemed like some low level vandalism on my end   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:42, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that makes sense and I can see why it might have looked like that. Thanks for the clarification. Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ (talk) 01:38, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tylosaurus scale diagram

Yes, it was accidental taking out the scale diagram on the Tylosaurus page! I am sorry about this, didn`t notice it at the time at all. Please put a new one in (or get somebody to) as it was a genuine mistake on my part. Orthogonal Orthocone (talk) 14:27, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have trouble

I made this page, so far im the only one except for shellwood on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pachyacanthus you have a talent of editing cetacean pages so can you help me?--Bubblesorg (talk) 18:22, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FAR

I have nominated List of cetacean species for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinniped list

Hello. I feel like your pinniped list is better suited for a List of pinniped species article. LittleJerry (talk) 04:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Paleocene, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diurnal (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) 07:20, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:02, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TFL notification – October 2019

Hi, Dunkleosteus77. I'm just posting to let you know that List of fruit bats – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for October 7. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 00:25, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HI

Can you stop, I have tried to stop making those accounts, so can you stop pointing old ones out. I dont like that. Im trying to be a better person, just please leave it alone.--Bubblesorg (talk) 01:18, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bubblesorg: You have completely lost all of my trust and respect, you will own up for all your past "mistakes" and I will watch you closely   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:22, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

sure, but what can I do to regain your trust? --Bubblesorg (talk) 01:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bubblesorg:, in all your time here I can't think of a single constructive thing you've done. I doubt you even try to be constructive as the best things you've produced have had to be seriously reworked and ironed out by other editors, and it's fine to accept help from other people, but right now you're depending on other people to do the actual work for you. You've been on here for a long while, I expect you to have a handle on this. You're pulling stunts that can't be explained by inexperience, and I'm fully convinced you're just screwing with us   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:32, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, Im not even trying to do that, I actually tried to help, I even tried to be constructive here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilosaurus. Dude, just give me one more chance, i can prove to you that Im worth it, please :(, I will try as Hard as I can, but I need your help--Bubblesorg (talk) 01:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bubblesorg: I guess I'll get to work fixing that up for you   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :D--Bubblesorg (talk) 16:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay

Im making a plan, this time I will be more reliable, I will be like how I was last year (not all like how I was isnce that was filled with crap), but try to make an effort. I will own up and stay strong, I apologize for my past self --Bubblesorg (talk) 01:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:44, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't take offense

I appreciate your contributions at Aquatic ape hypothesis and my use of "revert" was not meant to be insulting: [5]. I think you are correct that Brenna believes this, but I think it may be giving the opinion too much of a platform to push it so explicitly as you did. I think it best to just let the uncontroversial conclusions be. jps (talk) 02:44, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:ජපස, the way I see it, the section is already trying to heavily imply Brenna is putting evidence towards past human aquatic habituation), so as it stands it just seems like a lot of weasel wording to try to get out of saying something you're already saying. And saying "Brenna says this is evidence" gives nobody platform and expresses absolutely 0 support for Brenna's conclusion. That's like saying we can't say things like "Morgan wrote that..." because it gives Morgan's opinion too much of a platform   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:48, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not sure that the paper itself is making the claim as explicitly as what we are saying. What I think is obvious is that Brenna wants this to be the implication, but I also think that while he has published this in Scientific Reports (rather than a less, shall we say, "sprawling" journal) and that the focus of the paper is on the novelty of looking at the chemistry of the vernix from seals means that I think it better to focus on the inspiration rather than the implication. jps (talk) 02:51, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:ජපස, the sentence from his publication "Its presence in a marine mammal supports the hypothesis of an aquatic habituation period in the evolution of modern humans" is exceedingly straightforward, and in every article I've ever seen we either write about both the inspiration and the implication or just the implication. We never lop off the implication   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:34, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unsupported speculation is not a good thing to report on in Wikipedia namely because this idea has not been noticed by others. If this proposal was cited by independent sources as a means to reinvigorate some connection between aquatic habituation and evolution, that would be one thing. But there seems to be no analysis as to why the authors think this is so supportive, and that's why it's a bit misleading to lean so much on one sentence in a large review in our tertiary reference, in my opinion. jps (talk) 09:37, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:ජපස, in any article I've never seen so much caution towards using a source published in a journal. He's either reliable or unreliable, he cannot be both, and as the article stands, we're already very strongly implying Brenna has put this forward as evidence in a very weaselly way   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:19, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I mean... I don't know what your experience is with editing WP:FRINGE articles, but this is par for the course. We are already relying heavily on one article. Normally we would not devote more than a sentence to a single journal article. Here, the verifiably empirical result is that vernix on seals and humans contain similar chemicals. There are also opinions and speculations included in the article, but these are best attested in a larger context which we attempt to do by citing Brenna's appearance on Attenborough's program. I think it not a very good idea to add much more than this. After all, it didn't take much for us lowly Wikipedia editors to discover some glaring errors in the article content, which isn't surprising given the unevenness of Scientific Reports as a journal. Rather than throwing it away completely or running into WP:SYNTH issues, the best thing to do in the case of relatively obscure works like this is to keep reporting on it as succinct as possible. It seems to me we all agree with what is currently being said. To continue to hammer home ideas that this paper is somehow AAH evidence is a bridge too far, in my estimation. jps (talk) 16:49, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me out

Can you help me out with the pectinodon page? I dont think I like it the way it is, may you help? --Bubblesorg (talk) 20:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:569:7CF0:9300:A47E:5CD:254B:F95 is not me

He seems to be more mature than me and talks differently, and besides why would you suspect that, he is under the wrong IP address. Not mine Also can you help--Bubblesorg (talk) 20:14, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I find it funny how I leave that message up for over a week and then you respond, and then no more than a day later the IP responds   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:05, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What do you expect? I stalk Bubblesorg's contributions. I don't have any good reason to stalk yours. You're legitimately acting in bad faith here. There's a time to hang up the tinfoil hat and start applying Occam's razor. 2001:569:7BB3:9200:5024:A936:F7C1:B1BB (talk) 17:41, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We didn't ping you, there's absolutely no way you should know we were discussing you here   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:52, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are you aware that there's a little page at [6] which conveniently lists every single edit Bubblesorg has made? 2001:569:7BB3:9200:1D7C:B949:2CEE:DE41 (talk) 21:58, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow a distraction   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:59, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I get it. Bubblesorg is another unfortunate entry in a long list of unhelpful-to-disruptive users who have used sockpuppets for various reasons. I was here in 2016 when WelcometoJurassicPark started edit-warring over size estimates, and I had the pleasure of dealing with several other prolific puppetmasters. But there were occasions when I was wrong. I didn't like being wrong, but in hindsight they made me rethink why exactly I was trying to find these sockpuppets in the first place. Please just take a break. It's not only for your good but also for the good of the project. There's a repentant user here who clearly wants to contribute (but is just not totally competent) and this kind of mud-flinging is only going to alienate them and make it worse. 2001:569:7BB3:9200:1D7C:B949:2CEE:DE41 (talk) 22:49, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Birds aren't really my style   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:05, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ip you are making It worse, stop your edits, you make dunk think you are me (which is not true)--Bubblesorg (talk) 14:40, 14 October 2019 (UTC) Actually dunk, i told the user about this, thats why he is here--Bubblesorg (talk) 14:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No you didn't, there are no messages on the IP's talk page   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not like that, I ment in another way, I talked to the guy who blocked me and I mentioned the user. Also, the guy talks more maturely --Bubblesorg (talk) 14:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you're trying to say   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Never Mind, I not making much sense here. Can I drop the stick for today? --Bubblesorg (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC) what do you say to that? we can continue this weekend--Bubblesorg (talk) 15:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't force you to respond   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

why not?--Bubblesorg (talk) 16:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why not what?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

why cant you force me? You seem to have authority in this case (oh and the discussion is being debunked me)--Bubblesorg (talk) 16:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't reach through the screen and throttle you until you answer if that's what you're saying   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all, just asking to make a schedule. Okay, I have an idea, can we take this to the sockpupet investigations--Bubblesorg (talk) 18:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC) Also what do you mean when you say birds are not my style?--Bubblesorg (talk) 18:22, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to open a sockpuppet investigation on yourself?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really interested in doing a bird article   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who to make a sockpuppet investigation. Anyways what does a bird article have to do with anything?--Bubblesorg (talk) 18:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for my help on Pectinodon   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah?--Bubblesorg (talk) 18:42, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to because birds aren't really my style   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:47, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pectinodon is not a bird, its a troodontid.--Bubblesorg (talk) 19:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize

I did not realize my rampant edits cause you to feel bad, I hate to give you stress. You are a respectable wikipedian--Bubblesorg (talk) 19:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bubblesorg, you have been on Wikipedia for a really long time now and it amazes me how you have avoided learning anything about it. You can't just contribute to an article, call it good enough, and then expect (or request) someone else to fix it for you. You should know by now what good, encyclopedic writing looks like; you should know how to talk on a discussion page, like putting colons before your response to easily identify the convo string and who you're responding to, and maybe even proof-reading your response to verify it's understandable; you should know how to cite a source and what a reliable source looks like. I am done babysitting you. You don't need my help, please stop asking for it, and learn to do things on your own. Yes, editors help each out, but they also do things for themselves, something you have a hard time doing. You've lost my trust a long time ago. I think everything you do, including the bad, is done on purpose with full intent, and likewise, I will probably never trust you again. And for the love of God, do something constructive–not partly constructive, not 80% constructive, completely and unequivocally constructive. Goodbye Bubblesorg   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, goodbye.--Bubblesorg (talk) 20:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:20, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neanderthal

The Neanderthal article has its history and gate-keeper(s), so I think your large edits are welcome and are very beneficial. I hope you get it to Good article rating. Don't let disagreement on one word to stop your work. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of "initial"

The word "initial" means "first". Calling something the "initial" or "first" example of a phenomenon carries no implication whatever, one way or the other, about the existence of a 2nd or 3rd example. This has nothing to do with language comprehension; it is basic logic. What is the problem? WolfmanSF (talk) 19:42, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@WolfmanSF: Iin the context you're placing it in, when you say "initial" this means you're distinguishing it from "secondary", such as "in the initial report" which implies there's also "in the revised report" or something similar.  User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:42, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Baleen whale (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Extant
Boring Billion (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Mantle
Elasmotherium (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Alveolus
Wolf (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Fig

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf

Can you please remove your comments. We forgot to close the PR and were expecting to start the FAC at the end of the year. LittleJerry (talk) 16:22, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand how any of those statements are related but okay   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:38, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:30, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paleocene scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Paleocene article has been scheduled as today's featured article for January 8, 2020. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 8, 2020, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted on or after October 1, 2018, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:58, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Christmas Island flying fox

Hello! Your submission of Christmas Island flying fox 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) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 14:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Christmas Island flying fox

On 25 December 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Christmas Island flying fox, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Christmas Island flying fox matures more slowly than nearly all other bats? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Christmas Island flying fox. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Christmas Island flying fox), 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) 12:01, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, anyway, your actions in the midst of merge discussion, "condensing" articles, is not being viewed in a kind light by me. ~ cygnis insignis 06:08, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Cygnis insignis: you can re-expand them if you want, but the articles as they stood were filled with page filler and repetition and were cut in half. The article's aren't complete, if you find new information to add, go on and add it. Don't revert it and re-add all the redundant and long drawn out passages   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:29, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Did you think the above article was "page filler and repetition" when you poached it for a dyk? ~ cygnis insignis 04:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Cygnis insignis: No, I made sure there wasn't page filler, and I wasn't involved very much at all un DYK so I don't know what poached is supposed to mean   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for editing for the first annual Tree of Life Decemberween contest!

Tree of Life Decemberween contest participation barnstar
Thank you for all the hard work you did on Christmas Island flying fox and Christmas imperial pigeon for the contest. Unless my math is off, you earned 18.2 points! I hope to see you in the next contest! --Nessie (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Denisovan

Before everything about mtDNA was removed from the section in question, it contrasted the mtDNA findings that showed D as outliers compared to N & AMH with the autosomal DNA analysis showing D closer to N, more different than AMH. That is why the autosomal sentence begins with 'However, . . .' - to highlight the difference between the two results. You have removed just the mtDNA part, but left the autosomal DNA part, and the However. Maybe you can explain to me why you think the autosomal DNA result belongs in this section, but the mtDNA one does not, because it seems pretty arbitrary to me. Likewise, now that the mtDNA bit is removed, by leaving "However, . . ." it has the appearance of contrasting the autosomal DNA result with what is said immediately before, the discovery of human artifacts, but the two have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

Finally, as much as you would like to segregate all mention of mtDNA to the DNA analysis section, it is central to the story of the discovery. This is not your typical DNA study, where we have a species and then we sequence it to get the mtDNA and figure out the phylogeny. When they got a mtDNA sequence that was different from both AMH and N represents the moment of discovery of Denisovans as a (sub)species. The phylogeny doesn't need to be in the discovery section, but to pretend that determining the mtDNA sequence was not a fundamental aspect of the discovery seems to miss the plot. Agricolae (talk) 02:47, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just talk about the same DNA studies in every section. The Discovery section is already sizable as it is just talking about where specimens were found and how big they were. You can get into DNA studies and their significance in their relevant spaces. I thought I moved there autosomal DNA part too, I'll get to removing it right now (because it's already said in the Nuclear genome section)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiCup

Feature article reviews have been introduced to the WikiCup for the first time this year. There was some reluctance by the FAC community about permitting this as they did not want the quality of FAC reviews to be lowered. As a result we adopted a rule, mentioned on the WikiCup scoring page. "You must mention in your review that you are planning to claim WikiCup points for the review." So please add such a statement mentioning the WikiCup to your review of Segnosaurus, and any other reviews of FACs or FLCs in the future for which you wish to claim WikiCup points. Thanks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drosophila saltans species group

I just had to correct the entirely wrong list of species you inserted into the Drosophila saltans species group article. Care to explain the genesis of your error? Are there other articles that need checking? Abductive (reasoning) 01:33, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Probably misquoting source on Steller's sea ape

Dear Dunkleosteus77, in this edit, you have added: "In 1792, German naturalist Johann Julius Walbaum scientifically described Steller's sea ape as Siren cynocephala, from the mythical sirens and Latin cyno "dog" and cephala "head".[7] You seem to suggest that Walbaum indicates that cynocephala is derived from Latin cyno and cephala. I can not find such an error in the source. Walbaum (p. 560) writes: "Siren, cynocephala, capite canino [with a head of a dog/with a canine head]". In Latin, "dog" is of course, canis (caninus = adjective of canis with canino as ablative case) and head is caput (ablative case = capite), while in Greek "dog" is κύων and "head" is κεφαλή. Could you quote the specific sentence from Walbaum that would indicate that "Latin cyno [is] "dog" and cephala "head""? Thank you in advance, with kind regards, Wimpus (talk) 11:21, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wimpus:, you're right, it's actually from Ancient Greek   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Walbaum, does not seem to mention κύων and κεφαλή. So you have to use an additional source that mentions that cynocephala is derived from κύων and κεφαλή, as Walbaum only indicates that it means "capite canino" (with a head of a dog/with a canine head"). Wimpus (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review global warming

Good evening,

I saw your comments in the peer review for the AHP, and was quite impressed with the thoroughness. A year ago, the state of global warming was such that I wouldn't have passed it at GA. We've worked hard to bring it back to FA level, but as far as I know none of the active contributors have ever had an FA article, so I'm not sure if it meets those criteria. Virtually all of the content in new since it was promoted in 2006 and I could really appreciate some critical eyes. Would you possibly have time to help out in the peer review? Thanks in advance! Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:05, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Femkemilene: Of course, I’ll take a look later today   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discover magazine

Do you have a reference for your statement that Discover (magazine) is not a reliable source? Geoffrey.landis (talk) 22:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Geoffrey.landis: Discover Magazine is not a scientific authority, it reports scientific authority, it's just a middle man of information. It takes what an expert has written in a vetted peer review journal article and crams it into 500 to 1000 words, and then maybe if the writer's feeling up to it, s/he adds his/her personal non-expert opinion, or some quotes from interviewing the journal authors where they said speculation that they were not confident enough to put in their vetted journal article. That's why we like to cut out the middle man, and just cite the source that they're citing. In the case of, for example, a news story or any political or biographical article, where there aren't peer reviewed journals or anything, then Discover Magazine could potentially be included as a reliable source. But for species articles, there is a plethora of journal articles, and any news site is just going to be piggy-backing off one of those, so Discover Magazine will not be included on Neanderthal   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:02, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
None of that indicates that Discover is not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. The citation was not to a fact about the Neanderthals, it was a citation to the fact that both names are used. This does not require a scholarly source, but one saying both names are used. A popular source is fine. If you would like a different reference, go ahead and find one. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 02:02, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Geoffrey.landis: There already was a better source from a journal article saying that. Please do not attempt to re-add Discover Magazine   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Please do not attempt to re-add Discover Magazine". I'm sorry, why not? Discover Magazine is a reliable source according to Wikipedia's definition. The definition of reliable source is not "whatever I think is reliable", it is according to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources definition.
If the citation were to a sentence concerning a scientific fact the Neanderthals, your point might make sense that we should reference a scientific source (although even here, the Wikipedia preference is to cite a secondary source). But the citation here is not a reference to scientific facts; it is a reference for the statement that both names are used, and the citation is both accurate and to a reliable source.
Please do not attempt to delete accurate citations to reliable sources. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 15:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Geoffrey.landis: If Discover Magazine cannot be trusted enough to support a scientific fact, then it shouldn't be used at all for anything. A source can't be 50% reliable, it's either reliable or it's not. In species articles, we stay away from lay sources like Discovery Magazine because they're just there to report what scientists have said (as in, a non-authoritative source) and they present nothing new of their own. Sources like Discover Magazine are not appropriate for Neanderthal. If you're so adamant about it inclusion, you can go on the talk page and see what other editors think   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how I can say this more clearly. Discover is a reliable source according to Wikipedia's standards. Which are the only standards that are relevant here. You may have your own personal biases about what you like and don't like, but this is Wikipedia, and what is relevant is Wikipedia's definition of reliable source, not your personal opinions. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 20:14, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Geoffrey is quite right - Discover magazine is indeed a reliable source, used multiple times over Wiki articles. IMHO they are more reliable than many news outlets that we have related as RS. 50.111.5.54 (talk) 23:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We do not use magazines or news outlets as sources for current scientific thought because they run a high risk of misinterpreting or over-extrapolating source material, they're just a middleman of information so it's better practice to go straight to the source, and in this instance there is absolutely no reason to include Discover Magazine on an article with about 350 perfectly good peer-reviewed references   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FA review?

Hello!

I've noticed that you're among the recent FA reviewers in Jan/Feb, so I wonder if it's allowed to ask this. I'm trying to make an article I've made to pass the FA nom, so is it good for you to review it if you have any spare time? Thank you. Dhio-270599 07:57, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2020 March newsletter

And so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2, with 57 contestants qualifying. We have abolished the groups this year, so to qualify for Round 3 you will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two contestants.

Our top scorers in Round 1 were:

  • New York (state) Epicgenius, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with a featured article, five good articles and an assortment of other submissions, specialising on buildings and locations in New York, for a total of 895 points.
  • England Gog the Mild came next with 464 points, from a featured article, two good articles and a number of reviews, the main theme being naval warfare.
  • United States Raymie was in third place with 419 points, garnered from one good article and an impressive 34 DYKs on radio and TV stations in the United States.
  • Somerset Harrias came next at 414, with a featured article and three good articles, an English civil war battle specialist.
  • Pirate flag CaptainEek was in fifth place with 405 points, mostly garnered from bringing Cactus wren to featured article status.
  • The top ten contestants at the end of Round 1 all scored over 200 points; they also included United States L293D, Venezuela Kingsif, Antarctica Enwebb, England Lee Vilenski and Nepal CAPTAIN MEDUSA. Seven of the top ten contestants in Round 1 are new to the WikiCup.

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. In Round 1 there were four featured articles, one featured list and two featured pictures, as well as around two hundred DYKs and twenty-seven ITNs. Between them, contestants completed 127 good article reviews, nearly a hundred more than the 43 good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Contestants also claimed for 40 featured article / featured list reviews, and most even remembered to mention their WikiCup participation in their reviews (a requirement).

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Some contestants made claims before the new submissions pages were set up, and they will need to resubmit them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup newsletter correction

There was an error in the WikiCup 2020 March newsletter; United States L293D should not have been included in the list of top ten scorers in Round 1 (they led the list last year), instead, United States Dunkleosteus77 should have been included, having garnered 334 points from five good articles on animals, living or extinct, and various reviews. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ooedigera

I listed Ooedigera as one of the "Other invertebrates" GAs, if this classification is incorrect, please change this. Hog Farm (talk) 22:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can I add my timeline back if I can make the paleocene page less crowded?

