Talk:Bomakellia

Unreliable images
Images added to any article should be encyclopaedic. Any artistic representation should be based upon WP:RS and be Verifiable. I do not see any evidence to make me believe the images in this article meet that criterion, and I feel that the page would be better served without them (unless they can be shown to be based upon proper scientific research). For these reasons I propose to remove the images until sources are provided which justify their inclusion. Nick Moyes (talk) 02:04, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * So you're going to go on a campaign of spite to have me run out of Wikipedia, too, like all of my other critics? I mean, I did base both illustration from the sources in the article, but, that's never good enough for those of my critics who want me run out of Wikipedia on a rail.  I mean, all of the people who say and want all artistic representations of anything removed from all Wikipedia articles for not being properly sourced have, in practice, only wanted my artistic representations removed from Wikipedia.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * By the way, do you plan to try and humiliate me like this on all of the talkpages of articles that use my art?--Mr Fink (talk) 05:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This is an unfounded false statement. The reconstruction of Bomakellia as a proto-arthropod is based on B. Waggoner's reconstruction and corresponded to the original M. Fedonkin's description ( https://academic.oup.com/sysbio/article-pdf/45/2/190/19501692/45-2-190.pdf ). Frond-like reconstruction is based on the opinion of J. Dzik ( https://www.paleo.pan.pl/people/Dzik/Publications/ctenophoraDzik.pdf ) The Mr Fink's reconstructions are quite adequate and accurate. Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 10:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC))