User talk:Apokryltaros/User talk:Apokryltaros Archive 2

January 2014
Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to List of Zyuden Sentai Kyoryuger characters. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Mr Fink (talk) 22:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * But the episode that came out has covered it at the end.70.126.22.132 (talk) 04:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Dire Wolf
Even though I looked up "Dire wolf" because of the Grateful Dead song I enjoyed your comments on the talk page about "trivial cameos." Although I've never actually done it (and won't), I've been tempted to add text to some of the articles that I've created or extensively edited stating that "such-and-such has never been referenced on The Simpsons, South Park, or Family Guy." PurpleChez (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'd recommend making a "Dire wolf in popular culture" article, or something along those lines.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ptychoparia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Walcott (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Largest organisms
If he reverts again, please let me know. Do not revert him, please. Continue working with him as you already are at the article's talk page. I presume at some point he will actually provide some useful feedback. Kuru  (talk)  01:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Understood.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Taxonomy vandal
Hey, I saw your AIV report here. Wanted to bring to your attention to TrelocKidding, who had a similar pattern (setting up a campaign here) and a few socks. If memory serves me, at the time I believed that they were also related to WangsDaringsFun, though I'm not sure if that was ever expressly confirmed. I think WangsDaringsFun was confirmed as FanforClarl. So heads-up! :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

AIV
I think you meant to use the template IPvandal as opposed to vandalIP. They are similar but the latter is seemingly a talk page warning. Mkdw talk 06:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Pardon, I've been meaning to wean myself off of copying and pasting. I find myself repeatedly reporting an infuriatingly persistent vandal.--Mr Fink (talk) 06:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've taken care of it for the time being. Mkdw talk 06:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you so very much for your help.--Mr Fink (talk) 06:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Starfish
This is a note to let the main editors of Starfish know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on February 28, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/February 28, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

There are about 1,500 living species of starfish to be found on the seabed in all the world's oceans, from the tropics to subzero polar waters and from the intertidal zone down to abyssal depths, 6000 m below the surface. Starfish are among the most familiar of marine invertebrates. They typically have a central disc and five arms. The upper surface may be smooth, granular or spiny, and is covered with overlapping plates. Many species are brightly coloured in shades of red or orange, while others are blue, grey or brown. Starfish have tube feet operated by a hydraulic system and a mouth at the centre of the lower surface. They have complex life cycles and can reproduce both sexually and asexually. Most can regenerate damaged parts or lost arms and they can shed arms as a means of defence. Starfish such as the ochre sea star and the reef sea star have become widely known as examples of the keystone species concept in ecology. With their appealing symmetrical shape, starfish are found in literature, legend and popular culture. They are sometimes collected as curios, used in design or as logos, and in some cultures, despite possible toxicity, they are eaten. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: Just Checking
Yes I did. Sorry I was occupied lately and didn't have a lot of free time to find the resources. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Thylacosmilus Page
The reason that I removed those illustrations is because they are inaccurate. The one in the upper right hand corner especially depicts the animal as having a short body length, which it was actually quite long, with a long neck, and both pictures depict it having fleshy scabbards on the ventral mental processes, which there is no evidence of it having had these. I put a picture that I found floating around the internet drawn by Mauricio Antón up earlier and made sure to cite it, but I'm not sure if he's alright with that, so I want to get his permission before I use it.

I also asked another artist on Deviant Art if we might be able to use his rendition, which is slightly inaccurate (the snout is turned a little more upwards than it would have been in life), but certainly a far cry from these two drawings. Until I get an answer though, I think that no illustration is better than two bad ones. Zirojtan (talk) 03:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * In that case, why don't we just swap in the skull photo and delete the gallery section?--Mr Fink (talk) 03:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

What a creative solution! Haha. I must retarded. Yeah that sounds like a good idea until I hear back from Mauricio or this other artist. Zirojtan (talk) 04:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Everyone has brainfarts. I think Mauricio will eventually permit the picture's use, as we have his reconstruction of the woolly mammoth.  Ideally, the taxobox should always have a picture, ideally of the holotype, or a cast, or of a clear fossil, though, as you pointed out, an accurate reconstruction works very nicely, too.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Crinozoa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Extant (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Liberty taking
Me, that is... I've changed the order of your wording at User talk:Philipandrew to "It is inappropriate and not necessary" so that the 'not' can't be taken to apply to the 'inappropriate'. Lawyers make a lot of money out of ambiguous wordings... They probably wouldn't there, but I always prefer to be on the safe side. 8-) Peridon (talk) 18:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Atopodentatus
Hi, thanks for your edit. Would you consider making an illustration of it? AshLin (talk) 17:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. It's the latest prehistoric fad in DeviantArt, too.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Meteoraspis
Hello. I have a couple of issues with the Meteoraspis article as it stands right now: Regards, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it is over the top to use the distinguish template for Parameteoraspis, which is not easily confused with meteoraspis. I haven't tried, but I am sure I can come up with several closer generic names. I have replaced it with another template that is more useful in my humble opinion.
 * Meteoraspis Stensio, 1927, would precede Meteoraspis Resser, 1935 , so the text was confusing. However, I think this authority assignment is faulty. It took some time, but look at this citation, page 201, starting 10 lines from the bottom: "... Parameteoraspis nov. nom. (in replacement of Meteoraspis Janvier, 1981a - type species C. gigas Wängsjö, 1952 - preoccupied by Meteoraspis Resser, 1935: Trilobita) appears in the Benneviaspis horizon with P. pinnifera (Wängsjö) ..."
 * Placing this information under the heading Synonymy is incorrect. Janvier's name is a jr. homonym of Resser's. It would be consistent with many trilobite articles to create a heading Reassigned species, and add the homonymy information in the box. I made these changes.
 * Although GNI indeed lists Meteoraspis partim, I do not think this is a species, "partim" meaning "partially". So I removed it from the specieslist.
 * a) The template you've used now works better than the one I'm using. If you come up with a better one, so much the better.
 * b) That is a good point, though, I think the move may have been a matter of nomen oblitum. Either way, though, it's a moot point as agnathan researchers appear to be just fine with Parameteoraspis.
 * c) I have no disagreement with your retitling the section: thank you.
 * d) Yeah, some of the information in the GNI is questionable: it lists "Meteoraspia delia," but, I could not find anything about it in google beyond its listing in the GNI, and misspelling of "MeteoraspiS"--Mr Fink (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Great! Dwergenpaartje (talk) 20:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

AIV
It's the wrong venue for such a complaint. Insults/threats are usually dealt with better at WP:AN/I. AIV is strictly for blocking users who are clearly vandalizing.  Enigma msg  20:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Understood.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Abiogenesis
I actually thought that last comment was a better candidate for WP:DENY myself. :-) Sunrise  (talk)  07:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Timelines
I used Jack Sepkoski's data as my source for those timelines. You're welcome to correct or delete them. I made them a long time ago and forgot about them. Lateley I've been cleaning out my userspace and just livespaced them in case they were useful. I'm not super attached to them or anything. Abyssal (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hey, I have a crap load more of those fish timelines still in my user space. I was wondering if you wanted to have a look at them. If you think they're inaccurate I'll just have them deleted instead of articlespacing them. Abyssal (talk) 09:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Or amended as the case may be.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Boavus, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Green River, Trinity River and Boa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Seahorses
In the section Seahorses, there is a diagram to the right illustrating the steps in the reproduction cycle of seahorses. In the caption under the diagram we read the following sentence:


 * "The male ejects the baby seahorses, from 5 to 2,500 young, averaging 100–1000."

The problem is that it is not made clear what "100-1000" refers to. Is it weight? CorinneSD (talk) 14:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I guess you didn't reply to this because it is clear to you. I didn't really see it before, but now I see that it means it is usually between 100 and 1,000 baby seahorses. I had thought there was something missing after the numbers 100-1,000. I believe it would be clearer with the addition of a few more words. I'm going to work on it. CorinneSD (talk) 00:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I finally found it. It is in the caption under the diagram in the section on "Reproduction". I still think it is not as clear as it could be, but if a reader reads the sentence in "Births", the caption will be clear enough. Sorry to bother you. CorinneSD (talk) 01:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, I didn't reply to this message because I didn't notice it. Sorry about that.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Pictures
I just looked at your User page for the first time. Where did you get all those wonderful pictures in your "To Done" list? CorinneSD (talk) 14:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I drew and colored them all.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * They're fabulous. I love all of them. CorinneSD (talk) 15:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much!--Mr Fink (talk) 16:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You could sell them as prints, or put a book together (perhaps with articles about the animals). Would you mind if I posted one of them on my User page, giving you credit? I could include a link to your User page, too. I would just like to look at it now and then. If not, that's fine. CorinneSD (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I (try to) sell them as prints at my DeviantArt account, and yes, I am in the process of collaborating with some of my paleoart friends to put a prehistoric animal book together. And yes, please be my guest.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Creationism
I think you need to add the on its own line as the  wasn't closed. I assume that you didn't add one so, I added another. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 17:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for correcting that.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:58, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

What do you think about creating a template....
...for a series on primitive species? The template would link together sturgeon, paddlefish, bowfin, garfishes, and there's one other species I can't think of right now. I would very much appreciate your input. Atsme &#9775;  talk  20:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That would be a good idea. Would we include the bony tongues, and would we focus on particular groups, i.e., primitive bony fish, mammals, reptiles, etc?--Mr Fink (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Numerous possibilities, and it would prove extremely beneficial to Wiki readers, and student researchers. Hopefully you know how to get a template started, because I've never done it before.  If you don't have the time to set it up, I'd be happy to get it started if you could point me in the right direction.  I'll also be happy to collaborate setting it up, and adding the various articles.  Atsme  &#9775;  talk  20:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Just saw your art - WOW. Very nice!!!  Atsme  &#9775;  talk  20:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Coelacanth? CorinneSD (talk) 20:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. And so it begins.  Atsme  &#9775;  talk  20:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and yeah, that's a good idea, too.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok - I'm going to start the template, and will post here when it's ready for collaboration. Atsme  &#9775;  talk  20:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Hmm?
I'm a blocked troll? I think you may have filled in the wrong username. Who did you mean? Yngvadottir (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * My sincerest apologies, I believe I have confused you with --Mr Fink (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Seahorse
I tried to fix a red link at the beginning of Seahorse so that it would be a blue link but without success. Can you fix it? CorinneSD (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Which link? To "Brood pouch (Syngnathidae)"?  In my opinion, either, someone starts that page, or we make it a section of Syngnathidae--Mr Fink (talk) 22:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's the link. I wouldn't be able to start that kind of article (I haven't written any WP article.) If one is started, how much information would it contain? How much information is there about the syngnathidae brood pouch? I can't imagine a whole lot. I think if information on it is added to the article on Syngnathidae it would improve the article, which is now only four paragraphs long. CorinneSD (talk) 00:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As a stub, it wouldn't need to contain too much information. Ideally, a definition, and maybe some links or references.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * O.K. Then I guess more information can be added later as it becomes known. Do you want to create the stub? CorinneSD (talk) 00:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Why not you have that honor, and I'll touch it up afterwards.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dunkleosteidae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gulshan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Heterostraci, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Subclass (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Corsican giant shrew
I was looking at an edit to Corsica just now in which an editor added several extinct species. I clicked on the some of the links to read the articles. I saw that there was no picture for Corsican giant shrew, and I remembered that you have drawn many pictures of extinct animals, so I thought I'd tell you about this. Maybe you could find, or draw, a picture for this article. CorinneSD (talk) 19:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * goes digging for his pith helmet for reference hunting, and preps Yakkety Sax as theme music*--Mr Fink (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you are conveying. I figure it's humor, but it escapes me. Are you making fun of the editor who added the names of the extinct animals, or are you jesting about yourself as you search for more information? I'm not familiar with that piece of music, either. I really wish I did understand the allusions. You're brilliant, talented, articulate, and kind, and I feel bad that I don't follow you. I thought you'd be interested in both this kind of edit and in the challenge of finding a suitable image for an extinct animal. CorinneSD (talk) 23:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm jesting about as I hunt for more information on the animal, which is thought to be related to watershrews.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * O.K. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 21:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Block-evading, IP-hopping vandal
I noticed that editor 36.74.184.113 (talk) for being a repeat vandal under different IPs. I suspect that he is also using 139.195.126.95 (talk) to reapply his reversed edits. I've already undone two edits ( and ) by that IP, which are identical to from the other IP.

These edits repeatedly apply the Legendary birds category to the Ibong Adarna article, in spite of the recent consensus that the bird is not a legend or myth. I'm concerned that this will become an ongoing back-and-forth with this vandal. Both IPs have a clear predilection for cryptozoology and anime, so I strongly suspect sockpuppetry in this case. Is this behavior actionable at this time, or should there be a more substantial ongoing pattern?

—Samatict (talk) 07:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Calcium
Since you were so helpful with my questions about Nickel and your edits were so well-done, would you mind if I ask you a few questions about Calcium, which I've just started to read?

1) In Calcium, fifth paragraph (starting "Calcium salts..."), in the middle of the paragraph are the following sentences:


 * "Notable exceptions include the hydroxide, the sulfate (unusual for sulfate salts), the carbonate and the phosphates. With the exception of the sulfate, even the insoluble ones listed are in general more soluble than its transition metal counterparts."

Do you see the possessive adjective "its" in the second sentence? It is not clear to what it refers. It's got to refer to a singular noun. It probably means "calcium's transition metal counterparts", but there are other singular nouns before this sentence (such as "the sulfate"), and the word "calcium" is pretty far back. Is it clear to you that it means "calcium's", or do you agree that it's ambiguous? Can you clear this up?

2) In the sixth paragraph of Calcium is the following sentence:


 * " Calcium is the fifth-most-abundant element by mass in the human body, where it is a common cellular ionic messenger with many functions, and serves also as a structural element in bone."

I think this sentence is a bit wordy, and I'm just wondering if the word "common" could be deleted. I think "a cellular ionic messenger with many functions" is sufficient. What do you think?

3) In the section Calcium is the following sentence:


 * For the Sun and stars with low temperatures, the prominence of the H and K lines can be an indication of strong magnetic activity in the chromosphere."

Earlier in this paragraph, the Sun and other stars were kind of grouped together. Here, it sounds like the Sun is not a "star with low temperatures".

If that is what was meant, then the addition of "for" before "stars with low temperatures" would clear up any ambiguity.

If the sun is one of the stars with low temperatures, then the word "other" needs to be added before "stars with low temperatures".

Well, that's all for now. CorinneSD (talk) 02:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) That one is a grammatical mess, especially since it was written with, what appear to me to be, easter egg style links, which only serve to make the sentence too ambiguous.


 * This sentence is much improved.


 * 2) I tweaked problem sentence #2 to eliminate "common," though, as it stands, it still seems a bit wordy.
 * I'm going to see what I can do with it.


 * 3) As for problem sentence #3, I decided to simply replace "For" with "When observing," and being unsure whether or not the Sun is a "star with low temperature," I replaced "and" with "or."

--Mr Fink (talk) 03:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Regarding #3, I decided to try and find someone who knows whether the Sun is a low temperature star. Once we know that, we can word the sentence correctly. In the meantime, I just wonder about using "When observing the Sun....". The first sentence in the paragraph makes it clear that this is about observing the visible spectrum of the Sun and other stars. I believe this type of observing is not done with the naked eye but with specialized equipment. I believe that is the reason for the word "for" -- i.e., the visible spectrum for the sun. (It is a kind of observing, but not the ordinary kind of observing, so I think "When observing the Sun" might be a little misleading for the average reader.) I think "For" works better. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC) Changed my mind. Upon re-reading, I realized that the subsequent phrase, "can be an indication of strong magnetic activity in the chromosphere", and the following sentence, mean that the spectra change depending on what's going on at the time of observation, and thus, "When observing" makes sense. I just added "in the visible spectra" after "the H and K lines" to make it a little clearer. CorinneSD (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That sounds good, too.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * What are "easter egg style links"? I can't figure out how to go back and look at it the way it was (in order to see what you were referring to). It's easier just to ask you. CorinneSD (talk) 15:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Links that are not intuitive to the reader, or that surprise the reader, or otherwise do not explain or too subtly hint at the linked page's connection with the article.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * O.K. Thanks. I read that section to which you provided a link. I'm a bit puzzled by the Richard Feynman/parton example because I see many links where the first item (before the pipe) is, of course, hidden from the reader's view but goes to a WP article that has a title different from the last item in the link (which is the one the reader reads).


 * Regarding Item #3, above, I found an editor who, while not an astronomer, appears quite knowledgeable. You might find his/her informative reply interesting. See Kylie Tastic's talk page (I'm sorry, but I'm having trouble creating the link). I even read parts of the material to which he/she provided links (but of course only understood some of it), but I am still unable to make a determination regarding the sentence we were discussion (Item #3, above). CorinneSD (talk) 20:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Brachiopod
I just started reading the article on Brachiopods, and I found a sentence that doesn't look quite right. I thought maybe you could fix it. It is the last sentence in the third paragraph:


 * "Larvae of articulate species are different from the adult forms,blob only on yolk, remain only among the plankton for only a few days, and then start metamorphosing."

CorinneSD (talk) 23:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Since I posted this comment, I've made a few more edits, but I still don't know what to do with that sentence.

I have a question. In the lead and in at least two other places in the article, I read lingulid or lingulids, but in the last paragraph in Brachiopod (under "Description"), there is the following phrase:


 * "Linguids and discinids".

I searched on WP for "linguids" and found nothing besides this very instance. I wonder whether it might be a typo and it should be "lingulids". I know very little about marine (or any) zoology, so I thought I'd add it to my list of questions here. CorinneSD (talk) 01:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I rewrote that problem sentence as:
 * "The plankonic larvae of articulate species do not resemble the adults, looking like blobs with yolksacs, and remain only among the plankton for only a few days before leaving the water column upon metamorphosing."
 * I want to tweak it further as soon as I find a picture of what an articulate brachiopod larva looks like.
 * As for the problem of "linguids," I'm almost certain that it's a misspelling of "lingulids."--Mr Fink (talk) 01:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Primitive Species Template
Primitive Species Template has been nominated for deletion. Can you please provide input. AtsmeWills &#9775;  talk  02:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Will do.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:08, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The template was removed from the sturgeon article, I undid it, and he reverted it. I don't understand how he can suddenly decide something doesn't belong just because he doesn't like the title.  Shouldn't the template be allowed to remain until a consensus has been reached?  Isn't that what policy dictates? AtsmeWills  &#9775;  talk  22:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Policy suggests that, yes, though, to avoid escalating into edit warring, we should just wait until the consensus decides what to formally do.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you, Mr. Fink. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs) 23:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, the discussion has escalated into 10,423 words - more than most Wiki articles. I'd laugh if I wasn't so tired from typing.  Much to my dismay, there was some purposeful deletion of several primitive fishes templates along with references to the term "primitive" in the articles I listed to justify keeping the template.  I've been reverting, and adding back the template, but at the same time, I don't want to get tangled up in an edit war.  I've already compromised a little on my end by allowing the image on the template to be deleted, and even welcomed a little housekeeping on the order of the linked articles.  Now I see where the following sentence has been added in the section above the template at the various articles:  ‹ The template below (Primitive fishes) is being considered for deletion. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus.›  Not quite sure what to do next except wait out the 30 days to see what happens. AtsmeWills  &#9775;  talk  05:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you know how to make the primitive fishes template the same width as the Taxobox? <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF">AtsmeWills &#9775;  talk  13:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Such is the heartache of wikidrama. I looked through the Taxobox template information, and I'm not sure what to do to adjust the width of the template.  I'll ask around.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

User talk:72.131.57.101
Letting you know I removed the vandal warnings from this guys page. The edits to saber-toothed cat seem to be good-faith and I'm gonna try the welcoming approach :-) <font color="#FC89AC" face="Comic Sans MS">♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ Talk ♪  ߷  ♀ Contribs ♀ 04:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Understood.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:56, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand.....
You, of course, are free to post on my talk page any time.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:50, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course, I know when to take a hint to hike. I haven't spent half my life watching Jack Benny without learning anything, after all.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:09, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Absolutely loved Jack Benny, but didn't appreciate his humor then as much as I do now. Hope you don't mind me chiming in, considering the expense of giving away my age, but then I can always refer back to having seen reruns purchased via Time Life.  <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF">AtsmeWills  &#9775;  talk  17:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You're thirty-nine twice, too?--Mr Fink (talk) 18:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Uh oh. You must be referring to radio.  I'm referring to television reruns of the Jack Benny Program in color, but there are definitely times when I feel thirty-nine twice. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF">AtsmeWills  &#9775;  talk  19:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Bowfin question
I have found over the years that biologists tend to write scientific prose rather than engaging prose, even though both maintain accuracy. Wiki guidelines suggest engaging prose, especially in the lead-in. Considering you've been editing the bowfin article from time to time, may I please ask your opinion on the following diffs with regards to which lead-in you think more readers would be inclined to stay "hooked"? <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF">AtsmeWills &#9775;  talk  18:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * From what I've learned is that Wikipedia's primary function is to educate the reader, not entertain, though, yes, it is extremely difficult to educate an unhooked reader. Or at least, err towards scientific prose, but veer away from jargon, and use only a small amount of science technicalities when appropriate.  But, anyhow, please proceed.--Mr Fink (talk) 19:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Ooops, forgot to include the link, so here it is now.  Memory issues...must be early onset of the thirty-nine twice anomaly. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF">AtsmeWills  &#9775;  talk  19:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I would go with Cyclopia's version, if only because "only true "bony fish"" sounds both awkward and misleading. We can still integrate both versions further.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm flexible. The term came right from a cited reliable source, so it wasn't something I made up, but I did think it was an interesting point to emphasize since not all "bony fish" are bony.   Cyclopia prefers to use the category "bony fish" instead of "ray-finned fish" even for species that are almost entirely cartilaginous.  Also if you'll look in the first paragraph of the sturgeon article, it uses the term, "true sturgeons".  Seemed to fit, but I'm always open to "better".  <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF">AtsmeWills  &#9775;  talk  20:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * We could mention in the anatomy section about how, of all the extent members of Osteichthys, the bowfin is the only member whose skeleton is not cartilaginous.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That could work. I'm tickled to see the article growing from starter to at least something with information!!  Know what I mean? <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF">AtsmeWills  &#9775;  talk  20:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Like vitamins.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeppers, but in this case, in light of the ongoing discussions at Cfd and Tfd, it's more like "Miracle Grow". <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF">AtsmeWills  &#9775;  talk  20:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Bowfin assessed
Congrats - our collaborative efforts made a difference. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF">AtsmeWills &#9775;  talk  22:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Excellent! Congratulations!--Mr Fink (talk) 23:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I posted the same "congrats" on Cyclopia's talk page. He thought it was some kind of joke, and didn't understand.  Since he doesn't listen to me, would you be so kind as to explain it to him on his talk page?  <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF">AtsmeWills  &#9775;  talk  01:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Seahorse
Maybe Humandictionary should be warned because this is the second time his/her vandalizing edits to Seahorse have been undone in the last few minutes. I don't know if there is a warning template that can be used, or where to find it. CorinneSD (talk) 00:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Humandictionary's edits remind me too much of those of a vandalism-only account.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=612839320 your edit] to Prolibytherium may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:01, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * ' remains in flux. At one time, it was described as a relative of Sivatherium  as a precursor to "Libytherium maurusium" (S. maurusium).  Later, it would be regarded as a [[

Nelumbo
Sorry. You're right.