Hello Dunkleosteus77! I noticed you removed my timeline from the Paleocene epoch page, and I understand why you did it. I have no ill will towards you for what you did, and I'm not mad at you for it. I just wanted to ask if I could add it back in a way that wouldn't make it look as crowded? I could swap out the current template that's in the top-right corner for the epoch timeline one (In fact, I was going to do that originally, but I wanted to wait until I added the template to all the epoch pages before I removed it). I could also shrink the timeline to make it more compact if you want. I'm trying to add these timeline templates to all epoch pages to make them look more uniform and consistent with one another. I'm only asking because I don't want to start an edit feud or something.Benniboi01 (talk) 19:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Benniboi01: the timeline template is quite frankly not an improvement; it's really long vertically, and it doesn't show the Paleocene in relation to any other time period, it only records 2 major events in the fossil record, the text is really crowded on the left side (and I don't really like vertical text), and most all the information is already present in the much more compact and aesthetically pleasing Template:Geological epoch. I don't really understand its purpose (like how is this better than what we already have?) and it doesn't seem to really add anything   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:33, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose you're right about that @Dunkleosteus77. I just don't find the other template very appealing, either, as it doesn't match the style the other geological subdivisions have (like eras, periods and eons), and it looks a bit archaic. But I understand where you're coming from. I want to make a change to the version of the template you want to keep that I feel like is a middle-ground option that makes this template match the style of the other geological subdivision pages more, while keeping things more orderly and easy to read like you like it. I won't have to replace anything on the Paleocene page, I just am using a placeholder. I was wondering if you're fine with how it looks:
Sorry if I'm being a bother, but I want to make all of the geological epochs have the same look and feel as the other subdivisions of time on wikipedia. also, feel free to remove this template example if it's cluttering up the page.Benniboi01 (talk) 00:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't particularly like the style for eons and eras. They just look so haphazard and messy   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:28, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How so? If it looks bad, maybe it can be changed/fixed. Benniboi01 (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the infobox for Cretaceous is a good middle ground   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:40, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the oxygen concentration, etc. part of it? I can do that.Benniboi01 (talk) 22:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, what exactly are you trying to change? What you've put here is exactly the same as what we already have save for that little top part. I thought your main goal was the change the relative box sizes to reflect the different durations of each epoch   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm sorry. I was going to change it, and I had other things to do, so I had put the code back on my sandbox page but didn't edit it. let me fix that. I'm sorry.Benniboi01 (talk) 21:47, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm sorry I've taken long. I have 2 proposals ready. I have 2 different proposals for you. the first one on the right is my preference: firstly, it includes useful data on things like sea level change, atmospheric CO2 levels, etc, and also has a shorter timeline, because I think you're right in saying it was too long. The second proposal is simply editing what's already there to look like the other templates I already have set up. The major difference between these two is that the one on the right would use the geological epoch template i tried inserting onto your page previously (just with more info/data so that it can be more like an infobox), while the one on the left would edit what's already on the page. I'm afraid that if i edit the table you already have on the Paleocene page to include the additions I proposed, it would mess other pages where that table is currently in use. I think the option on the right is the much safer bet. Benniboi01 (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The one on the left is better. Like I said earlier, vertical text is stylistically worse, all the letters get crowded together and it looks really messy, and the one on the right is all-in-all much harder to read and understand in general. Also, if you want the data box, you need to cite your sources. The best way you could improve the one on the left is if you make the box sizes roughly equate to the duration of each epoch/era, like the one on the right (but only change box size, nothing else)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:13, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I got it. I'll work on fixing things up and I'll come back with something soon. Stay safe man.Benniboi01 (talk) 00:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Million Award!

The Million Award
For your contributions to bring Neanderthal (estimated annual readership: 1,342,185) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Enwebb (talk) 17:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PDF

My email address is _. Again, many thanks for doing this.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steller's sea ape

Did you find my GA review of Talk:Steller's sea ape/GA1 to be satisfactory? I try to make all of my GA reviews as thorough as possible, but then a few months later another user comes along and complains about that review without really specifying what's going wrong, all the while introducing several spelling and grammar errors into the article. Do you think the fault is with my review, or is the other user just being cantakerous? Hog Farm (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: I really have no idea what cygnis is talking about. There doesn't seem to be anything wrong about the prose of the article, he isn't being very clear what problems he has, and his actions have been to this point borderline disruptive, which seriously makes me question if there's really anything wrong at all   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 16:17, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Homo erectus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Paget's disease
Homo naledi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Ilium

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Gigantopithecus 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) 01:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Gigantopithecus

Hello! Your submission of Gigantopithecus 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) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Neanderthal

On 1 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Neanderthal, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Neanderthals went fishing? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Neanderthal. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Neanderthal), 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.

Vanamonde (Talk) 00:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2020 May newsletter

The second round of the 2020 WikiCup has now finished. It was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 75 points to advance to round 3. There were some very impressive efforts in round 2, with the top ten contestants all scoring more than 500 points. A large number of the points came from the 12 featured articles and the 186 good articles achieved in total by contestants, and the 355 good article reviews they performed; the GAN backlog drive and the stay-at-home imperative during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been partially responsible for these impressive figures.

Our top scorers in round 2 were:

  • New York (state) Epicgenius, with 2333 points from one featured article, forty-five good articles, fourteen DYKs and plenty of bonus points
  • England Gog the Mild, with 1784 points from three featured articles, eight good articles, a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews and lots of bonus points
  • Botswana The Rambling Man, with 1262 points from two featured articles, eight good articles and a hundred good article reviews
  • Somerset Harrias, with 1141 points from two featured articles, three featured lists, ten good articles, nine DYKs and a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews
  • England Lee Vilenski with 869 points, Gondor Hog Farm with 801, Venezuela Kingsif with 719, Cascadia (independence movement) SounderBruce with 710, United States Dunkleosteus77 with 608 and Mexico MX with 515.

The rules for featured article reviews have been adjusted; reviews may cover three aspects of the article, content, images and sources, and contestants may receive points for each of these three types of review. Please also remember the requirement to mention the WikiCup when undertaking an FAR for which you intend to claim points. Remember also that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth. - MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Improving Irish elk

The so called "Irish elk" Megaloceros giganteus, is one of the most iconic ice age mammals, so it seems suprising that it isn't even GA status. It normally averages around 400-500 views a day, which is more than double that of the Columbian mammoth. Given your obvious interest in improving prehistoric (and otherwise) animal articles to GA status and beyond and your previous cleanup of the article done a few months ago, are you interested in collaborating to get the article to GA status? Many interesting studies on the animal have come out in recent years, including those on diet, Improved extinction chronology, with insightful comments on preferred habitat and finite-element analysis of the antlers, which suggests they were used in combat. I've tried to rewrite and incorporate parts of this into the article, but the structure as a whole is pretty lacklustre, and probably needs to be rewritten. Kind regards. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemiauchenia: Irish elk is definitely on my to-do list, and since my Neanderthal FAC seems to be stalled indefinitely, I could really use another big project   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know what's it's like to deal with Dudley , I had an argument with him about geological boundaries over at Talk:Lower Greensand Group once. I think out of all the sections the extinction one needs the most work, as the recent paper on the extinction chronology indicates that the range of the Irish Elk collapsed during the LGM, but rebounded during the terminal Pleistocene, which isn't even mentioned at all in the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, when starting a GA review, it is usual to get the article up to GA standard first, or to just start the GA request right away and just improve it as you go? Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer to get it to GA standard first   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for treading on your toes ediiting the extinction section. Is there any particular sections of the article that you think are in most need serious editing? My plan for tomorrow was to focus on adding additional dietary studies, and I won't be editing the article for the rest of today. Cheers Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On no I'm just cutting and condensing the existing text right now (without reading any of the sources or checking accuracy). Feel free to cut, correct, and add. I think all the sections are in pretty big need of all 3 of those, and I usually start with cutting because it's so much easier than adding   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. In particular I think that that the Description and Cultural significance sections are in for a huge slashing. I think when slashing sections you should try avoid saying speculative things as a stopgap. I have no idea where you got the idea that Megaloceros was a chronospecies from, which is absolutely not supported in the literature. There's plenty of stuff to add about life appearance also, see TetZoo's blogpost on the topic, which includes some Paleolithic cave drawings of M. giganteus which probably should be included in some form Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I misread Megaloceros where one of the sections is "Species in chronological sequence"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I thought the formatting on that article was weird myself personally. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Besser Museum

Your name came up. If you click on the sources, you should find an amusing picture. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stellers sea ape

How are these sources unreliable? Andrew Thaler is a real deep sea ecologist. He's source is credible http://cv.andrewdavidthaler.org/. Do you have a counter?--Bubblesorg (talk) 00:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simia marina Danica was in use centuries before Steller, and Steller in fact does not credit himself with coining the name. Thaler is just saying things on his blog because he can   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but do you have a source for that?--Bubblesorg (talk) 03:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one from 1638, and Steller specifically says "it corresponds in all respects to the picture that Gesner received from one of his correspondents and in his Historia animalium calls Simia marina Danica", as in Steller says he did not coin the name himself, regardless of what Thaler said on southernfriedscience.com   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure--Bubblesorg (talk) 14:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Megatherium

Hi, I'm sorry my toe treading put you off further editing of the Irish Elk article. I have a new suggestion instead. Despite being iconic, the article for Megatherium has the same structural Issues that the Irish Elk one had, and is pretty bad IMO, given that it's getting nearly 1,000 views a day it really needs serious work, and I have no real significant interest in editing it. Megatherium would be a great feather in your already quite well feathered cap. Kind regards. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemiauchenia: no it's just been a busy week so I haven't had much time to do major editing. I do want you to change what you see fit. We can switch to Megatherium if you want   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Gigantopithecus

On 16 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Gigantopithecus, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that most of the known Gigantopithecus fossils are of teeth because the other bones are likely to have been eaten by porcupines? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Gigantopithecus. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Gigantopithecus), 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) 12:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neanderthal Former FAC

Dunkleosteus77, just wanted to say that I was following your FAC for the Neanderthal article and was super impressed by the work you've done on such a demanding but important article. I hope you plan to nominate it for FA again (and that the failed FAC didn't discourage you too much) since it seems to have great potential and deserves nothing less than to be featured. As a music guy myself, I loved to see the inclusion of Divje Babe Flute! Keep up the great work - Aza24 (talk) 00:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aza24 I do want to see this article get to FA but the problem is I don't know what specifically prevented it from reaching there the first time. It seems to me that it failed simply on principle as there's no way to check for comprehensiveness on such a broad topic. I think articles like this and human can never reach FA simply because we refuse to claim they are truly complete   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dunkleosteus77, it does seem extremely difficult to get an article of such scientific controversy to FA, but I don't think it's impossible by any means. People probably thought it was impossible to bring articles like the Han Dynasty (and three other chinese dynasties), the Middle Ages, Ancient Egypt and the entire Solar System to featured, but here we are. I think a turn off might have been the sourcing; the sources with more than 2 references should probably be added to the bibliography. But after re-reading the FAC discussion it seems like everyone ended up support you. If you do decide to renominate it, which I hope you do, I would just make sure to mention in the nomination blurb that you do include relatively new research and it is proposed in a way that does not imply it to be fact. (And also maybe mention that specific page numbers for short journal articles are never really needed) I redid the references for Abraham Lincoln a while back and I'd be happy to help with the ones in Neanderthal, if that's something you'd be open to. Aza24 (talk) 05:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited LD 350-1, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Browser (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2020 July newsletter

The third round of the 2020 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it into the fourth round each had at least 353 points (compared to 68 in 2019). It was a highly competitive round, and a number of contestants were eliminated who would have moved on in earlier years. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

  • New York (state) Epicgenius, with one featured article, 28 good articles and 17 DYKs, amassing 1836 points
  • Botswana The Rambling Man , with 1672 points gained from four featured articles and seventeen good articles, plus reviews of a large number of FACs and GAs
  • England Gog the Mild, a first time contestant, with 1540 points, a tally built largely on 4 featured articles and related bonus points.

Between them, contestants managed 14 featured articles, 9 featured lists, 3 featured pictures, 152 good articles, 136 DYK entries, 55 ITN entries, 65 featured article candidate reviews and 221 good article reviews. Additionally, Denmark MPJ-DK added 3 items to featured topics and 44 to good topics. Over the course of the competition, contestants have completed 710 good article reviews, in comparison to 387 good articles submitted for review and promoted. These large numbers are probably linked to a GAN backlog drive in April and May, and the changed patterns of editing during the COVID-19 pandemic. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Australopithecus africanus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page C4 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies to you

For my poor-quality edit summary, which caused you to waste your time. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited European early modern humans, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ural.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interested in answering some questions for the newsletter?

