Hi, you reverted my edits to Al Jazeera, but I only moved some information from the introduction to the controversies section. I also added some positive information to the introduction, but you reverted that as well. The Al Jazeera introduction is written to attack the news channel, but all news websites have controversies, which can be discussed in the controversies section, just like in other articles.

Gsgdd (talk) 08:35, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

§	Hi
	Thanks - Suggest you enter these ammendments as I am not great with the modern tech. Kind regards, Huiarau Huiarau (talk) 20:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hemiauchenia. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

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]

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

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! --Animalparty! (talk) 20:25, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Citreae (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Limonia, Severinia, Merope and Clymenia

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on Chimerarachne. My institution doesn't subscribe to Nature Ecology & Evolution so it was good to be able to read a knowledgeable and well written article here. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source/license for File:Cretamygale.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Cretamygale.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 15:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy - we may be editing at cross purposes there :) The general consensus with monotypic fossil genera is not to make the article about the species, but about the genus (while presenting the type specimen of the single species, naturally). I have edited accordingly. Were you aiming for something different? Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's honestly fair, it was a mistake, I thought the current article was using "Dungeyella is a species of chironomid" and was correcting it, without realizing that you had corrected it first. I am aware that the syntax is supposed to be genus first I was just being careless, my apologies. Kind regards Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the vague revert, but that sort of thing isn't really a good idea to publicize. Personal info and all that. Primefac (talk) 19:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand why you reverted the edit. His age is not a particularly identifiable attribute though. The problem is that people will treat him as if he's much older than he actually is, and won't give him the slack he ultimately deserves for at least trying to contribute at such a young age.Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 18:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks 😃 for helping me out here. Spirits of the Ice Forests is outdated. Most of the dinosaurs are not from Southern Australia let alone Antarctica. Australovenator is from the Winton formation so that could be a polar dinosaur. I do agree with some of your general points.

• I know that, "Spirits of the Ice Forest" even though it is inaccurate really typifies the typical dinosaur cove esque conception of "South polar dinosaur" with Leaellynasaura etc. I guess that your ill fated Australian Spinosaurid counts as a south polar dinosaur in this regard, given that both taxa originate from the same formation. In regards to Australovenator the Winton formation is supposed to have been warm enough that it barely ever frosted, having a more subtropical climate which doesn't lend itself to being being "South Polar" really.Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Bubblesorg (talk) 18:40, 30 May 2018 (UTC))Austrlian spinosauride is from northen Australia. Queensland[reply]

• I'm not sure where you're getting that from, the paper describing it clearly says its from Victoria Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Bubblesorg (talk) 02:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)) Sorry i was referring to the wrong theropod.[reply]

Do you have any expertise in Geology. Are you a geologist yourself. Or do you just have a good grip on the field. This is because Ashorocetus and dunkleosteus 777 said you did. We need you for the geology section for South Polar Dinosaurs. It might be key for the article to hit good article entry level.

• I've just come to the end of the 3rd year of my Geology degree, I'm a bit busy at the moment, but will be able to help in a few days Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Bubblesorg (talk) 03:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC))OK also help, Could you just redreict this for me ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platanistida). Thanks and that 3rd year degree sound great. Good job.[reply]

		Paleontology Barnstar
		Dear Hemiauchenia, thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, especially your recent creation of Grünbach Formation. Keep up the good work! You are making a difference here! With regards, AnupamTalk 06:32, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Carstone Formation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Conglomerate

Khok Kruat Formation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Conglomerate

Lameta Formation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Conglomerate

Phra Wihan Formation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Conglomerate

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hemiauchenia, I noticed that you changed a few infoboxes where I had set the period to the relevant Geological period, to the relevant Stage (stratigraphy). I've opened a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geology#Infobox_rockunit_colours. It's not a huge deal as only the infobox colour is changed. Consensus may be to change it to the stage, where we have that information, in which case the name of the parameter should probably be changed. Mikenorton (talk) 10:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hemiauchenia want to help with the article again. --Bubblesorg (talk) 21:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC) Are you there?--Bubblesorg (talk) 21:03, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly urge you to add additional content to these articles that you are creating. They are all notable, but something more can surely be found , even in the single source you are using. At the very least, who first described it. As they areu ndoubtedly discussed in multiple texbooks of British geology, there should be references. DGG ( talk ) 00:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a simple question of finding the person who named it, often times the unit may have been described by a different person earlier with a different name, with very similar definitions. In that case who would take credit? It's not as simple as you may assert. It's also not really an important detail for general readers, who are probably more interested in the lithology of the unit Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back--Bubblesorg (talk) 14:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

happy to have you man--Bubblesorg (talk) 14:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	For your contributions to Wikipedia's coverage of stratigraphy. Abyssal (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, together we are working hard I see. Thanks for following my steps and correcting hasty mistakes. Still a lot to add in new articles, but the maintenance of the South American, African and Oceania geologic formations is nearly completed now. Cheers, Tisquesusa (talk) 17:53, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I've largely fixed the Jurassic-Cretaceous sequence of the UK at this point. I've tried to fix up some of the french articles, but their informal terminology of formations and lack of a stratigraphic database makes it difficult, also there are a lot of duplicate articles around which need to be dealt with. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:23, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your tireless contributions to all the geologic formations and paleontology in general. Tisquesusa (talk) 00:53, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to anymore?--Bubblesorg (talk) 18:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bubblesorg: to give you a head start, I started this page, will fill in the other periods later: List of fossiliferous stratigraphic units in Antarctica. Cheers, Tisquesusa (talk) 21:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks--Bubblesorg (talk) 15:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification of the first appearance date of Trigonotarbids. However, the fact remains that 419Ma, as stated in the infobox, is Devonian, not Silurian. Plantsurfer 13:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have removed the dates from the article introduction and infobox and have simply replaced them with the appropriate geologic subdivisions.Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:41, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hemiauchenia. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

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]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hibernian Greensands Group, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lias (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) 07:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hemiauchenia

Thank you for creating Sebeș Formation.

User:DGG, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

This article really needs some additional references.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|DGG}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

DGG ( talk ) 20:18, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed your SPI report was made manually and was missing the template that lists it on the WP:SPI page, meaning no one would have seen the report. I'd recommend using Twinkle to automatically fill out these reports, it adds all the necessary templates. Also thanks for pointing this user out to me, sometimes you know you're dealing with a sock but have no way of finding out who :) – Thjarkur (talk) 12:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:09, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:15, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Jordan Peterson, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Doug Weller talk 10:59, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller Please don't send me automated messages for what was obviously a misclick, I have been a wikipedia editor for 3 years and have over 5,000 edits and to patronise me like a new user is incredibly rude. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I probably should have made it more personal and I've struck my warning and made the section heading explicit. But I'm surprised that with all those edits you are still misclicking. I've only looked at today and yesterday and see several content changes, including a fairly major deletion, marked as minor.[1] and [2] (and at least one more). I didn't even look at all your edits in the last 48 hours. Doug Weller talk 19:08, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller Thanks for the prompt response, In retrospect the blunt response for an automated message was rude on my part and I apologise. I tend to make repeat edits in rapid succession, which makes accidental misclicking more likely. I will be more careful in the future. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your gracious reply. I too will try to be more careful in the future. And I know all too well how too much haste here leads to errors. Doug Weller talk 19:46, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hemiauchenia,

Thank you for creating Perichelydia.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Ideally we want one more reference for this article to help meet verifiability requirements (WP:V). Nice start on this stub though! Great images.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Insertcleverphrasehere}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

— Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 21:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the heads up here [3]. Little annoys me more than rudeness to our editors. I must learn to stay cool in my dotage. Best wishes Graham Beards (talk) 10:56, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look, it seems my "by the rules" attitude may have upset you, in that you may or may not believe that you have deserve priority over newer editors simply because you're an older user. However that is not how things work, and indeed your opinion (or the opinion of anyone else) is no more valuable than someone who registered yesterday. We are all equal. This is what I believe is the root of the problem in that you haven't shown any reasonable idea of compromise or engagement on whether "China Virus" is a widely used term or not, where is your evidence? When you revealed that you believe that the name should be removed because the Chinese government disapproves of it, that was an implicit admission from you that the name is indeed used, as the Chinese government itself would have no reason to comment on something that isn't seeing wide use. Furthermore, Twitter is not representative of the general internet. For example people outside of the millennial generation are extremely unlikely to use Twitter, so that reasoning doesn't hold up. According to basic Wikipedia guidelines the term qualifies for inclusion because it is in the relevant context and has been used by multiple major reliable sources, including Reuters, Washington Post, ABC news, Aljazeera, among others. We are not trying to deliberately include terms with stigma, it is just that think we that Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines dictate that we should not be censoring reliably-sourced information for reasons of personal editor dislike. Symphony Regalia (talk) 20:04, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Symphony Regalia:, you're accusing me of being unreasonable and showing no reasonable idea of compromise? Who is "we" exactly? Every editor who has expressed an opinion has opposed you, this might be the lamest appeal to authority I've ever seen. This response isn't even coherent it's a mish-mash of various other passage fragments, like some great pacific text garbage patch. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:26, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Um... Is there really need for aggressive scolding? I know that Symphony Regalia may be more than a little unreasonable, but calm down, please. It hurts just looking at the paragraph above. Foxtail286 (talk) 16:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also @Hemiauchenia: Ok Boomer. You deserve it. Foxtail286 (talk) 16:28, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please link to any kind of policy declaration that states that divergence times should be indicated in the fossil range section of taxoboxes. I'm not aware of any. Obviously, if there is one, it contradicts what is indicated as the intent for this parameter in the Template:Automatic_taxobox instructions. As one example, the tuatara article indicates a fossil range of 19–0 Ma, with no mention of any ghost lineage going back to the Mesozoic. I think you (and possibly others) are conflating two different things, and that fossil range is intended to indicate the date range of actual recovered fossils. If it wasn't, it obviously should be renamed to a term that more accurately reflects its meaning. I'd also appreciate not being falsely accused of being obstinate. WolfmanSF (talk) 22:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WolfmanSF: Perhaps accusing you of being obsinate was aggressive on my part, but this is something worth a wider policy discussion, not simply enforcing your interpretation of its use. The Tuatara represents the genus Sphenodon, which only has a fossil record extending back into the Miocene, while the split of the lineage from other known Rynchocephalians obviously goes back much further, but it doesn't necessarily follow that the distant ancestors of the Tuatara in the Mesozoic would necessarily be members of Sphenodon proper. The Oligocene estimate is the divergence between Mullerornis and Aepyornis i.e. the origin of crown group Aepyornithidae, not the estimate of divergence of the Kiwi-Elephant bird split, which is around 54 ma in the Eocene, this represents the difference between stem and node definitions, I opt for the latter, as the most recent common ancestor of Mullerornis and Aepyornis is by definition an Aepyornithid, and therefore it is reasonable to state the origin of Aepyornithidae is at minimum in the Oligocene. Note that I didn't change the parameters for the fossilrange for either of the genera's articles, which was deliberate. While it isn't policy, fossil ranges widely use molecular clocks for extant taxa, especially those with a poor fossil record, for example, the article Bird uses a morphological clock to justify an Aptian origin for crown Aves, and many other bird group articles use molecular clock estimates for divergence. I note that Template:Automatic taxobox does not define the use of the |earliest= and |latest= parameters. If you want to dispute this then there needs to be a broader policy discussion involving the use of the fossil range parameter over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palaeontology and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds. Kind regards. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The documentation provided for both Template:Automatic taxobox and Template:Geological range is slanted towards displaying actual fossil ranges and neither explicitly supports insertion of last common ancestor dates into the box. Template:Automatic taxobox documentation describes the "youngest_fossil" and "oldest_fossil" parameters, while "earliest" and "latest" are not mentioned. The Template:Geological range document defines "earliest" as "earliest putative fossil" and similarly for latest, but does say that "earliest" and "latest" can be used to add ghost bars for "whatever you like". Allowing dates for things other than fossils potentially creates a muddle. One might use the date of the last common ancestor of a group, or the date of the split from a sister group. In the bird example, the "fossil range" of 121 Ma is not based on fossils, while the ghost bar going back to 161 Ma is based on avialan fossils, so the actual Aves fossil range is left out entirely. I'm not going to pursue this further, but I think consistency and transparency would be best. WolfmanSF (talk) 08:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:23, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki users like Hapa9100 and Shinoshijak suggested that I remove Huangdi and Bodonchar Munkhag from the blond wiki page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Blond ). Hunan201p also hasn't replied me in talk page since May the 4th after I provided evidence there's nothing wrong with the book sources about ethnic Hmong and Miao being blond. Can you give me your opinion. Queenplz (talk) 23:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am mighty confused, the account was not blocked when it posted this [[4]] yet within less than 12 hours they post this [[5]].