I mistook it as redundant when it's not. 99.238.74.216 (talk) 23:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

RE: Trump caterpillar
The image of Donald Trump on Megalopyge opercularis was NOT vandalism. I intended for it to compare the caterpillar to Trump's wig, and that was the best picture that was lawfully on Wikipedia that I could use. I had no intention of disruption or vandalism in mind and am greatly insulted that you made such a claim.

I have a valid and reliable source that makes the exact comparison I added to the Gallery and even cited it in a previous edit. It even has two pictures, one of Donald Trump and one of the Megalopyge opercularis.

I request an apology, and remember, Assume Good Faith, because I had no malice involved.

--99.157.108.186 (talk) 22:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I can't judge the reliability of that source, but I know Apokryltaros can, and will. I just wanted to add that just because something is published doesn't mean that it is in good taste or adds significantly to an article. CorinneSD (talk) 22:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I already reverted what I did.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, another editor rereverted, stating that such a controversial statement does need a citation to support it, and that such a statement can be potentially (mis)construed as libel, as per WP:GRAPEVINE, and was the original reason why I mistook it for vandalism in the first place.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Richard Proenneke
I posted a question about an edit to Richard Proenneke at User talk:Vsmith. Vsmith replied and suggested looking at the source to find out what was used there. Can you either help me find the source or make a determination yourself regarding the edit? "Contiguous United States", while possibly correct technically, sounds a little odd to both Vsmith and myself (and I don't know who else to ask about U.S. geography). CorinneSD (talk) 23:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * When the term "Contiguous United States," they mean "the Continental United States" or "48 States," i.e., those States that border each other, thus excluding Alaska and Hawaii. I will check your question, and see what I can do to help.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. (I knew that. It still sounds odd in this context.) CorinneSD (talk) 23:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Talk:Abiogenesis. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 13:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Abiogenesis
Hello, Mr. Fink -- I posted this comment on Dr. Bogdan's talk page. He replied that he thought "arises" is more encylopaedic and neutral, and suggested I post it on the talk page of the article, but I don't want to, at least not now. I just want to know why you think "arises" is the best verb.

I've read some of the discussions on the talk page of Abiogenesis. I can only follow it to a certain extent since I'm not a scientist, but I have been fascinated by the exchanges. I noticed that a consensus was reached regarding the use of the verb "arises" at the beginning of the article. I just thought I'd share with you my reaction to that word. It seems to me to be a rather boring, vague verb that doesn't really say much. Is it so on purpose because no one really knows exactly when or how life arose from non-living matter? (Please understand that I firmly believe in evolution and am not a creationist.) I would have chosen a more active, interesting verb such as "springs", "develops", "emerges", etc. (or the past tense form if that is appropriate). Just a thought. I'd love to learn more. CorinneSD (talk) 00:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, as an encyclopedia, I've been informed that our ultimate goal is to inform the reader, and not to entertain the reader. Having said that, I do recognize, as you've pointed out, that we do need to capture our readers' attention.  Of the suggested synonyms you bring up, I would think that "develops" has the best potential.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Dire Wolves on Game of Thrones
Why remove that information we all know Dire Wolves appear on Game of Thrones and that is probably where most people have heard of them from. Byzantinefire (talk) 22:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As was mentioned on Talk:Dire wolf several times, a) fantasy "dire wolves" are invariably magically enlarged grey wolves and do not actually have anything at all to do with Canis dirus save for the same common name, b) are the "dire wolves" of the Game of Thrones franchise really are C. dirus, or are they merely stock fantasy enlarged grey wolves? c) if dire wolves really are integral to Game of Thrones, then how come they are not mentioned in the appropriate article page beyond a one-word mention? and, most importantly, d) "In Popular Culture" sections are about how society and or popular views the topic, and not uncited laundry lists of "Spot the Monster" cameo appearances (which was why Dire Wolf's "In Popular Culture" was removed in the first place). In other words, if you want to include mention of "Game of Thrones" on Dire Wolf as a part of the "In Popular Culture" section, please provide an explanation, supported with reputable sources, that Game of Thrones "dire wolves" are the reason "most people have heard of them from."  That, and are you really certain that most people have heard of dire wolves through the HBO series, and not, say, books on prehistoric animals?--Mr Fink (talk) 22:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well actually i first learned of Dire Wolves through books but it might not be the cass with everyone else. Byzantinefire (talk) 22:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Either way, it would strongly help your case if you were to find reputable sources that support the notability of Game of Thrones dire wolves, and or that the Game of Thrones dire wolves are, in fact, C. dirus.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess George R.R Martin might have the answer. Byzantinefire (talk) 00:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 04:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Fossil
Do you agree with the latest edits to Fossil? I wonder particularly about changing "Petrification" to "Petrifaction". CorinneSD (talk) 15:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems a little like word-mincing, but, the article is "Petrifaction," after all.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


 * OMG. I had not even checked to see the title of the article to which the link led. I had never heard the word "petrifaction" and confused it with "putrefaction". I had only heard the word "petrification" and associated that with "fossil". It shows I need to check things more before I ask a question about it, and I learned something new. Sorry to have bothered you. CorinneSD (talk) 17:08, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem. That I helped clarify things is always a plus.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Review American paddlefish, FA nominee
Good day to you, Mr Fink - if you find a lull in your relentless schedule, would you be so kind as to look over the American paddlefish article, and consult with me regarding its FA potential? <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF">Atsme &#9775;  Consult  16:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it has good potential. I did a little tweaking of the prose to help.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, kindly. One question, though...you wrote:  A second, extinct species, P. tuberculata, fossils of which are found in the Lower Paleoscene Tullock Formation in Montana, approximately 60 million years ago.  Perhaps it's just me, but it seems incomplete.  Should the sentence begin with "There is" or "There was" a second, now extinct species, P. tuberculata,.....???    <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF">Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  23:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "There is" as the second species still has a distinct status. Actually, neither would be necessary.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Good evening, Mr. Fink. Remember my question above regarding the incomplete sentence?  Following is the comment from the FA reviewer: "A second, extinct species, P. tuberculata, fossils of which are found in the Lower Paleoscene Tullock Formation in Montana, approximately 60 million years ago" - This sentence has no verb.  I'm going to make the change I suggested above.  If you had something different in mind for that particular sentence, please feel free to make any changes you deem appropriate. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF">Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  03:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The changes you've just made are more than adequate, thank you.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Question about Redundant Categories
I have found other pages of sharks that had the prehistoric cartilagenous fish as a added category, should I replace them with (XPeriod) sharks? I'm not sure if the prehistoric cartilagenous fish category applies or not.Tnophelia (talk) 21:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "Prehistoric cartilaginous fish" should be a super-category, so, yes, those articles that have it should be replaced with "category: (XPeriod) sharks" as necessary. The only articles that should have "prehistoric cartilaginous fish" as a category are higher-taxon articles (i.e., Paraselachii, etc).--Mr Fink (talk) 22:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

WWD dinosaurs....
Australovenator is the polar allosaur and it had mistakes because few bones were found and were the same species. That was the largest carnivore on Australia at the time and they said it in the narration. Thescelosaurus were the hypsilophodonts not identified (it lived 66-65 million years ago same time as episode). Also a purgatorius appeared in the same episode as a mammal in the volcanic vents and it was shown dead. What are we going to do, so I will never do it again? --24.21.66.220 (talk) 23:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

But you keep one? I have all the books, checked the official site and watched the documentary. The Dromaeosaurus is not called Dromaeosaurus in any of them. Its just dromaeosaur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.66.220 (talk) 23:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

No. I know that now. Checked site and books nothing. But please remove Dromaeosaurus, also Pleslioplureodon (never mentioned that). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.66.220 (talk) 23:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Bringing up a Tu quoque does not excuse you from inappropriately identifying those animals. That, and you're not yet blocked, so you don't need to boss me around, either. Also, and that Plesiopleurodon is identified as such according to the British original.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Balnibarbi
Thank you for your kind note, after which my comments will seem to cavil. As I explained on the article talk page, I moved the page to the new title "-(trilobite)" for consistency with the disambiguation used in the given category; you've moved it with the edit summary "genus rather than trilobite". Is that just personal preference, or is there a wider reason? if so, the other pages will need moving also, for consistency: If not, I'd be inclined to say this page was better where it was. What do you think? I will look for a reply here, or at the article talk page: Either way I will need to fix the links to the Balnibarbi title, but I'll need to know where to fix them to. Regards, Moonraker12 (talk) 12:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's been my experience that if there is only one biological taxon named after something, then it's best to simply title it "Name (genus)". If there's more than one entity with one name, like, say, Orthoceras, or Proteus, then it would be prudent to have a more specific descriptor.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but that doesn't really resolve the issue. Is there a naming convention for these things? Or another guideline that is also applicable? Otherwise the category is 3:1 in favour of "-(trilobite)", and the "Trilobites sorted by geochronology" category is 6:3 in favour overall. And "-(genus)" is as uninformative as "Gulliver's Travels (print)" would be. Moonraker12 (talk) 14:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * PS:I've not seen a reply to this, so I've gone ahead and reverted the move.
 * If you feel strongly that the chosen title is incorrect, and have a guideline to support that, perhaps it'd be best to take it to Requested moves for a third party to decide on it.
 * I trust you are OK with that: Regards, Moonraker12 (talk) 11:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not okay with the move, especially since you appeared to have totally ignored the reasons I gave, i.e., if there are no other taxa with the same name, it is unnecessary to be so specific.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think it's you that has totally ignored my answer, which was that the reason you gave doesn't really resolve the issue (being a statement of your personal preference); and that when I asked for you to suggest a naming convention or guideline that supported your contention, which you haven't yet given. But we'll see what the RM decides... Moonraker12 (talk) 14:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Your expertise is requested for bowfin...
Mr. Fink - would you be so kind as to review the following, and help me conform to the requested clean-up? The irony of it all. Doesn't seem that long ago I was arguing a "primitive fishes" battle, and here it is again, only this time in the reverse. *lol* <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF">Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  14:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure thing.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Almost done but I'm having issues with the Evolution and phylogeny section. Will you please peruse, and let me know if any of the cladograms would work in concert with the Evolution and phylogeny section at Bowfin?  Considering the section starts off with Competing hypotheses and debates continue over the evolution of Amia and relatives, it makes it hard to know which cladogram the reviewer would like to see.  I included a diagram showing the 4 varying hypotheses, but I don't know what more I need to do.  What are your thoughts on that section? <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF">Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  02:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The second cladogram would be most helpful for the article, then.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That's the one I recreated and uploaded, but there's just one problem - it doesn't follow in line with what's written in the article. The cladogram shows Actinopterygians can be divided into two distinct groups: basal actinopterygians and neopterygians while the article states two monophyletic groups: Chondrostei (holosteans) and Neopterygii (teleost fishes).  At this point, I'm wondering if I should just scrap Cyclopia's hypotheses treatment, and just go with what is currently accepted - like what's at the link I gave you for the University College of London?  We can always update the article with the most current information once the scientists get it all ironed out, right?  As it stands now, there's just too much controversy and confusion. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF">Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  04:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That would probably be the best course of action, then.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Think I got it all fixed. Thanks for your help, Mr. Fink. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF">Atsme &#9775;  Consult  17:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Great!--Mr Fink (talk) 18:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for setting me straight regarding Evolution.

Yours,

Johannon (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome.

 * Thanks again!--Mr Fink (talk) 16:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

another big thank you
Thank you for looking into that article. I believe another user…I think it was "Yintan" put a place where we could request "wp:padlock" or something like that. check the talk page.

Yours,

Johannon (talk) 21:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Then that means the page is now locked, i.e., that certain types of users are restricted from editing that page.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Evolution Thread
Thanks for removing the anti-Bible hate speech by Ian. It always surprises me when users describing themselves as non-biased engage in hate speech against a religion. NaN, ILoveProgramming (talk) 02:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's just say that I prefer to keep things as per house rules.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the gallery.
This one in particular.

Cool name, too. I wouldn't have ever clicked it to find this if it had sounded like something else.

Keep up the good work! InedibleHulk (talk) 07:24, November 7, 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Though, I need to redraw Sinotherium one of these days.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Interesting user name
I just thought you might be interested in seeing a new user name User:Platypusmonotreme who just edited Papua New Guinea. Perhaps a zoologist? CorinneSD (talk) 16:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Either that or another science fan. Platypus also did a lot of editing at Microbrachius, too: we could ask.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

there is a discussion going to be going on and you're involved
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive855#http:.2F.2Fen.wikipedia.org.2Fwiki.2FUser:4TheWynne_keeps_removing_valid_sources_and_is_protecting_a_deceptive_article 73.193.195.69 (talk) 01:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * FYI: I moved the discussion for the IP from the archive page over to the live WP:ANI page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Special wishes....

 * Gorgeous!--Mr Fink (talk) 15:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Your AIV report
I removed it. There is no "vendetta", and if you're filing a complaint for edit warring you should have reported the other party as well. There was no vandalism. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:57, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to point out that I was a bit slower, but I was about to refer the case to WP:AN/EW instead, which is the appropriate place for edit warring (not vandalism). And Drmies is right about reporting other parties as well.--Slon02 (talk) 02:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's hard to accept that the editor's comments are not personal attacks.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:07, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, in that case you're going to have to be much more specific. "Grow up" isn't much of a blockable personal insult., I appreciate the note. Merry Christmas Eve. I gotta put a trampoline together. Drmies (talk) 02:20, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. And remember to put the trampoline away from the good china.--Mr Fink (talk) 19:45, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

 * Hahaha!--Mr Fink (talk) 21:42, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hahahaha! Dinosaur Fan (talk) 04:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Bruhathkayosaurus
Do you think you have time to talk about Bruhathkayosaurus if it was a dinosaur or a tree? Dinosaur Fan (talk) 04:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, we would probably first find sources that says Bruhathkayosaurus was just only a tree. I list one on the article's talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinosaur Fan (talk • contribs) 05:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Conus
Hello, Apokryltaros! Happy New Year! If you have time, would you look at the latest edit to Conus? An editor added a clause, but it appears to be unsourced. I also feel the sentence is a bit heavy with a lot of very long words. This in particular seems awkward: "their role has been particularly elucidated in". Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 22:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Although it was obviously made with good intentions, I went ahead and reverted it, explaining that such a statement needs a citation. I should have mentioned that it was sort of vague, too.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, if it gets re-added with a citation, we can work on the wording. CorinneSD (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Carp
Do you want to see a long sentence? Look at the first sentence in Carp. CorinneSD (talk) 01:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * How terrible it is, too. We need to amputate it.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I just noticed an edit in which an editor added what looks like a company -- "The Fly Stop" -- to a list of groups that promote carp fishing. Can you look at that and determine whether that or any of the others are appropriate? I know WP avoids including anything like advertising in articles. CorinneSD (talk) 04:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I just checked that out, and it looks too advertise-y to be fit for use as a reference.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you look at the others in that sentence to be sure they aren't too much like advertising? Also, did you see the "clarification needed" tag I added? Perhaps you can clear that up. CorinneSD (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I will check out the clarification needed tag in a moment, I rewrote some of the sentences in order to correct some errors in that section: I just removed "Carppro" as the link leads to what looks like an abandoned website (pictures removed, etc).--Mr Fink (talk) 16:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It sounds much better. I wanted to add a link to "labyrinth", but I couldn't find any reference to labyrinth in biology in the WP article on Labyrinth. There is some information on labyrinth in the article on Ear. I don't know if you think it would be helpful to add a link to the ear article or to a section in the ear article such as Middle ear. I don't know if the labyrinth in the carp corresponds to the labyrinth in the human ear. CorinneSD (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I decided to be WP:BOLD, and link to the bony labyrinth, as, as far as I can tell, that's the equivalent anatomical structure.--Mr Fink (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Episode lists
Could you start updating the Drive and ToQger episode lists as well? I'm just not feeling it anymore and I also probably won't be able to if I get banned.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 04:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright, I should start watching the episodes more often. I can't promise about updating the movie pages, though.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Therizinosaurus
As you'll see, I've reverted an edit in Therizinosaurus in which an editor added a conversion template from meters to feet. (Normally, I'm in favor of conversion templates, but more often when it's kilometers to miles). The edit had shown feet in decimals, so instead of 8 feet it showed 8.2 feet, which as you know doesn't make much sense to people used to feet and inches, so the rounded 8 ft. is fine. With the conversion template added, the other measurement showed 11.5 feet. Now it's back to 11 feet. I'm wondering whether it would be possible to add "1/2" to the 11 feet - 11-1/2 ft. -- or whether you think it's better just to leave it at 11 ft. CorinneSD (talk) 18:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I see my edit has been reverted by the IP. So you'll have to decide. CorinneSD (talk) 18:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's my preference to use the conversion templates when best appropriate.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It is mine, too, but I think numbers such as "8.2 ft." and "11.5" ft. are not helpful to people who are used to feet and inches. I think "8.2 ft." should be rounded to 8 feet and "11.5 ft." should either be rounded to 11 feet or expressed as 11-1/2 ft. or 11 and a half feet. If you prefer "11.5 ft." I think that's all right, but I absolutely think the conversion template should not be used when it yields numbers like "8.2 ft." or "5.7 inches". CorinneSD (talk) 19:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Excellent point. If it were me, I would just switch to metric entirely, if only because the metric system easily lends itself with decimals.  But, unfortunately, a large majority of readers are Americans, and that this particular editor who reverted you has a bad case of Can't-hear-you-itis.--Mr Fink (talk) 19:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, would you at least remove the conversion template for the first one, the one that yields 8.2 feet? Perhaps s/he would be satisfied with just 11.5 feet on the second one. (Even that would puzzle many Americans.) I don't want to engage in an edit war. CorinneSD (talk) 04:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I just got back from a block I got from editwarring with the user's sock puppet.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pteraspidiformes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rostrum. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Your revert of my deleted hatnote in Han (trilobite)
Actually, I don't understand your revert of my deletion in Han (trilobite). Do you really think that someone who is looking for Han Solo does enter "Han (trilobite)" in the search window (instead of "han" or "han solo"), so that a hatnote is necessary to guide the reader from the trilobite article to the Star Wars character?

And my edit summary was just a reference to a very similar contribution: this one. A better edit summary for my deletion would be "see 'When not to use' in Template:Other uses".

Regards --Cyfal (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, then.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you! --Cyfal (talk) 23:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * After reading the guidelines, it then seemed better to emphasis that it was named after the Star Wars character.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Guessing you'll know what this is about
I've drafted a topic ban proposal, waiting for one more point on it. Additional action after the hatting should seal the deal. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, then.--Mr Fink (talk) 06:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I've started it. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Moose
If you have time, would you look at this edit to Moose:. I just want to be sure it is correct. Also, while you're there, you might review my edit. (Also see discussion at User talk:Rothorpe.) Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 00:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * For that first edit, I opted to further refine it mostly to make sure that the viewer would not mistakenly suspect that "moose" was used as a term for the animal in ancient Europe.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks good now. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 03:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You owe me a chocolate moose now.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Click here. ;) CorinneSD (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Conus, part 2
What do you think of this edit to Conus? . I haven't seen this phrase used in WP articles. While you're there, you can look at previous and subsequent edits made by this editor (who appears knowledgeable). CorinneSD (talk) 23:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "Sensu stricto" means that we're talking about either a confirmed monophyletic taxon, or a specific branch of a taxon that is confirmed to be monophyletic. And yes, I've seen and trust InvertZoo's edits and expertise.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * O.K. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 01:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yacón, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daisy. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Gravity Falls
This is the SPI of the sock I'm referring to: Sockpuppet_investigations/Gabucho181. Generally likes to put in hoaxes about cancellation, adding nonsense about Dan Vs., trying to make crossovers with other shows, etc. His MO has shifted over time, but if you see apparent hoaxes on Gravity Falls, MLP:FiM, Dan Vs., or other cartoon pages, it's likely him or Sockpuppet_investigations/Finealt.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 03:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I will be more aware then.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Marsh
What do you think of these edits to Marsh? The editor changed uncountable "habitat" to countable ("a habitat" and "habitats"), and singular "this landscape" to plural "these landscapes". Is a prairie pothole a landscape, so that referring to all the prairie potholes in North America requires the plural "these landscapes"? I would have thought "this landscape" really refers to the vast prairies of North America, which is a kind of continuous landscape. Perhaps "this prairie landscape"? I'm sure you know more about this than I do. CorinneSD (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The edits seem okay; they appear to be grammar-checking, as there are a multitude of marshes.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Elfdalian
I just came across this addition to an article about a language spoken by just a few people in Sweden, Elfdalian. I thought you might find it interesting. CorinneSD (talk) 14:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds very nasal and interesting. Thanks for the heads up.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't mean the language. The added material was about a newly discovered mollusc. CorinneSD (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * OH! I need to get ahold that paper.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Conus III
I don't know if you have the article on Conus on your watchlist, but in case you don't, would you mind reviewing this edit and the two previous ones by the same editor? CorinneSD (talk) 17:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay. After going through what user JoAnn wrote, I only removed that last statement about the 2015 study superseding the 2014 study, as both are the same study/proposed reclassification of Conidae and Conus.  Other than that, the edits were fine.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * O.K. CorinneSD (talk) 22:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring
While I get that we want to adhere to the talk page guidelines, edit warring on a talk page (especially to that degree) is not helpful. The ip is now likely to stick around and keep being disruptive, and reporting him to AN3 will result in your edits being scrutinized too. It isn't a BLP vio, so it's probably best to just leave it there for now. &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 21:44, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Even the ip's harassments on mine and 's talkpages?--Mr Fink (talk) 21:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm just commenting on Talk:Abiogenesis. In general, your talk page is "yours" to manage, and harassment is a separate issue. I made a report to RfPP and AN3, because this issue is clearly not going to resolve itself... but, unfortunately, you're way over 3rr. A self revert on Talk:Abiogenesis might prevent you from being blocked alongside him. The comments he made on originally are really not that far over the line; you're a good editor, I don't want to see you end up mixed up in an ips disruption.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 21:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Understood.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Carp II
Do you know anything about fish? Maybe you can answer the question posed in a tag just added to Carp at. (I've noticed often, when there is a sentence that says something like, "Some consider...", a tag like this is added.) (The question should really be "Who?", not "By whom?", but that's not important here.) CorinneSD (talk) 22:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The "some" probably refers to various authors, ichthyologists and or fishermen who refer to Cyprinidae as "the carp family," though, I'm not sure how to source that. You think it would be acceptable to look up some fishbooks that refers to Cyprinidae as "the carp family"?--Mr Fink (talk) 22:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I found:
 * ,
 * ,
 * ,
 * ,
 * ,
 * ,
 * .


