JurassicClassic767, you are invited to the Teahouse!
Hi JurassicClassic767! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like MrClog (talk).
Hello, JurassicClassic 767. I noticed you've been making a lot of edits to pterosaur pages recently. These edits are by and large useful, but you should know that making hundreds of little edits in a row can be considered suspicious behavior. Vandals often use this technique to overwhelm reliable editors or make it more difficult to track their work. I'm not accusing you of anything, but just letting you know that it's better to make your edits in large chunks rather than numerous tiny increments. If you're unsure about editing in large sections, you can work in the sandbox to prepare text for articles. Good luck! Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I actually knew that someone would realize about those edits, but the reason why I've done so many minor edits is that I often make mistakes like you said, specially in when putting references. If you visit my user page, you'll see that I put a userbox about fighting vandalism, and I'm not a vandal in any case. Anyway, I just wanted to contribute to pterosaurs, since there are mostly outdated or stubs, and I'm also part of the Pterosaurs task force, but yeah, I understand if someone would suspect about my little edits, and next time, I'll try to make larger edits with the mistakes corrected. JurassicClassic767 (talk) 15:03, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ornithocheiromorpha, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Limb (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ornithocheiromorpha you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of IJReid -- IJReid (talk) 18:01, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Averianov (2020) does not actually contain a phylogenetic analysis. It's not only misleading to create a composite of two very different phylogenetic analyses (with portions of each arbitrarily chosen), add a couple other taxa without basis in analysis, and then attribute it to a third paper entirely, it is a violation of WP:SYNTH, as the resulting topology can't be found in any actual study. I've replaced those with the cladogram of Pêgas et al. (2019), with a couple additions after Kellner et al. (2019) (these studies both use the same base dataset and differ in only minor respects). Please keep this in mind for the future. Shuvuuia (talk) 01:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On an unrelated note, please avoid writing out entire references twice. You can define a reference once with
@Shuvuuia: Honestly, with the cladogram, I was getting a bit confused, there were mentions within other references, but I guess those were just cross-refs and unrelated? I know the original research, but what happened really was that I just got confused with the cross-refs thinking their related or something. Also, thanks for replacing the cladogram and not just delete it directly. As for the repeated refs, I do sometimes miss several, but that article has like 90 refs? Anyway, I didn't do original research, I just got confused with the cross-refs thinking their all related. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 07:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As a side note, Averianov 2020 may not have done a phylogenetic analysis of Ornithocheiromorpha, but he has done an analysis for Lonchodectidae, clearly stating that Serradraco, Unwindia and Prejanopterus don't belong to that family. Check it if you don't believe me, it's mentioned at the end of the paragraph. Also, when putting refs, it's better if you put them after any punctuation. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 13:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion of the taxonomic placement of Serradraco, Unwindia, and Prejanopterus is not the same as a phylogenetic analysis. The exclusion of these genera is not based on a computational analysis in the same vein as e.g. Pêgas et al. (2019), and it has yet to be seen whether this assessment will be followed up with by other researchers. For now it's fair to keep them out of the taxobox (I marked them as possible members in an attempt at neutrality), but I've added a section mentioning that they'd previously been considered possible lonchodectids. Shuvuuia (talk) 23:43, 30 May (UTC)
OK, so we're clear with Averianov 2020 not being a phylogenetic analysis, but what I've been wondering was that cladogram you made as a replacement. I know part of the sources do coincide with the cladogram, but stating that it's a "composite" just leads to the thought that it's some kind of OR, and none of the refs say that it was a composite. So what I've done is exclude the analysis by Pegas et al and keep the one by Kellner et al, that's because Kellner makes a deeper classification of the group, while Pegas just focuses on Targaryendraconia. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 00:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By "composite" I meant "identical to Pêgas et al. 2019, with Mimodactylus added after Kellner et al. 2019". I should have been more clear with that. That said, it bears repeating that the two papers share the same base dataset, so their topologies are largely identical. Kellner et al. 2019 did not "make a deeper classification of the group" - both analyses sample virtually the same breadth of non-lanceodont pterosaurs, Kellner et al. simply shows more in the cladogram in the paper (the full analyses can be found in the supplementary material of each, and they both go back further than what the papers show). If we had to choose one, I'd argue the Pêgas cladogram would be better for at least the Ornithocheiromorpha page due to it having a greater taxon sampling of that clade (the Kellner analysis lacks Boreopteridae entirely and only contains one member of Targaryendraconia, and the only lanceodont it has that the Pêgas analysis doesn't is Mimodactylus). Shuvuuia (talk) 02:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want confusion with both cladograms, and there is a section of the analysis of Pêgas that I've missed because it's within the "supplemental area". If you're a new reader for example, and go to the reference, you may not directly find the cladogram. Now that I've seem the "Pêgas cladogram", I'd actually prefer that Targaryendraconia and Boreopteridae are included, even if we have to exclude Mimodactylus, so I should start putting it back? JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 05:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Shuvuuia: OK, I've made a cladogram based on Pêgas et al 2019, I've excluded Mimodactylidae, but included Targaryendraconia, Lonchodectidae and Boreopteridae. I've just placed the cladogram on Ornithocheiromorpha (the second cladogram), and practically every other subgroup except Mimodactylidae. Oh, and I apologize for my first reaction on this, though the cladogram I made based on Averianov 2020 was no original research, the refs that come below confused me thinking their linked or connected to Averianov 2020, so I've made a larger cladogram with those classifications included. I know I've mentioned this before, but I just wanted you to be clear. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 06:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Pterodactylus you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
hi there! apologies about the structural problems i've caused. i haven't quite figured out how to move images yet, so i was afraid to try moving them anywhere else in case i made the issue worse. if there's something wrong with the structure next time i attempt to fix the sections, i'll leave it alone and post something on the talk page instead. thank you :) --Vaporwaveboyfriend (talk) 19:52, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Vaporwaveboyfriend: No need to apologize, just remember that when source editing (the one with wikitext), if you just put "thumb" to the image, it is placed on the right side of the article by default, and to put the image on the left side, just add a parameter that includes "left". Bear in mind that in articles about living things, there's a taxobox that occupies space, so that also might affect the image placing. Anyway, just keep up the good work, and feel free to ask any questions. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 21:14, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please revert your changes in several articles where you replaced the valid species name by an old combination, this is incorrect. Thanks! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was a bit too quick, and now see what you mean, my apologies. Maybe we need to change that indeed, but we would first seek consensus at the WikiProject in any case since this affects a larger number of articles. Maybe the variant with the "originally" will be less confusing. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thinking about it, we are not citing the original type species in the taxonbox in the first place, but the current binominal name (you changed it to type species though). In the case of Dilophosaurus, it says Dilophosaurus wetherilli (Welles, 1954). The brackets around Welles, 1954 indicate that he is not the author of the species group name. This is the correct citation I think. I would suggest to just leave everything as is, with changing things in multiple articles that are not obvious errors you almost always step on the toes of people. You can ask of course (as this affects all life taxon articles, the WikiProject:Tree of Life might be the correct place). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll keep that in mind for future changes! And yeah, if it's in parentheses, it means that he/she isn't the author of the current combination, but the author of the first combination for that specific name. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 17:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Koskinonodon and Anaschisma
Hello, JurassicClassic 767;
Since you've done the recent work on Koskinonodon and Anaschisma, I thought I ought to mention that the Gee et al. article is available for download at [1]. While the abstract is not entirely clear about the synonymy, the text of the article establishes that the synonymy goes the *other* way, e.g., that K. is sunk into A., and not the other way around. J. Spencer (talk) 21:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@J. Spencer: I have understood it wrong then? So, we would want to resurrect the Anaschisma article, and make the Koskinonodon article a redirect. Actually, when I redirected Anaschisma to Koskinonodon, I've noticed that most (if not all) the article text is text copied from Koskinonodon (or maybe the other way around), so if we want to redirect (or perhaps merge) K. to A., there isn't really much to sort out since practically the whole article info is the same or similar, i.e. it would be an easy merge/redirect. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 08:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I noticed a problem with your signature here. Upon investigating, I also noticed that you're aware of the issue. I wanted to mention that, to make your signature safe for use in templates (such as DYK noms), you can fix it in your preferences by replacing that | between your "talk" and "contribs" links with |. Your signature will look exactly the same, and will function correctly everywhere, including on templates. MANdARAX•XAЯAbИAM19:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ornithocheiridae you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On 23 July 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pterodactylus, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the genus Pterodactylus(species depicted), the scientific name for a pterodactyl, had been considered a "wastebasket taxon" as many species were assigned to it and later reassigned? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pterodactylus. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Pterodactylus), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hi, I noticed you've had an interest in editing articles about old obscure pterosaurs, and for some time I've thought of expanding Cimoliopterus for GAN and FAC, and thought you might be interested in a collaboration? Could be a good practice for those processes if you want to nominate more articles yourself later. I have also talked to MWAK about this one, and though I know he might not have much time anymore, he's of course welcome to join in any capacity. FunkMonk (talk) 12:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: I sure would like to join a collaboration for a neglected pterosaur article to be leveled up to FA status, or at least GA. I didn't really expect Cimoliopterus for the collaboration, but whatever pterosaur article works for me. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 19:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I thought this one would be cool because though it has a long history, it only received its own genus recently, and is only represented by limited fossils, making it less complicated than many other old pterosaurs. And it has a lot of images too, which is always nice! FunkMonk (talk) 19:48, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If there are any sections you'd like to work on, you can begin whenever you want, and there's no rush really, usually we just chip away at articles over some time until it has all the info it needs. And we should be able to gather sources needed even if you don't have immediate access. FunkMonk (talk) 20:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the best way would be to just begin from top to bottom (i.e. starting from the history section, and then continuing with the other sections), but of course, we could always try another way. Oh, I've also noticed that Cimoliopterus doesn't have Paleobiology or Paleoecology sections, I think mentioning how the animal fed or behaved, or what animals it coexisted with would be something worth saying? But again, sources may be limited for this. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 20:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There might be something about behaviour in Witton's 2012 book. As for how to proceed, what usually works for collaborations, since it is hard for more than one person to work on a single section, is to divide sections between them. The order it is done has little consequence, so you can just start with whatever you find most interesting. I'd think the best place to start would probably be to add info from the 2013 article that named the genus:[2] The history section will no doubt be the most complex. FunkMonk (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On August 7, WikiProject Palaeontology member Rextron discovered a suspicious taxon article, Mustelodon, which was created in November 2005. The article lacked references and the subsequent discussion on WikiProject Palaeontology found that the alleged type locality (where the fossil was first discovered) of Lago Nandarajo "near the northern border of Panama" was nonexistent. In fact, Panama does not even really have a northern border, as it is bounded along the north by the Caribbean Sea. No other publications or databases mentioned Mustelodon, save a fleeting mention in a 2019 book that presumably followed Wikipedia, Felines of the World.
The article also appeared in four other languages, Catalan, Spanish, Dutch, and Serbian. In Serbian Wikipedia, a note at the bottom of the page warned: "It is important to note here that there is no data on this genus in the official scientific literature, and all attached data on the genus Mustelodon on this page are taken from the English Wikipedia and are the only known data on this genus of mammals, so the validity of this genus is questionable."
Editors took action to alert our counterparts on other projects, and these versions were removed also. As the editor who reached out to Spanish and Catalan Wikipedia, it was somewhat challenging to navigate these mostly foreign languages (I have a limited grasp of Spanish). I doubted that the article had very many watchers, so I knew I had to find some WikiProjects where I could post a machine translation advising of the hoax, and asking that users follow local protocols to remove the article. I was surprised to find, however, that Catalan Wikipedia does not tag articles for WikiProjects on talk pages, meaning I had to fumble around to find what I needed (turns out that WikiProjects are Viquiprojectes in Catalan!) Mustelodon remains on Wikidata, where its "instance of" property was swapped from "taxon" to "fictional taxon".
How did this article have such a long lifespan? Early intervention is critical for removing hoaxes. A 2016 report found that a hoax article that survives its first day has an 18% chance of lasting a year.[1] Additionally, hoax articles tend to have longer lifespans if they are in inconspicuous parts of Wikipedia, where they do not receive many views. Mustelodon was only viewed a couple times a day, on average.
Mustelodon survived a brush with death three years into its lifespan. The article was proposed for deletion in September 2008, with a deletion rationale of "No references given; cannot find any evidence in peer-reviewed journals that this alleged genus actually exists". Unfortunately, the proposed deletion was contested and the template removed, though the declining editor did not give a rationale. Upon its rediscovery in August 2020, Mustelodon was tagged for speedy deletion under CSD G3 as a "blatant hoax". This was challenged, and an Articles for Deletion discussion followed. On 12 August, the AfD was closed as a SNOW delete. WikiProject Palaeontology members ensured that any trace of it was scrubbed from legitimate articles. The fictional mammal was finally, truly extinct.