My issue is that when they posted the request they must have assumed they were blocked, yet had still posted (otherwise why ask if they can post because they are blocked?). This raises a number of questions. Moreover (and reviewing the block) it says "non. only, account creation blocked" yet they created an accountant at a time when they thought the block was still in place (which in fact it is). So I suppose they assumed (correctly, if only technically) they were block evading. As I said this raises some serious questions.Slatersteven (talk) 12:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: His Wikipedia account is OTRS verified and was created in 2018, well before current events to remove defamatory material from his page, it was never blocked. When he made the complaint at the BLP noticeboard he used an IP address rather than his account, and then made a legal threat. The Ip address was subsequently blocked for making the legal threat. When he re-activated his 2018 account to respond on the talk page. I reminded him that he needed to retract the legal complaint that he made on the IP address, as otherwise this would count as block evasion, and his account would also likely be blocked. I think he then confused the fully protected state of the page and my reminder to remove the legal threat with not being allowed to reply. Hope that clears it up Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, So yes then he thought when he posted my first diff he was in fact blocked (even though the account was not). It is what I thought, and why I said about this raises questions. He thought (in effect) he was blocked and still posted (twice in fact), so yes it was (in effect) block evasion (and they knew it, almost as if they assumed it was two different accounts as their wording (in the second post) implied they had not posted yet in that forum). This also (therefor) raises in my mind the suspicion they may in fact have more than one account in operation. This is all I will say, now.Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've noticed that on three Lilo & Stitch-related articles, you've removed information that used WatchMojo as a source. However, you didn't provide a proper explanation as why they shouldn't be used or even linked to a discussion that outright says they cannot be used as a reliable source, only calling them "terrible" in your edit summaries, which makes it seem that your edits were solely motivated by personal opinion. As a result, I had to undo them.

I have independently found some discussions for other articles on Wikipedia (here and here) about using WatchMojo as a source. Based on these discussions, I do agree that it should not be used for objective information about any topic, since much of their content is opinion-based (i.e. their many ranking videos) and the objective information they receive for their topics are taken from many other sources. (I did find a 2017 discussion about the company and website on WikiProject Video games where one user deemed WatchMojo as unreliable, even for opinion pieces, but that's only for the scope of that WikiProject—i.e. video game-related articles—and not for Wikipedia as a whole, and it was only discussed between two users.) However, in the three L&S articles in question, WatchMojo was only used with regards to the reception of those topics (or for specific parts of them in the case of the Lilo & Stitch: The Series crossover episodes) and how they ranked each topic in their own lists. (I did rewrite their Leroy & Stitch reception entry afterwards because, upon a personal re-read, the way it was originally written did give them too much undue weight, making it seem like they were an outright definitive opinion when it's really just based on their own ranking. I've also done the same to a lesser extent for the other two topics.) In fact, to quote a user in that one of discussions I linked:

Context matters when determining reliability ... in this case, the ref to WatchMojo is a primary source supporting the statement that WatchMojo itself gave a specific ranking to the band [Girls' Generation]. Now, that information may or may not be worth mentioning in the article ... but that is a WP:Due weight issue, not a reliability issue. Purely focusing on reliability, WatchMojo is a reliable primary source for its own internal rankings.

— Blueboar, 29 July 2017, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 229#Checking if these two can be considered reliable sources

Still though, I will ask you why do you think WatchMojo should not be used as a reliable source for even opinion or reception-based entries? And if you want an outright consensus on them, then should we get Wikipedia to discuss whether or not they should be used as a source for anything? –WPA (talk) 00:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiPediaAid: (Continuing from the discussion on your talk page). I agree that initially my edit summaries were bad, they improved in the second half of the ~200 WM citations I removed, my apologies. Thanks for the additional context. My issue with WM and opinion is that WM uses freelancers who have no expertise in the topics they are covering, and with no evidence of fact checking or editorial oversight, their opinion holds as much WP:DUE weight as someone's self published blog post. While many other more respectable media and entertainment websites published low quality listicle articles, their writers are more like to have expertise and therefore authority on the topic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 22 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Megaceroides algericus, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Megaceroides algericus is one of only two deer species known to have been native to Africa, alongside the Barbary stag? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Megaceroides algericus. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Megaceroides algericus), 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, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work keeping wild horse up to date. Iamnotabunny (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just curious. If the Fox news RfC were to end today, would Fox News still be labeled as a reliable source? When do you think the discussion will end? Scorpions13256 (talk) 21:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea on both of these counts, the discussion will be open until the 7th of July at minimum, and I suspect that there will be a formal request for closure around then. It's up to the panel of closers to make their decision, which is based on the arguments rather than a straight vote, which I think would be firmly in "no-concensus" territory on a straight vote count. I think this RfC has challenged the nature of what the definition of a "reliable source" even is and why we even call RfCs in the first place. Fox News exists at the heart of public life in America in the same way that the Daily Mail does in the UK, so whatever the panels vote it will be seismic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Scorpions13256: Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May I kindly ask you to take a look at Talk:Mustang#Final_draft? I’m not certain I got the right sources cited to the right content, there was so much discussion and many drafts. (Seems like there were two Weinstock studies, but am now just seeing one...?) And we need consensus to unlock the article and fix the contested content. Montanabw^(talk) 16:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Hemiauchenia! I noticed in your comment here that you link out to Sourcewatch. Is this a generally good source for this kind of reliability question, or is it more like MBFC, where it isn't particularly 'reliable' itself, but is good for a gut check? Thanks in advance for your time. Jlevi (talk) 00:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jlevi: SourceWatch is run by the Center for Media and Democracy, a think tank. It appears not to be a totally-open wiki as you have to request to become a member. I only used it in the complete dearth of any other threads to pull from. The website appears to be mostly dead the recent changes section shows only 2 active users. Most of the information on the website appears to be lists of chief executives for companies. Like Wikipedia it is a collation of information from various places and I wouldn't consider it a reliable source in and of itself. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jlevi: It turns out that there were enough discussions about SourceWatch to create a perennial sources entry, most editors believed it to be akin to an open wiki and generally unreliable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the followup. Much appreciated! Jlevi (talk) 01:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

64+20+32+9=125 how did you come up with 132 total?--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:00, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sphilbrick: it was simply by using an in text search for all of of the "*'''Option" values in the responses section, obviously being based off a raw text search rather than manual counting the count was going to somewhat off due to formatting issues in the participants responses, I think in particular the 125 is likely to be an undercount. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We were working on Irish elk at the same time. I wiped out your changes. Sorry. Usually I painstakingly merge the other editor's changes into mine, but this time it was too complicated. Since you know what you were doing, it's easier for you than for me to do your changes again. Sorry again. —Anomalocaris (talk) 01:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Jianfengia, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Please do not remove a redirect without establishing consensus. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@P,TO 19104: I had concensus to make this edit, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Palaeontology#List_of_Chengjiang_Biota_species_by_phylum. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemiauchenia: Oh good. Sorry to disturb you. My apoligies. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:09, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are familiar with BRD. An editor made a bold edit, (and refused to fix after a polite request) so I reverted. The next step is to open a discussion. Please do so.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't place {{banned user}} on a user's user pages unless they have been banned by the community or arbitration committee such as you did here --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hemiauchenia, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. However, you should consider adding relevant wikiproject talk-page templates, stub-tags and categories to new articles that you create if you aren't already in the habit of doing so, since your articles will no longer be systematically checked by other editors (User:Evad37/rater and User:SD0001/StubSorter.js are useful scripts which can help). Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Schwede66 22:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, hope its ok for me to ask you for help on RS from time to time. You have been quite helpful thus far.

I see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#HuffPost_contributors. Would this article be considered "contributor" or "staff" or maybe something else? I'm asking cause its used in WP:BLP.VR _talk 16:33, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vice regent: It's the opinion of well known intellectual Sam Harris, I think it's fine to use as long as it is WP:INTEXT attributed to Harris. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:35, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But WP:SELFPUB says,

Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.

Note the emphasis is not mine. Maybe using opinions in Sam_Harris#Works is better than selfpub stuff? VR _talk 16:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, how do I tell if a HuffPost article is "staff" or "contributor"?VR _talk 16:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vice regent: It's published in the HuffPost and there's no obvious contributor tag, I therefore don't think it's self published. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Just so I know what to avoid, can you give an example of an article with a contributor tag? VR _talk 16:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Harris's post is governed by WP:RSOPINION and WP:NEWSBLOG, here's an example of a contributor article [6] Hemiauchenia (talk)

Thanks! VR _talk 16:56, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CHECK THIS OUT! I wonder if the synonymy of Caiman venezuelensis is 100% sure? they also got Balanerodus as a nomen dubium. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 09:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Congrats on nominating for deletion the longest running hoax on Wikipedia! Amazing that nobody else managed to get it deleted. Thank you for actually CSDing it! MrAureliusRTalk! 00:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is the account that you claimed has multiple sock accounts. I have nothing to do with the other accounts that reposted my edit. The reason they did this is probably because I think it is clear that this edit improves the Wikipedia page President of Azerbaijan by adding reliable neutral information. I think that the IP adress 109.93.13.102 is edit warring since they reverted the edits that other users published and when reposted, they removed it again. I hope by reading this you have understood I have nothing to do with the other accounts. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Editor331 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Editor331: Do you accept that the three accounts are sockpuppets of another user than? It seems unlikely that three separate people would all have the same formatting and spelling errors. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:43, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemiauchenia it might be that they are sock accounts of another account, but as I said before I have nothing to do with them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Editor331 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC) @The Editor331: There's currently an open sockpuppet investigation, see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Editor331 If you aren't the sockmaster the CheckUser will exhonerate you. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's closed, as I suspected they were indeed the sockmaster. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:52, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hemiauchenia, this litoptern you get for the continuing improvement of and attention for the fossiliferous formations of this world! Have a great weekend, Tisquesusa (talk) 16:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I have a question about WP:RS again. I was reading WP:USESPS and noticed that "government publications" are considered "self-published" Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_self-published_works#Identifying_self-published_sources. Yet Pew Research Center is considered reliable at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. Many government agencies in north america publish high quality reports like StatCan. Both Pew and StatCan have their own internal editorial review that check for accuracy, and both collect their own raw data and have internal experts analyze and interpret it. So why is StatCan SPS but PEW is not? VR _talk 19:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vice regent: USESPS isn't a formal guideline. I would ask at WP:RSN about whether goverment Government sources are self published. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:22, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.

but only for a camelid connoisseur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1421:5D40:5173:B714:5D3B:C321 (talk) 04:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit was an unintentional rollback in Windows. Thanks for correcting. SamHolt6 (talk) 00:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Grès à Voltzia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dolomite.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dryosauridae

added a link pointing to Early

Myotragus

added a link pointing to Capra

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see this at all, what a strange conclusion to make... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

My comments made towards you about the spelling of The Grayzone were, in retrospect...

I have no idea what it was about: I do not know either of yous (found it by chance), but bows to you for having written it.

Kudos! Zezen (talk) 19:01, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello- Below are a few editing suggestions to make it easier for you and others to collaborate on the encyclopedia. Please preview, consolidate, and summarize your edits:

• Try to consolidate your edits, at least at the section level, to avoid cluttering the page's edit history; this makes it easier for your fellow editors to understand your intentions, and makes it easier for those monitoring activity on the article.
  • The show preview button (beside the "publish changes" button) is helpful for this; use it to view your changes incrementally before finally saving the page once you're satisfied with your edits.
• Please remember to explain each edit with an edit summary (box above the "publish changes" button).

Thanks in advance for considering these suggestions. Eric ^talk 00:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look dude, I can't stress how embarrassed I am for you when I see you post. I'll tell you straight just once, so you can be a full and equal participant, if you want to be. Sometimes people want to be caught. It's all about the circumstances in which they are caught. Wikipedia routinely invading the privacy of people with real sounding names, simply because they post about the Daily Mail, regardless of topic, regardless of location, that's a bad thing for Wikipedia. I know it, the people CheckUsering me know it. It's big boy stuff. You can do what you want, but have a look around first. Get to know the field. Do the people who get sucked further and further into the sock hunter / sekrit keeper role, and further and further away from the content writing, do they look happy? Do they sound happy? Are they having fun? Is it a hobby still? If the name Jytdog doesn't mean much to you, look him up. I don't know why you edit Wikipedia, you might genuinely be one of those people who thinks it's an encyclopedia, and are doing what you do out of simple innocent enthusiasm. Don't let me shatter the illusion for you. Get into my business for long enough however, you will soon get to learn things about Wikipedia you probably never ever wanted to know. It can be quite cruel, opening people's eyes. I've seem them change. You're only three years in, which is no time at all. Keep your innocence for as long as you can, and allow yourself the most peaceful way to leave Wikipedia, by just getting bored. Because if you're honest with yourself, you're already nearing that point. Watching out for me, with your big boy's mallet in your sweaty palm all ready to go, that's getting to be more fun than writing about boring old paleontology, am I right? Choose life. Barry The Bat, But Not BatMan (talk) 21:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC) Note: User is a sock of Brian K Horton (talk · contribs), almost certainly the same user as JackTheJiller/Crow's Nest on offwiki forums and also possibly the same as the long blocked MickMacNee. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Barry The Bat, But Not BatMan: JackTheJiller, thanks for your unusually non-hostile post. I read your post on Reddit about me (which was quite hostile) before it got deleted, no hard feelings. Paleontology is hardly "boring". On such topics I have essentially free reign and pretty much nobody intereferes with my edits, so it's relatively stress free with little risk of burnout. In all honesty, I don't think that your socking is accomplishing anything, even your colleagues on reddit are embarassed by it. Your "Forename X Surname" socks fool no one, and I am not sure that they are supposed to. The Daily Mail is a contentious issue, and I understand that. Is it your goal to make anybody who comes in asking about the Daily Mail look like another sock? Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given "free reign" and "nobody intereferes with my edits" on paleontology, and yet you only made your first edit to Wikipedia in your mid twenties most likely. I come here for nuggets like that, tbh. No hard feelings. Is this hostile? I don't mean it to be, but sometimes people don't like it when the realities of Wikipedia are laid bare like that. And you're not some kind of child genius, that much is painfully obvious. Robin Was The Real Hero (talk) 22:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Robin Was The Real Hero: Crow, My first edit on Wikipedia was in March 2013 as an IP user diff (the IP is dynamic, and is now no where near where my address at the time was, it is obvious I am a UK based user like you from other edits I've made anyway). Your age estimation is somewhat off. I'm not sure what you're trying to say about "And you're not some kind of child genius, that much is painfully obvious." You say that "Is this hostile?" but that sentence makes you sound like you're trying to call me stupid, and it's difficult to charitably interpret it otherwise. If your referring to my spelling errors, I've been having long-term neurological issues that substantially predate me creating this account that cause them, and I apologise for the resultant lack of tidiness.