 * and:


 * .


 * I didn't find anything specific enough to answer the question. Maybe you can. ;) CorinneSD (talk) 23:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Haunted Mansion is a horror-comedy
Hello Apokryltaros. I know I have made a lot of edits to the genre section of some films and TV shows, and it has been considered vandalism because I haven't given a source stating all of the information, but a few days ago you undid my edits to Haunted Mansion even though all of the information was clearly stated in the source I provided. Zackdaman (talk • contribs) — Preceding undated comment added 01:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Sawfish
I was just looking at the latest edit to Sawfish when I noticed that in the table in Sawfish, there is no image for Pristis pristis, even though it is not yet extinct. I wonder if you could find a photo of one to add to the table. CorinneSD (talk) 02:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * So far, the only one I can find is the embryo in a jar here, but I'm thinking we'd want something more, shall we say, less pickled looking.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes, definitely. CorinneSD (talk) 02:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The Popular Culture Section
Haast's eagle What was wrong with the Popular culture section? I just added more detailed information, and tried to ensure I cited BBC's links. The section was there before I started with Wikipedia. In fact, it was my second time editing anything. I just want to understand what lead to your decision to remove a section that was there before I touched it.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PMS123 (talk • contribs) 05:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * , "In Popular Culture" sections should be a discussion of how Popular Culture views (and uses) the subject: the section should not be a laundry list of franchises where the subject has made a guest appearance in, nor should it be a word-for-word rehash-summary of the episode it starred in. Does the BBC give detailed reasons why it chose to portray Haast's eagle as a man eater, besides using artistic license to ratchet up the drama?  Do the sources provide any (reputable) research to support their portrayal?  More importantly, are there (reputable) second-party sources that comment on how the BBC's portrayal of Haast's Eagle colors the public's view of it?  A good example of a "In Popular Culture" section would be that of Apatosaurus' section--Mr Fink (talk) 14:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Sahelanthropus
I just finished reading the article on Sahelanthropus and I have a few questions for you:

1) In the section on Fossils, there are two "citation needed" tags that have been there since November 2012. I don't know if you want to find some sources so the tags can be removed.
 * I'll see what I can dig up.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

2) The last sentence of the first paragraph in Sahelanthropus is:


 * In particular, if Toumaï is a direct human ancestor, then its facial features bring into doubt the status of Australopithecus because its thickened brow ridges were reported to be similar to those of some later fossil hominids (notably Homo erectus), whereas this morphology differs from that observed in all australopithecines, most fossil hominids and extant humans.

I understood most of the rest of the article, but I don't understand this sentence. First, I assume that "its" in "its thickened brow ridge" refers to Toumaï and not Australopithecus, but don't you think any possible ambiguity should be cleared up by using the name? Second, I don't understand how the similarity of Toumaï's brow ridges to those of later fossil hominids brings into doubt the status of Australopithecus. Also, what is "this morphology"? Is it the thickened brow ridges? If so, and if Toumaï's thickened brow ridges differ "from all australopithecines, most fossil hominids and extant humans", how, exactly, does Toumaï being a direct human ancester "bring into doubt the status of Australopithecus"? Without explaining every last detail, is there a way to add a few words to this sentence to make that conclusion clear for the non-expert reader (such as myself)?
 * Perhaps "brow ridge morphology" might clarify it a bit?--Mr Fink (talk) 01:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * First, thank you for reading this and replying. Second, that would clarify that bit, but what about my last question about the significance? CorinneSD (talk) 12:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I should have looked at the article first. Now I see that you have done quite a bit of fixing. All definitely better, of course, but I still don't understand how, if Toumaï is accepted as a direct human ancestor, it brings into doubt the status of Australopithecus (this reveals my ignorance, of course, but perhaps just a few added words would make this clear). CorinneSD (talk) 12:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think Toumaï would cause Australopithecus to either be paraphyletic, or bring the idea of it being a chain of human ancestors into question: in my experience, these two options are usually what people mean when they say "taxon S brings doubt about the status of taxon B." I don't suggest actually putting either modification into the article yet, as I'm not sure which sort of "doubt" they mean.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

3) The fourth paragraph in that same section, Sahelanthropus, consists of these two sentences:


 * Sediment isotope analysis of cosmogenic atoms in the fossil yielded an age of about 7 million years. In this case, however, the fossils were found exposed in loose sand; co-discoverer Beauvilain cautions that such sediment can be easily moved by the wind, unlike packed earth.

Wouldn't the second sentence be clearer if a phrase or clause were added to the end of it indicating the significance of these facts regarding the date? Something like,


 * making the date of 7 million years doubtful, or


 * making the the date of 7 million years less certain,

or something like that? CorinneSD (talk) 00:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The latter sounds doable.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
<span style="font-weight:bold; color:blue; text-shadow:grey 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em; letter-spacing: 2px; padding: 1px 3px;"> Dewritech (talk)  17:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Reverts
FWIW, I've always found WP:OWB to be good advice. :-) <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 20:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Very well. But he should be reported for his blatant tendentious editing.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I would actually have called it more trouble than it's worth, at least until it's clear whether they're going to stick around. Besides, I would say there's also some chance of a boomerang here. <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 05:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Reverted At Qilin
Yes, it is a variant spelling and as I noted when I reverted this it is mentioned multiple times in the book--The Last Dickens that uses the kylin throughout and in the final sequences, but if the onus is on me (bold letters, you sound very stern) I can't do much more to convince you. It is not worth an edit war. Kmccook (talk) 21:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * , simply saying it is mentioned multiple times in the book does not explain nor demonstrate its qilin-related importance/relevance/notability. On the other hand, actually explaining its qilin-related importance/relevance/notability does, together with reputable citations.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

You mean you want me to go through the book and list every page it is mentioned? I simply thought this an example of a reference in popular culture, noted it down and then returned the book to the library. It's o.k. I am not going to fight for this. You win. It is not that important.Kmccook (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you read what I wrote? If you actually read what I wrote, you would have noticed that I wrote about actually explaining the significance.  In fact, I'm not actually saying or writing that you can't mention the the "kylin" headed walking stick: I'm saying that if you want to mention it, you need to explain the (qilin-related) significance of the walking stick in a manner more substantial than a throw-away one line blurb.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Fink, review the way this interaction was accomplished, please. The comment was in bold letters, shouting. Mr. Fink, this is an example of the men at Wikipedia that seem to find the tone of shouting bold face better than a simple suggestion. Please re-read and consider if a woman with any sense of self-esteem would do as you command, Mr. Fink. Wikipedia is a group enterprise and no one should shout and command. That kind of tone is not encouraging. Kmccook (talk) 14:05, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Tone-trolling never impresses or cows me, Kmccook, especially when it's used to revive an argument. My use of bold face and cap-lock was a failed attempt to try and emphasize what it was I was trying to communicate to you, i.e., that you needed to explain the qilin-related significance of the "kylin-headed walking stick" in a way more substantial than an unreferenced one-line blurb.  Or, given as how you have plenty of energy to continue badgering me, perhaps you could explain why you have no energy to make even a paltry effort to give a detailed explanation of the "kylin-headed walking stick"'s significance to the public's perception of qilins, or even why you have no energy  to make an effort to have it mentioned at The Last Dickens article, itself, if it is so significant to the plot of the book as you claim, but plenty of energy to scold me about not thinking of how my alleged reckless use of capslock and boldface would hurt hypothetical people's hypothetically delicate feelings?--Mr Fink (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, Kmccook, if you wish to continue this thread, please to continue it by explaining why you have no energy to explain the significance of the walking stick to the public/popular culture's perception of qilins, nor have the energy to have the walking stick appropriately mentioned in its corresponding article page, yet plenty of energy to scold me for not assuming a more delicate, groveling tone, nevermind that I was trying and failing to appropriately clarify whatever it was I was trying to communicate to you.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Sapsali
Can you read my comment at User talk:Sagaciousphil? Sagaciousphil responded, but I'm not good at judging or adding sources. I just like to work on the writing in articles. Maybe you can help. CorinneSD (talk) 13:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * From what I can tell, Sagaciousphil is suggesting a minor overhaul by changing a redirect, and getting better sources.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Aleksander Zalewski
I just finished reading the article on Ferdynand Antoni Ossendowski. In that article it mentions Aleksander Zalewski, which is linked to a brief article. However, I have one of Ossendowski's books in front of me, and in it he refers several times to Professor Stanislaw Zaleski. I may be wrong, but to me "Aleksander Zalewski" sounds Russian, and "Stanislaw Zaleski" sounds more Polish. Since he was Polish, shouldn't his name be written in the Polish version?

On another issue, for the Ossendowski article, would it make sense, or be appropriate, to summarize the content of the book and/or include a quote from this book? I've never added content to any article, so am unsure of the rules. CorinneSD (talk) 23:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I just realized that the article on Ossendowski has "Ferdynand Antoni Ossendowski" as its title, but "Antoni Ferdynand Ossendowski" as his name in the first line of the article. Weird. CorinneSD (talk) 23:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)



I just saw this at Featured picture candidates. It seems "Stanislaw" is Polish. :) CorinneSD (talk) 23:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Beautiful painting. However, from the link on Aleksander Zalewski, it seems that that was his name or preferred pen name, and not Stanislaw.  I would recommend against putting "Stanislaw" in.  As for summarizing with a quote, I strongly recommend that for enriching the article.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * O.K. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

sort keys
u should make sure u put the right sort keys on categories. 118.93.75.131 (talk) 21:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder. Feel free to add any keys I miss, too.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I did at Category:Parrots of Oceania. 118.93.75.131 (talk) 21:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Double thanks!--Mr Fink (talk) 21:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Methanosarcina
I was just reading the article on Methanosarcina, and I saw the interesting photo of this microbe, and in the section Methanosarcina, it mentions another archaeon, Aeropyrum pernix, and it says a primitive form of hemoglobin was found in both of them. However, there is no photo of Aeropyrum pernix as there is for Methanosarcina. I'd love to see one, and I wondered if you could find one. CorinneSD (talk) 02:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find a photo of it available for use, either, so I emailed one of the authors of A. pernix's paper to see if we could use the photos in the paper. If worse comes to worst, though, I can always draw a picture of it.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's great! Thanks! I look forward to seeing either one. CorinneSD (talk) 15:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I will try to inform you of the results, or, worse comes to worst, upload the pictures later this month.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Six Flags Magic Mountain
I'm not sure how or why this is dubious ... the article itself references and links to Rocky Mountain Construction. If there's something ambiguous about this, I'd love to hear it, as would other editors. Please feel free to discuss on the article talk page. -- McDoob AU93  15:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I reverted that edit while looking at the edits of an anonymous user with what appears to be a dynamic IP. My apologies since this appears to be an error on my part.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


 * No harm done. I've been quick on the revert trigger myself, from time to time. -- McDoob  AU93  16:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Actin filaments in a cultured cell
I don't know if you follow Featured picture candidates, but, if not, you might be interested in seeing this image at Featured picture candidate. It's quite a fascinating image, and even the description of how the photo was obtained is interesting.

You might enjoy looking at the nominated images now and then. You don't have to be an expert to participate and vote, and you learn as you participate and read the various comments. A few images above that one is an interesting photo of bees and variously colored pollen. CorinneSD (talk) 02:36, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

...Sorry, I can't figure out how to create the link directly to that nomination, but if you scroll down on that page, you'll find it. CorinneSD (talk) 02:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for letting me know about this.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Silk
I kind of knew that the spots and patterns on butterfly and moth wings were for camouflage or other protection against predators, but I just saw an image of a moth in which the the top portion of the moth's wings look like a snake. It's quite amazing, actually. See the first image in Silk, and look particularly at the top edge of the left-hand wing. I had seen this image before but never noticed this. CorinneSD (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The Atlas moth is an amazing creature.--Mr Fink (talk) 19:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Kamchatka Peninsula
I just finished reading the article on the Kamchatka Peninsula. In the section Kamchatka Peninsula there is an interesting satellite image of the peninsula surrounded by a large algal bloom. However, there is no mention of this in the article. I wonder if you could find something about it to add that would explain the image. CorinneSD (talk) 21:31, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can do.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Hoabinhian
I was just reading the article on the Hoabinhian. I thought you might be interested in a mention of a new shellfish in the middle of the last paragraph in the section Hoabinhian. I wonder, does this mean it was new then or newly discovered recently? CorinneSD (talk) 02:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think they mean "discovered at that time." I wonder if it's been named already, or not.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Wetland
I wonder if you would mind looking at this edit to Wetland and those just previous to it. An editor made a few good-faith edits to the article, but in this particular one, I think s/he misunderstood what was meant. I think it was saying that in the same way that beavers create dams, platypus (platypuses?) create burrows... If I'm correct, I think it would be clearer if the word "platypus" were added before the second "create", don't you? CorinneSD (talk) 01:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * At first, I thought that a simple comma would fix it, but then I thought it over and decided that it would be better to split the sentence into two.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's much better written now. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 13:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * My pleasure.--Mr Fink (talk) 13:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Can you
Try to finish up your to do list on the images of extinct animals? A8v (talk) 16:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm aware I need to update my lists to better reflect what I've drawn, am currently drawing, and want to draw.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Moose 2
Do you have Moose on your watch list? If not, can you take a look at this and perhaps help resolve it? Talk:Moose CorinneSD (talk) 18:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC) (Posted before Zaereth's comment.) CorinneSD (talk) 18:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I second the idea that "unregulated hunting" be replaced with "poaching"--Mr Fink (talk) 18:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't you want to add your opinion there? Your opinion would carry more weight than mine. CorinneSD (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways: Sign up now Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
 * Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
 * Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
 * Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
 * Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
 * Research coordinators: run reference services

Introducing the new WikiProject Evolutionary biology!
Greetings!

I am happy to introduce you to the new WikiProject Evolutionary biology! The newly designed WikiProject features automatically updated work lists, article quality class predictions, and a feed that tracks discussions on the 663 talk pages tagged by the WikiProject. Our hope is that these new tools will help you as a Wikipedia editor interested in evolutionary biology.
 * Browse the new WikiProject page
 * Become a member today! – members have access to an opt-in notification system

Hope to see you join! Harej (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Indigenous Australian art
I'm reading the article on Indigenous Australian art, and in the section Indigenous Australian art I see "Thylacine" in italics. However, the previous section I see two other extinct animals whose names are not in italics. I wonder if the italics is correct. CorinneSD (talk) 23:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If it's not a scientific name, or a direct translation that's being emphasized, it should not be in italics.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:39, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Your collaboration, please?
Hello, Mr. Fink - I'm pinging hoping he will also participate in this collaboration. I am disclosing herewith a determination at COIN regarding a COI over my volunteer position at Earthwave Society as it applies to some of the fish articles I edited. I have taken the following actions based on the procedures I've read at COI, and was hoping you could assist. I also wanted to mention that WP:SELFCITE states: ''Citing yourself 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. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion.'' I believe my work is compliant with the guideline but I don't want it to keep coming back to haunt me in the future. Therefore, I am asking for your consideration in a collaborative effort as follows:


 * Alligator gar - I removed the external link . There are several inline citations I have not removed because (1) EWS produced the first ever documentary on alligator gar in cooperation with USF&WS, Texas Parks & Wildlife, etc. and the information is accurate, thorough and comprehensive, and (2) there simply aren't many other RS out there to replace them.  Most mirror back anyway.  The article is a GA, and from what I understand about COI, another editor can add the citations and links, but I can't.  Perhaps the easiest thing to do is remove them and add them back, or replace them with different sources if appropriate - whatever you think best.  There is a timeless PBS documentary titled Alligator Gar: Predator or Prey, so you might consider adding an external link.  It was the #1 rated program of the evening on PBS when it first aired in primetime.  Once the issues are resolved, you can safely remove the COI tag from Talk:Alligator_gar.
 * Sturgeon - I removed 2 external links Information on North American sturgeons with photographs, and Gallery of movie clips showing different species of sturgeon.  They are actually good links, but again, the COI says I shouldn't add them because of the COI.  You can replace them if you like.  There is also a timeless PBS documentary titled Sturgeon: Ancient Survivors you may or may not think worthy as an EL.


 * American paddlefish - a featured article that has since been edited by others so it should be ok, but to be on the safe side maybe you could review it and do what you think is appropriate? It currently links to the paddlefish documentary.


 * Paddlefish - I removed a citation from the lead that probably doesn't need to be replaced. The other citations in the lead could also be removed.  I also removed the Video section under External links and the link to the PBS documentary, The Paddlefish: An American Treasure.  There's also a slightly different one at the Missouri Dept. of Conservation site, but I produced it as well so if other editors think it's worthy as an EL, you have a choice.  I'd go with the Missouri one because it's shorter, but that isn't my decision to make.

There are other documentaries at the same YouTube site on Gulf sturgeon, piping plovers, crayfish, least terns, etc. Just thought I'd let you know. Thanks for all you do. FYI - The documentaries and articles made available at EWS are academic and I see no reason why they wouldn't be considered RS. Much of the information provided the basis for what we know today about the ancestral species, less some of the most recent developments in microbiology, DNA mapping, etc. The information on the site is derived from written transcripts of the documentaries which were broadcast internationally and on PBS in the US. They were also reviewed by Booklist (American Library Association) and received good ratings. For example, America's Crayfish: Crawling in Troubled Waters was Best Of Editors’ Choice for the year 2000 — Jan 2001 Issue — BOOKLIST. All were produced in cooperation with USF&WS and numerous other state and federal resource agencies, were/still are available in university libraries, were used in ichthyology classes (and may still be), continue to be distributed by several state resource agencies, were used in educational kiosks in zoo aquariums, and as teaching aids for volunteers at the Aquarium of the Americas and also the Tennessee Aquarium, and are what some of the new research has cited because of the researchers involved. The U of Michigan cites the paddlefish documentary,, and the late Kim Graham who was our board president  h-index >50, and L.A. Helfrich (Virginia Tech) a former board member with h-index >19. While they won't pass the scrutiny of MEDRS, the information easily passes the scrutiny of RS. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 20:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * So far, everything seems kosher. Perhaps I could vet this past  and  to see if they agree that this wouldn't run afoul of WP:COI?--Mr Fink (talk) 20:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * That would be wonderful, Mr. Fink. Please do.  It's amazing how the lessons never end here.  SMirC-crazy.svg <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 22:11, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

PS: I'm also thinking that maybe I should post this on the TP of each article (aargh, that's a lot and quite scattered) to allow more input or is it ok to do it this way? Maybe Epipelagic will have some suggestions. I'm going ping a couple more editors for suggestions so we get this right: and  - input please? <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 00:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Good idea.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for letting me borrow your TP and helping me work through this. It seems pretty silly but rules are rules.   <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 01:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think I can contribute usefully Atsme. You have a minor COI issue with Earthwave, and it would be better for you to avoid linking to it. There will be other ways round this. Jytdog is inappropriately removing material from non-medical articles and needs to stop. You are both winding each other up. I'm not sure that this is what you and Jytdog want to hear, but if you were to both to pull back and stop taking these thing so seriously you might find the real issues are easily resolved. On Wikipedia "being right" is not worth a can of shit, and less is often more. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Jytdog's tagging is clearly motivated by WP:POINT rather than a genuine attempt to improve the encyclopaedia, especially when he tags an FA that is had multiple very experienced reviewers. Nevertheless, I think the general approach is right, remove unnecessary ELs and keep only links needed for verification of facts. FWIW, I never use YouTube as an EL, and only rarely as a ref, when a it's produced by an RS and verifies information not otherwise adequately referenced <b style="font-family:chiller;color:red">Jimfbleak</b> - talk to me?  12:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC).

Ciderius cooperi pdf
Hi Stanton, I can send you a 10-page pdf of: to fulfill your request at WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request/Archive_27. Please use Special:EmailUser to email me so that I can reply with the pdf as an attachment. Regards, Worldbruce (talk) 09:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Gambit van der Brugghen, "Ciderius cooperi gen. nov., sp. nov., the earliest known euphaneropid from the Lower Silurian of Scotland," Netherlands Journal of Geosciences, (April 2015)
 * Done! Thank you!--Mr Fink (talk) 14:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Categories
I'm going by the Paleobiology Database, a lot of these articles seem to be inaccurate. Abyssal (talk) 17:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Doesn't the Paleobiology Database have a reputation for having glaring inaccuracies, itself? That, and I can't believe a site that says the Amynodonts went extinct in the Pleistocene, even though they disappear from the fossil record during the Miocene.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I can opt to go with the Wikipedia article text over the database if there are doubts about its accuracy. Abyssal (talk) 17:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That would probably save us all a lot of headaches.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Reverting my talk page comment?
What was this about? --JBL (talk) 23:48, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I didn't realize that the edit conflict ate your comment.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, no worries, thanks for restoring it. --JBL (talk) 01:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Roti Island snake-necked turtle
I just finished reading the article on the Roti Island snake-necked turtle. I felt that the section on Roti Island snake-necked turtle sounded as if it had been written by a non-native speaker of English. I think it could probably be made to sound more colloquial. Do you feel like working on it? There may be other similar-sounding sentences in the article. CorinneSD (talk) 01:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I rewrote it to make it more English class-friendly. What do you think of it so far?--Mr Fink (talk) 02:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It sounds more like English now. Thanks. The last sentence in the first paragraph in the section Roti Island snake-necked turtle is:


 * They were named for Dr. William McCord, a veterinary and turtle expert from Hopewell Junction, New York.


 * Was Dr. McCord a "veterinary and turtle expert" or a "veterinarian and turtle expert"? CorinneSD (talk) 02:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We'll bite the bullet ant and assume the latter.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

By amphicyon the bear dog
I have edit amphicyon page by adding A. Longiramus by white 1942 Amphicyon the bear dog (talk) 00:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I have edited the machairodus page
I fixed the page Vertical blinds in the world (talk) 02:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, you did not.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:45, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You might want to check out Sockpuppet investigations/HanselJolteon. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Dinoflagellate
I'm reading, and trying to understand, the article on Dinoflagellate, which I got to from the article on Australia. I have two questions:

1) I see "(e.g.)", with a reference number, twice, once in Dinoflagellate and once in the fourth paragraph in Dinoflagellate. I had never seen that before. Is that a normal thing in biology articles? What's the point of including "(e.g.)" without saying more?