Let me know and I'll draft something. It seems like you're working on a project about humans and relatives, I'd be interested to learn more. Enwebb (talk) 02:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Enwebb: I don't really know what you mean by newsletter, but I'll your questions   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Tree of Life Newsletter. I'll ping you once I have some questions drafted. Enwebb (talk) 13:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Enwebb: whatever happened to this?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Too much on my plate and have not had time for much editing. Enwebb (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GA

As far as I can tell, template {{GA}} should not be substituted. It appears that you have substituted the template {{GA}} on page Talk:Dwarf dog-faced bat. Could you please fix it? Compare for example to this edit by Jens Lallensack. It seems that proper transclusion of {{GA}} is required for Legobot to work correctly. —⁠andrybak (talk) 13:48, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea how that happened   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

taxonomic synonyms & hominins

hi, where can I learn more about Taxonomic synonyms when it comes hominins? there's a big zoology section there, but with hominins, is there no difference in approach of the use of synonyms in the field? thanks. skakEL 20:38, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

skakkle, I don't really understand the question. The rules of taxonomic synonymy still apply to hominins. The big thing about hominins is that there's poor resolution in the field, and it's debated what names are synonyms and what are valid taxa   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bat

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for September 21, 2020. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 21, 2020. Congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 19:34, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you today for your share to Bat, "about yet another major group of mammals: bats. They will make a nice addition to the FA list being the only mammals capable of flight"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited European early modern humans, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Chauvet and Chevron.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2020 September newsletter

The fourth round of the competition has finished, with 865 points being required to qualify for the final round, nearly twice as many points as last year. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants with 598 and 605 points being eliminated, and all but two of the contestants who reached the final round having achieved an FA during the round. The highest scorers were

  • Free Hong Kong Bloom6132, with 1478 points gained mainly from 5 featured lists, 12 DYKs and 63 in the news items;
  • IndonesiaHaEr48 with 1318 points gained mainly from 2 featured articles, 5 good articles and 8 DYKs;
  • England Lee Vilenski with 1201 points mainly gained from 2 featured articles and 10 good articles.

Between them, contestants achieved 14 featured articles, 14 featured lists, 2 featured pictures, 87 good articles, 90 DYK entries, 75 ITN entries, 95 featured article candidate reviews and 81 good article reviews. Congratulations to all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:28, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:47, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ambulocetus

Not sure why you removed my Barnstar for you on your talk page. It was fun working together on the article. Let's go make the article a featured article now?. Akrasia25 (talk) 23:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Akrasia25: I put all the barnstars on my main page User:Dunkleosteus77. We can try to get Ambulocetus to FA (though, I'm not entirely sure what more I'd want to add)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Paranthropus aethiopicus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alan Walker.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Homo heidelbergensis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ernst Meyer.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2020 November newsletter

The 2020 WikiCup has come to an end, with the final round going down to the wire. Our new Champion is England Lee Vilenski (submissions), the runner-up last year, who was closely followed by England Gog the Mild (submissions). In the final round, Lee achieved 4 FAs and 30 GAs, mostly on cue sport topics, while Gog achieved 3 FAs and 15 GAs, mostly on important battles and wars, which earned him a high number of bonus points. Botswana The Rambling Man (submissions) was in third place with 4 FAs and 8 GAs on football topics, with New York (state) Epicgenius (submissions) close behind with 19 GAs and 16 DYK's, his interest being the buildings of New York.

The other finalists were Gondor Hog Farm (submissions), Indonesia HaEr48 (submissions), Somerset Harrias (submissions) and Free Hong Kong Bloom6132 (submissions). The final round was very productive, and besides 15 FAs, contestants achieved 75 FAC reviews, 88 GAs and 108 GAN reviews. Altogether, Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors all through the contest. Well done everyone!

All those who reached the final will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field.

Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2021 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Peking Man, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ernst Meyer.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Wow, that sure is a lot of barnstars! I love you! Last ditch effort (talk) 23:44, 22 November 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.

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) 02:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I was trying to find that "Homo sapiens cro-magnonensis" but couldn't. Also they seem to have had thicker skulls than modern man, at least based on what I read. I know the talk pages are about improving the article, not stating your opinions. Booger-mike (talk) 20:03, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Homo sapiens idaltu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lithic.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feminism and EMH

You might want to consider just removing the feminism section as, unlike the rest of the article, is not based in hard science and right now is just troll bait. I'd move it (and the "in popular culture", btw) off to another article if I were you. Your call. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:03, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

if you read the relevant section, you'd see that entire branch of thought is strongly connected with the Venus figurines, and has majorly impacted the interpretation of the EEMH archeological record. The Cave art section is just as speculative because it's not just about current consensus, but also history of study   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:08, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Free images of prehistoric primates

I know you've struggled to find free restorations of prehistoric primates, but I just noticed an image[8] from this[9] paper on Commons, and it's supposedly freely licenced. It has a lot of restorations by Mauricio Anton of prehistoric primates and hominids, as well as other mammals from Africa, so might be useful to get all the images on Commons. And happy new year! FunkMonk (talk) 03:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the 2021 WikiCup!

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The competition begins today and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. We thank Vanamonde93 and Godot13, who have retired as judges, and we thank them for their past dedication. The judges for the WikiCup this year are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to check...

That you weren't annoyed by my review of Australopithecus deyiremeda before I pick up any more of your GANs? -- Ealdgyth (talk) 15:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ealdgyth: No you were fine (sorry if I sounded mad, I wasn't trying to)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, you didn't sound mad but since I haven't interacted much with you I decided to double check. I'll likely pick up a few more of yours in the next weeks.... it's always fun to learn more new stuff! -- Ealdgyth (talk) 15:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Solo Man, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carnegie Institute.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Australopithecus africanus

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Australopithecus africanus 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. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 03:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Australopithecus africanus

The article Australopithecus africanus you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Australopithecus africanus for issues which need to be addressed. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 06:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tautavel Man

Hi Dunkleosteus77: Tautavel Man has passed its GA nomination. Nice job! Thanks for being patient with my lengthy process. MeegsC (talk) 10:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2021 March newsletter

Round 1 of the competition has finished; it was a high-scoring round with 21 contestants scoring more than 100 points. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2, with 55 contestants qualifying. You will need to finish among the top thirty-two contestants in Round 2 if you are to qualify for Round 3. Our top scorers in Round 1 were:

  • New York (state) Epicgenius led the field with a featured article, nine good articles and an assortment of other submissions, specialising on buildings and locations in New York, for a total of 945 points.
  • Republic of Venice Bloom6132 was close behind with 896 points, largely gained from 71 "In the news" items, mostly recent deaths.
  • Scotland ImaginesTigers, who has been editing Wikipedia for less than a year, was in third place with 711 points, much helped by bringing League of Legends to featured article status, exemplifying how bonus points can boost a contestant's score.
  • Rwanda Amakuru came next with 708 points, Kigali being another featured article that scored maximum bonus points.
  • Ktin, new to the WikiCup, was in fifth place with 523 points, garnered from 15 DYKs and 34 "In the news" items.
  • Botswana The Rambling Man scored 511 points, many from featured article candidate reviews and from football related DYKs.
  • Gog the Mild, last year's runner-up, came next with 498 points, from a featured article and numerous featured article candidate reviews.
  • Hog Farm, at 452, scored for a featured article, four good articles and a number of reviews.
  • United States Le Panini, another newcomer to the WikiCup, scored 438 for a featured article and three good articles.
  • England Lee Vilenski, last year's champion, scored 332 points, from a featured article and various other sport-related topics.

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start again from scratch. In Round 1, contestants achieved eight featured articles, three featured lists and one featured picture, as well as around two hundred DYKs and twenty-seven ITNs. They completed 97 good article reviews, nearly double the 52 good articles they claimed. Contestants also claimed for 135 featured article and featured list candidate reviews. There is no longer a requirement to mention your WikiCup participation when undertaking these reviews.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article candidate, a featured process, or something else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Liaoningosaurus, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Generic name and Specific name.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"List of megalodon sightings" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect List of megalodon sightings. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 21#List of megalodon sightings until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm Talk 02:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blue whale

Whenever you have the time, could you add some information on the migration routes of blue whales? Thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 23:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LittleJerry: I think the article pretty concisely says it: blue whales are known for having a highly variable migration schedule. I know of things like this which argues blue whales have been spending more time in the tropics due to global warming (global warming's been screwing up migration schedules for a lot of creatures)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gigantopithecus

You really need to use edit reasons, especially when reverting. The changes I made made the sentence clearer, they did not make it worse. Don’t revert without explaining why you need to do so.

Human

Hey Dunkleosteus77. I have been working on the human article off and on for a couple of months now. I would like to get it to GA standard and feel it is pretty close now. You did the last review a little while age and I used your comments in many of my edits. Am about to go away for a week and when I come back fresh do a final read through. Thought I would see if you were interested in having a look over it while I was gone and maybe giving some advice or making any changes. If you want to wait to take on the review instead that would be great or are too busy I understand. Thanks Aircorn (talk) 18:54, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aircorn: I don't think the human article nears GA specifically because it's far too heavy on anatomy and evolution than anything else. Like, the technology section stops at the Neolithic. For prehistory, I'd like to retain it to only a small subsection of History and for it to only include basic and minimal concepts. Like, humans descended from australopithecines and H. erectus, maybe a quick note about the extinction of other recent human species, the transition to sedentism, then the Neolithic Revolution. Then we move to the Ancient history (or Classical history) subsection, Post-classical, then finally Modern history. This is because we simply have so many records from these time periods, and most humans indeed lived in recorded history, it seems WP:UNDUE to lean so hard into prehistory even though this is how the species lived for the longest amount of time.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a little disappointing. I have cut roughly 40% from the anatomy and evolutionary sections already. While I could go further I feel it might not be received well (I have already had a few reverts) and I am not sure myself if it would be that much of an improvement. I will disagree on the prehistory comment. Since most of our life has been in prehistory it doesn't seem undue to have a largish section on that. Currently there are two paragraphs prehistory to three on recorded history so it does lead more to the modern side. Maybe if I can cut evolution down a bit it would help. Anyway thanks for your comments. I will have a think about them over the next week and revisit the article. Aircorn (talk) 02:01, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
well according to this, like 99% of humans who have ever existed lived in recorded history, so it doesn't make sense to delve so far into prehistory. This includes every section, namely in Culture. The greatest failing of the human article, I would say, is that it was written by paleontologists and biologists, when it actually requires an all-hands-on-deck approach from just about every WikiProject. The most effective way I can see human getting to quality status is if you reach out to some of the broader WikiProjects and organize a massive collaboration (namely WP:WikiProject History, WP:WikiProject Military history, WP:WikiProject Economics, WP:WikiProject Politics, WP:WikiProject Anatomy, WP:WikiProject Psychology, and WP:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality), though this is by no means an easy task   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of Ambulocetus

Congratulations, Dunkleosteus77! The article you nominated, Ambulocetus, 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, Ian Rose (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:42, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit at Primate

Please note that the introduction to the cladogram you changed explicitly says "groups that use common (traditional) names are shown on the right". So it's wrong to remove one of these "common (traditional) names". It has nothing to do with humans being in the clades Homininae and Hominini along with gorillas and chimpanzees, which the cladogram clearly shows. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:18, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the way it was formatted the human bar extended halfway into the chimp node   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are issues about how cladograms look in different browsers/systems. It looks ok to me right now, both in Safari on an iPad and in Firefox on a MacBook. Does it still look wrong for you? Peter coxhead (talk) 18:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No for me on my Mac Hominini splits into human and chimp, the human bar extends halfway down the chimp node, but I guess I'm splitting hairs because this happens for all the other bars too   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, right; I looked at the cladogram using Safari on my MacBook, and it doesn't look great. Partly because I regularly add/edit cladograms, I always use Firefox on my Mac. The problem with the cladogram in question, I think, is that the images dominate the final right hand table cells used to create the cladogram, so determining their layout, when it should really be the text that does this. I tried taking the images out (just with Preview!), and it looks much better in Safari. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:28, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2021 May newsletter

The second round of the 2021 WikiCup has now finished; it was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 61 points to advance to Round 3. There were some impressive efforts in the round, with the top eight contestants all scoring more than 400 points. A large number of the points came from the 12 featured articles and the 110 good articles achieved in total by contestants, as well as the 216 good article reviews they performed; the GAN backlog drive and the stay-at-home imperative during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been partially responsible for these impressive figures.