Nobody on Wikipedia is a genius, me included. We are here to write a general purpose encyclopedia, not to write novel research. What I meant by "free reign" and "nobody intereferes with my edits" is that unlike Israel-Palestine etc. where your edit is likely to get reverted, I can get on with writing what is reflected in papers. One of the things that is nice about writing on obscure topics is that you know that if you don't write it nobody else will. It's also rewarding to see the consequences of my editing reaching the wider internet, it's hard to imagine this reddit post existing unless I created the Megaceroides algericus article.

I wonder what your take on the Wired piece Wikipedia Is the Last Best Place on the Internet. You've spent much of your time for at the last few years complaining about Wikipedia on various forums. Let me ask you this, you tell me to "choose life" yet you fail to make this choice for yourself, why? Why devote your time to something you know you cannot fix and that your efforts to do so are futile? I recognise that Wikipedia as a website is deeply flawed, Its incredibly small, white, 90% male insular community is totally unrepresentative of its readers, (and so are the even smaller criticism forums) but nothing that you are doing is going to help the deep issues that Wikipedia has, I'm not sure anyone can. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do what I do because I am having an impact. One man can make a difference. That Wired piece shows it, but only to those who have a working knowledge of Wikipedia's history with critics and the media. The piece is the usual dross otherwise, repeating the same usual myths, the writer clearly never have done his own research, or even his own thinking.

Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia, period. It has a commercial value of zero cents and zero dollars for a reason. Which is not to say there aren't now huge financial incentives for certain people and corporations to keep it limping on. And it is limping. Wikipedia is not deeply flawed, it is a complete and total failure. It is not crowdsourced, your statements on Paleontology prove it. You have complete and total freedom to choose what Wikipedia presents to the world. Because nobody else cares. That is perhaps the only saving grace, Wikipedia remains the preferred resource only of the lazy and the stupid.

It is not an encyclopedia. Never forget that. The Nature study has been debunked, repeatedly. No better study exists, because nobody seriously thinks Wikipedia can or ever will be an encyclopedia in that one crucial way Brittanica still is. Because EB still exists of course, this idea that Wikipedia killed the print edition having been debunked many times too.

Wikipedia has it's own way of being like Britannica of course. Only a shaky approximation even at its best, only ever seconds away from doing serious harm. And it is failing to get even there. By your own internal metrics, so we know they would already be generous, only 0.1% of your six million articles would be good enough for Brittanica. And you are a few hundred million short of the number of articles you should have, if your current inclusion standards are applied to all human knowledge. Without even considering stuff like oral history. Nobody is paying for that on a pro rata basis as if it were remotely comparable to EB, nobody. Fantasy land stuff. Even the 01.% is far smaller than EB, and not remotely comparable in terms of topics covered. Not so great, for twenty years work. Even less, considering you had the 1911 edition as a freebie to start from.

All the best myths. Like this one about how controversial articles trend to the neutral. Well, sure. But where do they actually end up? Is it actually neutral? Not by your own measures. This is what the whole Daily Mail thing is all about. It took the community a good long while, but you finally hit upon the way to defeat Larry Sanger's orginal interpretation of how to achieve the NPOV. Eliminate the sources whose opinions you do not like. Then the balance better reflects Wikipedia's idea of neutral, which is pretty left leaning.

If you had just set out to do what you actually claimed you were doing, an objective assesment of the Mail's reliability when set against other newspapers, and you'll find people will leave you alone. Well not everybody, but the smart people. You try and do what you did over the CJR however take the smart people for fools, and the smart people will get annoyed. They'll push back, and it won't, as you wrongly believe, be about correcting the mistake at all. I mean, you could surprise everyone and willingly correct it yourselves, but that would be kind of a miracle. So the smart thing is not to even have that as the goal.

You would not even expect Wired to repeat such dross as this idea Wikipedia represents the original ideas of the internet. It is the complete opposite. Wikipedia, thanks to Google, is a monopoly. At least where the target consumers are the lazy and the stupid. A sick accident. The original vision for the internet, was one where hyperlinks actually connected sites, just as much as they provided internal navigation.

In an alternate universe, you could have been at this very moment, presenting your own idea of what an encyclopedia of Paleontology might look like. Your own work, or as a collective. If it's better than what money can provide, and better than any other hobbyists were doing, then yes, you'd be rewarded with Google juice, and links within whatever system or scheme serves that universe's need for instant free knowledge. This universe however, as Wired do get right, thanks to that sick accident, the market is saturated. So your problems, are free knowledge's problems. And yet you never ever seem to carry the required level of guilt or shame that implies.

Wikipedia became a walled garden, believing it's own hype and marking its own homework, precisely because it cannot really sustain the fiction, against external criticism, that it is somehow different, and yet still the same, as any other web page whose nominal purpose is knowledge provision. Not even those who do it on a non-profit basis. It has to treat criticism, even one hundred percent truthful criticism, as if it were acid itself. Because it is. I've said enough here that, if it were common knowledge, would mean your chosen hobby would end tomorrow. Tomorrow. Could you handle that? Scary stuff.

Wikimedia has had to create an entire separate ecosystem of projects, precisely because Wikipedia editors are hostile to even basic cooperative web concepts. The movement is a myth, a total fairytale. It serves only to pretend to Wired's gullible readers that Wikipedia's problems of the 2010s are fixed, it's time to move on to global issues. Strategy! Well, no. You're still the chosen project of Fram. Own it. He is a part of all of you. All your very worst actors are. One person can achieve a lot on Wikipedia, just by playing the game. And it's never usually good stuff. This is the price you will always pay, for telling the world you regulate your own. Bradv is your problem, not mine. I didn't elect him. I didn't authorise Newslinger to be a gaslighter. He does it because you let him. You. Actions, consequences.

The biggest lie of all. That Wikipedia is built on love. Look at you. You had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, spitting and clawing, to the point you were finally prepared to be civil, decent, open to new ideas. Perhaps only because you knew there's no stopping me getting in your face if I want to. Which I never do to anyone here, unless they show a willingness to get in my way. A thoroughly decent attitude, no?

Don't give me a reason to keep knocking your house of straw down, and I will stop. I am goal oriented, the fact it is fun is only added incentive. No goal, no interest, simple as that. I didn't fix my gaze on Wikipedia because it had small issues, or even moderately large but fixable issues. I do what I do because this is one giant scam, a total con-job. Prove me wrong. The statistical likelihood of a Mail story being a deliberate fabrication is.....what? You don't know? Sorry, unacceptable. Not when even The Guardian has been caught printing lies to suit their political agenda. It'a not one in five, certainly. Not that you let even a basic fact like that be uttered here. Arrrgghhh, acid, acid! It's hilarious.

But you have opened your door. Huzzah. Note that you still had to defy an Administrator to do it, though. Just to have this little exchange of ours here. This is not your talk page, remember. You just lease it. You might be punished for even encouraging this interaction with the enemy. I'm the Big Bad Wolf, come to blow your house down. You have no idea how brainwashed you are. You have been taught to blindly accept that sock-puppetry is Evil. The ultimate crime. The foolish concept of foolish minds.

As for your real age, it doesn't really matter. There's nothing personal here. Nothing you did to me here is unique to you, not to an experienced critic like me. Except of course, this interaction. It's nice, being able to talk to a Wikipedian. To have your views heard. It won't make a difference. Even if you have a personal epiphany, it will quickly pass, and you will course correct back to your assigned role around here. Footsoldier. That's addiction for you. Powerful stuff.

If not, if you break free of your chains and want to choose life, well, you know where we are. Bring snacks. Robin Was The Real Hero (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"this idea that Wikipedia killed the print edition having been debunked many times too" everybody knows that it was actually Encarta that killed Brittanica back in the 90's, I'm not sure why you place Britannica on some kind of pedestal, Harvey Einbinder showed that Britannica is also full of errosrs in the 1960's with The Myth of the Britannica. I like to read Britannica sometimes, but the articles are usually shorter and lacking depth compared to their Wikipedia equivalents, you could call that "brevity" or "focus" but its down to personal preference. For example Britannica's article on the Irish Elk is incredibly brief, to the point of being lacking, compared to the Wikipedia article (which I completely rewrote this year).

As you can see looking through my editing history, the Daily Mail is not something I regularly edit or discuss, nor really a hill I wish to die on. I did not open the thread about the Mail on Sunday, I merely opened the RfC because it thought that it warranted creating so that the issue could be settled. I did not participate in the previous "was the Daily Mail reliable historically" discussion. I do find Guy Macons endless going on about the Mail tiring, but I agree that its deprecation was ultimately a good thing.

"This is not your talk page, remember. You just lease it" I actually have the power to remove any discussion from my talk page at any time, but I choose not excercise it so that people can judge me from the interactions I have had with other users on the talk page. "The biggest lie of all. That Wikipedia is built on love. Look at you. You had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, spitting and clawing, to the point you were finally prepared to be civil, decent, open to new ideas" I have curteous interactions with most users on Wikipedia, and your patronising and condescending commentary has little to do with my tolerance of your attitude for the purposes of this discussion. Given your constant reference to "smartness" and "smart people" its obvious you have a very high (some would say delusional) opinion of yourself, and believe yourself to be on some kind of Hero's journey to expose Wikipedia, even though nobody actually cares. "I am goal oriented, the fact it is fun is only added incentive" it's fairly obvious that the latter clearly takes precedent over the former, even though you are probably among the most obvious and least disruptive sockmasters I've ever seen. Wikininger's joe jobs of you were actually more interesting that your socks by a country mile. Do you really think that many of Wikipedia's 250 million daily viewers care about who Bradv and Fram are? This is the problem with the Wikipedia criticism communities, which are largely filled with banned ex-users, they are mostly focused on internal drama like individual admins, RfA's, Arbcom, etc, rather than the structural issues relevant to Wikipedia's average users. The truth is that nobody writing about Wikipedia's flaws in the news looks to Wikipediocracy, or Sucks! or any other off wiki forums for criticism, because they aren't relevant.

If Wikipedia didn't exist another similar, perhaps commerical site would replace it, rather than the smaller communities that you imagine, the collaborative Wiki model is too successful for anything else to succeed, regardless of its flaws. The only really successful Wiki that I can think of that isn't fancrufty is the expert only AntWiki. In China, where Wikipedia is banned, Baidu Baike, a commercial website run by Baidu, the dominant search engine in China, essentially holds an analagous position to Wikipedia, it has even more articles, around 16.3 million in fact. Baidu Baike essentially functions the same as Wikipedia, except that administrators apparently do minimal vetting on all contributions before they are accepted. On Baidu though, all of the text is copyright to Baidu, rather than the contributors. (For further background information on Baidu, see these pieces in ThePointMag and SCMP, from what I've seen, Baidu Baike's content quality standards are even lower than Wikipedia's, with some articles directly machine translated from both the English and Chinese language Wikipedias, see Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Baidu_Baike. Ultimately your efforts are futile and will ultimately change little, just like mine. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just a note on your creation of Template:Taxonomy/Erdtmanithecales. There are two distinct classification hierarchies for the parent spermatophytes/Spermatophyta. Setting |parent=Spermatophyta produces a hierarchy in which "Plantae" doesn't appear (see Template:Taxonomy/Spermatophyta). Setting |parent=Spermatophytes/Plantae produces a hierarchy in which it does. The latter is preferred by WP:PLANTS, and seems to me more appropriate for an article whose opening sentence is "Erdtmanithecales is an extinct order of gymnosperm plants". However, if you don't agree, feel free to set the parent back to "Spermatophyta". Peter coxhead (talk) 10:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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) 02:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

It has been done... all phanerozoic periods use the phanerozoic template now.Benniboi01 (talk) 04:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dream (YouTuber) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dream (YouTuber) (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I noticed at WP:RSN that you were concerned with the amount of articles that had citations to Jihad Watch. I was also concerned. I've taken the liberty of removing or replacing every citation that wasn't used for pure aboutself reasons: [7]. Please let me know if I missed something. Happy editing!--Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 23:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: Thanks, I had already removed a number of them, but thanks for going the extra mile to finish the job. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Swag Lord was supposed to be observing an interaction ban with me, which they've broken several times. Their comment at the RfC was a violation which I understand is why they struck it, but apparently they decided their next step is to play games and be petty about it, fully aware I was being patient and allowing time for the RfC to finish after being attacked for even starting it.

I'm hanging my hat up for a while. There's no point trying only to be attacked, harassed, hounded, and then find myself put into "no option is the right option" situations every time I try to do anything at all. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@IHateAccounts: I think the pile-on for the JihadWatch RfC was unwarranted given the results of the Newslinger's previous post on the issue, and was mostly used as a venue for users (some of whom barely contribute to the RSN at all) soapboxing about how they don't like the deprecation process. AP2 is a contentious topic area and editing outside it is considerably less hassle. try finding something outside AP2 that you enjoy writing about and contribute there, at least for the time being. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Dream icon.svg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{Non-free fair use}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file. If the file has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 17:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JackFromReedsburg: can you expand on your reasoning here? Is there prior concensus that YouTube channel icons are not fair use exemptions? Would a low res image file also not be considered fair use? Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vectorizations are not free use. If the .svg was provided by dream, or you uploaded a low-res version, it would be considered fair use. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 17:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JackFromReedsburg: Changing the resolution of the vector has no effect on image quality. I have reuploaded the vector at 100x100 nominal resolution, is that satisfactory? Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

I'm trying to determine whether Majid Rafizadeh, whose website calls him a "world renowned political scientist", is a reliable source. He seems to have ties to the Saudi government and his list of publications seem to consist only of op-eds, things published by Saudi agencies, and..."Harvard pub". This is an example of such a "Harvard pub" published article.