2) The last sentence in the fifth paragraph in Dinoflagellate is the following:


 * The bioluminescence attracts attention to the dinoflagellate, and hence to the predator which this makes more vulnerable to predation from higher trophic levels.

I don't understand the second half of this sentence, the part after the comma. CorinneSD (talk) 02:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, it's improper to present a reference as though it were an example, especially if no apparent effort has been given to give even a nutshell summary. As for that sentence, I rewrote it to be clearer, i.e., that the dinoflagellate luminescing draws the attention of its predator's predators.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's clearer now (although the way you worded it here is even clearer, but probably not academic enough). CorinneSD (talk) 16:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Understood.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Permian
I'm reading the article on Permian. I've come to the section Permian. I'm puzzled by the second sentence. Specifically, it's not clear to me what "this" refers to. Does it mean sea levels remaining low, near-shore environments being limited, or both? Also, it says "Sea levels...remained generally low", which suggests they were low for quite a while, so why would that cause extinction of animals that had developed in low sea levels?

Also, I'm surprised that an article such as this would have only one paragraph on the oceans of the world. CorinneSD (talk) 02:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

2) In the section Permian, first paragraph, the first and last sentences seem to be about the same insect. Are both sentences needed?

3) In the Insects section, second paragraph, there is a sentence that doesn't sound right:


 * Their prototypes are the oldest winged fossils, go back to the Devonian, and are different in several respects from the wings of other insects.

Can you fix this? CorinneSD (talk) 02:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Crurotarsi
In Crurotarsi, in the section Crurotarsi, the sentence that starts "According to two studies published in 2011" is probably clear to you, but isn't there a way to express the same thing without using two negatives? If not, O.K. But the next sentence, starting, "A more restrictive group", really does not make sense. CorinneSD (talk) 03:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That sentence with the double negative was a hot mess, if you asked me. I tried to surgically remove the double negative, and replace "restrictive" with "definitive."--Mr Fink (talk) 03:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It was. Here it is now:


 * According to two studies published in 2011 by Nesbitt and coworkers, using one of these definitions leads to inclusion of all other true archosaurs in Crurotarsi, due to the possibly basal phylogenetic position of the phytosaurs, meaning that grouping the phytosaurs and crocodilians into a clade that also excludes avemetatarsalians (pterosaurs, dinosaurs, and birds) would result in a paraphyletic grouping.


 * (a) What do you think of breaking this up into two sentences? ... This means that...


 * (b) I'm not sure, but I think the word "also" should be removed. Why "also"? It doesn't make sense.


 * (c) "Due to the possibly..." is not elegant. It would be good to find either another word for "possibly" or re-word it to avoid this construction. Unless I'm really not understanding this (which is very possible), I think the possibility should be explained before this. The tentativeness could be expressed in the verb.


 * (d) I really don't understand "using one of these definitions". Which one? Either one? CorinneSD (talk) 02:01, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and sawed that sentence in half, and replaced "also" with "while excluding." "Possibly" is used at the moment to imply that the basal status of the phytosaurs is not universally accepted among researchers.  I'm not sure what word to replace it with to make it sound more elegant at the moment.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I still prefer "that excludes..." to "while excluding". It's a tighter construction. "While excluding" is vaguer. For "possibly", what about "hypothesized"?


 * Also, I think "definitive" is not better than "restrictive". What do you mean by "definitive"? CorinneSD (talk) 02:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We can't use "hypothesized" as that would then imply that it's not yet tested, as test results that aren't universally accepted isn't the same as "posited but not yet tested." As for what I mean by "definitive," I mean the same thing as "restrictive," i.e., something that's defined as such.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:AIV
Thanks, Apokryltaros. Did you notice the "We will drive you out of Wikipedia?" (Now revdel'd.) Pluralis majestatis, perhaps? There's only one of her. As for driving me off... you'd think Kutsuit would figure out eventually that the way so many are so quick to revert abuse directed at me tends to build me up rather than to drive me off. Bishonen &#124; talk 16:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC).
 * snort My pleasure. That, and these particular trolls are so cute in thinking that they can magically persist long enough to circumvent Wikipedia policy by bullying other Wikipedians into doing as they say.  As cute as an aggressively virulent case of Molluscum contagiosum.  Oh, and use of the royal We makes me think of one snappy retort: "Who's in there with you now, Sybil?"--Mr Fink (talk) 16:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Arctic Cordillera
Hello, Apokryltaros -- I'm reading the article on Arctic Cordillera and have made a few minor edits. I came across a sentence that needs some fixing. It is the second-to-last sentence in the section Arctic Cordillera. Here is the sentence:


 * It protects many of the Arctic wilderness, such as caribou, polar bears, peregrine falcon and the golden eagle.

I think something is missing after "many", but I couldn't decide what noun to put there – creatures? Birds and animals? CorinneSD (talk) 23:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Behemoth Edit
Apologies about my earlier edit on Behemoth; I believe I edited by accident an old revision of the page which retained the statement regarding human co-existence with dinosaurs. My new edit contains exclusively the changes which I intended to make.Zmflavius (talk) 15:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Peatiness
 I'm reading the article on Peat, and I came across a "clarification needed" tag with a hidden note to editors with a valid question. It's in the section Peat. I'm wondering if you could figure out what exactly is being measured when it says "X ppm" of peat in a whiskey. CorinneSD (talk) 15:55, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * From what I could glean from the section, the "peat level" is the flavour derived from drying in a peat fire.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, that's what I understood, too, but I thought the person who added the note to editors was looking for something more precise. Maybe there is a link to an article on food flavorings that would help. I got to the peat article trying to find an explanation for "peat wastage" which I found in the last sentence in the section River Parrett:


 * The reduction in water levels that resulted put local ecosystems at risk; peat wastage in pasture fields was occurring at rates of 1–3 ft (0.3–0.8 m) over 100 years.


 * I still haven't figured out exactly what is meant by that phrase. CorinneSD (talk) 16:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Peat wastage means "loss of peat."--Mr Fink (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Mr. Fink. I knew what the word "wastage" meant. I just couldn't figure out how the peat was being wasted, especially in pasture fields, at such rates. Was it peat scraps left behind after peat was dug up in a cow pasture? If so, why would a farmer allow peat scraps to accumulate at the rate of 1 to 3 feet per 100 years in his pastures? Presumably, the peat is being dug up for use in heating, etc., so why would a peat collector leave behind so much peat? CorinneSD (talk) 16:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC) Sorry. I just re-read it. It's 1 to 3 feet over 100 years. I guess that's not so much. But how would that amount (less than I thought) put local ecosystems at risk? CorinneSD (talk) 16:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I suspect it would be a combination of overcollecting of peat coupled with preventing the peatbogs from accumulating more peat.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm. O.K. Thanks! CorinneSD (talk) 22:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mousse, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mint. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:RX
Hi Apokryltaros, just a reminder: you need to send me a wikimail or provide your email address so I can send you the paper you requested. Rgds ✦  hugarheimur 04:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

you should not be deleting me
I made a suggestion for a change in the first sentence but it was deleted. You seem to love to delete me and I deleted someones comment calling me a troll and then I got blocked. Seems like this is just a big game

Look. How about if I write on YOUR talk page what I want to say and then you can approve it so you wont keep deleting me. Is there some way to appeal all of your deletions. I think you just do not like my suggestions for changing the article like you own it. I am sure there is a WP:xx for that somewhere. John.r.r (talk) 16:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * For the record, I also do not agree with deleting John.r.r's talk page contributions where he makes concrete suggestions for improving the article. I am thinking of this reversion in particular. I don't remotely endorse his point of view, but I am seeing a good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia. Misguided as that effort may be, deleting it seems unnecessarily unfriendly. --Ashenai (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * for the record, I DID ASK YOU WHAT CHANGES YOU WANT MADE, and you responded with accusing me of being rude, and wanting me blocked for that. As such, I don't see why I should make any further assumption of good faith in your continued abuse of Talk:Evolution, especially since you repeatedly refuse to make known what changes you want made every time you do repost your inane demands to change the lede because you think it's somehow deceptive.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And for the record, saying The present first sentence is inaccurate and misleading is not a suggestion for a change: it's a complaint. Or, if it isn't, please to provide an explanation of how complaining that the lede is somehow inaccurate and misleading is also actually a suggested change, especially since you think that a request for clarification is somehow so rude that it needs to be punished with revocation of editing privileges.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I posted a sentence that I thought was better and it got deleted. I thought you were not supposed to be rude here and give the benefit of the doubt. I certainly do not see that. Seems that people own this article and simply refuse to believe that it is not very good, esp the beginning.John.r.r (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You need to learn how to express your ideas better. Editors have been telling you that, but I'm going to tell you exactly how to do that. You need to write something like this:


 * In my opinion, the present first sentence is inaccurate and misleading. It is inaccurate because......... [It would be best to cite one or two reliable sources here to support your idea.]


 * The statement is also misleading. It is misleading because.......... It should not say X. Rather, it should say Y and Z. [Try to cite one or two reliable sources here to support your idea.]


 * Then, wait a few days to see what other editors say, and really think about what they write to you. You may be persuaded by them, and in that case, you end the discussion. If you are still not persuaded, or you disagree, then continue:


 * Thank you, [editor's user name], for your reply. I do not agree with your statement "abcdefg". [Explain your point of view clearly, and support your point of view as best you can.] Expert X says, "......" and Expert Y says, "........".


 * That's how you conduct a discussion on a talk page, trying to persuade others to agree with you. You may succeed, or you may not succeed, but that's what you must do. Complaining and writing about extraneous things will get you nowhere. Corinne (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I did write a suggestion and told where I got it but it got deleted. John.r.r (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned earlier, complaining over and over that the opening sentence is inaccurate and misleading while refusing to explain how or why they are misleading is not a suggestion.--Mr Fink (talk) 19:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 *  See, you're complaining. I told you the best approach is not to complain, but to come up with a better argument (that is, logical reasoning) than the other editor or editors. Don't look back. Forget what has already happened. Look forward. I'll repeat what I said above. You really need to use this precise language:


 * The statement is also misleading. It is misleading because.......... It should not say X. Rather, it should say Y and Z.


 * Now, for "misleading", you could substitute "incorrect", "wrong", "inaccurate", "illogical", "poorly expressed", "inadequate", "vague", "confusing", "biased", etc. Use the right word for each situation. Then proceed as I explained.


 * ''This sentence is confusing. It is confusing because......... I suggest the following re-wording: ............


 * This sentence is inaccurate. It is inaccurate because X... and Y.... Source (or Expert) A says... and source (or expert) B says.....


 * If you express yourself like this, your ideas and opinions will be taken more seriously. Other editors may not agree with you, but they will read what you have written and will think about what you say. Corinne (talk) 21:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Second that., at this point you're just repeating yourself, only rephrasing your arguments. You are not presenting anything new. Just let it go. -- ‖ Ebyabe talk - Border Town  ‖ 15:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, Mr Fink. I have blocked John.r.r indefinitely. I ask you to not post on their page again, now that they're blocked. In some ways, I can understand your impatience with their use of talkpages, but I hope you won't express it further. If they apply for unblock, let the reviewing admin deal with it. (And thank you very much for your wise input here, Corinne.) Bishonen &#124; talk 23:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC).
 * I understand perfectly, Bishonen, and I do not plan on revisiting his talkpage again if at all possible.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Five minutes to help make WikiProjects better
Hello!

First, on behalf of WikiProject X, thank you for trying out the WikiProject X pilot projects. I would like to get some anonymous feedback from you on your experience using the new WikiProject layout and tools. This way, we will know what we did right, and if we did something horribly wrong, we can try to fix it. This feedback won't be associated with your username, so please be completely honest. We are determined to improve the experience of Wikipedians, and your feedback helps us with that. (You are also welcome to leave non-anonymous feedback at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject X.)

Please complete the survey here. The survey has two parts: the first part asks for your username, while the second part contains the survey questions. These two parts are stored separately, so your username will not be associated with your feedback. There are only nine questions and it should not take very long to complete. Once you complete the survey I will leave a handwritten note on your talk page as a token of my appreciation.

Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Harej (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Guava, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Acca. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Ancient koala
Hello. Do you anything about what some extinct koalas look like? I was hoping you could make a picture of one of them for the koala article. LittleJerry (talk) 18:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have some references. Any particular taxon you're looking for?  Litokoala perhaps?--Mr Fink (talk) 19:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That or maybe Nimiokoala aka the Riversleigh rainforest koala. LittleJerry (talk) 21:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * What's your critique of my comparison of Riversleigh koalas here?--Mr Fink (talk) 02:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks good, although I don't see the need for the possum. LittleJerry (talk) 03:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe you could as add the giant koala. LittleJerry (talk) 03:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I can crop Ektopodon out in when I post it here, and yeah, I should do the giant one, too.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:23, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi. Hows the image coming along? LittleJerry (talk) 01:10, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In the process of inking it. Will post a scan of the lineart soon.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Is it finished? LittleJerry (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I will upload it as soon as I finish cropping it within the hour .--Mr Fink (talk) 03:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * done.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't see it. It says "Bad title: The requested page title contains invalid characters: "|". LittleJerry (talk) 17:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, found it. Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 17:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I keep forgetting about that, excuse me.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Yanoconodon
I was reading the article on Yanoconodons, and in the last paragraph I saw the word "paralogues". I put that into the search bar, and it led to this article: Homology (biology). I searched for "paralogue" in that article and it is not mentioned once. Why would the word be used in Yanoconodon but not appear at all in the article to which a search of the word led? Is there another article that would explain "paralogues"?

I have another question. I was looking at the image of a Yanoconodon at the beginning of that article, and I thought it looked a lot like a squirrel. I know the Yanoconodon is extinct, but is there any reason why it would look so much like a squirrel? Corinne (talk) 16:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I would think "homologue" would be a much better word, as a "paralogue" is a pair of genes which is found in one particular chromosome in one species, and found in a different chromosome in a related or ancestral species. As for the squirrel-like reconstruction, it's partly because the majority of Mesozoic mammals would have superficially resembled shrews or rodents when alive, and partly (I'm assuming) artistic license.--Mr Fink (talk) 19:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I don't know what either word means, so if the word is to be changed, I think it should be done by you; I don't know if you've already changed it. Are there any Mesozoic mammals whose descendants can be found today? Corinne (talk) 20:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The only two such Mesozoic mammals that come to my mind would be Sinodelphys and Eomaia, the oldest known marsupial, and the common ancestor of placental mammals, respectively, from Cretaceous China. And I'll go try and tweak Yanoconodon.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:59, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I'm reading the article on Sinodelphys, and I came across a word that I didn't know: "scansorial", in this sentence:


 * Luo et al. (2003) inferred from the foot structure of Sinodelphys that it was a scansorial tree-dweller...


 * So I clicked on the link at "scansorial", and it led to an article titled Arboreal locomotion. However, I could not find the word "scansorial" anywhere in that article. Why would one article use the word, link it to another article and not use the word at all there? (This is similar to my experience with "paralogues", above.) What does "scansorial tree dweller" mean? Corinne (talk) 22:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "Scansorial" means "adapted to climbing," and is often used to describe many tree-dwelling vertebrates, like squirrels and oppossums, though, it easily applies to a lot of cliff-dwelling animals, too, like mountain goats. --Mr Fink (talk) 23:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh. Thank you. I guess I should look a dictionary before asking you. Sorry. I still don't understand why it would be used in one article but not in the article it is linked to. Corinne (talk) 23:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Homo naledi
I read and copyedited the article Homo naledi and am now just watching the article. I noticed this discussion on the talk page: Talk:Homo naledi. Khadija and maunus are doing fine, but I was trying to find something in another article that would explain what paleontologists and biologists do when they discover a new species and assign the species to a genus to perhaps lend support to Khadija's and maunus's argument. Perhaps it's not necessary, but I thought it might help or simply be interesting to read. Can you help me find something like this? Corinne (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I gave my two cent in the form of reiterating what Maunus and CuriousMind said. As far as I know, unless there is actual literature questioning a species' placement in a genus, we can't imply that there is any doubt about its placement in a genus.--Mr Fink (talk) 19:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding your opinion there. It was very well expressed. Corinne (talk) 20:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Metatheria
I was just reading the article on the Metatheria. In the second paragraph of the section Metatheria, I came across a sentence that puzzled me:


 * However, these are not seen after the end of the Early Cretaceous and by the Late Cretaceous marsupials and placentals had evolved from a common eupantotherian ancestor molars.

I thought a molar was a large back tooth. How could Cretaceous marsupials and placentals evolve from a tooth? Is this a different meaning of "molar"? Corinne (talk) 22:31, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That seemed like an accidental insertion, so I extracted it.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Head
Head is today's Today's article for improvement. I just made a few minor copy-edits. Then, after I saved it, I realized that ganglion might be plural, since it says "three pairs" after that. Is "ganglion" plural? If so, I've got to changed it to "which are divided". Corinne (talk) 02:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "Ganglion" is singular, "ganglia" is plural.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Homo naledi 2
Are you watching Homo naledi? I've been watching the development of the article by other editors over the last few days. There has also been some interesting discussion on the talk page. I don't know if you are watching the article, but I wonder if you could take a look at these latest edits. Also, look at the various comments (in several sections) by the editor on the talk page. I'm not sure all those changes were needed, but you'd be a better judge than I am. Corinne (talk) 23:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * (After I saved this, I realize there was another section above, so you probably are watching the article.) Corinne (talk) 23:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm watching that page. So far, every thing seems legit.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Sturgeon lead proposal
Hi, Mr. Fink!! Would you be so kind as to review my proposed lead change for the sturgeon article? See User:Atsme/sandbox. Your input will be greatly appreciated. I'd like to help get the article promoted to GA but there are a few aspects of it that need a bit more work. Once the lead has been corrected, I would like to work on a few areas in the body that need attention. Thank you in advance... <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 20:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I like it so far, but, I suggest, rather than say "'sturgeon' is the common name for 27 species," I would rather go with "sturgeons are 27 species..." So that way, we're more concise and to the point.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Chinese Academy of Geological Sciences
Just wondered if you had seen this new article created recently by Hzh: Chinese Academy of Geological Sciences. Corinne (talk) 17:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have now: Thank you for letting me know about it!--Mr Fink (talk) 17:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Termite
In response to a request for a copy-edit at WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests, I have been reading and copy-editing the article Termite. So far I've gotten up to the end of the Termite section. I've made quite a few edits because the prose was not very good when I got to the article. I have two questions for you, and I may have more, if you don't mind, before I am finished. Also, if you have time, maybe you'd like to read through the article, check my edits to be sure I didn't introduce a factual error, and check the article generally for accuracy. Here are my two questions:

1) The last sentence of Termite is now:


 * Pheromones are said to regulate the caste system in termite colonies, preventing all but one of the termites from becoming fertile queens.

You'll see in this edit I made a few minor changes to the sentence to make the sentence clearer (I didn't think the sentence was particularly clear when I first read it). I want to know if "all but one" is correct. I wonder if it should be "all but a very few" or something like that. (I suppose the number actually depends upon the species, but the sentence has to cover more than one species.)

2) The last sentence in Termite is now:


 * Ants are not the only invertebrates that perform raids. Many sphecoid wasps and several species including Polybia Lepeletier and Angiopolybia Araujo are known to raid termite mounds during nuptial flight.

I wonder if it is clear enough that the phrase "nuptial flight" refers to the termites' nuptial flight, not to any nuptial flight of either or both of the other insects. Corinne (talk) 17:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) It should be "all but a very few" as some species have multiple queens. 2) And yes, it should be "the termites' nuptial flight," as that's the topic, after all.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Corinne (talk) 17:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * My pleasure.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Two more questions:


 * 3) The last sentence of the third paragraph in the section Termite is:


 * As a queen a king is monogamous, sperm competition does not occur.


 * You'll see that there is an error in this sentence. It says "As a queen a king...". It's either got to be "the queen and the king are monogamous" or one or the other is monogamous, but I didn't know which one should stay and which should be deleted.


 * 4) The last sentence in that section is:


 * Studies show that while termite queens mate with the king to produce colony workers, the queens reproduce their replacements (neotenic queens) parthenogenetically.


 * (This is one of the sentences I rearranged, but I think it's all right.) I was wondering if there were an article to which I could link "neotenic", so I did a search and it led to the article Neoteny. I'm wondering if that would be a good article to link it to. I just skimmed the first part of Neoteny, and I couldn't figure out the connection between a queen producing neotenic queens and what is described at the beginning of the Neoteny article – an adult with features normally associated with a child. Did I not read far enough into the article? This seems to be the opposite: a young with the potential to become a queen. What am I missing? Corinne (talk) 17:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Should probably be "As the queen and king are monogamous, sperm competition does not occur." As for 4), the secondary queens are considered neotenic, as they do not develop wings before reaching sexual maturity, unlike their mother.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I read through Termite once, and then started to read through it a second time. I got about 2/3's of the way through and got tired, so I'm not going to continue. I will deal with any replies to the issues I raised at User talk:Burklemore1 (a section and then a sub-section), if you want to read that. If you have time, would you mind reading through the entire article to see if there are any more things that need fixing? Thank you. Corinne (talk) 01:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

In interesting article that needs copy-editing
I know copy-editing probably isn't your favorite activity, but I just saw a request for a copy-edit of an article that I know will be a challenge. See WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests and the accompanying note. I have to work on some summaries for upcoming Featured Articles (see the bottom of my talk page), but I could come back to the steroid article. I thought, if you have time, and you feel like doing this, perhaps you could go through it and fix any errors you see, and make any improvements to the organization that are needed, and then, when you have finished, I could go through just to check the prose, spelling, punctuation, etc. If you don't do this, I don't know who could do it. Corinne (talk) 01:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * When I have time, I will try to, but at the moment, I am facing a backlog of prehistoric animals in dire need of coloring.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * O.K. Ooo, you're working on more of your drawings! I look forward to seeing them (if you add them to WP). Corinne (talk) 02:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have prehistoric koalas, and nautiloids coming out of my Buttsoceras to deal with.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:40, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Apokryltaros/The Beast Legion
User:Apokryltaros/The Beast Legion, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Apokryltaros/The Beast Legion and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Apokryltaros/The Beast Legion during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

You are invited to Café Chocolate!
Hi BerryCafe! Come to my Café! It's got food & drinks! What do you want? Are you hungry? I seem a bit hungry for digital food... well, reply to me if you want to come! Gotta take orders now!ScarlettCoffee (talk) 10:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Eutheria
Apokryltaros, I was just looking at the article on Eutheria, and I came across something puzzling (perhaps not puzzling for you, though). It is the first bulleted item in the section Eutheria:

Distinguishing features are:


 * an enlarged malleolus ("little hammer") at the bottohe entocuneiform bonem of the tibia, the larger of the two shin bones.