At the ripe old age of 14 years, 9 months, this is the longest-lived documented hoax on Wikipedia, topping the previous documented record of 14 years, 5 months, set by The Gates of Saturn, a fictitious television show, which was incidentally also discovered in August 2020. How do we discover other hoax taxa? Could we use Wikidata to discover taxa are not linked to databases like ITIS, Fossilworks, and others?
Apororhynchus hemignathi, a spiny-headed worm with the distinction of being one of the first named animal taxa when organized alphabetically
This month's spotlight is with Mattximus, author of two Featured Articles and 29 Featured Lists at current count.
How did you become involved with editing biodiversity articles?
I think I have a compulsion to make lists, it doesn't show up in my real life, but online I secretly get a lot of satisfaction making orderly lists and tables. It's a bit of a secret of mine, because it doesn't manifest in any other part of my life. My background is in biology, so this was a natural (haha) fit.
You have an impressive number of FAs under your belt. Two of your more recent ones, Apororhynchus and Gigantorhynchus, are part of what you referred to as an "experiment". How did you choose these articles, and what's next for you in this experiment?
This experiment was just to see if I could get any random article to FA status, so I picked the very first alphabetical animal species according to the taxonomy and made that attempt. Technically, there isn't enough information for a species page so I just merged the species into a genus and went from there. It was a fun exercise, but doing it alone is not the most fun so it's probably on pause for the foreseeable future.
Note: Aporhynchus is the first alphabetical taxon as follows: Animalia, Acanthocephala, Archiacanthocephala, Apororhynchida, Apororhynchidae, Apororhynchus
What advice would you give to someone who wants to nominate their first FAC?
I would recommend getting a good article nominated, then a featured list up before tackling the FA. Lists are a bit more forgiving but give you a taste of what standards to expect from FA. The most time consuming thing is proper citations so make sure that is in order before starting either.
Is there anything that would surprise us to learn about your life off-Wikipedia?
My personality in real life does not match my wikipedia persona. I'm not a very organized, or orderly in real life, but the wikipedia pages I brought to FL or FA are all very organized. Maybe it's my outlet for a more free-flowing life as a scientist/teacher.
Anything else you'd like us to know?
The fact that wikipedia exists free of profit motive and free for everyone really is something special and I encourage everyone to donate a few dollars to the cause.
... that the flower buds of the woolly thistle(pictured) can be eaten in a similar way to artichokes? (8 August)
... that the French peanut is native to Brazil? (10 August)
... that the 800-year-old Minchenden Oak is one of the oldest trees in London? (14 August)
... that the forward-facing incisors of the extinct dolphin Ankylorhiza(restoration pictured) may have been used for ramming their prey, similar to a hunting method used by modern orcas? (16 August)
... that scientists accidentally created a hybrid of two endangered fish species, called the sturddlefish? (17 August)
... that despite having the widest distribution in the United States, the arid-land subterranean termite causes less structural damage than other members of its genus? (19 August)
... that in 2021, the dwarf periodical cicada(pictured) is due to emerge in parts of eastern North America, not having been seen for 17 years? (24 August)
Hi, just responding to your undo of my edit on the Brontosaurus page re: comparison to elephants. You are correct that I didn't cite a source for the weight of an elephant in tons; I simply converted the article's given (also without citation) weight in kilograms to tons. While I'm an experienced editor, I'm not an experienced Wikipedia editor, and it is clear you are. So I'll definitely concede the point in regard to the deficiency of my edit. All I'd say is the current version also does not cite a source for the height or weight of an elephant, while giving the weight in different units than are given for the Brontosaurus (making comparison difficult when the whole point is easy comparison to an animal people are familiar with). Further, it unhelpfully gives the height at the shoulder of an elephant as something to compare to the total length (head to tip of tail) of a Brontosaurus. (I didn't get around to fixing that one because I couldn't easily find either the shoulder height of a Brontosaurus or the length of an elephant, to bring the measurements into line.) I suggest this needs improvement.
Can't help editing (talk) 14:58, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Can't help editing: Oh, I didn't notice that there wasn't a source for a 6 ton weight, maybe 'cause I just edit quite fast at times. The latter things that you said (the unhelpful comparisons and all), yeah, I totally agree, that should definitely need improvement or something. Another thing that we could do is just remove that unreferenced part, that way, we don't have to find sources or anything, whaddaya think? JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 18:29, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Send Diwali wishings by adding {{subst:Happy Diwali}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.
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.