Would Harvard pub be considered an independent publisher? Would it be regarded as peer-reviewed? Thanks in advance and sorry for the bother.VR _talk 19:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vice regent: The documents have the whiff of being effectively self-published to me. Others are published by the Saudi American Public Relation Affairs Committee, which are an advocacy organisation. Op-Eds come under WP:RSOPINION, so it is best not used for statements of fact regardless. The question is whether Majid Rafizadeh's opinion is WP:DUE in an article is a different question, and one only you can determine. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That helps, thanks!VR _talk 19:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	Vicennalia
	Thanks for all your work for the encyclopaedia; it's twenty years old today! GPinkerton (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment on whether MEDRS are mandatory before editing a claim implying the lab leak theory is not a conspiracy/fringe idea is requested by this Diff in this page, please take a look. Forich (talk) 02:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--RexxS (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still making progress on Irish elk? There hasn't been significant activity on it since our edits way back last summer. I'm just wondering if that's still your goal?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dunkleosteus77: It's on the back burner at the moment. Jen's last significant criticism was that the extinction section should be reworked, which is something that needs doing. Given that you are bringing this up, are you interested in collabing to get the article to GA? If so, I would be happy to assist. I think that the article is for the most part comprehensive, and I'm not sure there is much else to say, aside from the aforementioned reworking of the extinction section. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm involved in a bit too many projects to go in depth and do any sweeping changes, but we can definitely still co-nominate for GA   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I saw on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indigenous Ways of Knowing that you said that ""indigenous people" (a term rarely used outside a western settler colonialism context)", I have to correct you, "indigenous peoples" might not be a term found in da-to-day life but it is the legal term in international law and significantly fought for by indigenous peoples, because it legitimizes rights beyond mere minority rights, because they are recognized as peoples, which is significant particularly for international law. And it is not North America centric, at most Americas centric. Nsae Comp (talk) 13:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the other day on FTN links to RationalWiki, I can't say that I've looked closely if it applied, but just wanted to make sure that you knew about the WP:OUTING policy. I think you're doing good work and this is taken very seriously on WP (productive editors have been banned over it, some may also have been lured and took the bait). There's this paradox where we're often obliged to keep what we know (even if hypocritically, unfortunately, it's like AGF with obvious socks). —PaleoNeonate – 06:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PaleoNeonate: I am aware of the WP:OUTING policy, but thanks for the reminder. What I did came under clause 2: at OUTING If individuals have identified themselves without redacting or having it oversighted, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest (COI) in appropriate forums. When you say productive editors have been banned over it I guess you are referring to Jytdog? As you are no doubt well aware, Jytdog had an extensive history of blocks for posting idenifying personal information, such as emails and linkedin profiles, and the final straw was when he rang a person based on off wiki research, which is way over the line, and not something I intend to do. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not only Jytdog, but a notable case yes. If the information was found on the Wikimedia projects then you're right that it doesn't apply, of course. —PaleoNeonate – 05:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Lab_leak_COVID_conspiracy_theory,_again regarding unjustified and false accusations. The discussion is about the topic Topic. Thank you. Billybostickson (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hemiauchenia, you're an experienced editor. There has been a lot of heat at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis and I have a feeling your edits might – slightly – have fueled the fire. Without technically banning you, may I kindly request that you avoid editing that page for now? The discussion will be evaluated by an administrator (or multiple administrators) experienced with closing deletion discussions, and further comments are relatively redundant as you have clearly made your point. Thank you very much in advance; feel free to simply remove this message to acknowledge receipt. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: Understood, I just wanted to let participants know where the SPA's were coming from. I have no further reason to comment in the thread anyway. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the connection between a Wikipedia editor's account and their account on another website is clear (e.g. same username on both platforms), connecting them to that account (assuming they have not made the connection themselves) is still a violation of WP:OUTING. Please do not do that again. If you need to bring in off-wiki evidence of any sort, send it to ArbCom. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GeneralNotability: This is not what WP:OUTING says. Outing only applies to "personal information", which includes "legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, other contact information, or photograph" Billy confirmed his account was pseudononymous and there is no personally identifying information under the definition at WP:OUTING so therefore it does not come under OUTING unless it comes under "other contact information" which if so is very poorly defined and the wording should be revised to make clear than pseudononymous off-wiki accounts come under this. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Other contact information" absolutely includes accounts on other websites, and if you don't believe that's policy (or at least how policy is interpreted), I invite you to notice that several of your recent edits have been oversighted. GeneralNotability (talk) 03:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GeneralNotability: The account was almost immediately privated after I linked to it, and I privately emailed Boing an archive I'd found of them, but did not make the link public. I'm fine with them being oversighted, that's at an administrator's discretion. You oversighted most of them, but other administrators who saw them didn't oversight them, which implies that there are differences in opinion regarding WP:OUTING enforcement. ArbCom doesn't cover COVID-19, having explicitly rejected an arbitration enforcement request based on it. If what you are saying is the concensus view, then the wording should be improved to make it explicit. "other contact information" implies something more personal, equivalent to an email address rather than just another pseudononymous handle. Perhaps "Even if the connection between a Wikipedia editor's account and their account on another website is clear (e.g. same username on both platforms), connecting them to that account (assuming they have not made the connection themselves) is still a violation of WP:OUTING." should be incorporated into the article text, because as is, it is not clear. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, I did not oversight them, I requested that an oversighter look at it and they agreed it should be oversighted - that's a permission that only a few administrators have. GeneralNotability (talk) 03:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but to a non-administrator redaction is effectively the same as oversighting. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thank you for your good work at Whitney Wolfe Herd! Marquardtika (talk) 03:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hemiauchenia, can you please take a look at Bilorv's recent edits to The First TV? It feels to me like a backdoor attempt to ignore the consensus that we established and turn the article into an attack page, but I hesitate to confront the situation directly due to my COI - maybe you could assess it from a neutral vantage point. Thank you! D00dadays (talk) 13:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi D00dadays I removed it from the lead but Bilov reverted it. I don't really have any interest in American politics so I don't feel like further pushing on the issue, perhaps @Springee: may have more interest. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where was the BLP discussion on this topic? Springee (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Springee: The discussion was on the NPOV noticeboard, see Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Relevance_of_Bill_O'Reilly's_sexual_harassment_scandal_in_lead_of_The_First_TV_article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Based on that discussion I would say there was no consensus for inclusion. I've reverted the content from the lead. I'm not sure it should be in the body either but that wasn't the question. Springee (talk) 00:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute_resolution_noticeboard regarding constant reverts and threats of blocking by gatekeepers. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#COVID-19_misinformation#Wuhan_lab_leak_story".The discussion is about the topic COVID-19 misinformation.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Billybostickson (talk) 17:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for oversight should be done by email, see WP:OVERSIGHT. Posting it on wiki only compounds the problem. Thanks 331dot (talk) 23:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: I took it to ANI so that it could be redacted immediately. Whether or not it is oversighted is another concern. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, and I apologize, but you did use the word oversight in your request. The oversight email is monitored by oversighters for a relatively quick response. Sorry to disturb, good day. 331dot (talk) 23:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Hemiauchenia, I'm so so sorry for mistakenly indeffing you. I must've clicked on the user I reverted to, rather than the user I reverted, by mistake. That was completely my fault. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Writ Keeper: Nooo my clean block record! :P Don't worry, I found it more funny than anything else, wasn't long enough to cause any serious disruption. Thanks for being on top the vandalism. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) "Clean block log" Ha! I raise you this wrong CU block (which was obviously much more frustrating). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

bruh dream us born on august 12,1999 and u keep changing it — Preceding unsigned comment added by TBM Red (talk • contribs) 23:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TBM Red: Because it isn't sourced to a WP:Reliable Source. When editing articles about living people, you should be aware of the WP:Biographies of living persons guidelines, which are much more strict normal wikipedia articles. The actual source of the dates appears to be a synthesis of two tweets by the subject, see [8] and [9]. I have opened up a thread to discuss this, see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Sourcing_dates_of_birth_from_tweets_by_subject. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Proficiently understands the usage of reliable sources at Talk:Dream (YouTuber) and defends Dream (YouTuber) from unsourced claims. As one of the creators of the article, I bestow this barnstar upon you. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 16:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I noticed you had a bit of trouble using {{Requested move}}. Please substitute the template and include your reason, for example as below:

{{subst:requested move|Lineage B.1.1.7|It's clear that the term "Variant of Concern 202012/01" has fallen out of use and that "B.1.1.7" and related terms are now the common name for the lineage used by most sources, including the British Government [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nervtag-paper-on-covid-19-variant-of-concern-b117] [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nervtag-update-note-on-b117-severity-11-february-2021], as such I propose a move to a "B.1.1.7" related name.~~~~}}

I'm no expert by any means, but I hope this helps! ArcMachaon (talk) 00:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ArcMachaon: Done. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Almost! Please be sure to use

{{subst:requested move|

and not

{{requested move/dated|

to ensure that the bot and full information appears correctly. ArcMachaon (talk) 00:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ArcMachaon: done, and removed duplication. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Feynstein (talk) 18:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I think it would be better if you could answer in WP:ANI directly instead of leaving comments in summaries trying to defend yourself by insinuating I think there's a conspiracy behind this involving you. "People are misrepresenting my comment as if this is some kind of conspiracy, when it is just my opinion. As such, I have struck the comment in order to avoid the cause of more problems.".[10] For your information though there can be a generally concerted effort without the need for it to be a conspiracy. People with the same mindset usually tend to stick together. The difference with your comment is just that you made it explicit. And you said "as usual on Wikipedia"... As if it's ok to stonewall people into getting topic banned. Or if it was a thing you were into. I mean... In how many ways can someone misrepresent a clear statement like that? Anyway please come to ANI to explain yourself so we can get to the bottom of this, thanks! Feynstein (talk) 00:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Usernameunique: Correct, I did not get the ping. Email sent. Kind regards. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hemiauchenia, thank you for your response on the discussion page. As mentioned, I'm reading up on criticisms of the theory, from both proponents of the plume theory and more impartial observers. I will add the criticisms section, along with making the other proposed revisions, in the next few weeks. The current page was just a starting point, my intention being to produce a page that is informative, well-supported by relevant literature, impartial, and critical. I realise that, as it stands, it falls short of at least some of these aims. Thank you for allowing me the time to make the necessary improvements. All the best, SphericalSong (talk) 15:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hemiauchenia. You have new messages at Anarchyte's talk page.
Message added 17:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Anarchyte (talk • work) 17:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - since you were involved in the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#The_Volunteer_(book), I am letting you know that I have requested clarification from the Arbitration Committee about how we should interpret the wording of the remedy at WP:APLRS. If you wish to comment on the request, it is at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Antisemitism_in_Poland#Article_sourcing_expectations. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 15:54, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

you reverted my dream edit but dream said his name is clay on purpose https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dream_(YouTuber)#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_17_March_2021 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgegod245 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See [11]. You may also be interested in the related discussion here [12]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the material was there before. It was removed. I restored it and sourced it better. And discussed.(BRD) The other editor removed it a second time. The concerns have been addressed and are under discussion. Your reprimand acts like there are reversions for no reason.Niteshift36 (talk) 18:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted an edit I made on TCM. The intro is an important part that sums up the entire article. TCM like Yoga, is an alternative therapy with many different practices. Some of it are Herbal drinks and tonics and others are exercises like Tai Chi.

I have issue with the current article intro as it fixates on an opinion piece who have provided Zero evidence that disciplines like ginger, Tai Chi, etc are useless and to be avoided. Are there evidence to imply that people should avoid Tai Chi and drinking ginseng. I don't believe there's any harm in doing so and instead the few studies have shown benefits.

The intro should be mindful that we currently don't know everything about the human body. Sometimes a natural herb that was later discovered to have benefits for the human mind can take decades for scientific research to understand..and even then it's more a lack of research rather than evidence that keeps us from knowing whether it works or not. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/5-Hydroxytryptophan

As long as there's a lack of research to confirm that Tai Chi, ginseng, etc are completely harmful or useless. I think it is harmful and downright closeminded to allow such a prematurely and unfounded solid conclusion of such a vast discipline, to be the top intro. Casualfoodie (talk) 09:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Casualfoodie, there is no medicine or food in the world that is not harmful under some circumstances. For essentially everything that does work therapeutically, there is also a level where it does not work, and in the other direction a level where it is toxic. There is also a difference between the pleasurable effect of a spice or an exercise, and its actual value in any specific medical condition. That some natural products have, when purified , been shown to be of therapeutic significance , is an active branch of biochemistry and pharmacology, but they need to be investigated under scientific principles. If one wants to talk meaningfully about these topics, one has to learn the science. The purpose of WP is to help people understand the rudiments of the science, not the popular rumor. DGG ( talk ) 21:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: I think your comments will fall on deaf ears, Casualfoodie has not edited Wikipedia since the dispute, and I suspect that they are gone for good. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:49, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG No, I just don't have a lot of free time nowadays for editing and dealing with questionable edit revertions but I am not gone for good. Maybe later I will come back but just raincheck for now as I have my own private priorities to take care of and not interested in a petty edit war.