Our top scorers in Round 2 were:

  • Botswana The Rambling Man, with 2963 points from three featured articles, 20 featured article reviews, 37 good articles, 73 good article reviews, as well as 22 DYKs.
  • New York (state) Epicgenius, with 1718 points from one featured article, 29 good articles, 16 DYKs and plenty of bonus points.
  • Republic of Venice Bloom6132, with 990 points from 13 DYKs and 64 "In the news" items, mostly recent deaths.
  • Hog Farm, with 834 points from two featured articles, five good articles, 14 featured article reviews and 15 good article reviews.
  • England Gog the Mild, with 524 points from two featured articles and four featured article reviews.
  • England Lee Vilenski, with 501 points from one featured article, three good articles, six featured article reviews and 25 good article reviews.
  • Sammi Brie, with 485 points from four good articles, eight good article reviews and 27 DYKs, on US radio and television stations.
  • Ktin, with 436 points from four good articles, seven DYKs and 11 "In the news" items.

Please remember that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of Round 2 but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in Round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them (except for at the end of each round, when you must claim them before the cut-off date/time). When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Humpback whale

The article contains some uncited sentences, particularly "Courtship and reproduction", "Range and habitat" and "Feeding and predators". Would you be able to fix them? Thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 01:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Solo Man, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Bola and Spearhead.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Solo Man Image

Is there a particular reason why you've changed the main image of the Solo Man article to a sketch of a possible full skull? I'm not exactly for or against the change, but I am curious since most other fossil hominin pages simply have photos of casts or fossils. Paragon Deku (talk) 03:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

that's because those are usually the best images available. In the case of Solo Man, we have a much more descriptive illustration than any of the images of the casts   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:26, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your advice

Hey. Since you are an experienced GA writer and reviewer, I would much appreciate your advice : I GA nominated Mugger crocodile on 7 May. Already on next day, someone showed interest to review, and I amended text according to their comments on 8+9 May. The reviewer replied only after 2 days to discuss changes in lede, which I amended on same day. But they are silent since then although I pinged them y'day. So the process is stuck since 11 May. How long should I wait for the reviewer to get back ? Or is there any chance that someone else takes over the review? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:29, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the reviewer said "Please ping me when you would like to look at this again" so I'd say to ping them because they're probably not watching the page   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did ping, and s/he replied today, I amended, replied on talk page, but thereafter again silence. It was not necessary to ping in the first 2 days, indicating that s/he did watch the page and progress. Oh well, enjoyed much more to work with YOU as reviewer on the gharial. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 18:14, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Solo Man

I have just started the copy edit you requested at the GOCE of the article Solo Man. I have a quick question. The articles lede includes three dates in two formats: 117 to 108 thousand years ago and 125,000 years ago. This pattern continues throughout the sections of the article I have edited. Is this standard for scientific writing? I would have thought there should be one consistent format; there seems to be no rhyme or reason why they are written as they are now. Please let me know so I can make the appropriate changes.

Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:35, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Twofingered Typist: 117 to 108,000 years ago can be vague to someone who doesn't understand how years before 0 work, so for ranges, thousand is spelled out. I've done the same on similar articles, like Neanderthal, Tautavel Man, etc.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:19, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dunkleosteus77: Thanks, that makes sense. Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:18, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Solo Man

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Solo Man has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. I think the article's prose is fine, by the way.

Best of luck with the FA when you get to it.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

Precious
Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:13, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you today for Ambulocetus, "about an amphibious whale from Pakistan about 50 million years ago which swam like an otter and behaved like a crocodile. It's one of the best known and iconic ancient whales."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

... and today for Solo Man, introduced: "This article is about the last known population of Homo erectus, part of my massive overhaul of prehistoric humans and allies. The only other great ape FA is orangutan. There aren't any recent comprehensive books focusing just on Solo Man (there are a lot which briefly mention it) but the primary description of the anatomy is a lengthy monograph from 1951 (I've omitted the detailed discussions on individual bones for brevity), and there are a few literature reviews which I've relied upon especially in Research history."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

... and today for Livyatan, "about a really big whale from the Miocene"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:18, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA closing template

Hi Dunkleosteus77, I was wondering what you used to add the GA templates to Talk:Dmanisi hominins and Talk:Gordodon. For some reason the Review links aren't working, and legobot isn't adding oldid links. CMD (talk) 07:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just copy/pasted the one from WP:GAN/I#PASS   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It appears to have substituted incorrectly or something, but I have no idea why. I've replaced the templates, best, CMD (talk) 15:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ambulocetus scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Ambulocetus article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 3, 2021. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 3, 2021, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Man

Hello, The common name Dragon Man is first in the article as article is named Dragon Man not the binomial name. If a consensus is decided on the talk page to change the common name of the article to the binomial then the change may occur at that time. Blockhouse321 (talk) 14:36, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Blockhouse321: you say that as if I was the one who changed it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:39, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not citing news articles in "scientific" articles

In this edit you removed "news" sources from an article, including the New York Times. This sort of behavior is not based on any Wikipedia policy or guideline and is not constructive. Please desist from such actions in the future. Abductive (reasoning) 15:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

go ahead and block me if you feel you have to. I haven't done anything I haven't already done on tons of scientific articles. Sensationalist news pieces have no place here   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:00, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peking Man GA review

Hello, Dunkleosteus77! As you know, I'm currently reviewing your GA-nominated article Peking man, and I put it on hold a little while ago so you could make a few wording changes to make the article clearer. Do these suggestions seem fair to you, and do you plan to make them in the next few days before the hold ends? Otherwise, I'm happy to be more specific about the exact changes that would help the article – I think that this one is extremely close to GA quality, and I really don't want it to fail its nomination! Kokopelli7309 (talk) 12:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kokopelli7309: I honestly have no idea what the problem with the prose is   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See the nomination page: I made my suggestion a lot more specific and detailed the exact five words that it would be good to change. Kokopelli7309 (talk) 16:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GAN Backlog Drive - July 2021

Good article nominations | July 2021 Backlog Drive
July 2021 Backlog Drive:
  • This Thursday, July 1, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number, length, and age, of articles reviewed.
  • Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate:
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive.

Click here to opt out of any future messages.

--Usernameunique

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neogale macrodon

Hi Dunkleosteus, just noticed that you reversed my reclassification of Neovison macrodon into Neogale, based on the IUCN not reclassifying it as such. However, is the IUCN the dominant authority for mammal taxonomy on Wikipedia? Unlike with birds, where Wikipedia's authority is cleanly stated to be the IOC, I can't find any dominant authorities on Wikipedia for any other group of animal. The only taxonomy I've seen many people relying on is the Mammal Species of the World, to which the ASM MammalDiversity Database is the successor, and the ASM database is the source I use for all my edits to mammal taxonomy.

In addition, Wikipedia largely does not rely on the IUCN for bird taxonomy (you will find a few articles here and there based on it, but most of these are ones that have escaped the eye of editors who stick to the Wikipedia-approved IOC taxonomy, and when they are noticed, they're usually retooled into subspecies articles based on IOC classifications), so I wouldn't see why they'd stick with the IUCN for mammal taxonomy only. Some largely-accepted pages like the classification of the fisher actually do not follow IUCN taxonomy, as the IUCN classifies it in Martes while most other sources, including Wikipedia, classify it in Pekania. So is there any evidence for Wikipedia relying on IUCN taxonomy for mammals, and would it be fine if I continued making pages/taxonomic changes based on what's in the ASM?Geekgecko (talk) 22:11, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I confused Mammal Diversity Database with Animal Diversity Web. You can revert my edit   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:13, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2021 July newsletter

The third round of the 2021 WikiCup has now come to an end. Each of the sixteen contestants who made it into the fourth round had at least 294 points, and our top six scorers all had over 600 points. They were:

  • Botswana The Rambling Man, with 1825 points from 3 featured articles, 44 featured article reviews, 14 good articles, 30 good article reviews and 10 DYKs. In addition, he completed a 34-article good topic on the EFL Championship play-offs.
  • New York (state) Epicgenius, a New York specialist, with 1083 points from 2 featured article reviews, 18 good articles, 30 DYKs and plenty of bonus points.
  • Republic of Venice Bloom6132, with 869 points from 11 DYKs, all with bonus points, and 54 "In the news" items, mostly covering people who had recently died.
  • England Gog the Mild, with 817 points from 3 featured articles on historic battles in Europe, 5 featured article reviews and 3 good articles.
  • Hog Farm, with 659 points from 2 featured articles and 2 good articles on American Civil War battles, 18 featured article reviews, 2 good articles, 6 good article reviews and 4 DYKs.
  • Zulu (International Code of Signals) BennyOnTheLoose, a snooker specialist and new to the Cup, with 647 points from a featured article, 2 featured article reviews, 6 good articles, 6 good article reviews and 3 DYKs.