What is the "bottohe entocuneiform bonem of the tibia"? Is that English? The black-and-white sketch doesn't really help. Corinne (talk) 00:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Apparently a copy and paste error. I fixed it.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Inquiline
I found an article that needs some attention, Inquiline. There's a "citation needed" tag at the end of the first paragraph and a tag at the top of the article that's been there since 2009. Corinne (talk) 01:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You think this would be a good citation for the citation-needed tagged statement? --Mr Fink (talk) 01:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm not an expert in judging sources, but since you asked: those lines from the book, in the link you provided, just define "inquiline" and give one additional detail (about the inadvertent carrying of a small species by a larger one). Those lines would be all right for the beginning of that paragraph in Inquiline, but I don't see anything in them that would support all the rest of the paragraph. Don't you think that more than one source are needed for all those sentences in that paragraph, such as the distinction between parasites, social parasites and inquilines, and how many species can be more than one of these? Corinne (talk) 01:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Another source, which I think is already used, mentions that some species, gall wasps being the example, are (gall-forming) parasites in one host, and inquilines in another. And yes, I would think that more sources are necessary, it's just that that one was all I can find so far.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * O.K. (I guess I should learn how to find and add sources.) Corinne (talk) 02:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Xenarthra
I was skimming the article on Xenarthra, and I came across a sentence that doesn't sound right. It's in the second paragraph in the lead:


 * The name Xenarthra, which means "strange joints", was chosen because their vertebral joints have extra articulations and are unlike those of any other mammals — a character referred to as "xenarthry" — and ischiosacral fusion.

(a) Shouldn't "character" be "characteristic"?

and

(b) Shouldn't the phrase "a characterstic referred to as "xenarthry" immediately follow "have extra articulations"?

Overall, even if these two changes are made, I think the sentence is a bit choppy and confusing (such as the phrase "and ischiosacral fusion" tacked on at the end), don't you? Corinne (talk) 02:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I did some grammar surgery to try and fix that after swapping "trait" for "character/characteristic"--Mr Fink (talk) 02:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It's much better. I wanted to ask you about something. I was following the discussions on Tryptofish's talk page, and when I read the exchanges at User:Tryptofish, I immediately thought of the crucial role of gut microbes in termites (since I have been working a lot on the article), and how some of the same microbes have been present in termites for millions of years, and I was thinking how gut microbes seem to be so important, and perhaps more important in the human body than was thought in the past. I think just the fact that the same gut microbes have been present in termites for so long, and the fact that some species of termite have been around for so long that they are called living fossils, kind of points to the success of the arrangement, and that maybe the relationship between the gut microbes in humans and the rest of the body is a very special one. What are your thoughts about this? (You know I'm an amateur when it comes to biology, but I wondered if there were any parallels other than the obvious fact of the existence of gut microbes.) Corinne (talk) 18:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Gut microbes are important denizens of just about all animals with complete digestive tracts, especially in those animals that rely on gut microbes to digest some specific substance. Aside from the fact that gut microbes in humans manufacture Vitamin K, nothing else comes to mind at the moment.--Mr Fink (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh. I didn't know that (about Vitamin K). Well, thanks. Corinne (talk) 20:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Northern Pike
Thank you for finally retaining my edit regarding the meaning of the Pike's scientific name. However can you try not to revert things when they could just be rephrased (like you did with it in the end). Sl3nderman3006 (talk) 14:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * My apologies about that, I clicked the wrong button at the time.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

It's all good :) Sl3nderman3006 (talk) 16:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Squid
Mr. Fink - do you know why the Squid article is locked? I wanted to upload a photo of a Caribbean reef squid. File:Squid colors.tif <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 11:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Update - found the correct article, but still wondering why Squid is locked. 11:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Last I checked, it was set to auto-confirmed users only for two weeks last month, and page-protected to prevent unauthorized page moves. You should be able to edit it.--Mr Fink (talk) 13:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

*LOL* my revert didn't work
Too funny!! I thought I reverted the vandal but just reverted to his last edit. Duh. I set up a TP for the IP with a Welcome banner. Perhaps you should issue a block warning if he continues? <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 18:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, then. Hah.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I just requested indefinite semi-protection to put a stop to the IP vandalism. Alligator gar is the kind of article that appears to attract vandals.  <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 14:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks!--Mr Fink (talk) 15:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Boars
Male bears are called "boars". Look here http://www.ask.com/pets-animals/male-bear-called-3da11fdefbb04141. Cheers. Dger (talk) 00:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * So a male bear can be called a boar-bear? And if it's cold, wet, and hungry, it would be a poor boar-bear? Corinne (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, and only if it it's being offered a fried oyster sandwich on sourdough.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * (I just saw this.) Is that a "poor-boy"? So if the cold, wet boar-bear were eating one of those, would he be a poor boar-bear eating a poor-boy? Corinne (talk) 00:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC) Or is it a "po-boy"? Corinne (talk) 00:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * He'd be a wet bear eating a wet sandwich.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Corinne (talk) 01:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Samotherium major
Hello, would you be able to make another picture of Samotherium major in light of this new article reconstructing its neck posture? I'm not sure if your current image is accurate. LittleJerry (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * , so, have the neck held a little more horizonal like an okapi's, and not as vertically as a giraffe's?--Mr Fink (talk) 22:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, the article states that Samotherium was an important transition to a giraffe-like neck. Are you sure the length is right? LittleJerry (talk) 23:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's probably not the correct length, either. I'll get to work making adjustments tonight.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello again, do you think it would better to have Samotherium compared to the giraffe and okapi in the picture? LittleJerry (talk) 23:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll get to work on that, too, then.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Image coming along fine? LittleJerry (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * {ping|LittleJerry}} Now that I've remembered to scan it, what do you think?--Mr Fink (talk) 23:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Where is it? LittleJerry (talk) 00:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I knew I was forgetting something : Also, S. major is in the middle, Okapi at the bottom, and Giraffe, well...--Mr Fink (talk) 01:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks great! LittleJerry (talk) 02:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll get to work inking it, then.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait. Why doesn't Samotherium have legs? LittleJerry (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It does have legs, it's just hard to see at this stage as it's behind the Okapi.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Is the image finished? LittleJerry (talk) 15:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll scan it in later today.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ready? LittleJerry (talk) 02:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes it is. The official artsy reason why it's uncolored is because "the markings would distract from the comparison."  The unofficial reason why it's uncolored is because life-events have left me pressed for time, and a little shaky in the hand.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:09, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you! LittleJerry (talk) 13:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Grammatical number and taxa
Hi, my comment relates to. At WP:PLANTS, we've discussed the grammatical number to be used with taxon names, but I can't find a discussion related to animals. The following points can easily be sourced: The contentious issue is whether the Latin number to be used in English. There are many sources who argue that it does; see as just one example Encyclopedia of Entomology, p. 3302. Personally, I disagree; we aren't writing Latin but English, and can choose to treat plural Latin words as collective nouns.
 * The names of taxa above genus, such as families or superfamilies, are plural in Latin.
 * Taxon names are treated as proper names when writing in English.
 * In English, plural proper names require a determiner (e.g. "the"), singular proper names don't take one (hence the difference between "the Rockies" and "Etna").

However, there are advantages to the plural form in some cases. Thus I much prefer the opening "The Araneoidea or araneoids are a taxon of araneomorph spiders ..." to "Araneoidea is a taxon of araneomorph spiders ...", since the former allows "araneoids" (used later in the article) to be introduced early on as a synonym. We shouldn't assume that all readers know that "-oids" is a standard transformation of "-oidea". Regardless of my view, the use of the plural can't be said to be wrong, and should not be changed unnecessarily. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry
I was putting Thunderclap's species (Nyctosaurus) on the cast list (it's mentioned in the plot that's on the article as well). So yeah, sorry about that. Let's keep it the way it is. Anyways I love your art, I also have since become a more mature person that what I did when I was on here arguing with you about the Australovenator-Dromaeosaurus (I highly agree with you now, although the BBC site claims that the Polar Allosaur was indeed the former, but it could likely be wrong). Anyways have a good December. 73.240.105.185 (talk) 15:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the kind words and understanding: it's important that we try to avoid fan-identification, as that is WP:Original Research.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Miniopterus aelleni
Hello, Apokryltaros -- I saw a number of red links in the section Miniopterus aelleni. I thought you might know of articles or sections of articles to which these terms could be linked. Corinne (talk) 03:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I opted to unlink "divergence" and replace it with "sequence divergence," the others are of topics that have yet to be made into articles yet (Faune being a Madagascar-themed biology science journal, and the other two being scientists).--Mr Fink (talk) 03:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * O.K. Thanks! Corinne (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

It's that time of year....

 * I wonder if there are red and green Christmas tree worms.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

About the piscivore page
Hello Mr. Apokryltaros; happy new year and Christmas !

I see the spinosauroids on the piscivore page; but The spinosauroids weren't obligate piscivores; as the iguanadon remains in a Baryonyx and a teeth belonged to a spinosauroid were found in the fossil records; so the spinosauroid diet is very similar to the alligator and seal you mentioned\write; may I delete the Baryonyx an Spinosaurus from the piscivores category but write them on the extinct piscivores as; spinosauroids were known to consume fish but from the fossil records its estimated that their diet consist any prey aviable or similar to alligators ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dredann (talk • contribs) 15:25, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Simply because Baryonyx and Spinosaurus were not obligate piscivores does not mean we should remove them from the list of prehistoric and extinct piscivores, especially since there is undeniable evidence of them eating fish in the first place. --Mr Fink (talk) 20:27, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I didn't mean that; I meant I would write and note they had fish on their diet but that does not consist their almost entire diet like gharials. I meant some example like this : Some of the extinct animals, such as the spinosauroids, are not completely piscivorous, often preying on aquatic invertebrates or land animals in addition to fish.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3665537/ http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0065295 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dredann (talk • contribs) 20:47, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The rule about posting only obligate piscivores applies primarily to extant piscivores, so that that list does not become a long and cluttered mess mentioning every single living animal that won't pass up a fish dinner. Again, simply because the spinosaurids were not obligate piscivores does not mean they don't deserve to be on the list of prehistoric piscivores, especially since there is notable evidence of their piscivorous habits in the first place.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:12, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should bring this up at the talk page.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:22, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay than; I continue at that page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dredann (talk • contribs) 11:14, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

About that edit
Okay so I said that the sauropod in the movie "One Million Years B.C." was a Brontosaurus, so I know it got reverted, but the movie's trailer and a book about Ray Harryhausen confirms that it's a Brontosaurus, not an Apatosaurus (although Brontosaurus was a synonym of Apatosaurus at the time). Also the article for the original film the movie was based off of (I mean the 1940 film with Lon Chaney Jr.) claims that the rams in the movie were muskoxen. Is there a source for that (the movie never states that they are muskox and they appear to be sheep, not bovines)? --73.240.105.185 (talk) 16:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a source that says this? If "yes," then please source it.  If "no," then please stop making unsourced edits or risk the consequences.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As far as Ray was concerned, it was a 'Brontosaurus' - that's how he referred to it. The recent scientific change occurred either after or right before his death.  Just as the creature in 'Gwangi' is an allosaurus, according to Ray - not a tyrannosaur.  This was his concept of these dinosaurs.  This has been written up in many interviews.  Several paleontologists have tried to re-write history as far as Harryhausen is concerned - but they didn't even know the man.  I had the pleasure of sitting down with Ray along with my friend Jim Rodkey at a convention and we talked to him for a good 30 minutes.  I would suggest such tomes as issues of Starlog, etc., to find a Reliable Source to confirm the Brontosaurus information. 98.67.182.239 (talk) 03:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * For now though, we're going with the official facebook posting.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Alright
I found a source, so would I just have to put it in the summary or show it to you first? Also would someone put it in the references (like I don't think a regular user can, but an admin I believe can)? Thanks for the help. But is there a source that says that the ram-like animals in "One Million B.C." (1940) says that they are muskoxen (that bugs me still)? --73.240.105.185 (talk) 17:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Why not show it on Talk:One Million Years B.C., first, so everyone can check and make sure, first?--Mr Fink (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! --73.240.105.185 (talk) 17:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Carcinology
Best wishes for a Happy, Healthy 2016! I've just learned a few new words that I had never heard before, including malacology, carcinology, and cirripedology. Corinne (talk) 03:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Mazel tov, and conchology to you and yours.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Redlichiidae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Xela. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Mesozoic
I was just looking at the article on the Mesozoic era, and I was surprised to see an image with this caption: "Inaccurately portrayed Stegosaurus". What is the point or the educational benefit of including an image that inaccurately portrays an ancient reptile? Are there any images of Stegosaurus that more accurately illustrate the animal? Corinne (talk) 01:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree we should replace it with more accurate pictures, and leave the archaic reconstructions to the animal's "In Popular Culture" section.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, O.K. Good. Corinne (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Mammutidae
Apokryltaros, what's the difference between a mammoth and a mastondon? Is Mammutidae the main article about mastondons? If so, isn't it a little skimpy? Corinne (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Mammoths are any true elephant species of the genus Mammuthus, whereas mastodons are any proboscidean of the family Mammutidae, especially those of the genus Mammut.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Piscivore Page
Hello Mr.Apokryltaros; I don understand why you rechange the piscivore page but I fixed my changes with sources this time. Please don't rechange the page. There are direct evidence that proves Baryonyx wasn't an obligate piscivore and spinosaurus obligate aquaticness is really a debated subject especially after the sigilmassasaurus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dredann (talk • contribs) 17:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Except that the way you word the mentioning that Baryonyx and Spinosaurus were not obligate piscivores introduces WP:Weasel words that make it confusing to the reader.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The sources I linked were trustable; not false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dredann (talk • contribs) 22:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The sources you used were blogs and children's books. It would help if you used science journals as sources. That, and I never said your sources were false.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay. Its true. But may I also add legitimate scientific sources?

http://blog.everythingdinosaur.co.uk/blog/_archives/2008/05/31/the-thumb-claw-of-baryonyx.html my.abdodigital.com › abdodig › download https://books.google.com.tr/books?id=7t9M5TsmjOUC&pg=PA214&lpg=PA214&dq=baryonyx+iguanodon+remains&source=bl&ots=0GGnTh2WDa&sig=STauGD_uL_280MYhjvxB7Gpcwpc&hl=tr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi-8_TJ-7HKAhUFlSwKHXrbCcw4ChDoAQgjMAY#v=onepage&q=baryonyx%20iguanodon%20remains&f=false

-Dredann
 * You don't understand: I keep reverting what you've posted on Piscivore because you either try to remove mention of Baryonyx and Spinosaurus, or try to create unreasonable doubt on the piscivorous habits of those two dinosaurs, even though both are considered extremely notable, if not the two most famous extinct piscivores. Secondly, this first source here is not a good source to begin with, and this book you're mentioning does not discuss anything about Baryonyx preying on Iguanodon.  Please understand that the fact that Baryonx preyed on Iguanodon belongs in Baryonyx ' s page, and not Piscivore, especially since there is undeniable evidence that Baryonyx ate fish, and that that section of Piscivore is about fossil animals confirmed to have eaten fish.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Sonoluminescence
Just checking to be sure edit to Sonoluminescence is correct. Corinne (talk) 04:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Mantis shrimp belong to an entirely different order, would be akin to comparing a mantis and a mantidfly--Mr Fink (talk) 04:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh. Thanks. (Did you see all the red links in Mantidfly?) Corinne (talk) 04:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2016
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=703450292 your edit] to Chinese food therapy may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Chinese system of Food Cures (1989), Pelanduk Publications Malaysia Sdn Bhd, ISBN 9789679782530
 * Dietetics in Traditional Chinese Medicine'' (2008), Thieme Medical Publishers, ISBN 3131309628

Cyprinidae
I don't know why, but I've been reading articles on fish. In Cyprinidae, in the section Cyprinidae, second paragraph, is this sentence:


 * This construction is also used to observe motion of the gas bladder due to atmospheric conditions or depth changes.

I'm assuming "this construction" is the Weberian organ mentioned in the previous sentence, but it is not clear to me who uses the Weberian organ to observe motion of the gas bladder. Is this referring to scientists who use part of a fish to observe motion in another part of the fish? It sounds a little strange (and unclear) to me.

I was also looking at the captions to the images. In the section Cyprinidae, the first image has this caption:


 * (Acheilognathus longipinnis: Acheilognathinae)

I'm just wondering if the entire caption should be in parentheses. Corinne (talk) 01:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I opted to rewrite it to be more specific, as I figure it's better to be more specific and wordy, than to be vague and poetic. As for the captions, I've systematically removed all of the parentheses, as they appear to be inconsistently applied.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Great! Thanks! I was just looking at the article on Physostome (linked from Cyprinidae), and I made a few minor copy-edits. I was thinking that there must be more material that could be added to this article, including some diagrams. I just thought I'd mention it just in case you ever have nothing to do and want a project. Corinne (talk) 02:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Warning a user a second time about the same edit
Hello! I noticed that you warned a user because of an edit that I already warned him/her about  a few messages earlier. I don't think it's necessary to warn the user a second time about the same edit, so perhaps you might want to revert your own warning? --Dodi 8238 (talk) 16:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Sea Monsters
I just happened to see this at User talk:Casliber [sic]. There are two statements in Spanish, followed by a translation of the second statement. There is a link in the first statement. It links to a new WikiProject on Sea Monsters. I thought if you hadn't heard about this, you might find it interesting. I haven't yet figured out if this is about real sea monsters, mythical sea monsters, or both. – Corinne (talk) 01:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for bringing it to my attention.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That seems a bit problematic, the old version was redirected since it was redundant (and inactive), and the name is very ambiguous, and so is the scope. I think it should stay a redirect to the palaeontology project. FunkMonk (talk) 01:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Doubutsu Sentai Zyuohger
I just wanted to say that I made this edit because those Japanese terms are over on the character list now. As you can see, someone else edit warred with me over them without explaining why and Boomer Vial says I should talk with you about it because you put it in after I took it out in my rewrite.--2601:140:8200:DE:CC43:A3F3:6D4A:5BDC (talk) 05:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I put the Japanese terms back into that section because there is no guarantee that a reader will go over to the other page to see the terms. I would have re-put them back in, but I'm too tired to editwar tonight (and am trying to wean myself off of leaping into yet another editwar).--Mr Fink (talk) 05:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That makes some sense. How about just removing the Japanese for "Blood Game" seeing as it's just the English phrase "Blood Game" in katakana?--2601:140:8200:DE:CC43:A3F3:6D4A:5BDC (talk) 05:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That sounds fair enough.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Águas de São Pedro
Hello, Apokryltaros -- I'm almost finished copy-editing Águas de São Pedro. In the second paragraph in Águas de São Pedro, it says, "the Triassic and Eo-Cretaceous ages". I searched for an article that would explain "Eo-Cretaceous" and couldn't find one. First, is the term correct, and, if so, is there some article to which I can link it? – Corinne (talk) 23:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, the first and third paragraphs mention a "Peripheral Depression", but the term is not linked. The article Depression (geology) seems like a quasi-disambiguation page. Can you suggest an article to which I can link this phrase? – Corinne (talk) 23:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, in the third paragraph it mentions a "Medium Tietê Zone". Should that be linked to something?

Finally, in the third paragraph I added two conversion templates. Can you tell me whether either the square kilometres (in the case of the second one) or the square miles should be rounded off or just left like that? – Corinne (talk) 23:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * A) I assume(d) that "Eo-Cretaceous" referred to "Early Cretaceous," so I amended it as appropriately. B) From what I can tell, a "peripheral depression" is a series of depressions that border an uplifted area.  I looked through the depression disambiguation page, and could not find an article that describes such a formation. C) Perhaps you could use this template " 1.3 km " here, and round to the nearest one's place?--Mr Fink (talk) 23:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Apokryltaros. The last one was "D". You skipped (or perhaps deliberately ignored) "C", but that's O.K. I know how to change the number of decimal points and rounding in conversion templates. You add a -1, 0, 1, 2, etc. after a pipe before the last pair of curly brackets. See Template:Convert, the Rounding section. Also, Checkingfax wrote up a nice set of examples at... Checkingfax, where is that example list that shows the various combinations of conversion templates and the corresponding results? Apokryltaros, I was just wondering how detailed the square km and sq mi numbers should be. – Corinne (talk) 00:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, the Tiete Zone. I'm not sure what it is.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi . Not sure about the example list. Can you remind me a bit more?


 * As for decimal points the template will assume you want the same output as the input. You only have to force it if you want something different. Like in this case: the convert template would normally show the results to 2 decimal places, but by adding the 0 it will show none. If you wanted 1 decimal place instead of 2 you would do:  (i.e.- 2-1=1). If the input was 12568.723 and you wanted 1 decimal place you would do -2 (i.e.- 3-2=1). Personally, I let the output precision meet the input precision. In this example I would leave the 0 out. I am by no means an expert on this yet, so correct me if I my interpretation of the template output is wrong. Cheers!   01:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Trapdoor spider
Yes, your edit to Trapdoor spider was quite correct. It seems to me that "trapdoor spider" isn't sufficiently precise to serve as an article title. I wonder about moving it to the scientific name, Ctenizidae. Any views? Peter coxhead (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that it would be better to move it to "Ctenizidae," then make "trapdoor spider" its own article, what with that term covering several spiders of several families.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it may be that something like Banana spider, perhaps a little expanded, is the best solution. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good plan.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Opabinia ‎
See my comment on the talk page - can you make an improvement/clarify the text? Jackiespeel (talk) 13:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Edestus
I was just looking at the pictures on your user page, and I was intrigued by the two images of Edestus. When I looked at the photo of the fossil, I couldn't tell which end was the head and which end was the tail, or end. I saw what looked like a set of teeth to the left, and what vaguely looks like a mouth to the right. Or is this not even a complete skeleton? If not, what is it? – Corinne (talk) 01:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Almost all fossils of Edestus are of its teeth: because it is a cartilaginous fish, only the teeth were more or less guaranteed to survive, while the rest of the body disintegrated due to decay. A partial skull has been found to hint/show researchers how the teeth were articulated in life (like blades of a pinking shear).--Mr Fink (talk) 01:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Is that fossil just part of a jaw, then, with a few teeth toward the left end? – Corinne (talk) 01:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, as the animal aged, the smaller/older teeth were pushed forward towards the tips of the jaws.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I just looked at the image again and realized that that is just one tooth, not a lot of small teeth. – Corinne (talk) 02:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's one tooth/unit.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Stomata types
Hi Mr. A! I have a need to extend the stomata article with information about types, as these are regularly mentioned in plant descriptions. But rather than words only, it would be much better to have sketchy drawings to explain. Could I ask you to make drawings of these types. Some examples may be found in the following websites and articles:1 2 3 4 Thank you in advance for considering. Kind regards, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can do/draw.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Deer
Hi! I plan to rewrite this article carefully and take this to GA status, an article as important as deserves that at the least. How do you like this proposal? And thanks for all your amazing contributions to Wikipedia! Sainsf &lt;^&gt; Feel at home 16:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a fabulous plan, Monsieur. Where do we start, and what would you have me contribute, ?--Mr Fink (talk) 17:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a great collaboration is on the way! I don't know how you contribute, please let me know how you would like to help. I am mainly a content developer, and will try to rewrite the whole article in the coming days. may like to help us with the "Interaction with humans" part, he is amazing at that and I hopeless...  Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Feel at home 17:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If worse comes to worst, I can always contribute some prehistoric deer reconstructions.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I will be working on the Evolution section tomorrow, will see what we can use. Come on, you will be valuable! Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Feel at home 18:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * salute--Mr Fink (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Treponema spirochetes


The article Treponema spirochetes has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on |the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. CatPath (talk) 17:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Precious
Sainsf (talk · contribs) 08:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

A year ago, you were recipient no. 1372 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reminding me!--Mr Fink (talk) 14:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Cameroceras extinction datum
Greetings!