For example - Note the last edit that I did on this article, was undone. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Traditional_Chinese_medicine&oldid=1018200943 One guy first claimed it wasn't backed by solid sources. Then deleted it. He was wrong so I put it back in. Then another falsely claimed it was a commercial endorsement despite it's actually not. It's from an impartial government institution that after a review of the evidence, recommended acupuncture for managing chronic pain. They are not commercial but working for the public interest only to help sufferers reduce their pain so it's not a commercial endorsement but major historical and relevant facts. I will address that issue later but I don't feel this article has editors that are willing to be impartial but seem overly vested to delete any info that even remotely supports acupuncture like the edit I just mentioned.. Even if I add in that scientists successfully treat inflammation in mice recently ( which is true) , I am certain that adding such ture and well backed info, will get a lot of opposition and fighting before it finally gets added in. And I don't have time for that.

In regards to your comment. It's not up to us or the overly vested skeptics to conclude whether or not exercise or spices are good for us. It's still up to the scientists (who actually done research on the matter) first. And from what I read from research on acupuncture, scientists have made it clear that they are only just starting to understand the effects of acupuncture and newer systematic reviews are different from the older ones in that they conclude that evidence shows it's more than a placebo effect. Yet the current plus-related acupuncture wiki article page is heavily outdated. It only still shallowly shows the systematic reviews from more than decades ago as if that's the final study. It doesn't even mention the newer updated systematic reviews in equal detail that had concluded that evidence shows acupuncture as more than a placebo effect and its findings. https://www.aafp.org/news/health-of-the-public/20180521acupuncture.html I do plan to at least update and address the article properly and add in the newer systematic reviews but I am still just a volunteer and I have my own professional life to take care of. So you can still reply to me here and I will address it in a few months time. Casualfoodie (talk) 07:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Sorry to bother you out of the blue but, looking at this, I just wanted to politely nudge you that it's conSensus rather than conCensus – that is, it's more to do with consent than census, very tempting though the latter is. Gah – I know it's a PITA when some unknown irritant shows up on your Talk page weebling on about spellings, but I just hoped it might save pain in the future! Cheers DBaK (talk) 20:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered: I'm sorry, I'm having some health issues that cause me to misspell words. Thanks for letting me know and I will consciously correct that error in the future. Kind regards. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:33, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, no worries at all, and I am sorry for your health issues and wish you well with them. Cheers DBaK (talk) 20:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just wanted to give some justification on my revert. BLPSPS does say to avoid self-published sources, however, it does have an exception for sources published my the subject of the article: unless written or published by the subject of the article.Thanks! If you don't object, I think I'll partially re-add some of the references. EpicPupper (talk) 16:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@EpicPupper: I object. We do not need to include every minor controversy covered by muckrakers like Dextero in BLP articles, per WP:NOTNEWS. The controversy had no lasting significance. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hemiauchenia, thanks for your concern. However, I believe that this controversy is worthy of attention. After reading WP:NOTNEWS, I believe that this issue does not fall in that particular criteria for non-inclusion. Also, in addition, I'd like to point out that some of your edit summaries have been on the verge of a personal attack. If possible, please avoid this, as they have been quite negative on other editors. Thanks, EpicPupper (talk) 17:22, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@EpicPupper: Because you have not shown that you have the tact required to edit BLP articles. These are serious accusations and you don't seem to understand the care and sensitivity needed to write about stuff like this. WP:BLP states Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m interested to know how an experienced Wikipedia editor might determine that ‘Sapiens, f***ing really?’ is an appropriate response to a novice editing a line in good faith? Would be glad to hear back on why you’re disparaging of ‘Sapiens’; and/or why the line I added isn’t more appropriate? Hope your health is continuing to improve. regards, Andrew @ajjmcd

• @Ajjmcd: Read Sapiens:_A_Brief_History_of_Humankind#Scholarly_reception. Essentially the book makes loads of wild and unverified claims that are not backed by the scholarly literature, although it was lapped up by the popular press because they didn't know any better. It's a book for general audiences, and a big history one at that, not something we're really looking for as a source for claims like this. There's a lot of specialist literature on the topic (which I have extensively linked in the Diprotodon#Extinction section. The Australian Megafauna extinction is a controversial topic in the scholarly literature that needs to be treated with the appropriate nuance. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:31, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hemiauchenia: Thanks for the explanation. I appreciate ‘Sapiens’ is not academic, but neither am I in my dealings with the subject. Your view, I presume, is that the relevancy of the ‘controversy’ discussion belongs elsewhere, along with my perception of Harari’s observation? Speculation has no relevance in academic conjecture?
  • @Ajjmcd: Harari is a medieval historian by profession, he has no real relevant expertise in the topic area. Part of the reason the Australian megafauna extinction is so contentious is that the relevant data is incredibly sparse, to the point that it cannot be definitively determined when these animals actually disappeared. This is not the case for Diprotodon however, which does definitively postdate Aboriginal arrival, though the evidence of interaction is mearge, as discussed in the extinction section. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have a relationship to Alan J Cooper. I am a scientist and I found his article on the Laschamps Geomagnetic excursion. I was interested in doing further research on Dr Cooper and his work and I found that his Wiki page had no mention of this new work. I went to add this information as I feel it is important that his wiki page includes this new work. However I also checked the history of the page before making my edit and read through the previous edits and your immediate removal of said edits. I read the edit that Andersjames0921 made and chose to put back the section about the research into Laschamps Geomagnetic excursion as it was well written. While I was revising the edits I noticed the changes about his situation with the University of Adelaide. I read the two articles linked on the page and the edit Andersjames0921 made and I feel the edit Andersjames0921 made describes the situation in more detail and is a more balanced perspective.

I am curious as to why you are removing edits about published science labelling them as potential conflicts of interest, immediately after they are published. -- Ledgereyrar (talk) 02:57, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is your connection to Dr Alan J Cooper? You seem to have some sort of connection, your reasons for undoing my edits seem to be based on emotional reasons, using words such as 'puffery', 'terrible' and 'crap prose'. Similarly your username is a fossil, so it appears you work in a similar field.

I hadn't been aware of WP:FORBESCON. So here's one of those all-too-rare "thanks for reverting me" messages. I appreciate your diligence! Generalrelative (talk) 19:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Marl Slate Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dolomite.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--Hipal (talk) 02:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've taken a sourced/fact-based edit, and deleted in favour of one that is rife with opinion. For example, the edit that you added calls a physicians claims "erroneous." This is pure opinion, and whose?

On 11 June 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Love Has Won, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in April 2021, the body of the founder of the new religious movement Love Has Won was found mummified and wrapped in Christmas lights? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Love Has Won. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Love Has Won), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 10,617.5 views (884.8 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of June 2021 – nice work!

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

User:Hemiauchenia, upon attempting to add the word 'book' in brackets, (e.g., [[ ]]) no external link suffices from my end. Can you take a swift look at the article page and provide feedback on this inconvenience. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Love_In,_Love_Out:_A_Compassionate_Approach_To_Parenting_Your_Anxious_Child

Thanks.

Multi7001 (talk) 05:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Multi7001: I have no idea. The best place to ask is the Wikipedia:Teahouse. I hope they can be of assistance. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:44, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hemiauchenia, thank you. I will refer to the Teahouse for that convenience. I have a second request, can you take a quick review of the article, it is a short draft with only two paragraphs long of a subject. Let me know if this is something you can do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Love_In,_Love_Out:_A_Compassionate_Approach_To_Parenting_Your_Anxious_Child Multi7001 (talk) 06:20, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"I would like to see discussion on the talkpage about whether this content is due for inclusion out of principle".

This isn't a valid reason to revert an edit, especially not given when I checked the talk page, there is no discussion on my edit on the article nor my talkpage, suggest you identify what part of the edit you have an issue with and why, post on the article talk page and also post on MY talkpage, rather than revert the whole edit for some undisclosed principle. Wikipedia works on the principle WP:ROWN.

Aeonx (talk) 13:22, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aeonx: ROWN is a essay not a guideline, so I frankly don't care. WP:ONUS is a guideline, and I thought the edit was undue. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:29, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemiauchenia, if you assessed my edit was WP:UNDUE why have you not made any such comment to that affect on the article talk page or in your revert of my edit? Perhaps you can explain on the talk page why? If not I will add discussion to the article talk page later today. Aeonx (talk) 04:56, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The newest Israeli PM penned this editorial in the New York Times where he praises himself (like politicians frequently do) and this is used in Naftali Bennett. WP:ABOUTSELF says we can't used self-published sources if they are "unduly self-serving". But is this a self-published source? Given that NYT often publishes editorials from those they disagree with I doubt they edited Bennett's piece before publishing it. Or should we assume that everything NYT publishes, including editorials are always vetted for accuracy?VR _talk 18:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vice regent: It's clearly an opinion piece, and therefore is WP:RSOPINION, meaning that it should probably not be used for statements of fact, other than perhaps basic WP:ABOUTSELF information about Bennett himself. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Ok, a follow up question how exactly do I know what is an opinion piece? For example, how do I tell which article in The Atlantic is opinion piece? If all are opinion pieces does that mean I can't use The Atlantic for statements of fact? That doesn't seem right.VR _talk 18:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vice regent: I mean, their Science section clearly isn't opinion. A lot of what is written in The Atlantic is the analysis of the writers, not really straight factual reporting. I think it is usable in some cases, but you have to use your own judgement as to what you think is opinion and what is not. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who happened to come across this discussion I can say that this is very-definitely not self-published, as Bennett does not publish the New York Times, but this doesn't mean that it is not disqualied as an independent reliable source on other grounds. Whether something is an independent reliable source or not is something that needs to be decided for each individual source and what it is used for, rather than something that can be decided conclusively for any particular outlet. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:00, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Bridger thanks for chiming in! I thought the measure of "selfpublished"-ness was how much editorial oversight there was on the piece. If the NYT didn't edit a piece and published it as-is with the disclaimer "we don't necessarily endorse these views", then it seems effectively self-published. Do we attach any reliability to advertisements published in the NYT?VR _talk 19:39, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't attach any reliability to them, but this is for different reasons than being self-published, which they very obviously are not. "Self-published" has a very clear meaning, which is much more restrictive than "something that is not independently reliably sourced", so is not the only reason for excluding sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hemiauchenia, just writing to let you know that you can find your cladogram at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Cladogram requests#Caprinae phylogeny in case you forgot. Sorry if you have seen it already :) Dracophyllum 07:17, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dracophyllum: I've already incorporated it into the relevant article, but I should've commented there to let them know. Thanks for reminding me. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm travelling with horrible laptop & didn't even see, much less edit this page. No idea what happened. Johnbod (talk) 19:22, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod: No worries. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:43, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I am curious as the edits you did on the Pleurodira and Chelidae. You have replaced ICZN nomenclature with PhyloCode. No living taxa of turtles use PhyloCode there official list of species as followed by CoL and Reptile Database, and Wikispecies is the IUCN Checklist of the Turtles of the World. This is also the nomenclature that is recommended to be used here. Names with Pan-... are actually nomenclaturally unavailable as they fail to conform to the rules of the ICZN which is adhered to by Chelonian Researchers. Turtles are Order Testudines, Sub-order Pleurodira for side necks and then it goes to families, you can put the Podocnemids and Pelomedusids into Pelomedusoides if you wish. This arrangement you have done does not follow the currently accepted taxonomy for these taxa. I know Walter Joyce and his recent paper, but it is not followed by Chelonologists. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 20:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I reverted your change here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bret_Weinstein&curid=57169820&diff=1032022661&oldid=1032017279

The reason I felt this revert was necessary is this article is undergoing an NPOV noticeboard here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Bret_Weinstein_NPOV_breach_in_lead_paragraph_footer.

And a VICE reliable source noticeboard here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Vice_on_Bret_Weinstein

I think it is premature to include more edits, especially given the recent protected editing and ongoing discussions both in the above noticeboards and the talk page itself. I encourage you to participate.

Thank you and happy 4th FrederickZoltair (talk) 03:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hemiauchenia,

I mentioned that Dream was criticised by some for not donating enough to the Trevor Project, since that stream was the only one he did for the entire month of June. Could I still mention it?

-GBAlph4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by GBAlph4 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GBAlph4: You need a reliable source, such as a news website discussing the controversy to show that it is significant. Why are you adding Dreams real name when as far as I can tell it has only been discussed on Kiwi Farms, a stalking forum? Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:19, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, so what would be the Wikipedia equivalent of talking to your manager? I would like to dispute your unilateral closing of an open discussion, which has yet to arrive at any conclusions. Twice already. In the last one, which you may have missed, my point of view received a voice of support. Does that count for nothing? Dylath Leen (talk) 19:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dylath Leen: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is that way. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:34, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks. Although I do not think you are bad enough for an incident. Perhaps just careless and heavy handed in this particular case. I am going to try dispute resolution first, looks like fun. Dylath Leen (talk) 08:15, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Dylath Leen (talk) 09:28, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I am NOT "involved in a significant controversy or dispute with Grabowski", neither "on- or off-wiki", nor am I "an avowed rival of that" person. Likewise there is no "legal, political, social, literary, scholarly, or other disputes" I'm involved in with him.

The fact that HE chose to apparently mention my editor account in a absurd op-ed which HE chose to write does not create BLPCOI. I've been mentioned by Breitbart, Gateway Pundit and several other outlets but obviously I'm not about to stop editing those articles. This is not what BLPCOI implies. Volunteer Marek 18:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm struggling to find words for this situation. Suppose there is a WP:DISPUTE where users disagree on whether historical event X happened. We have 3 kinds of reliable sources:

• Type A: a reliable source that says, in its own voice, that event X happened.
• Type B: a reliable source that says, in its own voice, that event X didn't happen.
• Type C: a reliable source that says, that person Y denies event X happened without endorsing person Y's view.