In round three, contestants achieved 19 featured articles, 7 featured lists, 106 featured article reviews, 72 good articles, 1 good topic, 62 good article reviews, 165 DYKs and 96 ITN items. We enter the fourth round with scores reset to zero; any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them (one contestant in round 3 lost out because of this). When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Yeren 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) 02:58, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Yeren

On 19 July 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Yeren, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that hunts for the yeren, a Chinese apeman cryptid, were some of the largest involvements of peasants in scientific endeavors? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Yeren. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Yeren), 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.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hook update
Your hook reached 8,488 views (707.3 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of July 2021 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Topics

This is a rather random question, but have you considered putting together/nominating the prehistoric hominins as a good or featured topic? The nomination page is WP:GTN. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 22:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SilverTiger12: Yeah. The plan is to have Australopithecus with 13 articles (3 left to go), Homo with 12 articles (4 left assuming human goes through), and Homo erectus with 10 articles (2 more to go). And then I might go for Hominini which would encompass all of them and chimpanzee (which is already GA)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:24, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That would be/already is an amazing achievement. I'm consistently impressed by your output! Cheers, Jack (talk) 09:39, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Neanderthal

Hello. I started a Talk discussion here [[10]]. I didn't get the ping right the first time, so was not sure you recieved the notification. Thus I'm notifying you here. Skllagyook (talk) 05:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Dragon Man (archaic human)

On 8 August 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Dragon Man (archaic human), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in June 2021, scientists described "Dragon Man", a member of a new species of archaic human that lived at least 146,000 years ago on the Northeast China Plain? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dragon Man (archaic human). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Dragon Man (archaic human)), 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.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of Solo Man

Congratulations, Dunkleosteus77! The article you nominated, Solo Man, 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, Ian Rose (talk) via FACBot (talk) 12:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2021 September newsletter

The fourth round of the competition has finished with over 500 points being required to qualify for the final round. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants, Botswana The Rambling Man and New York (state) Epicgenius, each scoring over 3000 points, and six contestants scoring over 1000. All but one of the finalists achieved one or more FAs during the round, the exception being Republic of Venice Bloom6132 who demonstrated that 61 "in the news" items produces an impressive number of points. Other contestants who made it to the final are Gog the Mild, England Lee Vilenski, Zulu (International Code of Signals) BennyOnTheLoose, Rwanda Amakuru and Hog Farm. However, all their points are now swept away and everyone starts afresh in the final round.

Round 4 saw the achievement of 18 featured articles and 157 good articles. George Floyd mural Bilorv scored for a 25-article good topic on Black Mirror but narrowly missed out on qualifying for the final round. There was enthusiasm for FARs, with 89 being performed, and there were 63 GARs and around 100 DYKs during the round. As we start round 5, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it to the final round; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. For other contestants, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Diprotodon

Hi Dunk, how far do you intend to go to improve Diprotodon? I've tried to add all of the relevant descriptive research I can, though there's not much. The extinction section is mostly irrelevant, but there's not much I can do about that either. Also there's a new paper on Irish Elk population genetics, which is probably worth incorporating into the main article, which I don't have access to. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The anatomical description was done by Owen in 1870 so that'll make up the bulk of Description. For some reason I can't access the Irish Elk article, but I doubt it's relevant at all to Diprotodon considering they lived on different continents   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:35, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The ref was for the Irish elk article which we have previously discussed. Thought that would have been obvious from context sorry. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Solo Man scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Solo Man article has been scheduled as today's featured article for October 4, 2021. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 4, 2021, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also Livyatan has been scheduled as today's featured article for October 24, 2021. Please check Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 24, 2021. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mammal

May what to do something about the "Sexual dimorphism" section. LittleJerry (talk) 20:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've been pretty busy over these last few weeks and consequently pretty inactive here. Could you address the issue? It doesn't seem like anything said here is incorrect, and the source itself is reputable, I guess someone wanted more sources which shouldn't be too hard to add   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Castoroides, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saint John River.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2021 November newsletter

The WikiCup is over for another year and the finalists can relax! Our Champion this year is Botswana The Rambling Man (submissions), who amassed over 5000 points in the final round, achieving 8 featured articles and almost 500 reviews. It was a very competitive round; seven of the finalists achieved over 1000 points in the round (enough to win the 2019 contest), and three scored over 3000 (enough to win the 2020 event). Our 2021 finalists and their scores were:

  1. Botswana The Rambling Man (submissions) with 5072 points
  2. England Lee Vilenski (submissions) with 3276 points
  3. Rwanda Amakuru (submissions) with 3197 points
  4. New York (state) Epicgenius (submissions) with 1611 points
  5. Gog the Mild (submissions) with 1571 points
  6. Zulu (International Code of Signals) BennyOnTheLoose (submissions) with 1420 points
  7. Hog Farm (submissions) with 1043 points
  8. Republic of Venice Bloom6132 (submissions) with 528 points

All those who reached the final round will win awards. The following special awards will be made based on high performance in particular areas of content creation and review. Awards will be handed out in the next few days.

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether they made it to the final round or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup, some of whom did very well. Wikipedia has benefitted greatly from the quality creations, expansions and improvements made, and the numerous reviews performed. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition, not forgetting User:Jarry1250, who runs the scoring bot.

If you have views on whether the rules or scoring need adjustment for next year's contest, please comment on the WikiCup talk page. Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2022 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

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) 00:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

visual noise

Please consider having less code in the display of your signature. For myself, I look for what is being said in discussions, in B&W, the text, who said it doesn't need any distracting formats. ~ cygnis insignis 11:32, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

better? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:50, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GAN Backlog Drive – January 2022

Good article nominations | January 2022 Backlog Drive
January 2022 Backlog Drive:
  • On New Year's Day, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed.
  • Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate:
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive.

Click here and remove your username from the mailing list to opt out of any future messages.

--Usernameunique

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles at 21:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Welcome to the 2022 WikiCup!

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2022 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the 2022 WikiCup!

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2022 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aeroplankton review

Hi Dunkleosteus. I have developed a medical condition which leaves me currently unable to participate further in the GA review for Aeroplankton. Would you please fail the review. I hope to recover, and renominate the article, and that you might be willing to pick up the review again so it can be completed. In the meantime, thank you very much for the input you have already offered. Regards. — Epipelagic (talk) 03:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Epipelagic: Alright, best of luck to you, I hope to see this back at GAN soon Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 05:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aurochs

Thanks for your suggestions again re the images! Since I did not yet receive any question, suggestion from the 1st reviewer, I'm somewhat in limbo + kind of reviewed some passages myself that had been added by other contributors before I started working on this. I'm not in hurry, but still have 1-2 references to add + am working on a new map. Do you have time to continue the review? – BhagyaMani (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BhagyaMani: are you asking me to take over the review? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator choosing reviewer is unheard of, it doesn't work that way. So I cannot ask you to take over the review. True is also that I miss and much appreciate critical, challenging comments + questions by an experienced reviewer like you that help to improve a page. The 1st reviewer has less than 150 edits under the belt. Is that enough experience to be conducting GA reviews ? S/he surely means well, but may need some guidance + assistance. – BhagyaMani (talk) 09:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup & the Good Article Nomination Backlog Drive

Hi there, you're receiving this note because you're currently signed up for the 2022 WikiCup and don't yet have any points in the competition. As you may know, scoring any points in the first round is traditionally sufficient to advance to the second, and a fast way to get 5 points is to complete a good article review. Given that the January 2022 Good Article Nomination Backlog Drive is active for another 10 days, you might be interested in pitching in. Complete one review, and you'll be on to the next round in WikiCup; complete two or three, and you'll also be eligible to win some barnstars. As always, quality reviews with attention to detail are expected. Cheers, --Usernameunique (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2022 March newsletter

And so ends the first round of the WikiCup. Last year anyone who scored more than zero points moved on to Round 2, but this was not the case this year, and a score of 13 or more was required to proceed. The top scorers in Round 1 were:

  • New York (state) Epicgenius, a finalist last year, who led the field with 1906 points, gained from 32 GAs and 19 DYKs, all on the topic of New York buildings.
  • Christmas Island AryKun, new to the contest, was second with 1588 points, having achieved 2 FAs, 11 GAs and various other submissions, mostly on the subject of birds.
  • Kingdom of Scotland Bloom6132, a WikiCup veteran, was in third place with 682 points, garnered from 51 In the news items and several DYKs.
  • Philadelphia GhostRiver was close behind with 679 points, gained from achieving 12 GAs, mostly on ice hockey players, and 35 GARs.
  • United Nations Kavyansh.Singh was in fifth place with 551 points, with an FA, a FL, and many reviews.
  • SounderBruce was next with 454 points, gained from an FA and various other submissions, mostly on United States highways.
  • United Nations Ktin, another WikiCup veteran, was in seventh place with 412 points, mostly gained from In the news items.

These contestants, like all the others who qualified for Round 2, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews of a large number of good articles as the contest ran concurrently with a GAN backlog drive. Well done all! To qualify for Round 3, contestants will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two participants.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Anything that should have been claimed for in Round 1 is no longer eligible for points. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Cryptic cetaceans" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Cryptic cetaceans and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 29#Cryptic cetaceans until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2022 May newsletter

The second round of the 2022 WikiCup has now finished. It was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 115 points to advance to round 3. There were some very impressive efforts in round 2, with the top seven contestants all scoring more than 500 points. A large number of the points came from the 11 featured articles and the 79 good articles achieved in total by contestants.

Our top scorers in round 2 were:

  1. New York (state) Epicgenius, with 1264 points from 2 featured article, 4 good articles and 18 DYKs. Epicgenius was a finalist last year but has now withdrawn from the contest as he pursues a new career path.
  2. Christmas Island AryKun, with 1172 points from two featured articles, one good article and a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews.
  3. Kingdom of Scotland Bloom6132, with 605 points from 44 in the news items and 4 DYKs.
  4. Sammi Brie, with 573 points from 8 GAs and 21 DYKs.
  5. Ealdgyth, with 567 points from 11 GAs and 34 good and featured article reviews.
  6. United States Panini!, with 549 points from 1 FA, 4 GAs and several other sources.
  7. England Lee Vilenski, with 545 points from 1 FA, 4 GAs and a number of reviews.

The rules for featured and good article reviews require the review to be of sufficient length; brief quick fails and very short reviews will generally not be awarded points. Remember also that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hoarding behavior

Hi Dunkleosteus77, I recently noticed a discussion at Talk:Neanderthal that you were a part of. The guy recently replied to you and is cussing and screaming in all caps. I'm not sure if you noticed or not, since he didn't ping you correctly. I was wondering if you could take a look at this similar discussion at an unrelated page, with a better behaved but similarily stubborn editor who doesn't want to forfeit their greasy source. What do you think we should do? Thanks for your time. - Hunan201p (talk) 12:17, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive
  • On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here!
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives.
Click here to opt out of any future messages.

(t · c) buidhe 04:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Precious
Six years!

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:13, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you today for Homo antecessor, "about the first identified human species to colonize Western Europe, part of my massive overhaul of prehistoric humans and allies."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:44, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2022 July newsletter

The third round of the 2022 WikiCup has now come to an end. Each of the sixteen contestants who made it into the fourth round had at least 180 points, which is a lower figure than last year when 294 points were needed to progress to round 4. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

  • Zulu (International Code of Signals) BennyOnTheLoose, with 746 points, a tally built both on snooker and other sports topics, and on more general subjects.
  • Kingdom of Scotland Bloom6132, with 683 points, garnered mostly from "In the news" items and related DYKs.
  • Sammi Brie, with 527, from a variety of submissions related to radio and television stations.