I write this message in regard to the extinction datum on the Cameroceras page. Namely, both the first and (especially) second source give an incorrect stratigraphic range. A paper by the U.S. geological survey, "Middle and Upper Ordovician nautiloid cephalopods of the Cincinnati Arch region of Kentucky, Indiana, and Ohio"(Frey,1995), which is also cited as a source on the article, mentions several times the (quite common) occurrence of Cameroceras specimens in rocks as recent as the Richmondian age, and if I recall correctly, also mentions their existence near the O-S boundary, possibly even beyond the boundary. Therefore, I suggest moving the latest definite appearance date to the Hirnantian, 443 million years ago. Random995 (talk) 00:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Random995 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Then it would be necessary for us to provide this source for this change in order to update the information.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see the problem now. Although the source I mentioned is already in the article's references, I didn't actually cite it directly when stating the stratigraphic range. I'll remedy that.
 * I've just changed the page and added the required citations. Is everything in place now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randon995 (talk • contribs)
 * Yes, yes it is now, thank you very much.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey
The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.
 * Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello
Hello, I created these two items you can take a look? Thank you. I do not speak English: Geochelone burchardi and Geochelone vulcanica.--CanaryIslands (talk) 17:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * - Thank you for letting me know about those two articles. You did an excellent job translating both articles, I adjusted the wording to make them read more fluently in English.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your help.--CanaryIslands (talk) 07:25, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

 * I wish that was a real bowl of strawberries: chipmunks keep eating mine.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:00, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Carnassial
I was just looking at the article on Carnassial teeth, and I looked at the two videos in the section Carnassial. I was puzzled as to why the caption said it was of an otter while the image file says "weasel". – Corinne (talk) 22:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It looked like a weasel skull, so I adjusted it accordingly.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Great! Thanks. I forgot to say it was the image on the left, but you found it. – Corinne (talk) 23:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Good Dinosaur talk page
If you have a chance, please check out the discussion I started on The Good Dinosaur talk page and offer your thoughts. Thanks! Wikicontributor12 (talk) 03:04, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thank you!

A second opinion
Please take a look at Talk:List of dragons in film and television and tell me what you think about the points I made. Deltasim (talk) 14:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Can we please also have your thoughts on the listing of multiple dragons from series on the talk page as well? Thanks for the edit thanks!ShadowDragon343 (talk) 11:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Bowhead whale
Do you feel like responding to  edit summary at Bowhead whale? – Corinne (talk) 04:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Just another whining wannabe scholar puffing his chest by pointing some perceived flaw without actually doing something constructive about it.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Elephant
Re: this. My apologies. Quite a few people have been asking for unprotection (most recently here), and I suppose I wanted to prove them wrong, which is causing more work for others. I saw your note on the talk page arguing against protection, and I agree with you in principle. I'll keep an eye on the page and will most likely re-protect it soon. Airplaneman  ✈  14:14, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a high-profile page that's attractive to vandals even without the Stephen Colbert nonsense. Ah well, if I could survive Banana getting unprotected and re-protected, so with Elephant.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Aaaaaaand it's reprotected. I've also posted on the talk page affirming the need for an indef semi. Cheers, Airplaneman   ✈  03:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * salute--Mr Fink (talk) 03:54, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Anastomosis
Hello, Apokryltaros -- If you have time, would you mind reviewing  edits to Anastomosis? There are a few spelling mistakes, but I'm not sure about the rest. For example, I'm not sure whether the more concise (normally a good thing) version without "to be able" is as correct as the version with it. – Corinne (talk) 22:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * To me, it reads fine even without "to be able." On the other hand, I always got the impression that we should avoid using contractions unless absolutely necessary.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


 * O.K. I defer to your judgment about that. I agree that "don't" should be "do not". It is clear the editor did not like:


 * in areas in which a large blood supply is not needed,


 * but which do you prefer of these two alternatives:


 * in areas that do not need a large blood supply


 * in areas where a large blood supply is not needed


 * (that is, simply changing "in which" to "where").


 * I prefer "where a large blood supply is not needed". I think it's less clunky than "that do not need a large blood supply", but in this also I will defer to your judgment. – Corinne (talk) 00:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I think I like "is not needed" better than "do not need," but, I don't recommend changing it back for a little bit, so as to not make it look like the first shots of an edit war.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * O.K. – Corinne (talk) 03:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

uncivil editor at Ian.thomson
You might not have seen that the editor has been confirmed by a CheckUser as a sock puppet of Dimpz42 and blocked. Thanks for removing the post. Doug Weller talk 08:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That's another reason to have given that schmuck the boot, then.--Mr Fink (talk) 13:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

engrailed (gene)
I am reading Evolutionary developmental biology, an article Chiswick Chap has been working on, and I was puzzled by the word "engrailed", so clicked on the link, and it led to engrailed (gene). I was surprised by how the word was used, as a noun with no article ("a" or "the") and in lower-case. Kind of unusual. I saw that there was another term where "engrailed" was capitalized. I also read the brief exchange at the top of the talk page, which probably explains the lower-case "engrailed" as the title of the article, but I noticed that in the heading for the talk page, the word is still capitalized. If the article title really should remain in lower-case, shouldn't the heading on the talk page also be in lower-case? – Corinne (talk) 00:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe the italicized lowercase "engrailed" refers to the gene, whereas the capitalized, unitalicized "Engrailed" refers to the protein or gene-product of "engrailed"--Mr Fink (talk) 00:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I understand that lower-case refers to the gene and the capitalized, un-italicized "Engrailed" refers to the protein, etc., but now that the title of the article is engrailed (gene), shouldn't the heading on the related talk page be Talk:engrailed (gene) (or with "Talk" in Roman and the rest in italics), instead of Talk:Engrailed (gene)? – Corinne (talk) 01:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, because engrailed is deliberately written in lowercase and italicized, that is why the article is titled as such.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This situation isn't unusual. We have several articles where the first letter is lowercase and several that are partially or wholly italicised - at Engrailed (gene), we have both. This is done in the second line of wikitext, which is  More information on this at WP:DISPLAYTITLE. The displayed name of the talk page is not slaved to that, and needs to be set independently: but it's not mandatory to do so. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

About Bear dog
Hello, this information could interrest you I think.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/10/bear-dogs-once-lived-southern-texas (Posted in: EvolutionPaleontologyPlants & Animals ; DOI:10.1126/science.aal0246)

--Lamiot (talk) 17:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you!--Mr Fink (talk) 20:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Evolutionary developmental biology
Hello, Apokryltaros -- If you haven't already seen it, you might be interested in this discussion: Talk:Evolutionary developmental biology. – Corinne (talk) 14:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:48, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Diurnality
Hello, Apokryltaros -- I was just looking at the latest  to Diurnality. I was pondering the necessity of commas before "while" in both sentences when I realized, first, that I was not crazy about two sentences in a row with "while" clauses, and then that the first of the two sentences did not make much sense. Here are the two sentences:


 * Different behaviors may occur at different times of year; diurnality is a cycle of activity with a twenty-four-hour period, while other cyclic activities are described as circadian rhythms. Animals active at dawn or dusk are described as crepuscular, while those active at night are nocturnal.

I clicked on the link at circadian rhythms, and I read this sentence:


 * Processes with 24-hour oscillations are more generally called diurnal rhythms; strictly speaking, they should not be called circadian rhythms unless their endogenous nature is confirmed.

Thus, it seems that both diurnality and circadian rhythms describe activity that takes place over a 24-hour period. The difference seems to be in the presence or absence of an endogenous nature. I think the clause "while other cyclic activities are described..." doesn't really say much. There is a little bit at the end of the first paragraph in Diurnality, but I think that sentence in the lead could be a little clearer.

I also don't see the connection between "Different behaviors may occur at different times of year" and what follows it. It may be true, but if there is no direct connection with "diurnality is a cycle of activity...", there is no reason to join them with a semi-colon. What does "different behaviors may occur at different times of year" have to do with diurnality?

Do you see what I mean? Can you help to make these sentences make more sense? – Corinne (talk) 04:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Diurnality differs from circadian rhythms in that diurnality is not endogenous, whereas circadian rhythms are. Let me think about it.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Cephalaspis
Would you be interested in doing anything to flesh out Cephalaspis? That section is in a rather sad state. Plantdrew (talk) 03:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Certainly. At the very least, I can dig up some references, too.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * what do you think so far?--Mr Fink (talk) 04:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Much better. Plantdrew (talk) 04:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * salute--Mr Fink (talk) 05:49, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

removal of threads on ID
I'm very uneasy with simply removing threads, as you did on ID for. I think better to do as did, say "see above", and close the thread instead. Such automatic removal, should it become common, could be dreadfully abused. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 16:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've dealt with these Trolls For Jesus before throughout the years, and they always bring the exact same attempt at argument about how Wikipedia is wrong and evil because it is not a copyright-infringing mirror of Answers In Genesis or The Discovery Institute or some other anti-science propaganda mill for Jesus. And if they can not be bothered to read the boiler plate template warnings against using the talkpages for forum threads or Anti-Wikipedia screeds, then we must not baby them or reward them by preserving their pointless temper tantrums for all posterity, as per WP:DENY--Mr Fink (talk) 21:15, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In terms of policy, I'm not sure there was enough in what they have said to invoke WP:FORUM (yet), which is why I'm uneasy. In terms of expectation of constructive argument, I certainly don't anticipate anything fruitful to come out of it — at best another Poodleboygate — so I'm still not sure whether to admonish you for shooting first and asking question never, or thank you for preemptively saving us a lot of time and blood pressure spikes. In doubt, I'll just leave it at that and bid you good <whatever is appropriate for your time zone>. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 21:45, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Pseudoscience
You're overreacting on Intelligent Design talk. Just observe WP:TALKO, and if there is a rant, then the approach is to hat it. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe I am overreacting, or maybe I don't want people to deal with having to deal with yet another Anti-Science Troll For Jesus ranting on and on and on about how Wikipedia is the liberal armpit of Satan for not being shamelessly pro-Creationism.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll suggest just having a some additional smaller hammers options for response ready. For this one, it was a short TALK bit with response by two other editors, nothing article or imminent disaster, so maybe add a third line highlighting the contentious history or perhaps leaving it as already handled might have been better.  I'll suggest that if it goes to a screen-plus rant then it's due for a closing hat, and only go to delete for something where WP:TALKO says to.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * All right.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Triggerfish
Sorry about the edit. I was not meaning to vandaliza. I just thought the ip editor made a WP:good faith edit adding mythology. Doesn't Wikipedia deal with the anciet myths about animals? 2600:1:F146:981A:EC02:B27C:95CE:356D (talk) 00:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia deals with actual ancient myths about animals that have been verified and documented, yes, and not blatant bullshit nonsense made up by childish vandals who insist on ruining articles with their inanity.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Relevance
To do with West Africa, or at least talk about Western chimpanzees, since both are apes, no? Leo1pard (talk) 05:59, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Tenuously, yes, but, other subspecies of gorilla would be more relevant.--Mr Fink (talk) 06:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

It's a wonderful time of the year!

 * Festive!--Mr Fink (talk) 15:53, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Illustration of Attercopus
Re your illustration of Attercopus at File:Attercopus fimbriunguis.jpg, it's good to have an illustration, but on my monitor the contrast between the blackish animal and the brown background is such that at the taxobox size, I can't see it. (I keep my screen calibrated using a hardware calibrator, so it's not my setup that's the problem.) Could you improve the contrast, please? Peter coxhead (talk) 09:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I will get on it: would making the background more chartreuse-y help?--Mr Fink (talk) 14:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not good at colour names, so I'm not sure why more chartreuse-y would be like! Basically the background needs to be a lighter brown, I think; a colour on which black text stood out would also work for the black animal. <div style="background-color:rgb(36,36,4); color:white; width:20%">Currently like this <div style="background-color:rgb(130,120,12); width:20%">Black still doesn't stand out <div style="background-color:rgb(180,160,100); width:20%">Better something like this? Peter coxhead (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * How about now?--Mr Fink (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Much better! Peter coxhead (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hooray!--Mr Fink (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

IP Hopping vandal
Thanks for explaining. Please assume good faith unless the addition is obviously vandalism. And if it is, explain why in summary. Just because he has a reputation for "inserting garbage" does not make all of his edits "garbage". Furthermore, IPs are often shared, so it may not be the same person. 2600:1:F141:193E:69FE:B75C:4DB7:E763 (talk) 04:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've dealt with this particular vandal for years and years and years, and it is just easier to undo all of its edits as soon it's identity is recognized, especially since it has favorite pages it likes to haunt, as sifting through all of this IP-hopping vandal's edits to search for those precious, precious few edits that are not so poorly written so as to be totally unreadable, or are not blatant original research nonsense, or blatantly counterfactual is tantamount to sifting for gold in sewage.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Mikasa Ackermann
Why did you call Mikasa Ackermann a moron troll? He appears to be a new editor adding to the List of fictional horses article. I reverted because you made the personal "moron" attack, but you gave no reason for reverting. Please tell me why. I am not hounding you. I just wish new editors were treated civilly and not called a "moron troll" for one possibly good faith edit. If they make a mistake, politely explain, but don't revert rudely assuming bad faith. So, why did you revert him? Remember, don't bite the newcomers, although I personally am no regular member of Wikipedia. 2600:1:F154:909C:D496:EABB:4B91:1C6B (talk) 01:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Mikasa Ackermann reinserted vandalism back into List of fictional horses, i.e., that "Jean Kirsch8tein, from Shingeki no Kyojin" is a horse, which is a blatant contradiction the source material. I'm assuming bad faith on his part because he's the latest in a string of over a dozen troll vandals who have been trying to insert, reinsert and edit-war to put this inane vandalism into the article over the course of several months starting last year, many of whom are IP vandals who made accounts solely to circumvent the page protection on the article, which would be quite clear after even a brief examination of List of fictional horses' edit history.  And I'm not fond of wasting courtesy on people who blatantly seek to vandalize Wikipedia for their own inane pleasure.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explanation. If it gets really bad, you could semiprotect the page. And there is no need to be rude. Just say in summary "Jean Kirsh8tein is not a horse according to source" or something along that line. And if its too long to say so in summary, you can always copy and paste the summary each time he strikes. So, try to stay polite even if the editors are in bad faith. Furthermore there, is always the intervention against vandalism board. Cheers. 2600:1:F154:909C:D496:EABB:4B91:1C6B (talk) 02:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Metatheria
I was just looking at the article on Metatheria, and I found the first sentences somewhat confusing. Here it is:


 * Metatheria is one of two mammalian clades, the other being Eutheria, with extant members that diverged in the Early Cretaceous or perhaps the Late Jurassic, and which includes all mammals more closely related to marsupials than to placentals.

It's not clear whether "with extant members that diverged in the Early Cretaceous..." applies only to Metatheria or to both Metatheria and Eutheria. I assume "which includes all mammals more closely related to marsupials than to placentals" refers only to Metatheria, but with all the qualifying phrases before this clause, the sentence is a little confusing. Can you think of a wording that would be a little clearer? – Corinne (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I decided to be bold and excise that phrase altogether, as it makes the lede too difficult to understand.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Acristatherium
I noticed there was no image in Acristatherium. I found some on Google. Would any of them be appropriate for the article? – Corinne (talk) 23:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Are the images in the original research paper allowable to use?--Mr Fink (talk) 23:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Saccorhytus coronarius.jpg
Hi, you uploaded this file on Commons few days ago. You indicated that it is an own work. Is it true or does it come from another work? If it is true, then [https://www.google.fr/search?hl=fr&biw=1920&bih=949&tbs=sbi:AMhZZisBe2JOQ4IfzogqGvd51wLuj3nTEB8QgJcPuocPhy1SmY4V2b1H3vLr4XV5yxh4bBjE3Lghr7LtNYpEf6mtrodrdK4z3YyV6DDihIAWHhnyw4CsC1IeYqRFyDEPyiUEu0W6ZRoJKCdaUEcxmUXCfQfAfPpmCy-TEOBbGzsdHrS7dHvCQBCd3MTrbmcj7ozYZZLLe-yhUg9SUYQrllI0eJaas03LyoslRYQP5UuiD33xEPRMtGMZIfG4rCMmXLyOy5dBJX6WPkDhHlCHV8WFNQMNodVDMg7gaT8SkEki5eZ6GYCP5txNhR2GILtnrMNKH5h_13UmLbozV_1rw4T8aMjM32hb1aNliGNQG8w9243hf7StQSeysN3kD3WL9aX-iGRK9wNPIhoT2nd6zT3TPUn_1ok1dtzMxWiUY8Lw2lYpDVAr6d9Lmv0tf2Ut6MC-Fp_1DXMsL0UysOpRPrZWco4s3IPLfX9Mi883TPAHAirh1PLyDGWiEgnajw1k-pvujVWTbPsybS3n4wlVqUj0YrlN1hZ7O02C38p5IGEeNoKSidblkCTvwkYFbBI6z1iNB2eqYajOkyVAe59iO0eNMSRtpQjuTWcWR326BKGEYpCly7x7H_1aMLiGBT45HGhHIqnZexHmZlNNVs54Dsr4SEJauANtni29k5GoB5GCJFESa9eb-y62bz1Nlf1qRvEeTbIUm5WGILtKNvCiwp7oVHL2W20iVO8n5Tm9VdjHzOi1vNuMfu2vvIR6VCfj8UR6Wz96Uw2rUTMWXSIp-zBQ6oHxwtFTwrJIleBU4H7A1FJufG1X0SwWJtSArE9DmeFtrqh0EVQyLSKZ3qNzNLfuK4XkTfZqcO5ww8d2sn0cmmqwBHTS4-PS-m88lFrHGML2cH2dLUso01uyEoU3hB6Myh4MnPzGOXqxyYoR990C8hr_1zm0VYK61zgsxNuTKwRNgiyNt8jEPrCvTQZ8-MLydxtm-tmS4WtzcGX-l5iIZDjTYd4XdnpLnVnmr-WsLQk3Bur-VXB9G4ya1yRFzBPdxirWMucEwuUeFhoPepvRfYHqShG3cwgSzwqhS1BfGiuktJXJ0W2E7jRjXyzi5EUbFf32SaV4xitl3TnSyD4_15pWeJ5gSEmAwUawg3owD8x0GJAVQFLrqxLxPxdtkFancjj8Gk-CvLTuck5rdQbC4XcWX6vr60UY8VKA57bz2syy-oQHgPD6p9moJhK7w63kPmD2DDwPHPFmdwipbhNndZI_1i_1LhlI-ILMf-dXM3NrGv_1Fh0K8ohY9bE4gcswJPUpYnlcLBmubN76ZJ2WRaTcO49gOVWmLmZr2zLFeVbvvOf_1yHbu3S3T3PfVpD4bCGRvVNiCJ22FYdx0elmv7grrnEhB-W0ixzPa7tbgemT9J4ECO0MFLEVCHErVLT7d4BaOTqtu4EF4rE9voALASXAqK7qTIZj4jgzbirJfyRODDwll4A68ILRm3mIlOag1Z7IAHGHNLy9guPTUn1MsU63KXc3unL4zdxK6UIPF-4HfUJajJjmJiYUQ8YUcn9yxzJDaTTE4IACR7_1ZzYYH00ZFI0F14T10HL2modrsbwIV8Qoc1MWrSYON2SAWCcGvqK2PXeg9Kt7mKkeoi3A-NbuRJzEIhTEYQjV0L4jsOAUdNaVQ6Yvo4Fy_1po2nRQYHJjL_1uhP1FESY9ex3xA5yQ&ei=DjqWWKHyMIKBaaqip4AM&start=0&sa=N some websites] do not cite you as the author. Pamputt (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't understand, it's my own work, and I've released it for use under the creative commons license.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Manipulating one of your images...
Hi, I will at some point nominate Rodrigues parrot for FAC, so thanks for your restoration, but I'd like to ask for a modification, or whether it's ok I do it myself... The thing is, the image appears to show N. borbonicus in the same tree, a species that, if it even existed, lived on a different island (Réunion), making the image geographically confused, you could say. It also shows a green tail, even though the only description says the tail was "the colour of fire". I have already modified the image before by making the head of the Rodrigues parrot larger (according to sources), so I was thinking that I could maybe change the misplaced, hypothetical bird into another Rodrigues parrot? Or would you like to do it yourself? FunkMonk (talk) 00:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a very old picture of mine.  would you mind waiting a week while I make and color a newer image?--Mr Fink (talk) 01:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that would be great too! Want any sources? Apart from the fossil images in the articles, these paintings by Julian Hume should give good sense of the colours and proportions (though he suggests it would have had a red bill in one of his articles). And it supposedly may have looked like a great billed parrot, just with a longer tail and larger head. FunkMonk (talk) 01:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I have the book Hume's paintings are in! And just to make sure, Rodrigues parrot had no red in its plumage, whereas the Bourbon parrot had a red head and tail.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the green and red Réunion parrot, if it was an endemic species at all, may nothave been related to the Rodrigues parrot... FunkMonk (talk) 03:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Just saw the new uploaded version, looks good! One thing, though, is whether we should stick to the colour scheme that the bird has previously been depicted with? In the new image, the coloration looks much like that of Newton's parakeet (a sort of blue green), whereas Hume has depicted it as a more "plain" green. Perhaps also more yellowish eyes, as in other psittaculines. The beak also seems a bit robust and blunt compared to the fossils, but perhaps this is too late to fix? FunkMonk (talk) 09:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can do.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:31, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Just help me to
Extrapolaris is recently removing the names or making false reports like squalodon only lives in Miocene (the reason is he says specimens in Westphalia labeled squalodon so may be distinct but squalodon barbrus and other species of squalodon were Oligocene animals, actually He even shortened theriosuchus' range! Fossils of theriosuchus also occurs in Jurassic beds. But he still says it's only from Cretaceous but it actually lives in Jurassic to Cretaceous, I'm edit warring with Extrapolaris, can't you let the names of the extinct or prehistoric animals stay as their names and stop letting extrapolaris destroying pages? Now you are my HERO although you wrecked my edits in Orthoceras, now I should realize that it only lives in the Ordovician beds of the northern hemisphere. Help me! Sincerely - Justcallmesam Feb 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justcallmesam (talk • contribs) 12:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Dickinsonia/Proarticulata In or Outside of Bilateria
My small commentary to D.A. Gold et al.. (2015). "Ancestral state reconstruction of ontogeny supports a bilaterian affinity for Dickinsonia". Evolution & Development. 17 (6): 315–397. (free PDF). I will remove those links after a while. Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC))
 * Thanks very much for the heads up and paper!--Mr Fink (talk) 15:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Guandong
This province is actually spelled "Guangdong" with a G before the D. Abyssal (talk) 02:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Can we delete it and replace it with the correct spelling?--Mr Fink (talk) 02:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Wordsighn
Sorry about the talk page I just did not understand why  hedgehog  were illegal  and I also did not know that was inappropriate  sorry once again for that. I am glad that you gave me a second  chance. I hope that this does not happen again and you will be just as nice in the future. Yours Truly , Wordsighn  Wordsighn (talk) 16:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the show of no hard feelings. Please remember that article talkpages are for discussing how to improve the article, and are not forum threads to post exclamations.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the second Chance I will keep that  in  mind  ☺ Wordsighn (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Hancock Park
Hello, Apokryltaros - I'm nearly finished copy-editing Dire wolf, and I was reading some linked articles when I came across the article on Hancock Park. There is a paragraph that does not read well and thus does not make much sense. I'm wondering if you could smooth it out. It is the second-to-last paragraph in Hancock Park. It begins, "It was not until 1901". – Corinne (talk) 14:53, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. I just realized that the article has two "History" sections. It's the second "History" section. – Corinne (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I decided to remove the first "History" section, as it's nothing but a duplicate of the first paragraph of the 2nd "History" section.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for doing that. This is the paragraph that needs attention. If you read it carefully, you will see that there are problems.