Hello JurassicClassic767, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Happy editing, Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:57, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear friend, How can someone be protected by others posting false allegations for him? Please advise. There must be a way. Otherwise anyone who has a reason to undermine an individual will be free to do so, unchecked.Thank you Alstamatis (talk) Alstamatis (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was just patrolling for any vandalism, and saw your edit (where you removed text and a bunch of references, and you just said "deleted false accusations", without providing proof). I don't really know much about that article, but you can discuss it on the talk page. Anyways, do you have any proof that the allegations are false? I mean, it is cited, unless those references don't back up the info. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 23:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JurassicClassic767: That man's username is very similar to the subject of the article he edited, so he may have did it based on personal, but unverifiable information - a violation of Wikipedia rules. I'd say you report it at WP:COIN. Atlantis536 (talk) 03:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I see in a recent addition to Cimoliopterus you included material from a webpage that is available under a compatible Creative Commons Licence. That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material in the future. — Diannaa (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since you're a member of the WikiProject, you're free to reassess articles within the scope, just remember, rate the article the rating that fits the best for it, in this case I think Torre-Pacheco should be a C-class. Additionally, you can use a script to make rating articles easier. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 22:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JurassicClassic767:I expanded quite the article and I am Spaniard, and that difficults objectivity. Owing to these reasons, especially the first one I prefer other person, not from the country of the article, if possible, to reassess the article. Anyways, I can reassess the article. --Yolanda95 (talk) 07:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC)Yolanda95[reply]
@Pamzeis:, yeah, I haven't edited articles about MLP that much recently, mostly just about maintenance (e.g. fixing dashes, etc.) or reverting vandalism. Does this still count as "active" in the WikiProject, though? JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 18:36, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess I can leave that decision to you but if you feel you no longer would like to actively contribute to MLP articles, I think you would not be "active". Pamzeis (talk) 00:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Edit Request Tool
Hello, I renamed my script Edit Request Closer to Edit Request Tool a while ago and am now deleting the old page. If you wish to continue to use the script. Please change the link in your common.js to the following:
On 29 July 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Cimoliopterus, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Cimoliopterus was among the first pterosaurs to be depicted as models (pictured) in Crystal Palace Park in the 1850s? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cimoliopterus. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Cimoliopterus), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hi. I've noticed you've added quite some stuff from the Javelinadactylus paper, including some phylogenetic results. Where did you access the full paper? I have only seen the abstract. Atlantis536 (talk) 04:18, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this special, very exclusive award created just for we few, we happy few, this band of brothers, who have shed sweat, tears and probably blood, in order to be able to proudly claim "I too have taken an article to Featured status". Gog the Mild (talk) 10:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Deserved, and therefore:
The Fossilized Barnstar
For your first FA and for being a great collaborator on expanding Cimoliopterus, a rather difficult topic. I hope it will make it easier for you to eventually do a solo nomination one day! FunkMonk (talk) 10:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, JurassicClassic767! The article you nominated, Cimoliopterus, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 12:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not remove my edit again
The raptor family is used to describe birds of prey, dromaeosaurs', and a few other avian dinosaurs. No it is not just an "informal" way of saying dromaeosaur. Drawkingg (talk) 21:47, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Drawkingg: But there's also no scientific group name to designate that exact definition of "raptor family". The "raptor family" basically doesn't exist since "raptor" is just a common name that either means bird of prey or dromaeosaur and related avian dinosaurs. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 22:18, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 11 November 2021. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to comment on the draft blurb at TFA. I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
... that the woodland garden(example pictured), "colourfully planted with exotic shrubs and herbaceous plants, dominated English horticulture from 1910 to 1960"? (February 17)
... that the flatworm Humbertium covidum(pictured), named after the COVID-19 pandemic, was classified in a study written mostly during the initial lockdown? (March 6)
... that the Door Tree(pictured), which stood for nearly 200 years, was cut down because of a brother's hatred? (March 8)