Between them contestants achieved 5 featured articles, 4 featured lists, 51 good articles, 149 DYK entries, 68 ITN entries, and 109 good article reviews. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article nomination, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. WikiCup judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paramylodon GA

Why did you fail my GAN? Look, I KNOW it didn't meet the good article criteria in time but it looks good enough to be a good article. Patachonica (talk) 01:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Patachonica: I told you the prose needs a lot of work, and I assumed you would take the time to read over your article and condense it a lot more as I demonstrated with a few examples, but you didn't do anything for like a month, so I'm failing it for now. And, when you finally get around to fixing the prose, you should renominate it Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well then you should have told me to reword the sentences in the way you would write it. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 06:02, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Magnatyrannus: I told you multiple times that you need to rewrite the entire thing, I told you things like "I think the reason this article is so huge is because there's a lot of unnecessary verbiage throughout" and "I was hoping you'd read through it again and try to condense the article yourself a bit more. Like my comment above about the grass diet statement, there are a lot more examples of this throughout the article", and I said "As I said earlier, you should go over the article again and condense it (a lot) before I continue reading, because this article looks like it needs a lot of work prose-wise" but you didn't seem to have any intention of going over the article yourself, so I failed the review Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:51, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dunkleosteus77: But you, in no way, helped me in improving the article. Also, the reason why I wasn't able to do anything about it for a month is because I was busy with other stuff in life. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 01:56, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Patachonica is my sock you know, no need to ping me. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 19:55, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I told you what you needed to do for your article, this is where my responsibility as a reviewer ends. If you knew were you going to be busy that month, you shouldn't have nominated it, or at the least you should've told me you were gonna be busy. You clearly had no interest in actually working on the article, you were just hoping I would insta-pass it because you got it straight from the German wiki. You are more than free to renominate the article and get a different reviewer if you think I'm being unfair Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not at all think that you are being unfair, I think it's just that I was unaware that I was going to be busy that month. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 02:22, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then get someone else to review it for you, but I advise you not to renominate yet because the article needs a lot of prosework, as I keep telling you over and over again. There is no point to this conversation, I don't understand what you're trying to get out of this. My involvement with Paramylodon is finished Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:25, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Human history

Hello :) You’ve worked extensively on articles related to human evolution, would you mind taking a look at Human history#Early humans? Only 3 paragraphs! Do you notice any errors, misinterpretations, or glaring omissions? Cerebellum (talk) 11:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cerebellum: The chimpanzee–human last common ancestor is nowadays more commonly placed at 7 mya. It might be good to say how many million years ago the Paleolithic started with current evidence (Lomekwi, 3.3 mya). Hominid means great ape, and other primates use tools aside from hominids. "During the Paleolithic" is pretty vague considering how long it is, might be worth mentioning the earliest uncontroversial population which could speak is the Skhul and Qafzeh hominins, but Neanderthal spech is also a debate. Behavioral modernity is a pretty controversial topic since all evidence used for it comes from Europe, and you can easily extend it farther than 50,000 years considering the archeological record beyond that continent, most famously Blombos Cave. The Apidima Cave "modern humans" were reclassified into Neanderthals in 2020 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anthro.2019.102743. The Last Glacial Maximum took place over 5,000 years, from 25,000 to 20,000 years ago. If you're gonna mention population collapse during the LGM, you might as well mention the massive genetic bottleneck related to the Toba catastrophe theory Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 07:42, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much!! --Cerebellum (talk) 10:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lemme know if you need more help Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Homininae vs. Hominina

Thank you for enlightening me. I was wrong. Or, rather, I was absolutely correct from the grammatical standpoint, as in Latin terms ending in -inae are the grammatical plural of terms ending in -ina. But, of course, in taxonomy, as I now know, the former is used for a subfamily, while the latter is used for a subtribe (not a tribe, though, as the tribe is Hominini). With your permission, I will change tribe to subtribe in reference to Hominina Pasquale (talk) 03:37, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About section removal

Why am I not allowed to remove sections from your talk page? The Paramylodon GA section was brought up by me, and now you suggested that I should remove it, but then you tell me not to. Not saying that I want to continue the discussion, I just wanted to know why I am not allowed to remove my own sections from one's talk page. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 02:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Homo longi

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Homo longi 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 Etriusus -- Etriusus (talk) 20:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Homo longi

The article Homo longi you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Homo longi for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Etriusus -- Etriusus (talk) 00:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Phosphatodraco

Hey. Would you be able to review Phosphatodraco at FAC? LittleJerry (talk) 00:55, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Homo longi

The article Homo longi you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Homo longi for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Etriusus -- Etriusus (talk) 03:01, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Electric eel

Would you be able to review electric eel at FAC? LittleJerry (talk) 18:05, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of Homo antecessor

Congratulations, Dunkleosteus77! The article you nominated, Homo antecessor, 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) 00:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gratz on another fine FA. Gog has penciled this in on the TFA list for November, and I'm working on a blurb. I see this in the article: "In 2011, after providing a much more in depth analysis of the Sima del Elefante material, Castro and colleagues were unsure of the species classification, opting to leave it at Homo sp. (making no opinion on species designation) pending further discoveries." Are they still unsure? - Dank (push to talk) 20:29, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like they're still keeping the classification of the Sima del Elefante material ambiguous Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 00:30, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay ... I think this one's over my head. I'm hoping Jim will tackle it. - Dank (push to talk) 00:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the lead, I'm just distracted by minor health problems. Looking forward to more of these in the future.) - Dank (push to talk) 10:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Problem solved, Gog has committed to doing it (on the Nov TFA talk page). - Dank (push to talk) 15:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a link to the page? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:58, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WT:Today's featured article/November 2022. - Dank (push to talk) 17:16, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Homo antecessor scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 5 November 2022. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 5, 2022, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/November 2022. 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) 16:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2022 November newsletter

The 2022 WikiCup has drawn to a close with the final round going down to the wire. The 2022 champion is

  • England Lee Vilenski (1752 points), who won in 2020 and was runner up in both 2019 and last year. In the final round he achieved 3 FAs and 15 GAs, mostly on cue sports. He was closely followed by
  • Kingdom of Scotland Bloom6132 (1732), who specialised in "In the news" items and DYKs, and who has reached the final round of the Cup for the past three years. Next was
  • Zulu (International Code of Signals) BennyOnTheLoose (1238), another cue sports enthusiast, also interested in songs, followed by
  • New York City Muboshgu (1082), an "In the news" contributor, a seasoned contestant who first took part in the Cup ten years ago. Other finalists were
  • Sammi Brie (930), who scored with a featured article, good articles and DYKs on TV and radio stations,
  • United Nations Kavyansh.Singh (370), who created various articles on famous Americans, including an FA on Louis H. Bean, famed for his prediction of election outcomes. Next was
  • Chicago PCN02WPS (292), who scored with good articles and DYKs on sporting and other topics and
  • Toronto Z1720 (25) who had DYKs on various topics including historic Canadians.

During the WikiCup, contestants achieved 37 featured articles, 349 good articles, 360 featured article reviews, 683 good article reviews and 480 In the news items, so Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors. Well done everyone! All those who reached the final round will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation and review. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or the overall leader in this field.

  • England Lee Vilenski wins the featured article prize, for a total of 6 FAs during the course of the competition and 3 in the final round.
  • United Nations Kavyansh.Singh wins the featured list prize, for 3 FLs in round 2.
  • Adam Cuerden wins the featured picture prize, for 39 FPs during the competition.
  • Toronto Z1720 wins the featured article reviewer prize, for 35 FARs in round 4.
  • New York (state) Epicgenius wins the good article prize, for 32 GAs in round 1.
  • SounderBruce wins the featured topic prize, for 4 FT articles in round 1.
  • England Lee Vilenski wins the good topic prize, for 34 GT articles in round 5.
  • Sammi Brie wins the good article reviewer prize, for 71 GARs overall.
  • Sammi Brie wins the Did you know prize, for 30 DYKs in round 3 and 106 overall.
  • Kingdom of Scotland Bloom6132 wins the In the news prize, for 106 ITNs in round 5 and 289 overall.

Next year's competition will begin on 1 January and possible changes to the rules and scoring are being discussed on the discussion page. You are invited to sign up to take part in the contest; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to have a good turnout for the 2023 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners and finalists, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 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) 01:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FAC

Could you review South Asian river dolphin? Thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 23:52, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trachilos footprints (Orrorin article)

Hi, is my edit to the final paragraph under Orrorin § Fossils an adequate rewording for NPOV? I'm not a topic-area expert.... Happy editing, Middle 8 (s)talk • privacy 10:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Middle 8: it'd be better if you phrased it like "X said this, and Y said that" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:00, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Diprotodon

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Diprotodon 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of AryKun -- AryKun (talk) 15:01, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Josephoartigasia

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Josephoartigasia 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of AryKun -- AryKun (talk) 15:03, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Josephoartigasia

The article Josephoartigasia you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Josephoartigasia for comments about the article, and Talk:Josephoartigasia/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AryKun -- AryKun (talk) 16:03, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the 2023 WikiCup!

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2023 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:16, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Islam GA nomination

I appreciate you taking your time to review a heavy topic like Islam. I am working right now to correct it per all your recommendations. Sodicadl (talk) 17:55, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Diprotodon

The article Diprotodon you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Diprotodon for comments about the article, and Talk:Diprotodon/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AryKun -- AryKun (talk) 04:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2023 March newsletter

So ends the first round of the 2023 WikiCup. Everyone with a positive score moved on to Round 2, with 54 contestants qualifying. The top scorers in Round 1 were:

  • Unlimitedlead with 1205 points, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with two featured articles on historical figures and several featured article candidate reviews.
  • New York (state) Epicgenius was in second place with 789 points; a seasoned WikiCup competitor he specialises in buildings and locations in New York.
  • Germany FrB.TG was in third place with 625 points, garnered from a featured article on a filmmaker which qualified for an impressive number of bonus points.
  • United States TheJoebro64, another WikiCup newcomer, came next with 600 points gained from two featured articles on video games.
  • Byzantine Empire Iazyges was in fifth place with 532 points, from two featured articles on classical history.

The top sixteen contestants at the end of Round 1 had all scored over 300 points; these included Berkelland LunaEatsTuna, Thebiguglyalien, Sammi Brie, New England Trainsandotherthings, England Lee Vilenski, Indonesia Juxlos, Unexpectedlydian, Washington (state) SounderBruce, Wales Kosack, BennyOnTheLoose and Chicago PCN02WPS. It was a high-scoring start to the competition.

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start again from scratch. The first round finished on February 26. Remember that any content promoted after that date but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Some contestants made claims before the new submissions pages were set up, and they will need to resubmit them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:36, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Islam GA nomination

Hello Dunkleo! I just wanted to let you know (in case your notification box is too flooded) that I left a review of the Islam article after making some edits. You requested a second reviewer to confirm that it's ready for GA, and I think it is. I know I'm not that established of an editor, but I hope this still helps bring it to GA status. Amyipdev (talk) 17:46, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2023 May newsletter

The second round of the 2023 WikiCup has now finished. Contestants needed to have scored 60 points to advance into round 3. Our top five scorers in round 2 all included a featured article among their submissions and each scored over 500 points. They were:

Other notable performances were put in by Sammi Brie, Thebiguglyalien, MyCatIsAChonk, Chicago PCN02WPS, and London AirshipJungleman29.