 * It was not until 1901 that the bones on the Hancock Ranch were recognized as fossils of prehistoric animals by William Warren Orcutt, a prominent Los Angeles geologist and petroleum pioneer. that the bones were (again) recognized as fossils of extinct animals Orcutt collected saber-toothed cat, dire wolf, ground sloth and other fossils from the site that the scientific community recognized the value of the La Brea Tar Pits in understanding the late Pleistocene fauna and flora of North America. Orcutt eventually gave his fossil collection to John Campbell Merriam of the University of California.


 * – Corinne (talk) 01:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Nimravidae
I was just looking at the Nimravidae and reading about parallel evolution, and I thought it would be helpful if there were an artist's rendering of what paleontologists think the animal looked like so as to compare with the Saber-toothed cat and other "cats". There is one image showing an artist's rendering of a Nimravidae large "cat" chasing prey, but it is so small that it is hard to see the details. Is there any chance you could find such a rendering and add it to this article? – Corinne (talk) 02:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I have a drawing of Quercylurus and Eusmilus I'm working on coloring you think it would be useful for the article?--Mr Fink (talk) 02:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ooo, yes! One is a false sabre-tooth and the other is a real sabre-tooth, right? I look forward to seeing it. – Corinne (talk) 03:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC) I'm trying to understand this (without having read all the articles carefully yet). There was an animal that originally (i.e., its ancestors) was quite different from the sabre-toothed "cat" (which is related to modern "cats") but developed into an animal that was quite similar to the sabre-toothed "cat". (Something about the ear being quite different in the two.) Is that parallel evolution? It sounds like convergent evolution. Sigh. So much to learn.  – Corinne (talk) 03:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, both of them are nimravids. I need to get to work on a comparison of a nimravid and a true felid, then.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Help citing a website
Hi Ahecht, i need help citing a website in a foreign language: http://mayatan.web.fc2.com/bunrui.htm or the google translated page: https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fmayatan.web.fc2.com%2Fbunrui.htm&sandbox=1.

I havent seen an information that i could use to cite this website, but it lists a very comprehensive list of fish species and their synonyms both extinct and living. Videsh Ramsahai (talk) 23:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, whenever I have problems using a citation I need to use, I just type in along the lines of "" and either leave it for a more knowledgeable editor, or then actively go ask help from a more knowledgeable editor. I hope I could help.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Mastodon
I don't think  to Mastodon is an improvement, but:

(a) some non-expert readers might not realize that "reported" means "reported in the scientific literature" and so think it is not the right verb to use; and

(b) I think the name of the extinct animal should be used at the beginning of a new section rather than a pronoun, don't you?

I've gone ahead and re-worded the sentence. I hope "mastodon" is the right word to begin the sentence. If you prefer "is generally reported" to "is generally thought", perhaps it would help non-expert readers if we add "in the scientific literature" after "generally reported": "is generally reported in the scientific literature". – Corinne (talk) 01:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I re-reworded it to make it more concrete-yet-diplomatic sounding.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's much better. – Corinne (talk) 16:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Micropaleontology
I was just reading Micropaleontology, linked on the main page, and I wanted to ask you about two things:

1) Since the link is given in connection with a new discovery of microfossils, wouldn't it make sense to mention that discovery in this article?

2) Next to the small sections treating each type of microfossil is an image of "Fossil nummulitid foraminiferans". At the end of the caption is a "citation needed" tag. Do you see the necessity for that tag? The information in the caption is taken from the image file (but there is a "citation needed" tag there, too). – Corinne (talk) 19:58, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed the tag as, from my experience, it's inappropriate to put such a tag in an illustration caption, as you don't use an illustration of dubious origin in the first place. As for the first issue, yes, it would be appropriate to mention and or discuss the discovery in the article.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply and your edits. I don't generally add content, so am hesitant to do so. Even if I could summarize the recent discovery (from the other linked article), I don't know if the same reference could be used. I think I'll leave it to you. – Corinne (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The same reference would be used: BTW, which discovery are we talking about in the article?--Mr Fink (talk) 22:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

List of Fictional Bears Edit
I think that I discussed the mascots on the talk page for the List of Fictional Bears page on Wikipedia. I spent a long time editing that and adding a lot of mascots for companies with bears. I do not understand why it was removed. Please discuss it on the talk page first. thank you for your understanding. Name13013 (talk) 01:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Actinopterygii, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Leaf fish. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Dog
Apparently somewhere I read the incorrect name for the Lead section. That was my intention. I will revise my tag. Thank you. Russty11 (talk) 21:18, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:37, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

[]
The user you reverted edited the same article[] again. He seems to have added sources this time. I brought it here cause I am not sure if he is constructive or not. 2600:1:F14C:E4FA:10B9:7470:B6B6:10F2 (talk) 03:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Black-necked spitting cobra
After seeing a brief comment on Casliber's talk page, I started reading the article on Black-necked spitting cobra. At the end of the first paragraph in the lead, I see this sentence:


 * The venom irritates the skin (blisters with little immunity) and can cause permanent blindness if it enters the eyes and after been bitten (neorotoxin).

I wondered whether "neorotoxin" were a typo or some toxin I had never heard of. – Corinne (talk) 18:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It should be "neurotoxin."--Mr Fink (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That's what I figured, and I saw "neurotoxin" later in the article as I was copy-editing. I'm sorry I had to override your edit; I got an edit conflict, and since I had made so many small edits, I didn't want to lose my work. I then re-added your newly revised sentence. Thanks for your attention. (What do you think of the section heading at Casliber's talk page? User talk:Casliber Is it really spreading into Europe?) – Corinne (talk) 18:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries, plus, I strongly doubt it, as the claim-maker in question looks like your typical original-research hack who goes "it's so because I said so."--Mr Fink (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * O.K. Thanks! – Corinne (talk) 14:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Why were my edits reverted?
Why were my edits reverted? I modified the Cryptozoology article to have it represent a truly neutral point of view, as reflected in the sources. The present article, following the reversion of my modifications, misrepresents the sources cited, none of which explicitly state that it is a pseudoscience, but instead say something's like "Widely regarded as pseudoscience" or "Ranges from pseudoscientific to useful and interesting, depending upon how it is practiced", or something to that effect. And I cited sources, none of which could be called fringe or CZ proponents, for my changes. May I ask, why should the article go back to what it was before: biased original research that contradicts what mainstream scientific and skeptical sources have to say about the matter? 68.225.173.217 (talk) 00:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Your phrase "currently infiltrated by pseudoscience" doesn't sound very neutral to begin with, nor does it sound helpful in providing an accurate assessment the current state of cryptobiology on why it's not actually a pseudoscience, among other things.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Homo floresiensis
Hello, Apokryltaros – I was just skimming the article on Homo floresiensis, and I came across something I wanted to ask you about. The seventh paragraph in the lead (counting the first short one as one paragraph) begins:


 * Two orthopedic researches published in 2007 reported evidence to support species status for H. floresiensis.

I don't recall seeing "research" used in a countable sentence (with a singular and a plural form) – "researches". At least in the U.S., it is always an uncountable noun, with no plural form. Is this a British English usage? You're more familiar with the scientific literature than I am, but I thought we would either use "research" or "a study/studies". If it is British English usage, and the article is written in British English, then of course we'd leave it alone, but if the article is written in American English or the plural "researches" is unacceptable, perhaps this ought to be changed.

Regarding the variant of English used, I see in edit mode it says to use "dmy" dates, which is British E. date style. I then did a search of -or/-our words and -ize/-ise words in the article. I found no -our words, and I only found one -ise of the type that would determine the variant of English ("criticise", third paragraph in Homo floresiensis section) but many -ize words (including "criticize"), so there is some inconsistency.

What do you think?

Also, I was puzzled by something in the "Life timeline" graphic in the Discovery section. It shows Flowers above Mammals, indicating that the earliest flowers developed after mammals were already present. I looked for earliest existence dates in Mammal and Flowering plant, and it looks like flowers appeared even before the earliest mammals, so I'm puzzled by this. – Corinne (talk) 03:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It should be "study/studies," rather than "research/researches," as, there can be more than one study, whereas "researches" is a verb-form.
 * Thanks. That's what I thought.


 * Eventually, it would seem we would need to go through and British-size that article.
 * The earliest true flowering plants appear during the Cretaceous, though, plenty of flower-like plants, including the ancestors of true flowering plants and transitional forms between these ancestral pre-flowers and their ancestral gymnosperms, are known since the Triassic.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! – Corinne (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Cold seep
Just in case you don't have Cold seep on your watchlist, perhaps you could disambiguate the link. See . – Corinne (talk) 19:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Azadirachta indica
Hello, Apokryltaros - I was just looking at the article on Azadirachta indica. In the Azadirachta indica section, in the item headed "Tree", there is a citation needed tag regarding the tree serving as a "carbon-dioxide sink". I thought you might be able to find a source. – Corinne (talk) 20:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Merger discussion for List of Dimetrodon species and Dimetrodon borealis
Articles that you have been involved in editing&mdash;List of Dimetrodon species and Dimetrodon borealis &mdash;have been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. 65.255.88.233 (talk) 01:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Apatosaurus
Hello, Apokryltaros -- I've just finished copy-editing Apatosaurus. I started reading it, found a few errors, and kept reading. I wanted to ask you about one thing. In  edit, I changed "Its specimens" to "Apatosaurus louisae specimens" because it didn't seem clear enough what "its" referred to. I figured that it referred to Apatosaurus louisae, but I wanted to be sure that my edit did not introduce incorrect information. Do you agree that "its specimens" could be ambiguous? – Corinne (talk) 03:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, "its specimens" would be very ambiguous considering as how there are several species in the genus.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Ranni Forest Division
Hello, Apokryltaros - I came across the article on the Ranni Forest Division. I noticed that in the section Ranni Forest Division, there is a list of list of "fishes and amphibians" that exist in the Ranni Forest Division. Below that, there is a similar list of reptiles and mammals. These are rather long lists, but I noticed that none of the species was linked. I also wonder if the species names are supposed to be in italics and if the pairing of two lists, with "fishes" and amphibians in one table, and later reptiles and mammals in another, is good formatting. Also, right under the first table there is a phrase, "For more details" and an external link. When I clicked on the link, it led nowhere. If you have time, perhaps you could improve these lists. Best regards,
 * I'm not sure if I can, because the lists appear to be garbled, in that I don't know how to edit the table of bird species into something more manageable, and that all of the entries in the list of mammals are bird common names.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Well, I had left a similar note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds regarding the birds. I guess I thought you would be more interested in non-bird animals, but I suppose I should have left just one comment here. I wonder if there is an editor who is familiar with the fauna of India who could work on this. – Corinne (talk) 17:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I left a message at the original editor's talkpage, though, she has not appeared to have edited in Wikipedia about a year.--Mr Fink (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Lyotropic liquid crystals
I intermittently go to the Today's articles for improvement/Nominations page to vote on whether to select an article for improvement at some future date. There is one article in the Today's articles for improvement/Nominations section, Lyotropic liquid crystal, that has been nominated, and it is languishing with some support and some oppose. I'm trying to figure out if the article is too technical even to bother, or on an important enough topic that it deserves to be made more comprehensible to the average Wikipedia reader. I was unable to figure out if the topic is timely, or relevant, to current issues in the worlds of science and technology. What do you think? You are free to vote and/or comment there. – Corinne (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I would vote to nominate it for improvement, but, the technical-ness of the article makes it something of a rose briar filled with landmines situation.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Cyprinidae 2
Hello, Apokryltaros - You probably have Cyprinidae on your watch list, but just in case you don't, perhaps you'd like to review edit and those following it. I noticed that there is a tag at the beginning of the article that has been there since 2011! – Corinne (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * He was removing references from that part of the article as it is apparently unnecessary to put references in that part. I figure if those references are in the corresponding articles, I doubt that there would be a need to challenge or support a genus' placement in the family.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:40, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Arecaceae
Hello, Apokryltaros - I was just looking at the article on Arecaceae, and I saw that in the Arecaceae section there is a tag asking for more sources that's been there since 2015. If you have some free time, and the inclination, maybe you could add some. – Corinne (talk) 23:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC) I don't know whether you can add some sources to Arecaceae or not. – Corinne (talk) 23:19, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Orinoco
Hello, Apokryltaros - I was just looking at the latest edits to Orinoco. I see Paul August rightly corrected the capitalization of "von" in "von Humboldt", but after reading through the many edits by the IP editor –  one and those prior to it – I am wondering if the entire lot should be reverted. The editor introduced some blatant errors. I don't know about the changes to references and numbers. There may be one, or at the most two, among the many changes that are an improvement, but those could be made after an undo. Can you take a look? – Corinne (talk) 01:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, aside from the uncapitalization of "von," the other portions of that IP's edit are okay.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Help with Allosauroidea template
I have noticed an error on the Allosauroidea template. It says that Carcharodontosaurinae is classified outside of Carcharodontosauridae. I have tried to correct this error but it has just got rid of the Carchaordontosauridae subsection. I would be grateful if you could fix it. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * How about now?--Mr Fink (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ThanksLavalizard101 (talk) 13:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

(Apologies; I don't understand how I managed to revert an edit on this page – it was entirely unintended. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:47, 13 June 2017 (UTC))
 * No worries.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:42, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Algae protist
Isn't algae a protists with chloroplasts meaning that it belongs in the kingdom protista not the kingdom plantae Loman55556666 (talk) 23:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There are more than one type of alga, and green algae are closely related to true plants, which is why they are classified with true plants in (Viridi)Plantae., if you read the article Viridiplantae, it explains the reasons why green algae are grouped together with true plants, rather than with other protists.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:11, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Reply
How to tell if somehting is Undue or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:F147:F9CD:80B1:284C:5855:D630 (talk) 22:34, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You mean like expunging all mentions of a pseudoscientific topic being a pseudoscience? If you can't be bothered to understand what the revert was about, perhaps you should, you know, not revert it.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:45, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Wakaleo vanderleuri
I have merged Wakaleo vanderleueri with Wakaleo vanderleuri due to the former being a misspelling of the latter. As it was my first ever merge, I would like your help in verifying that the merge went correctly and any tags were put in their appropriate places as the help page on merges isn't to clear on which talk page to add the old merge full template to. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Everything appears to be shipshape: congratulations on a mission accomplished.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:06, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I just made a few copy-edits to this article. Is there a reason why "wombats" is in the plural and "the koala" is in the singular? If not, which would be better, "the wombat and the koala" or "wombats and koalas"? – Corinne (talk) 23:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "Wombats" there is plural to imply how there is more than one extant species of wombat, and "the koala" is singular to imply how there is only one extant species of koala--Mr Fink (talk) 01:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * (Just saw this.) What do you think of adding "the" before "wombats" so that it reads:


 * ...; its closest living relatives are the wombats and the koala?


 * – Corinne (talk) 23:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Montane ecosystems
Hello, Apokryltaros – I was just looking at the latest  to Montane ecosystems, and I see it was the addition of an image, a photo of a road, presumably at high altitude, with some trees on either side of the road, in the mountains of Iran. I was wondering if you thought this image was appropriate for the article. If so, the caption needs to be re-written. I assume it is a forest of some kind, not a jungle. What do you think? – Corinne (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It's oak scrub, and I put it in with the Mediterranean section.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * (Just saw this.) O.K. Good. Thanks. – Corinne (talk) 23:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

American black bear
Hello, Apokryltaros – I'm in the middle of reading American black bear, and I wanted to ask you about two things:

1) The last sentence of the first paragraph in the section American black bear reads:


 * Reportedly, the sun bear is also a relatively recent split from this lineage.

I wanted to ask what you thought of the adverb "reportedly" at the beginning of the sentence. To me, it suggests that some scholars have claimed this, but it is likely untrue. I think it's a little ambiguous. If the situation is that there is some evidence to show this, but it is not conclusive, or is not yet widely accepted among scholars, perhaps it would be good if that could be said. What do you think?

2) The first two sentences of the last paragraph in American black bear read:


 * The American black bear lived during the same period as short-faced bears (Arctodus simus and A. pristinus) and the Florida spectacled bear (Tremarctos floridanus). These Tremarctine bears evolved from bears that had emigrated from Asia to North America 7–8 ma.

I know Tremarctos floridanus is linked, but I wonder if a link could be added at "Tremarctine". I had never seen that word before and I wonder what it refers to. – Corinne (talk) 21:49, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I swapped out "reportedly" for "According to recent studies," and I linked "Tremarctinae" for "Tremarctine"--Mr Fink (talk) 23:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Pkym1
You left an edit summary about him being a vandal if I read correctly. How can you tell he is a vandal? I kinda failed to see what vandalism he has done. If he is, shouldn't he be reported at Wikipedia intervention against vandalism? As a side note, he has no user or talkpage.198.24.31.108 (talk) 23:55, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Among other things, I can tell s/he/it is a vandal because Pkym1 went out of its way to insert crude hoax information in Aojia in order to deliberately direct readers to its hoax page, "Yiran," among other things. If one can not describe such a deliberately unconstructive editor as a "vandal," then, what would you suggest as a more apt descriptor?  Furthermore, considering as how Pkym1's last edit was from 2014, I clearly think it would be a blatant fool's errand to submit what would be a blatant "stale report" to Wikipedia Intervention Against Vandalism, especially since Pkym1 does not appear to be a sleeper account of a sockpuppet.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:37, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Entelodon-related
I added the information to the Entelodon page because someone linked it as "Killer Warthog" on the Dino-Riders page. For all I know, that person though the Entelodon was the closest match that they can use for that name. Did I leave anything out? --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:55, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Is there a reliable source to confirm this identification?--Mr Fink (talk) 18:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Hide Virus
Is your PC all right? Can you hide the edit on Evolution of cetaceans so no one, maybe a child, looking in the page history goes to the malware site? 2600:1:F187:7808:EDC1:6892:78BB:761F (talk) 23:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I would if I was an administrator, which I am not.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Helianthus
Hello, Mr Fink – Can you take a look at  to Helianthus? The added sentence is neither sourced nor in what I would call the right place in the article. I suppose an argument could be made that "sunflowers in art" would be a good section to have, but the material would have to be sourced, and I doubt this editor is interested in finding and adding sources. I noticed that you had left a warning on this editor's talk page last fall. Do you feel like adding another? – Corinne (talk) 21:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a non sequitor that really, truly, only applies to Helianthus anuus, so I removed it.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:17, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * O.K. Thanks! – Corinne (talk) 02:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Extended evolutionary synthesis
Hello, Mr. Fink – I have Extended evolutionary synthesis on my watchlist even though the subject matter is a bit above my ability to fully comprehend all the ideas. I was reading through the article and I came across a few places that I thought were either unclear or didn't read smoothly. I made a few small changes in wording; hope you approve of those. I wanted to ask you about a few things.

1) The first sentence of the article is the following:

The extended evolutionary synthesis is a set of extensions of the earlier modern synthesis of evolutionary biology that took place between 1918 and 1942.

To someone in the field, this probably makes perfect sense, but to me, in order for something to "take place", it has to unequivocally be an event. I don't see any event here. I suppose it is implied by the noun "synthesis" or the noun "extensions", but to help the average Wikipedia reader, I wonder if this could be clarified somewhat. I could suggest a small change: adding "made" after "a set of extensions" and changing "of" to "to":


 * The extended evolutionary synthesis is a set of extensions made to of the earlier modern synthesis of evolutionary biology that took place between 1918 and 1942.

I don't know if this makes sense, or is accurate. You might suggest something different.

But again, we still have "the...synthesis...that took place". In this wording, the "synthesis" seems to have been an event, which is hard for me to grasp, especially since it took place over a period of twenty-four years. Perhaps "took place" could be changed to something else such as "was accomplished" or "carried out"?
 * response: "made to" sounds fine to me.
 * O.K., but what about my other question? Do you want to leave it as "took place" or substitute another verb such as "was accomplished" or "carried out", or something else? How about this? –


 * an earlier modern synthesis of evolutionary biology that was developed between 1918 and 1914.


 * (I changed "the" to "an". Unless it's absolutely necessary, it is best not to use "the" until the item has been introduced; also, who knows, it may have been the first of several. What do you think of "was developed"? – Corinne (talk) 17:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * response: This sounds much better, actually.