If, for example, X is the Holocaust we have plenty of sources of type A. We also have many sources of type C (which document Holocaust denial), but very few of type B (because not many scholars, if any at all, actually deny the Holocaust). Thus we say Holocaust is a fact, it is not "disputed", and we must use wiki voice for it.

So how do you explain a situation where someone "rebuts" sources of type A with sources of type C to argue event X is "disputed"? What policy or guideline covers this? Do I say "voice matters"? Do I say "a viewpoint's WP:WEIGHT isn't just judged by a source that covers it but the voice used by that source"? Is this something that is not covered appropriately by our policies? Thanks! VR _talk 20:32, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, You have deleted many weeks of work when you deleted parts of the article "Martinus Thomsen". You can´t just delete 38.165 bytes without conferring with anyone and without the consensus of administrators. Please don´t do that again. The article is well balanced. See for example the section "spiritual science". I just report what Martinus teaches, just like the article "Martin Luther" just reports what Luther teaches. It´s not my personal opinion. If you talk about violating NPOV, I suggest you rather look at the article "Christianity and Theosophy". That article is unbalanced.

You say "unsourced". What do you mean? There are many references. Alexandramander (talk) 20:01, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexandramander: I absolutely can and will delete content that doesn't improve the article. I don't care about your "hard work" because frankly it's not very good. You don't cite sources for large parts of the article, a basic requirement of Wikipedia, and large parts of the article are cited to what Thomsen wrote, which fails WP:PRIMARY. Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX, and per WP:ONUS. While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, not all verifiable information needs to be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Due to your previous contributions to Wellheim Formation, I'd like to ask you for your input on its talk page.
I made a proposal for a sub-section that cleary states that certain claims by the producer (and other sources repeating them, while referring to that company) do not represent the view of mainstream geological research.
I feel that this is an important point for the article that will likely get challenged by the producing company in the future. So why not get consensus for such a clear statement now? --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. E.yorke0 (talk) 20:50, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I have no affiliation with the Physicians for Patient Protection. I am a medical physician (thus familiar with news in medicine), and recently read an unrelated newsletter regarding vandalism of the page on Wikipedia. My intention was to clean up vandalism in medical articles, which I usually do anonymously but happened to be logged into my Chess account (EntmootOpening) at the time from WikiBooks. Thank you for your shared concern in ensuring pages are neutral.

EntmootOpening (talk) 21:35, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@EntmootOpening: Hi there, thanks for responding, would you happen to be able to link or name the newsletter in question? Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:39, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying me about the COI. I've opened a sock investigation into Science, Diamond and Bonafide. If you could add any further evidence or comments on the discussion then please do so and take a look: [13] Thanks. Inexpiable (talk) 19:50, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also if you can word anything better than me or provide better evidence/proof that they are the same person then please do so. Thank you. 19:51, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Why were the changes deleted? what is the problem? I returned the data and added references, as suggested to me after the first deletion of my change. АРК9367 (talk) 22:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@АРК9367: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#biographypedia.org. There was agreement amongst 3 editors that it was a low quality tabloid site. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Sorry for that. My bad. ThanksАРК9367 (talk)

MikeGHaitian Hi Hemiauchenia,

I got a notification from you about edit war in regard to a conversation with SunDawn. I am trying to underdand what I did wrong to prevent being an issue. From my point of you, the issue is that SunDawn keep deleting updates that I made to an article on President Jovenel Moise adding some facts on the basis that I did not provide proper reference. I managed to figure out how to provide proper reference and notified SunDawn so it doesn't get deleted. Please see the communication below to let me know what the issue is. In the process, I kindly pointed out a factually incorrect information on the article instead as to where president Moise died instead of just deleting SunDawn's work. I thought that was more polite. Please help us resolve any issues in the interest of freedom of speech for all Americans.

Hi Sundown, on the changes I made to the Jovenel Moise article. I added some links to help you with sources, and thanks for pointing that out as it lands more credibility to what I was saying for a person who don't follow Haitian news as closely as I do. So you know I am Haitian and follow Haitian politics closely, like everyday. I know about everything I wrote in that article, and they are facts. Please feel free to reach back out if you have questions instead of just deleting what I wrote. Thanks,

Hello MikeGHaitian (talk · contribs)! Hopefully you have a nice day! I reverted your edits here [1] because your edit did not cite any sources, per WP:CITE. If you have references for the material, please add it to the article, otherwise it can't be accepted. Happy editing! SunDawntalk 09:04, 12 August 2021 (UTC) Hello, I added the links to the sources in parentheses. That's a way to reference the work. Hello MikeGHaitian that is not how referencing works. Please read about WP:CITE to see how to reference properly. Furthermore, most of your edits are just news pieces, and per WP:NOTNEWS most of the materials added can't be placed into the articles. So, you can't add every single infrastructure development on the country on the article page, though I would argue that major developments can be added. Finally, YouTube is not a reliable source per WP:RS so you can't reference to YouTube links.SunDawntalk 16:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC) Hi Sundawn I figured out how to properly add the references and it should be good to go now. By the way President Moise's home where he was assassinated is not located in Petion-ville. It is located in Pelerin 5.

I rolled your change back because I think it's incorrect to associate this subject with telecommunications. It's not a telecommunication device - it's just a scam. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:01, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Think you haven't noticed, Hemiauchenia, but Level 5 Animals has been filled by myself and Larrayal to 2,400/2,400 [14] [15], and your recent 3 additions has pushed that to 2,403/2,400. starship.paint (exalt) 14:58, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid edit-wars! You have repeatedly removed scientifically substantiated discoveries without consensus with other editors. You accept fanciful speculations about Atlantis and aliens, but not scientific facts about geopolymer-concrete and historic records? Please restore: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pumapunku&diff=1043779923&oldid=1043778900 --79.7.112.133 (talk) 15:42, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You, 79.7.112.133, should stop falsely accusing Hemiauchenia of edit warring when there exists a complete absence of mainstream acceptance and proven "scientific facts" about the speculations about the prehistoric geopolymer-concrete. From what I have found, there is complete lack of reliable secondary sources supporting the ideas of Joseph Davidovits. The only papers promoting his ideas have Joseph Davidovits either as a senior or junior coauthor. Your claim that Hemiauchenia is involved in edit warrring a blatantly false as he is just inforcing the need for secondary reliable sources in addition to what is published by a single person promoting his pet theory. I do not see where in any of his papers that he has come to replicating prehistoric geopolymer-concrete. Your accusation of vandalism is nonsense, if not uncivil conduct. Paul H. (talk) 01:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is RfC: Is the MichaelWestMedia/APAC.news content due?. Thank you.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemiauchenia:
Hello,
I partially reverted your changes in the introduction of this article.
The reason I felt this revert was necessary is this article is undergoing an NPOV noticeboard here. (which I just noticed you introduced yourself on October 5)
And in the talk page here. I think it is premature to include more edits on this subject, especially given the recent protected editing and ongoing discussions both in the above noticeboard and the talk page itself. I encourage you to participate.
PS : However, I have reintroduced the list of English speaking sources you rightly added, to add up to others already presented in the article on this subject, and all the more because they also quote Zemmour other than "far right" for some of them.
cheers, --Emigré55 (talk) 05:28, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please clarify that your comment here refers to a hatnote TO THE BAND? --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"undid revision 1051389870 by JJK2000 (talk) See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_343#Sportskeeda_generally_unreliable?, there is consensus that SportsKeeda is unreliable for BLPS"

Well maybe you should have lead off with that. Kind regards, JJK2000 (talk) 06:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JJK2000: Sorry for being mean earlier, I am kind of cranky and under the weather, my apologies. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:32, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All good, I am kinda cranky too. I will not add that back in. Kind regards, JJK2000 (talk) 06:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemiauchenia: regarding your edit here:
As stated by WP:NPA here: « It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or one who has been blocked, banned, or otherwise sanctioned, as it is to attack any other user. »
Hence, I kindly ask you to remove your edit. Thank you in advance.
Also, WP:AVOIDYOU: « As a matter of polite and effective discourse, arguments should not be personalized; that is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people ». This is neither about me, nor about my opinion. This is about the article and its content.
WP:NPA: « Personal attacks are disruptive. On article talk pages they tend to move the discussion away from the article and towards individuals. Such attacks tend to draw battle lines and make it more difficult for editors to work together.»
Thank you, --Emigré55 (talk) 09:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed) --Emigré55 (talk) 02:00, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemiauchenia: Why reset here again what is a personal attack, as I showed you, quoting the rules here above?
Is it not possible for you to do otherwise than personalize a debate on an article? To focus on the article, rather than on me?
Why be openly aggressive, sending me so harshly back to ANI?
Is it really necessary to go through ANI, to resolve this question?
--Emigré55 (talk) 14:54, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Emigré55: Consider the comment retracted. I hope we are able to continue cordial discussion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hemiauchenia, the reason why i changed Mr. McDermott's korean name from Kim Chong-Nam to Kim Chong-nam is because of todays romanizations of korean names. The linked article (Source Nr. 3 on his page Disappearance of Patrick McDermott) is from the year 2000:

• https://www.donga.com/en/article/all/20000822/192635/1/Newton-John-visits-lover-s-hometown