So far contestants have achieved thirteen featured articles between them, one being a joint effort, and forty-nine good articles. The judges are pleased with the thorough reviews that are being performed, and have hardly had to reject any. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Demotion

hahaha you are smaller now. (still terrifying, don't get me wrong.) -- Troopersho (talk) 02:01, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Islam GA

Hello! Hope all is well. I was wondering if you would still be able to continue the review while a new reviewer comes up. There is no rush, so just whenever you feel like it maybe? Sodicadl (talk) 01:13, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Diprotodon


WikiCup 2023 July newsletter

The third round of the 2023 WikiCup has come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round had at least 175 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

Contestants achieved 11 featured articles, 2 featured lists, 47 good articles, 72 featured or good article reviews, over 100 DYKs and 40 ITN appearances. As always, any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious

I hope that you will understand that my {{dubious}} tag was intended as constructive criticism. I've been watching the development of Early European modern humans for quite a while and consider it one of the more valuable articles on WP, well deserving of its GA status. I felt that it was being let down by the speculative material. 20th century sources were rather more inclined to assert religious or cultural significance for mysterious artefacts rather than admit that they just don't know. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:47, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The entire study of early modern Europeans is riddled with the bolded assumptions, and the article should reflect that the majority of people who have studied the topic have been making assertions of shamanistic rituals and whatnot Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it should because of course they have. But it seems to me at least that we should not relay these unscientific (= unevidenced) notions uncritically. Obviously it would be OR to assert without citation that they are nonsense but we certainly can attribute them to their creators and even make a point of identifying when they have failed to show any supporting evidence of well-founded hypothesis. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is done in the body of the article and I've tried to note "this became very popular" and "this started seeing lots of criticism in xyz decade" but in the lead, I think attributing all these assertions and controversies and debates and so forth would make it a far less effective summary. I mean even now, the lead is enormous Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:19, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, which is why I would resist putting conjecture in the lead. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You put the dubious tags on par 3 summarizing the Culture section, and the problem here is that culture of ancient societies (especially in the Pleistocene) is predominantly just speculation, because as far as deciphering cultural norms and practices go from the archeological record, you very well can't just ask them since they've been dead for tens of thousands of years Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 00:12, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive:
  • On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded.
  • Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate:
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing GAN of Islam

Hi Dunkleosteus -- Midnightblueowl has recommended as a second opinion that the Islam GAN be closed as failed, but wants to know if you're willing to close the review (as the original reviewer) or if she should. I see you're semi-active right now, but is this something you're willing to do? Vaticidalprophet 18:38, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As an update, it hasn't been closed and has been re-added to the list of articles needing new reviewers. Vaticidalprophet 00:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2023 September newsletter

The fourth round of the competition has finished, with anyone scoring less than 673 points being eliminated. It was a high scoring round with all but one of the contestants who progressed to the final having achieved an FA during the round. The highest scorers were

  • New York (state) Epicgenius, with 2173 points topping the scores, gained mainly from a featured article, 38 good articles and 9 DYKs. He was followed by
  • Sammi Brie, with 1575 points, gained mainly from a featured article, 28 good articles and 50 good article reviews. Close behind was
  • Thebiguglyalien, with 1535 points mainly gained from a featured article, 15 good articles, 26 good article reviews and lots of bonus points.

Between them during round 4, contestants achieved 12 featured articles, 3 featured lists, 3 featured pictures, 126 good articles, 46 DYK entries, 14 ITN entries, 67 featured article candidate reviews and 147 good article reviews. Congratulations to our eight finalists and all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them and within 24 hours of the end of the final. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.

I will be standing down as a judge after the end of the contest. I think the Cup encourages productive editors to improve their contributions to Wikipedia and I hope that someone else will step up to take over the running of the Cup. Sturmvogel 66 (talk), and Cwmhiraeth (talk)

WikiCup 2023 November newsletter

The WikiCup is a marathon rather than a sprint and all those reaching the final round have been involved in the competition for the last ten months, improving Wikipedia vastly during the process. After all this hard work, Delaware BeanieFan11 has emerged as the 2023 winner and the WikiCup Champion. The finalists this year were:-

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether they made it to the final round or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the competition, some of whom did very well. Wikipedia has benefitted greatly from the quality creations, expansions and improvements made, and the numerous reviews performed. All those who reached the final round will win awards. The following special awards will be made based on high performance in particular areas of content creation and review. Awards will be handed out in the next few days.

  • Unlimitedlead wins the featured article prize, for 7 FAs in total including 3 in round 2.
  • MyCatIsAChonk wins the featured list prize, for 5 FLs in total.
  • England Lee Vilenski wins the featured topic prize, for a 6-article featured topic in round 4.
  • MyCatIsAChonk wins the featured picture prize, for 6 FPs in total.
  • Delaware BeanieFan11 wins the good article prize, for 75 GAs in total, including 61 in the final round.
  • New York (state) Epicgenius wins the good topic prize, for a 41-article good topic in the final round.
  • Berkelland LunaEatsTuna wins the GA reviewer prize, for 70 GA reviews in round 1.
  • MyCatIsAChonk wins the FA reviewer prize, for 66 FA reviews in the final round.
  • New York (state) Epicgenius wins the DYK prize, for 49 did you know articles in total.
  • Ukraine Muboshgu wins the ITN prize, for 46 in the news articles in total.

The WikiCup has run every year since 2007. With the 2023 contest now concluded, I will be standing down as a judge due to real life commitments, so I hope that another editor will take over running the competition. Please get in touch if you are interested. Next year's competition will hopefully begin on 1 January 2024. You are invited to sign up to participate in the contest; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors. It only remains to congratulate our worthy winners once again and thank all participants for their involvement! (If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.) Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:51, 5 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 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) 00:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paranthropus good topic

Hi Dunkleosteus77, I noticed looking through the Good article lists that you have completed a clean sweep of Paranthropus articles with Paranthropus robustus, Paranthropus boisei, and Paranthropus aethiopicus. I would suggest these would make a cohesive WP:Good topic. Would you be interested in nominating it, or object if I put a nomination together (I feel there are far fewer Biology topics than there should be)? Or are there articles which should be included here that are not a GA? Best, CMD (talk) 07:00, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the 2024 WikiCup!

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2024 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close on 31 January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email), Epicgenius (talk · contribs · email), and Frostly (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2024 February newsletter

The 2024 WikiCup is off to a flying start, with 135 participants. This is the largest number of participants we have seen since 2017.

Our current leader is newcomer Generalissima (submissions), who has one FA on John Littlejohn (preacher) and 10 GAs and 12 DYKs mostly on New Zealand coinage and Inuit figures. Here are some more noteworthy scorers:

As a reminder, competitors may submit work for the first round until 23:59 (UTC) on 27 February, and the second round starts 1 March. Remember that only the top 64 scoring competitors will make it through to the second round; currently, competitors need at least 15 points to progress. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024 GAN backlog drive

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive:
  • On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded.
  • Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2024 March newsletter

The first round of the 2024 WikiCup ended at 23:59 (UTC) on 27 February. Everyone with at least 30 points moved on to Round 2, the highest number of points required to advance to the second round since 2014. Due to a six-way tie for the 64th-place spot, 67 contestants have qualified for Round 2.

The following scorers in Round 1 all scored more than 300 points:

In this newsletter, the judges would like to pay a special tribute to Vami_IV (submissions), who unfortunately passed away this February. At the time of his death, he was the second-highest-scoring competitor. Outside the WikiCup, he had eight other featured articles, five A-class articles, eight other good articles, and two Four Awards. Vami also wrote an essay on completionism, a philosophy in which he deeply believed. If you can, please join us in honoring his memory by improving one of the articles on his to-do list.

Remember that any content promoted after 27 February but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2024 April newsletter

We are approaching the end of the 2024 WikiCup's second round, with a little over two weeks remaining. Currently, contestants must score at least 105 points to progress to the third round.

Our current top scorers are as follows:

Competitors may submit work for the second round until the end of 28 April, and the third round starts 1 May. Remember that only competitors with the top 32 scores will make it through to the third round. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs. As a reminder, competitors are strictly prohibited from gaming Wikipedia policies or processes to receive more points.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please read Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2024 May newsletter

The second round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 28 April. This round was particularly competitive: each of the 32 contestants who advanced to Round 3 scored at least 141 points. This is the highest number of points required to advance to Round 3 since 2014.

The following scorers in Round 2 all scored more than 500 points:

The full scores for Round 2 can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 18 featured articles, 22 featured lists, and 186 good articles, 76 in the news credits and at least 200 did you know credits. They have conducted 165 featured article reviews, as well as 399 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 21 articles to featured topics and good topics.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 April but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed during Round 3, which starts on 1 May at 00:00 (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

Precious
Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2024 July newsletter

The third round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 28 June. As with Round 2, this round was competitive: each of the 16 contestants who advanced to Round 4 scored at least 256 points.

The following editors all scored more than 400 points in Round 3:

The full scores for round 3 can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 28 featured articles, 38 featured lists, 240 good articles, 92 in the news credits, and at least 285 did you know credits. They have conducted 279 featured article reviews, as well as 492 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 22 articles to featured topics and good topics.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 June but before the start of Round 4 can be claimed during Round 4, which starts on 1 July at 00:00 (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether for a good article, featured content, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2024 August newsletter

The fourth round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 29 August. Each of the 8 contestants who advanced to Round 4 scored at least 472 points, and the following contestants scored more than 700 points:

Congratulations to our eight finalists and all who participated. Contestants put in extraordinary amounts of effort during this round, and their scores can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 36 featured articles, 55 featured lists, 15 good articles, 93 in the news credits, and at least 333 did you know credits. They have conducted 357 featured content reviews, as well as 553 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 30 articles to featured topics and good topics.

Any content promoted after 29 August but before the start of Round 5 can be claimed during Round 5, which starts on 1 September at 00:00 (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. If two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether for a good article, featured content, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Remember to claim your points within 14 days of earning them, and importantly, before the deadline on 31 October.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2024 November newsletter

The 2024 WikiCup has come to an end, with the final round being a very tight race. Our new champion is AirshipJungleman29 (submissions), who scored 2,283 points mainly through 3 high-multiplier FAs and 3 GAs on military history topics. By a 1% margin, Airship beat out last year's champion, Delaware BeanieFan11 (submissions), who scored second with 2,264 points, mainly from an impressive 58 GAs about athletes. In third place, Generalissima (submissions) scored 1,528 points, primarily from two FAs on U.S. Librarians of Congress and 20 GAs about various historical topics. Our other finalists are: Sammi Brie (submissions) with 879 points, Canada Hey man im josh (submissions) with 533 points, BennyOnTheLoose (submissions) with 432 points, Arconning (submissions) with 244 points, and Christmas Island AryKun (submissions) with 15 points. Congratulations to our finalists and all who participated!

The final round was very productive, and contestants had 7 FAs, 9 FLs, 94 GAs, 73 FAC reviews, and 79 GAN reviews and peer reviews. Altogether, Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors all through the contest. Well done everyone!

All those who reached the final will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field.

Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2025 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement!

If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

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

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

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

Welcome to the 2025 WikiCup!

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2025 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor, we hope the WikiCup will give you a chance to improve your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page.

For the 2025 WikiCup, we've implemented several changes to the scoring system. The highest-ranking contestants will now receive tournament points at the end of each round, and final rankings are decided by the number of tournament points each contestant has. If you're busy and can't sign up in January, don't worry: Signups are now open throughout the year. To make things fairer for latecomers, the lowest-scoring contestants will no longer be eliminated at the end of each round.

The first round will end on 26 February. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email), Epicgenius (talk · contribs · email), Frostly (talk · contribs · email), Guerillero (talk · contribs · email) and Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]