... that the nature documentary The Green Planet, narrated by David Attenborough, has been compared to both horror films and a "plant porno"? (March 10)
... that the colour of the markings on Nesticus cellulanus can vary depending on the light level of the habitat, with darker habitats causing lighter markings? (March 15)
... that the gonads of the banded bullfrog remain ripe during dry periods so that it can mate soon after rainfall? (March 17)
... that butterflies of the genus Anaea(example pictured) are said to have "commanded the admiration of even the most gold-mad conquistadores"? (April 16)
... that despite being described in 1840, the chestnut-backed buttonquail was only confirmed in Queensland in 2020? (April 21)
... that a species in the genus of sponges Pseudoceratina produces a chemical that can help prevent migration of metastatic breast cancer cells? (April 22)
... that Ulmus chuchuanus had to be renamed due to another fossil already having its original name? (April 26)
Hello, I just made some significant changes to User:Terasail/Edit Request Tool. Since you have the tool active, I am informing you of this since it may affect you. To open the tool you will now have to click the "respond" button. The tool will load a similar interface as before. There is now a live preview of the response. These changes might have introduced some bugs so if you have any concerns / suggestions or run into problems please leave a note at User talk:Terasail/Edit Request Tool Thanks, Terasail[✉️]15:33, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This month has seen an incredible amount of activity creating high quality content, with 3 FAs, 3 FACs, and a veritable flood of GAs and GANs, not to mention the FLs and FLCs. To help maintain this high level of activity going forward, WikiProject Tree of Life is starting a new monthly rolling contest, inspired by the contest run by WikiProject Military History. This contest should hopefully help incentivize editors to contribute in ways that are less daunting than writing articles that are GA and FA-quality. Even improving articles from stub to start class, or helping other editors by reviewing their work at GAN, FAC, or FLC, gets you points, with bonus points for articles with especially high page views. Make sure to participate in any way you can, and help improve the 'pedia while having fun and winning Barnstars!
The first edition of our new monthly contest had perhaps a little less participation than I hoped for, but it still resulted in a huge amount of content work, mainly focussed on de-stubbing articles on little-known species, although we did also see two GAs for Holozoa and Hypericum perforatum. Overall, over 60 articles were improved, with most going from stubs or redlinks to fully fleshed out articles. The winner this month was Simongraham, who improved 21 articles about spiders, mainly to B and C class, and racked up 70 points, over twice the next highest. Hopefully, we'll continue to see such great work next month, with even more participants and even more articles improved.
Also anyone who wants to help coordinate the contest can just drop by at the talk page, I really need help.
September DYKs
Republicopteron douseae fossil
Male Phallichthys fish
Mimodactylus reconstruction
Adult ashy flycatcher
... that with all known Palaeorehniidae fossils (example pictured) being incomplete, the relationships of the family are uncertain? (September 2)
... that butterfly collector Ian Heslop was once required to supervise an execution? (September 3)
... that Phallichthys (literally 'penis fish') species are so called because the males (example pictured) have "comparatively huge" sex appendages? (September 8)
... that merry widows like soft bottoms? (September 10)
... that Mimodactylus(reconstruction pictured) is the first complete pterosaur from the Afro-Arabian continent? * ... that small Poecilia gillii males have longer sex organs than larger males, to facilitate mating with females that flee from them? (September 12)
The second edition of our monthly contest was even better than the last month, with 80 articles improved spanning the entire tree of life. The winner this month was Quetzal1964, who contributed to 47 articles, mainly relating to marine fish, and racked up 81 points in the process. In second place was simongraham, who got 60 points from 14 articles on various species of jumping spiders. simongraham is still at the top of our overall standings, with 130 points, and Quetzal1964's close behind on 108. The November edition of the contest is now open: feel free to drop by and participate if you work on any TOL-related articles this month.
October DYKs
Illustration of swordtail mollies
Lycorma meliae
Illustrations of the front foot (A) and hind foot (B) of Diplobune quercyi
... that the swordtail molly(examples pictured) and the Petén molly have been named and renamed so often, one even ending up with the other's name at one point, that the swordtail molly's current scientific name means 'confusion'? (October 8)
... that the early big cat Pachypanthera may have weighed as much as 142 kilograms (313 lb) and had teeth similar to a hyena's? (October 9)
... that ancient Greek philosopher Xenophon thought the alopekis was part dog, part fox? (October 11)
... that the wings of Lycorma meliae(example pictured) undergo multiple color changes throughout their lives? (October 16)
... that the three-toed species of Diplobune(fossils pictured) were mammals of the order of "even-toed ungulates"? (October 17)
... that although fossils of the extinct mammal Asiavorator were first found in 1922, the genus was not named until 73 years later, in 1995? (October 18)
... that in aquariums, the humpbacked limia is known to cannibalise the young? (October 21)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
.jpg)
_cropped.jpg)
_(8-9-12)_78_circulo_montana,_patagonia_lake_ranch_estates,_scc,_az_-05_copy_(7750165642).jpg)
_(20536251169).jpg)