Back in the day Wikipedia etc. didnt exist. And the author of this article used a romanization which is outdated since many years. Not just Wikipedia, but also the United Nations and the International Organization for Standardization writes korean names either with lowercase after the hyphen, or in some other romanizations as one name together. It's Ban Ki-moon, not Ban Ki-Moon, or Kim Jong-un and not Kim Jong-Un. It's up to you, but dont you think it would be ok to change Kim Chong-Nam to Kim Chong-nam? Best regards. --Alleingänger (talk) 12:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Alleingänger: Done. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemiauchenia: Ok, thanks! Of course it was only a suggestion. But now the name is written correctly in today's romanizations of korean names. --Alleingänger (talk) 02:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Really? WTH? It's spring time (at least in the southern hemisphere). WP:Civil. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Error in Template:Reply to: Username not given. That you have been on Wikipedia for over a decade yet don't understand basic concepts like WP:BRD, WP:ONUS and WP:SYNTH (in the original edit), genuinely astonishes me. It shows a a genuinely severe lack of understanding of Wikipedia guidelines and policy. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be involved in an WP:Edit war at Big John (dinosaur). You will soon be up against WP:3RR. This can get you blocked from editing. 15:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Stay off my talk page.' Thank you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:52, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With pleasure. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Big John (dinosaur). This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Two can send condescending, patronising edit warring notices Indeed, your edit summary was the well spring. Figure it out. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We've all been here long enough to realise disagreements happen, and sometimes we lose our temper a bit (I know I do!). Take a step back and grab a cup of tea or something, please. I've left the same message to them as well ~TheresNoTime ^{(to explain!)} 16:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TheresNoTime: I felt the discussion had reached a natural end and had no further desire to continue, and I have removed my uncivil comment from the AfD. Happy editing! Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:16, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you are not directly involved but perhaps you wanted to be aware of the existence of this ANI discussion: [16]. JBchrch talk 16:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Not sure if I replied adequately or represented the various positions and concerns I have on the article, but hit me up if you need more information before making your edits, I've actually been studying this question for quite awhile academically and also have lived in several of the most affected areas / am an indigenous & "indigenously-interested" person, so there's plenty more that could be said for sure and you seem like the type of person who is genuinely interested in digging deeper, so just let me know. I don't mind one-on-ones with you or other serious editors to figure out the best solutions, I'm just not sure how much detail is expected by people commenting on the Talk page right now: from what I can see, the answer is "not very much", and I've already possibly overcommunicated for that forum. Fatbatsat (talk) 06:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. By changing the rank on this template you're creating incosistencies that show up here. Also your changes are unreferenced. Can you explain what you're trying to achieve? YorkshireExpat (talk) 20:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@YorkshireExpat: It's long been known that Phthiraptera is nested within the barkfly clade Troctomorpha, see this 2020 paper in Systematic Biology for a recent example. Linnean ranks are no longer really followed by most taxonomists, as it leads to inconsistencies like this where higher ranks are nested within lower ones. I have changed Troctomorpha to a clade, which should fix the inconsistencies. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, ok, but if the automatic taxoboxes aren't satisfied terrible things happen. Just looking here Phthiraptera is represented as a parvorder which might satisfy things, but also send me down a rabbit hole, and also there's lots to do with the main space articles on the subject. Alternatively I could just leave it alone. YorkshireExpat (talk) 20:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@YorkshireExpat: I have no issue changing Phthiraptera to a Parvorder. We could try to get a broader consensus at WP:TOL if you think that would be better, though last time I tried that, when trying to get consensus on phylonyms, I got no response. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to intrude, but I have just made a post today to WP:TOL on this topic, and would welcome any input. Thanks, Bob Webster (talk) 20:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly a hot topic. I don't feel particularly strongly and I'm not an expert, just that whatever is done it should be internally consistent. I might just do it but feels like a weekend job. YorkshireExpat (talk) 20:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that I monitor the categories that track errors in taxonomy templates most days, and revert any edits that generate inconsistent ranks. I have no views on what the ranks should be, only a strong view that taxoboxes should never show inconsistent ranks. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemiauchenia and Peter coxhead: Just done some tidying on the Taxonomy Templates, some suborders to superfamilies. Will spend some time later sorting the articles. Taxonomy is now more or less as per Inaturalist. YorkshireExpat (talk) 19:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can we continue this conversation at WP:TOL where the rest of the discussion has moved to. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thumbs up! YorkshireExpat (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hemiauchenia, I noticed that after the new redirect was made after the Kate Miller article was deleted, it had an effect on the now closed AfD [17] - If you click on the Kate Miller name in the old AfD, that now directs to the notable Kate Miller-Heidke, which may be confusing if anyone needs to look at the AfD. Do you think there really needs to be a Kate Miller redirect page? Netherzone (talk) 00:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And the Deletion Log now points to the wrong Kate Miller. [18] Netherzone (talk) 00:34, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone: I have no strong feelings either way, feel free to take it to WP:RfD. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have made a mistake, which could cause confusion esp. since there are still issues to deal with regarding her block. I think you should undo your own redirect because it's contributing to an already sticky situation. It's an error. Netherzone (talk) 00:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone: Dorierosie never edited any article other than her own, now that the article is deleted, she no longer has any reason to edit the encyclopedia or request an unblock. The situation is resolved. If you still have issue, take it to RfD. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The point I am trying to make is that there is an error in the historical record. The redirect messed up the historical AfD, and messed up the Deletion Log record. Respectfully, it is perplexing to me why you won't simply undo your own error to resolve this, and are expecting me to fix your mistake for you. Netherzone (talk) 00:52, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation is over. Either take it to RfD or leave. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:53, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Kate Miller. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 4#Kate Miller until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Netherzone (talk) 01:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it felt to me like we were all very close to mild improvement on the Eskimo page. Now I don't know where we are. There seemed to be almost unanimous agreement to move the page closer to being about the term, if not the whole way. I assume the A B lead discussion requires an uninvolved administrator. Then we could have a formal discussion about either page name or page intent. How do you see us moving forward? Dushan Jugum (talk) 20:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dushan Jugum: I think a request should be made at WP:RFCLOSE for someone uninvolved to close the RfC, given the lack of new comments. I have no investment in the etymology dispute, and probably won't comment further on that. I am thinking of also opening a second RfC on scope, which I think will be the best way forward. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:08, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Obivously, this[19] was the best temporary remedy. But a pity for the Reich paper. I'll think of a short and handy way to reintroduce the gist of the paper (as far it concerns the circumpolar peoples) in a more sensible way. –Austronesier (talk) 19:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Austronesier: Do you intend to follow up on this? Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:26, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. I have got a bit distracted (among other things by would-be deconstructivists, an LTA IP and fried bananas), but will get to it in the next days. In the end, it won't be more than 2–3 sentences. Thanks for the reminder! –Austronesier (talk) 20:46, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. But the whole section is still a mess. E.g., Flegontov et al. is cited from a pre-print for a pretty ambiguous statement ("...the Dorset people, who [...] are a likely ancestor of Inuit and Yupik people today"). I'll go into it at another time. I prefer to read these things thoroughly, even if it's eventually just to support a half-sentence of Wikitext. –Austronesier (talk) 10:26, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello
I tried to ping you about a new proposal here, if you wish to comment. Regards, Moonraker12 (talk) 03:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your previous comments on Forbes as a reliable source for Wikipedia. The current distinction of Forbes print copy being reliable and Forbes.com being unreliable does not appear to be a useful guideline for most Wikipedia editors. Especially since all of the articles (print copy version or dot-com version) are generally accessed through Forbes.com anyway. My own experience is that the articles are almost always reliable and match one-for-one on numbers reported with other reliable sources. This leads to editors needing to mechanically redo sources which match up one-for-one with other reliable sources and switch for no other reason than this "red light"/"green light" policy on Forbes.com being red-light and Forbes print edition being green-light. Many editors are losing much edit time apparently for no reason. If Wikipedia editors are losing their contribution time to this odd distinction of a red-light and green-light policy for Forbes, then should the distinction be re-evaluated? ErnestKrause (talk) 17:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ErnestKrause: This is something you should take up with WP:RSN and not my talkpage. Forbes.com staff content is considered reliable Forbes Contributors content is not, see WP:FORBESCON Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:13, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. 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) 00:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Um, wasp = Apocrita, less ants and bees, so its parent, if it has one, is Hymenoptera. It isn't a subclade of anything, of course. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap: I realise that, the "parent" parameter isn't exactly clear. I interpret "parent" for a paraphyletic group to be "the least inclusive clade that includes all members of the group", which in this case is Apocrita. One I suppose could also argue for Euhymenoptera (the least inclusive clade containing Orussoidea and Apocrita). There's been some major shakeup to the hymenopteran taxonomic tree in recent years, see Evolutionary History of the Hymenoptera (2017) (Open access), which presents a phylogeny radically different to that present in the current articles. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I should note also that numerous papers actually describe members of Orussoidea as parasitic wasps [20] [21], [22] Maybe then the parent clade should actually be Euhymenoptera? Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:24, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the citation to the NY Times in this edit at Eric Zemmour, regarding the announcement of his candidacy. Thanks also, for using an *English* source, instead of the French sources that others have been adding; Wikipedia prefers English sources when available, so by adding this one, you are supporting the best possible WP:Verifiability of the article. (The French sources added by others are not wrong, they are just not optimal.)

Two tips:

• language parameter – there is no need to use the |lang= or |language= param in your citations for an English source; i.e., adding |language=en-US= to that citation isn't needed, so you can save a few characters that way.
• date wording, with the – you added, "Zemmour announced his candidacy for president on the 30 November 2021" but that's slightly off—the word the is wrong here. You have two choices here in standard English:
  1. ...on the 30th of November 2021
  2. ...on 30 November 2021

Both of these date wordings are correct in English, but the second one is preferred by the Manual of Style's guide to date formats and does not contain the. As long as one format is used consistently throughout an article, there is some latitude of choice; usually, the first major contributor sets the tone, and others should follow. If there is no prior pattern, I would use the most international version, "30 November 2021". For more on this, see MOS:DATEFORMAT and Wikipedia:Overview of date formatting guidelines. Thanks again for your contributions to the article. Mathglot (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: I was just using Visualeditor's autocite via Zotero function, so I didn't intentionally add those parameters and you are free to remove them as you wish. As for the format for referring to dates, I have no strong preference, whatever floats your boat. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I was wondering if some tool was doing that automatically. I wouldn't worry about it, if the tool is adding them, it doesn't hurt anything, so can just be left as is. I'm pretty sure I've seen a bot go around removing them, but whether it does or doesn't, it doesn't hurt anything if it's there. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 22:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Use of |language=en-US is perfectly acceptable and possibly desirable; see my reply to Editor Mathglot at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources with Zotero § Use of cite param 'language' with value English. The article from The New York Times is behind a paywall so |url-access=subscription is appropriate.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:03, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for using your expertise to improve Amabilis uchoensis and Podocnemididae, and for your kind helpful remarks at DYK. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Hemiauchenia,

Re: this closure - I appreciate you wanting to prevent further degradation of the discussion, but I don't think the summary properly reflects what happened there, nor am I sure that the discussion should've been closed (rather than having portions of it collapsed), since votes are still coming in. I think closure should've been done by an admin; included a summary of the consensus; and considered that PAs were heavily one-sided. What do you think? François Robere (talk) 13:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@François Robere: It was only a temporary close to stop the fighting. You are welcome to request a proper administrator close that summarises the consensus at WP:RFCLOSE Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:04, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done.[23] Cheers. François Robere (talk) 11:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I reverted your edits by mistake! I self reverted (not sure why it reverted that page I was reverting vandalism on another page!!!) Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 18:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, regarding your revert here, there was nothing about soap opera there. The liberal media is a big source for Wikipedia, it is biased according to respectable sources and Wikipedia itself has a liberal bias. This is a serious issue, not a drama, and your revert is just an attempt to shut down a serious conversation about the reliability of the sources - and subsequently about the neutrality of Wikipedia. It means suppressing the views that are not mainstream. The topic can be discussed and the conversation can be eventually closed. But your revert means trying to pretend that opposing views do not even exist. Please restore my edit. Thank you. -- Barecode (talk) 09:44, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Barecode: "reality has a well known liberal bias" - Stephen Colbert. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:29, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So what you are trying to say is that today liberal bias actually doesn't exist or it's absolutely insignificant, right? And your "proof" for that is the fact that a comedian made that quote about a horrible Republican president, 15 years ago. Continuing your logic, that means liberal media bias will never exist from now on, for the next 500 years, simply because Colbert made fun about Bush in 2006. Sorry but you are wrong. The media lied about Rittenhouse and about Sandman, they lied about the Russian-Trump conspiracy, pushing their conspiracy theories every day for years, they instructed the public to see riots as peaceful demonstrations, Media Supports Calling Parents "Domestic Terrorists" and so on. Nearly half (46%) of all Americans think the media is very biased - this is the data collected in 2020. I am presenting reality facts, not some fringe theories.

If there is no liberal bias in the media that Wikipedia should worry about and if there is no liberal bias at Wikipedia, then you have nothing to worry about and you allow the conversation to exist and arguments to be made by those who support opposing views. But you are not doing that, and that is a strong indication that such a debate is making you feel uncomfortable. Your attempt to not only shut down a conversation about a real situation but in fact to completely erase it like it never existed shows an authoritarian reflex, in line with calling worried parents about their children education - "domestic terrorists". Forcefully removing conversations about possible Wikipedia issues does not help building a neutral Wikipedia but it helps it to become a tool used to push the liberal "truth", a "truth" calling for racist hate ("Everyone I don't like is a white supremacist Nazi!") and for calling to hunt down the "terrorists" who dare to disagree. Please restore my edit. Thank you. -- Barecode (talk) 02:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Hemiauchenia[edit]

Wikipedia policy regarding "Citing yourself":

Citing yourself[edit]

Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason , but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. You will be permanently identified in the page history as the person who added the citation to your own work. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion: propose the edit on the article's talk page and allow others to review it. However, adding numerous references to work published by yourself and none by other researchers is considered to be a form of spamming.

The paper being cited (Ostachuk, 2019) in the "Crab" page is relevant: it has been published in the journal Evolutionary Biology, it has been cited 4 times so far, and it has been downloaded 418 times from the publisher page [24].

Hemiauchenia has been extremely violent with his/her commentaries from the beginning. He/she (who knows who he/she is?) has been trying to accuse me from unethical behavior ("Wikipedia is not a place to promote your own work"), when it is clear according to Wikipedia policy on "Citing yourself" that this not a crime or violation of the terms of use . I advice Hemiauchenia to be more respectful and polite, as I have been, and not to accuse me of false denunciations. In my edits, I have not only cited my own work but others too (5 different citations in the article "Crab"). I will not further discuss the quality of my work with an unknown person with unknown academic formation.

It seems to me that you do not want to accept Wikipedia's own policies: "Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP: SELFPUB, and is not excessive". It seems to me that there is not much more to add, just accept the reality of the facts and evidence. If citing yourself were a conflict of interest or a crime, you would not be allowed to cite yourself in scientific publications. If this is allowed in true academic publications, it does not make sense that it is not allowed in a general information web page, the content of which is not considered academic or scientific literature.

It is clear that all my edits are in my name, since my username is my name, so it is quite redundant to clarify that the edits were made in my name. I have nothing to hide and I registered on Wikipedia with my name. This gives transparency and clarity to the system, and automatically eliminates any type of conflict of interest (since everything is in view and registered). The use of pseudonyms only contributes to confusion, turbidity, opacity and impunity, and does not make it possible to reveal the conflicts of interest and the hidden interests that these people are defending. I don't think security has anything to do with this. This is not Wikileaks. Aostachuk

Sorry about that, misclick on a twitchy Chromebook. Acroterion (talk) 03:42, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I take issue with your assertion that I'm adding original research to this article. I'm not. This has been discussed exhaustively by a large number of people. The ICZN has clear rules - all I did was point out the ICZN rules that pertain to this situation and indicate their implications, which are as clear as a bell.

I'm far from the only one who realizes this.

I'm not interested in what may or may not be said on Darren Naish's blog. Blogs are not legitimate sources of information.

I stand by the text I added.

not trying to be a jerk, but I'm basing my text on my 30 years of experience as a professional systematist. I didn't do "research;" I saw immediately what the situation was and pointed it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabrochu (talk • contribs) 19:09, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your assessment of the situation regarding Wellnhopterus is factually wrong. I'm sorry, but it just is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabrochu (talk • contribs) 13:47, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide me with a list of Wikipedia articles to which I've contributed?

You're not interested in my expertise, so I think it would be best if they were deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabrochu (talk • contribs) 21:10, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cabrochu: Professor Brochu, I have nothing but respect for your work on crocodylomorphs and I appreciate your expertise in this area, and I have no issues with the rest of your edits. My issue is that your edits regarding the ICZN guideines violate Wikipedia's policies regarding the publication of original thought, and do not have unilateral support amongst taxonomists. When you edit Wikipedia, you release all edits you make under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License, which means that you do not have a right to totally irrevoke the edits you have made. That said, if you wish to systematically undo every edit you have made to Wikipedia, you are free to do so, see Special:Contributions/Cabrochu For a complete list of all your edits. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:40, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, apologies for moving that redirect without a prior discussion. I just stumbled on it and saw that it redirected from "religion" to "Christian denomination" and thought that was a bit strange, so I moved it without thinking anything of it, not realizing that there would likely be templates that used the redirect. Thanks for reverting and clarifying the need for discussion. Where would I start something like that? Would it be in the talk page for the redirect itself? --Grnrchst (talk) 14:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Grnrchst: I would take it to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hemi! I wanted to take this time to thank you for all you do at Wikipedia, and especially for your help at BLPN. It's such an important policy, and I'm glad we have you around to help. I wish you a very merry holiday season, and may the new year bring great happiness and joy. And, if you don't celebrate Christmas, then please take it as a Happy Hanukkah, a great Dhanu Sankranti, a blessed Hatsumode, a really good Saturday, or whatever holiday you want to insert there. Zaereth (talk) 08:57, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the mammal lived long before human presence, but I included it because the section of text does not make it clear that it is referring only to recent history. I think it wouldn't hurt to include the link, since it does not disrupt the flow of the article, and the SBM article has relatively few other articles that link to it. An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see you reverted my edits at Janzenella. I've fixed the taxobox for you (again). No need to thank me ;); but I left it as a {{Automatic taxobox}} this time.

I've had a discussion about this sort of thing before. It appears there is no consensus on how to do taxoboxes when there is only one extant species, but a fossil record of others. I guess the question I would ask is, would and of the species (fossil or extant) get an article of its own, or is this unlikely; I feel the latter in the case of this wasp. Therefore, a speciesbox feels better to me, as it makes the species a topic for the article too. I'm not too precious about it though.

Being honest, there is an element of autopilot about it. Cheers. YorkshireExpat (talk) 17:33, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding my use of EB: not sure what warrants its removal.

I think you may have misunderstood what ["The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica"] refers to: per EB, "The vast majority of articles attributed solely to the editors have been written, reviewed, or revised by external advisers and experts, and the lack of formal acknowledgment of their contributions was an editorial policy dating to the 1970s." Not a crowdsourced entry.

The piece of information I referenced is just being used to support the categorization of the Afar language as part of the Saho-Afar language group. KaerbaqianRen^💬 23:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@KaerbaqianRen: Cite a proper source then rather than a general encyclopedia. Britannica is not a good source in my experience, having read many of it's articles. If it were up to me I would remove every reference to it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The cycle is BRD. Not BRR so you get your preferred version, D. Take it to the talk page. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Headbomb: Brd is only an essay, WP:ONUS is policy. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR is also policy. Take it to talk. WP:ONUS is for articles. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Headbomb: WP:AN3 is that way. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

you can I would like a refund please I need your help with this matter as soon as possible I will be there at the same time I don't have a pictured in the hospital with my mom in the hospital with 105.112.217.105 (talk) 11:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Antarctica for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Evidence. Please note: per Arbitration Policy, ArbCom is accepting private evidence by email. If in doubt, please email and ArbCom can advise you whether evidence should be public or private. Please add your evidence by January 31, 2022, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. You may unsubscribe from further updates by removing your name from the case notification list.

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Undid revision 1066560509 by SVTCobra (talk} It's not outing in this case, as the editor themselves was linking to the material in their edits

Sorry, but it had every appearance of being exactly that. There was no mention of it in the COIN post. I don't think anyone should be required to search all edits by users before reporting outing. But if you are right, you are right. --SVTCobra 01:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just an update for you: I have been familiar for quite some time with the socks of WCF editing from an Austrian IP range. For some strange and silly reason, the disruptive editor DerekHistorian was confirmed as a sock of WCF, even though he actually geolocates to the UK (as can be seen from numerous Google books bare URLs) and must be a different person also based on editing behavior that's different from the Austrian IP edits. Vamlos exactly fits within the behavioral profile of @DerekHistorian, and I have been looking for sexy diffs to prove it. Even though the problem editor is blocked now, I think @valereee has dug up a diff that might be useful to disentangle the WCF SPI mess. –Austronesier (talk) 13:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't find anything interesting, and I guess ST47 or Dreamy Jazz didn't either. What I can say is that I found nothing that pointed to any other accounts--though it is possible that someone familiar with the case might see something I didn't. I know that doesn't help much, but I can't say more. Drmies (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: I have started to collect some diffs that at least point to certain idiosyncrasies in citations, plus overlapping edit ranges. I guess most of the earlier accounts are stale, so I try to build the case on solid behavioral evidence. –Austronesier (talk) 17:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So adding a comment from the academia is accepted as self promotion but a random guy can decide wheter it is a promotion or not. I strongly find your actions on the revisions offensive as I believe that even the knowledge that you have is not only exist but also does not exist. ForTheScience (talk) 19:50, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

-"American Society of Mammalogists including bison species within Bos". The fact that a certain group of people place Bisons within Bos does not make it valid. Bisons as a whole are still placed in their own genus by the vast majority of scientists and biologists. Not to mention that during an edit war all participants in the conflict must be called out. Yet apparently i am the only one, which proves the bias of Hemiauchenia. It takes multiple studies to confirm the classification of organisms. And genetic analysis already found genetic similarities between American and European Bisons. Not to mention the morphological and genetic differences between Bos and Bison species (extant and extinct). So my edits are justified. The bias of Wikipedia users is the reason why so many information in articles is incorrect.

"If the American Society of Mammalologists includes Bison within Bos, then we should too" That has to be one of the worst biases I've ever seen. Just because one study says so doe snot mean every other study will agree. And am sure your only saying we should believe it because it has the word "American" on it. Look, i have nothing against nationalism but for god sakes, when it comes to scientific research one must be biased to multiple articles that have the most logical explanation. One article who study did not took in consideration the incomplete lineage shortage amongst Bovini is not very trustworthy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:56FireLeafs

If its true that Bisons are within Bos, then i need you to explain me the relationships between modern Bison species and extinct ones (its worth noting that a study pointed out that the Wisent is possibly the descendand of the Pleistocene Woodland Bison, who in turn looks very similar to the Wisent). And i also want you to show me to morphological similarities between the genus Bison and Bos. If both are concluded to be morphogically and genetically similar enough i suppose we could reclassify them as part of Bos. But we should probably talk about this with more scientists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:56FireLeafs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 56FireLeafs (talk • contribs) 02:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain your analysis of the reliable sources regarding bison at the article talk page. That strengthens your argument enormously. Cullen328 (talk) 05:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: I've already explained my logic at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mammals#Edit_warring_at_Bos, where it is likely to receive broader input from more people. The fact that 56FireLeafs is the only one who disagrees currently means that the discussion is for the moment moot. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Less experienced editors who may find this dispute of interest will have a hard time finding a WikiProject talk page. Most new editors have no idea that WikiProjects even exist. A majority (though not all) of WikiProjects are inactive. We actively teach new editors to discuss article content on article talk pages. Why are you resistant to this standard practice? I sincerely want to know. Cullen328 (talk) 05:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: In my experience most wikipedia articles on animals and in particular animal taxonomy tend to be edited by a small pool of experienced editors, and it is better to get their attention on an active WikiProject (WP mammals is very active compared to most Wikiprojects, but potentially WP:TOL would also have been a good place to post). The last post about the taxonomy at Talk:Bos didn't receive much input, suggesting that it is not widely visible. I've added a note to the WP mammal post on Talk:Bos, [25] hope that's enough for you. Thanks again. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Better than nothing, although I would have preferred more at Talk:Bos. Such as a brief refutation of the other editor's argument. But we all do what we want to do, don't we? Cullen328 (talk) 06:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pan-Carnivora, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

BuySomeApples (talk) 07:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I was wondering, would you be able to provide your perspective regarding my move proposal on the talk page of Short-faced bear? Although I proposed it a while ago, none of the page watchers have replied. I would appreciate your honest feedback. Thanks. SuperTah (talk) 14:12, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked the evidence you and other users showed me and now that i think about it it makes sense that Bisons are placed within Bos. The fact that Yaks have shaggy fur like Bisons confirms they speciated from yaks. Multiple species of Bos like Gaurs, Zebus and Aurochs have spines similar to those of Bisons. They fact that they can safeley breed with cattle proves their effectively part of the Bos genus. Not to mention many people question if Bisons breeding with cows was even a problem. Ive checked the skeletons and morphology of both extinct and extant Bison species and all of them are very similar to Bos species. So yes i can now udnerstand they are part of Bos. I am so sorry for the trouble i caused last time, now i want to be part of your project to understand the placement of Bisons within the Bos genus. 56FireLeafs (Use talk:56FireLEafs)

Considering you PROD'd this article and the PROD was contested, the next step if you wanted to pursue deletion must have been AfD. Draftification should never be used as a backdoor for deletion, and articles over 90 days old should not be draftified. Curbon7 (talk) 06:18, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, this is not "your way or the highway". I explained thoroughly the issues with this draftification. Additionally, because I objected to the draftification, it is a lot like a PROD wherein it cannot be re-draftified. This is per WP:DRAFTIFY. I have no issue with this being listed at AfD. However, your edit summary states "This should die in draftspace". This is a clear violation of the notion that draftification is not a backdoor to deletion. If you continue to show that you are incapable of following the simple restrictions that WP:DRAFTIFY lays out, your ability to draftify articles may be jeopardized. Curbon7 (talk) 01:15, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Curbon7: I did not draftify the article this time. I moved it to the userspace of the user who created the article, who provided their consent to the move [26]. If people aren't willing to put the effort into having a remotely complete list then it should remain in their userspace. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Curbon7 (talk) 01:25, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed decision in the Skepticism and coordinated editing has been posted. Please review the proposed decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An arbitration case regarding Skepticism and coordinated editing has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• Rp2006 (talk · contribs) is warned against a battleground mentality and further incivility.
• Rp2006 is indefinitely topic banned from edits related to living people associated with or of interest to scientific skepticism, broadly construed. This topic ban may be appealed after six months have elapsed and every six months thereafter.
• A. C. Santacruz (talk · contribs) is reminded to remain collegial in editing and interacting with others.
• Roxy the dog (talk · contribs) is warned to remain collegial in editing and interacting with others.
• GSoW is advised that a presence on English Wikipedia, perhaps as its own WikiProject or as a task force of WikiProject Skepticism, will create more transparency and lessen some of the kinds of suspicion and conflict that preceded this case. It could also provide a place for the GSoW to get community feedback about its training which would increase its effectiveness.
• Editors are reminded that discretionary sanctions for biographies of living people have been authorized since 2014. Editors named in this decision shall be considered aware of these discretionary sanctions under awareness criterion 1.

For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing closed

Please take a look at Talk:Russian_cruiser_Moskva#She_or_it? General Vicinity (talk) 03:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit-warrior friend (it seems he's my problem now) has neglected to notify you that he has begun a discussion at WP:DRN#Peet's Coffee. Avilich (talk) 02:37, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are asserting something as a fact for which there is no consensus. I have not asserted an alternative, just removed the suggestion that no alternatives are in play, which there clearly are, including among experts. StN (talk) 02:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input - I am aware and looked at User talk:Akram GameYT#Cr1TiKaL, but I wanted Akram GameYT to acknowledge there was no supporting edit summary for the deletion. There has been a rash of new users wanting to weigh-in on bios of gamers, etc., including uploading copyvio images. I don't agree that British public records are violations of privacy, they know when registering that details are available to all. I was mouthed-at by an admin many years ago, but that was equally WP:SYNTHESIS . rgds,--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 01:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Fasscass. I noticed that you made a comment on the page The Grayzone that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Preceding undated comment added 03:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at The Grayzone. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fasscass (talk • contribs) 04:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on The Grayzone. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fasscass (talk • contribs) 04:40, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Evolutionary anachronism is important and my reference is not vague.The wood-pasture hypothesis is important for rewilding. Wrglahl LCD söz (talk) 12:10, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are days I wonder why I try doing things by the book. It just gives others an opening to be anal-retentive. I'm sure you understand what I'm talking about. Kent G. Budge (talk) 13:56, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kent G. Budge: In future, It is probably better to just WP:BOLDLY move in cases like this when we have already gained unanimous consensus on the geology talk page, rather than go through all the hassle of a formal move proposal. Yarrabubba crater should probably be moved as well, as the paper establishing it as the oldest impact structure states: No circular crater remains at Yarrabubba; however, the structure has an elliptical aeromagnetic anomaly consisting of an even, low total magnetic intensity domain, measuring approximately 20 km N–S by 11 km E–W (Fig. 1)18. The present day exposure represents a deep erosional level, as neither impact breccias nor topographic expressions of the over-turned rim or central uplift are preserved. Therefore, the ~20 km diameter magnetic anomaly has been interpreted to represent the remnant of the deeply buried central uplift of the structure, which is consistent with an original crater diameter of 70 km. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemiauchenia: If recent studies use the morphological dataset to recover the Antillean sloths within Megalonychidae, then should the genera in the Megalocnidae article be covered in the Megalonychidae article? Patachonica (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Patachonica: Most contemporary academics specialising on extinct sloths have accepted the new molecular phylogeny of how the major sloth groups are related to each other, and Wikipedia should attempt to reflect the academic consensus. The historic inclusion of the Antillean sloths should definitely be discussed as part of the taxonomic history of the Megalonychidae, just as the historical inclusion of the living two toed sloths is. The paper describing Urumacocnus was published before the molecular studies came out, and subsequent papers by the same authors that still include Antillean sloths within Megalonychidae, such as Megalonychid Sloths from the Early Late Hemphillian (Late Miocene), Curré Formation, San Gerardo de Limoncito, Costa Rica published in 2021, over a year after the molecular results came out, don't even mention either of the two molecular papers. So it's not clear whether the authors of the papers even dispute the new molecular phylogeny at all. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So are you saying that the authors of the papers do not acknowledge the new molecular phylogeny at all? Patachonica (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Patachonica: Exactly. You can read the 2021 paper for yourself [27]. There's not a single mention of either of the two molecular papers, "Palaeoproteomics resolves sloth relationships" and "Ancient Mitogenomes Reveal the Evolutionary History and Biogeography of Sloths", you can check the references. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:03, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So technically we should always follow molecular analyses instead of morphological analyses? Patachonica (talk) 19:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]