2) In the section Extended evolutionary synthesis is the following sentence:

The 19th-century ideas of natural selection by Darwin and Mendelian genetics were united by researchers who included Ronald Fisher, one of the three founders of population genetics, and J. B. S. Haldane and Sewall Wright, between 1918 and 1932.

I think something is not quite right with the wording of the first part of the sentence. There are two 19th-century ideas. One is "natural selection by Darwin" and the other is "Mendelian genetics". I think the phrases should, if possible, be made more parallel. In other words, change the first phrase to "Darwin's natural selection" or "Darwinian natural selection" to parallel "Mendelian genetics", or change "Mendelian genetics" so it becomes parallel to "natural selection by Darwin", which I think is more difficult to do. What do you think?
 * response: Since we have the adjective "Mendelian," style-sense would dictate the use of "Darwinian."

3) The first sentence in the section Extended evolutionary synthesis is the following:

During the 1950s, the English biologist C. H. Waddington called for an extended synthesis based from his research on epigenetics and genetic assimilation.

I wondered whether "based from" made sense to you. The more usual phrase is "based on". "Based from" would be more likely to be used in something like logistics. Also, the phrase "during the 1950s" suggests to me either that no one knows at what point in the 1950s Waddington called for an extended synthesis or that he called for an extended synthesis several times during the 1950s. Either way, I think it is vague. What do you think of changing "During the 1950s" to "In the 1950s"?
 * response: As far as I know, "based on" versus "based from" is a matter of style, though, I must agree that it would seem more reasonable to use the more frequently used "based on." As for "during" versus "in," I'd recommend keeping it as "during" unless until we can pinpoint a more specific timerange, but that's my own taste.

4) My next question is one of formatting. I noticed that in the section Extended evolutionary synthesis, the items in the list are:


 * (a) bulleted, and
 * (b) begin with a capital letter and end with a period/full stop, and

in the section Extended evolutionary synthesis, the items in the list are:


 * (a) numbered, and
 * (b) begin with a lower-case letter and end with no punctuation.

(a) Do you think the formatting in these two lists should be match, for consistency? Is there any strong reason for using different formatting? (By the way, the MoS says that lists are deprecated, but assuming we are leaving them as lists...)

(b) If we decide to make the formatting of the two lists consistent, which style do you prefer? My preference is for starting each item with a lower-case letter, ending with a semi-colon, and ending the final item with a period. I don't know which is better, numbering or bullets. I think I prefer bullets. Is there any reason why the items need to be numbered?
 * response: If we go with a bulleted list, I'd either go with a numbered list, or neither numbered nor lettered.


 * By "a bulleted list", I meant a list with a bullet at the beginning of each item. This is a bulleted list:


 * item one here;
 * item two here;
 * item three here; and
 * item four here.


 * (Can be punctuated as this one is, or can be written with no final punctuation.)
 * See MOS:LISTBULLET, particularly the fourth bulleted item: "Use numbers rather than bullets only if..." (See additional comments added above.) – Corinne (talk) 17:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * response: I guess, then, go with a numbered list.

You must have been in a hurry; you didn't read far enough. I'll copy the section from MOS:LISTBULLET:


 * Use numbers rather than bullets only if:
 * A need to refer to the elements by number may arise;
 * The sequence of the items is critical; or
 * The numbering has some independent meaning, for example in a listing of musical tracks.

Do any of these apply? – Corinne (talk) 00:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * reply: As far as I know, none apply.
 * O.K. Thanks. Then I think we should use bullets. – Corinne (talk) 01:04, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

5) I don't see anywhere in the article an explanation of what a "synthesis" is (in this context). I think it would help readers if one sentence were added somewhere that explained what a synthesis is.
 * response: Agreed.
 * Great! It's got to be you who writes this sentence. I could write my own understanding of it, but it might not be quite right for this context. – Corinne (talk) 17:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's all. Thanks for reading. – Corinne (talk) 03:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That was a marathon comment! Thank you!--Mr Fink (talk) 04:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * So far, so good.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll make the changes tomorrow. It's late, and I'm tired. – Corinne (talk) 03:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * salute* (falls over)--Mr Fink (talk) 04:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Megatheria
Just wondered if you had ever seen a picture of a huge statue of a Megatheria. See Altiplano Cundiboyacense. – Corinne (talk) 01:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Nice.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:25, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Hoplophoneus and Paleobiology Database
(diff: ) Hello. Are you aware where age ranges on the Paleobiology Database come from? Stas (talk) 21:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * And how does that justify replacing the age range with an estimate that would mislead a reader to assume the genus was restricted to 30 million years ago?--Mr Fink (talk) 21:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "Age ranges" on Paleobiology Database / Fossilworks refer to divisions of geologic time scale where fossils of the taxon were found (and usually according to obsolete versions of the chronostratigraphic chart). "Misleading of the reader" is presenting these ranges as the time of taxon existence. Stas (talk) 22:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Columbidae
Hello, Apokryltaros – I don't know if you are watching Columbidae, but I thought you might like to see this: Talk:Columbidae. – Corinne (talk) 21:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds too much like a whiny brat to bother engaging in my opinion.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * O.K. I think the issue he raised was addressed in an earlier discussion anyway. – Corinne (talk) 17:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Complement
Your artwork is amazing! I remember seeing Brontornis and several others while reading, but I assumed someone had uploaded scans from a book. Keep it up! Inatan (talk) 21:35, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the kind words! I'm in the process of revising Brontornis, in fact.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Pyrenean ibex
I understand. (Though I am going to keep it 2003 in my head.) 204.184.158.15 (talk) 19:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Pleiotropy
Hello, Apokryltaros – I was just skimming the article on Pleiotropy, and I came across a sentence that didn't sound right. It is the third sentence in the section Pleiotropy:


 * The mutation alters the production of melanin and which affects traits all throughout the organism.

Shouldn't this be something like:


 * The mutation alters the production of melanin, and which affects traits all throughout the organism.

? – Corinne (talk) 15:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

2) I've got to ask you about something else in the same article. It's this sentence, which appears in the middle of the second paragraph in Pleiotropy:


 * These particular studies instead show clustering of these diseases within patients themselves or families.

I don't understand the presence of the word "instead" here. "Instead" introduces some kind of contrast, and I don't see the contrast. Instead of what? – Corinne (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * For the sentence in Albinism, I opted to replace the linking clauses with something better. As for the Autism and schizophrenia, I couldn't understand the use of "instead," either, so I decided to be bold and remove it.  It may be a remnant of a previous version of that section.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * O.K. Thanks! I'm going to change "dependant" to "dependent". (I know it was there before your edit.) – Corinne (talk) 16:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Salute.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Is it "melanin-related and [melanin]-dependent traits", or "melanin-related and dependent traits"? If it is really the former, I think there should be a hyphen at the beginning of "dependent". It if is the latter, perhaps the addition of "other" before "dependent" would make the sentence clearer: (a) melanin-related and -dependent traits (b) melanin-related and other dependent traits (c) melanin-related and [?] dependent traits
 * I think a) or b) would work: probably b).--Mr Fink (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

3) Does "Myosin heavy polypeptide 4 gene" in Pleiotropy need to be in italics? – Corinne (talk) 16:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I need your help to find an image that I saw around the same time as I was copy-editing Pleitropy, but now I can't find it. I wanted to copy it and paste it into my collection of interesting images, a sub-page on my user page. It is a [probably computer-drawn] graphic image showing how the genes and chromosomes are the same for a lowly bacterium (or something small like that) and a mouse embryo are the same. It shows the gene/chromosome sequencing in the middle, the bacterium at the top and the mouse embryo at the bottom. The genes or chromosomes are color-coded, so you can see that they are in basically the same order in the bacterium and the mouse embryo. I searched through the article on Pleitropy for links to articles that would contain that image, but I couldn't find the right one. Have you seen that image? Do you know where it is? – Corinne (talk) 18:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen it, and searching through the edit history didn't bring up anything I could notice. Sorry.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, O.K. Thanks. How about item 3), above? – Corinne (talk) 23:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, no, no it doesn't as far as I know.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * O.K. Thanks. I'll fix that. Oh, I just found the image. It's the lead image in Evolutionary developmental biology. – Corinne (talk) 00:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * One more question. I noticed in the section Pleiotropy that "Mini Muscle Mice" is capitalized several times even though "mini-muscle" is not capitalized in the first line of the paragraph and "muscle" is not capitalized in the section heading. "Mini Muscle Mice" makes it seem as if the mice are patented, or a detail from Mickey Mouse slipped in here. What do you think? – Corinne (talk) 00:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * If it's not patented, I guess uncapitalize, then.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Mechanism (biology)
I just came across an article that looks like it could use some work. It is Mechanism (biology). – Corinne (talk) 23:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

IP has returned, with same shtick
The Giglioli's whale IP is back, you may be interested: Special:Contributions/86.29.215.207 Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 15:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

MtDNA
I wonder if you could comment at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. I left a comment, but I think the edit warring was a little silly, with unhelpful edit summaries on both sides. I suppose the administrators can address that, but I do wonder why a quote mentioning MtDNA is included when mitochondrial DNA is mentioned nowhere in the article. – Corinne (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, since I had never seen the (red) user name of one of the parties before, I took a look at an edit made to Ket people by that same editor. What do you think of ? – Corinne (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if I should comment there, if only because I'm not sure what to comment about, and that your comment was very helpful. MtDNA is sometimes mentioned in these sorts of articles as one form of tracing and confirming ancestry, given as how in chordates, one's MtDNA is inherited from one's mother.  As for the Ket people edit, I think it's a matter of personal taste.  Personally, I prefer the previous one, if only because it's not a picture of a picture, but the one he swapped to seems equally useful, too, in my opinion.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * O.K. Thanks. I agree that either photo is all right. – Corinne (talk) 04:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Species vs population of organisms
I thought you might be interested in the discussion at Talk:Dire wolf/Archive 2. – Corinne (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the head's up.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Deltasaurus
Do you happen to remember the previous names this character operated under? I'd like to link them if possible, and it would be great to be able to G4 anything they make in the future under any other sock. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 02:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe |Atesfaye was one. If you can search through its contributions to see what pages it created but were deleted and see if any were drafts, that would confirm it.  I will search for others and let you know of my progress.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Deltasaurus did have some deleted drafts, but he didn't recreate the two that User:Atesfaye had created (Draft:Notohippus & Draft:Archeohyrax). Still sketchy though. I'll keep an eye out. I don't know if you're a regular in dinosaur topic areas but if you see these kinds of hoaxes crop up again let me know. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 05:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * He also uses IPs, when he returns, I will let you know ASAP.--Mr Fink (talk) 06:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Cool :) &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 06:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm certain I've seen this individual before using IPs to create new dinosaur articles on their respective talk pages (in other words, I've seen many of them listed as WP:CSD candidates). It might be worth starting a WP:LTA page for this individual to help keep track of the problem.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point!--Mr Fink (talk) 16:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * and, I found another IP, --Mr Fink (talk) 16:30, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

It’s that time again....

 * Thank you very much!--Mr Fink (talk) 15:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Acristatherium
Hello, Apokryltaros – Is there any chance an image could be found for Acristatherium? – Corinne (talk) 00:35, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Like a photo of the holotype or a reconstruction?--Mr Fink (talk) 00:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe one of each? Have you painted an artist's reconstruction of it? – Corinne (talk) 01:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have not yet made a reconstruction of it. We could ask other editors, like  about how to go about getting permission for the photos from the paper.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Nutrient
Hello, Apokryltaros – First, let me wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! I had nothing to do, so I copy-edited Nutrient, which was selected as this week's "Today's article for improvement". I wonder, if you get a chance, if you could check the changes I made to be sure I did not introduce any factual errors. If you see other things that can be improved, feel free to work on the article. I thought "bulk energy" was not very clear to the average WP reader, so I removed "bulk" in one of my first edits. I also thought "co-factors" was not clear, either, but I left it since I didn't know what else to put. I thought there was a little repetition (near the beginning of the article), so cut out a little to make it more concise. See what you think. – Corinne (talk) 01:20, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. So far, I don't see anything wrong with your edits with Nutrient.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:45, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * O.K. Thanks for looking at it. – Corinne (talk) 16:35, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

★Trekker (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message.

Merry Christmas and thanks for all your good work, hope you're having a relaxing time during this period and that next year will be even better for us all here.★Trekker (talk) 15:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! Hopefully, it will be more productive, too.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:53, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Strange days indeed
Check out the new user page. William Harris •  (talk) •  05:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[[
 * Indeed. Though, I think I'll personally refrain from comment for now, what with karma being an active and snooping entity here in the 'Pedia.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Pete is a dog wolf cat. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 06:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I had already left "a quiet word" on the Talk page; I expect that an amendment will be made soon. William Harris •   (talk) •  06:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Kraken
Hi. I know it's not that big of an issue, but don't you think it's important the article includes the different ways it is depicted in popular media? Moreover when it's on a popular film that's known precisely for its special effects in portraying creatures like the Kraken and Medusa. Just want to read your thoughts and rationale. Thanks. Thief12 (talk) 01:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Harryhausen's Kraken is already discussed in Kraken in popular culture, and mention of it is not necessary for the section "Appearance and origins".--Mr Fink (talk) 01:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Dilophosaurus
Hello, Apokryltaros – I'm just about to begin a copy-edit of Dilophosaurus in response to a request at WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. I was glancing through the article and looking at the images when I saw something I've got to ask you about. I noticed in the section Dilophosaurus that the caption for the image at the left begins:


 * Restoration of Dilophosaurus in resting pose

Is this use of "restoration" different from the meaning of a putting back together, making something that had been damaged whole again? I don't remember seeing "restoration" used to describe an artist's rendering (based on skeletal remains but still using the imagination), or re-creation, of something. Then I noticed the word "restoration" is used in several other captions throughout the remainder of the article. Are they all appropriate uses of the word? Or would you substitute another word for at least some of them? If so, please either let me know here, or wait until I've finished copy-editing to make any changes because I'm about to start copy-editing now. – Corinne (talk) 16:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm in the Dilophosaurus section now, and in the second paragraph there is a list of organisms, each followed by a reference. I always thought the rule was "punctuation goes before references", but here I see the comma follows the reference, but the reference follows the final period/full stop. I'm changing it to comma followed by reference, but is this putting of the comma after the reference something specific to biology/paleontology articles? Am I going to need to change them back? – Corinne (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC) I decided to wait for your reply before changing the punctuation.  You may be interested in these comments. – Corinne (talk) 19:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, at least one source states "restoration" is used for depictions of the live animals, whereas "reconstruction" is for illustrations that show their whole skeletons. But the terms are sometimes used interchangeably. FunkMonk (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks FunkMonk. Please keep going, .  Looking good so far.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks also, FunkMonk. How about the placement of commas – before or after the reference – in the list of items in Dilophosaurus? – Corinne (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * After the commas.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. – Corinne (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Didn't know that about commas, so I'm fine if you change it. FunkMonk (talk) 02:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You were always a comma comma chameleon about these things to begin with.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

warthog
Not sure why you reverted my edit. It was not easy to see the links to the more informative artcles and I think my edit was an improvement. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I reverted your edit because you don't put a list with bullets in the lede like that.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It's helpful to other editors if you can explain why you revert an edit. Charlesjsharp (talk) 23:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Winged scapula
A while back, I left a comment at User talk:Jytdog/Archive 25. Perhaps I took too long to get to my question, or perhaps Jytdog had more pressing concerns, but he never responded or made any edit to the article. It's not a major issue. I just thought that the captions could be clearer to help non-expert readers. I wonder if you would take a look at it and see if you agree, and make any necessary edits to the captions. You don't have to reply there; I don't want to bother Jytdog anymore. – Corinne (talk) 17:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Either caption of either photos are fine: though, in my opinion, I recommend we ditch the b&w photo and replace it with a color photo of someone with normal scapulae, as a "compare and contrast" kind of situation.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)


 * In Scapula, you don't think it would help non-experts if the caption read,


 * (a) Example of a winged scapula (left), or
 * (b) Image of a winged scapula (left), or
 * (c) A winged scapula (left), or
 * (d) Note winged scapula at left.


 * In Winged scapula, I agree that the black-and-white image should be removed and a photo of two normal scapulae (is that the plural?) be added for comparison. How does one go about finding such a photo? Just search Google images? (I may have asked you this before; if so, I have forgotten.) In the color image that should stay, do you think it's clear enough that it is the right-hand scapula that is winged, or winging? Do you prefer "winging" or "winged"? – Corinne (talk) 23:27, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd go with (c). I'd search on WikiCommons rather than Google, as very few of the pictures found on Google can be used, either by being not free-use, or having watermarks that obscure details.  And I'd use "winged," as it matches the page title.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * O.K. Thanks. I guess for the "normal" photo for comparison purposes, we'd just look for a photo of anyone's back with normal scapulae. Is that right? – Corinne (talk) 16:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * And who's willing to allow it for use in Wikipedia, yes.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for that
I was having a bad day — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.48.210.235 (talk) 11:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your apology. You need to be more careful in what you say in your edit summaries.  Other editors are within their rights and duties to revert edits that they see or assume as being incorrect, or incorrectly inserted, and to demand that they be blocked for putting in errors because they have challenged you to properly support your edits in order to keep the page in readably working order will lead other editors to confuse you with some of the more aggressive vandals.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning, Have a good day — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.48.210.235 (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Most recent american lion weight
This study from 2016 have different weights and give a maximum 363kg for the american lion. https://peerj.com/preprints/2327.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.48.210.235 (talk) 17:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Except that the paper you're using as reference is not yet officially published.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Electmonk
I don't know if you're aware of this or if this is the same person as you but there's a new user who's copied a section of your user page onto theirs and is taking credit for creating the pictures. TripleRoryFan (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Former endangerment of Steller's sea cow
Thank you for noticing my edit and writing a good edit summary. Sadly, you are right. However, it is not to late to consider it as having been endangered, nor too late to learn from the causes of the Steller's sea cow's extinction. I assume this is why the IUCN has maintained a database entry on it for the past thirty years. It is why I categorized it; the Category:Endangered species by reason they are threatened subcategories include extinct species by policy. HLHJ (talk) 05:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be more accurate or prudent to place it in a similar category of species made extinct through food/hunting?
 * As there are a fair number of species going extinct, and some that are declared extinct and then rediscovered, often several times, it would mean a lot of recategorization. Do you think it would be worth the extra work? There are some separate categories to show that a species is extinct, although admittedly intersections of categories are not much searched-by; I can see both arguments. There is also the problem that many extinct and endangered species have multiple threats, and it's hard to attribute the extinction to any one of them, so we'd need title something like "Species endangered by X that subsequently went extinct". Perhaps Category:Species endangered by use as raw materials might be relevant too, because of the leather; I missed that. HLHJ (talk) 06:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds fair, then.--Mr Fink (talk) 06:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the most succinctly productive edit discussion. I'm tempted to copy it to Category talk:Endangered species by reason they are threatened for future reference; I had the same first idea about those categories, too. HLHJ (talk) 06:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * salute*--Mr Fink (talk) 16:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

You shouldn't have rolled back my topic
Adding a note discussing whether or not tadpole shrimp are true shrimp would be an improvement. Will (Talk - contribs) 23:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * , tadpole shrimps' placement within Subphylum Crustacea has been already been determined over a century and a half ago, i.e., that they are in the class Branchiopoda, of the order Notostraca, and are not a "true shrimp," i.e., any decapod malacostracan that hasn't already been designated a "lobster," "crab" or "crayfish." That, and "shrimp" is a common name often bandied about to refer to any elongated crustacean.  Having said those, I don't see how or why it would be necessary to start up a forum thread to question established taxonomy simply because one wishes to note the obvious fact of how tadpole shrimp superficially resemble horseshoe crabs.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:34, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Range block
I removed both of the IP6's your reported; I've blocked 2602:252:D06:1790:0:0:0:0/64, which will catch both of those and any others in the immediate vicinity he rotates to. Let me know if you see him pop up anywhere else. Kuru  (talk)  22:46, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Understood, and thank you!--Mr Fink (talk) 22:53, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Potato
The user you reverted there []seems from his past contributions to be a vandalism only account. Could you report or block him if this is true? 198.24.30.126 (talk) 23:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

User: 70.160.33.179
Could you please block that user? He seems to be doing only one thing: remove "Palaeosauriscus", "Palaeosaurus" and "P." sternbergi from the List of dinosaur genera page. Many people have undone his edits before but he still continues to remove them anyway. He's done this more than 10 times on different IP addresses (50.232.111.162 might be another one). I think repeated reversions isn't enough. I think it's time to block him. Atlantis536 (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I would block him (and many, many, many other IPs) if I were an admin, but I will report him, at least. has already blocked the IP.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:24, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Mazeltov.--Mr Fink (talk) 13:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Three years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for thanking me. I appreciate it. Rock on. UnsungKing123 (talk) 13:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey, we, Paladins of Notability, need to stick together, after all.--Mr Fink (talk) 13:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Ecnomiohyla rabborum extinction
Hi, I just noticed your edit to Ecnomiohyla_rabborum, and I'm familiar with your high-quality edits in other pages. Could you weigh in on Talk:Ecnomiohyla_rabborum? I find the lack of consistency within the page and between the page and taxonbox bothersome, and hoped you might have suggestions of a unified way to handle this. Depressingly, this subject is likely to have impact beyond the page, as more species go extinct and we need to know how to handle the page before the final IUCN ruling. HCA (talk) 19:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism to Extinct Hawaiian Avifauna Pages
Aloha - I see you're helping to revert instances of vandalism to pages that are near and dear to me also. I'd like to make sure that I'm on the same page as you. The proper Conservation Status for the targeted species (that is, birds extinct prior to European contact) is typically "Fossil" as opposed to "Extinct" or "Extinct (prehistoric)", yes? And the Temporal Range for species that are thought to have gone extinct after human arrival (but prior to European contact) is "Late Holocene" -- correct?

Kiwikiu (talk) 18:01, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Mahalo: Pretty much you are correct.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Upon doing some additional research I see that the Wikipedia:Conservation_status page specifically states that "most ... Hawaiian Honeycreeper" extinctions are to be referred to as "Prehistoric" rather than either "Fossil" or "Extinct" -- excluding, of course, post-contact Honeycreeper extinctions. Do you feel that I am misinterpreting this guideline if I were to change such species' conservation statuses from "Extinct" to "Prehistoric"?  I'm a little confused since so many species that have gone extinct around the world in the past several thousand years are marked "Extinct" even though the guidelines clearly suggest this is incorrect -- that "Extinct" should be reserved for those species whose remains are unambiguously fossilized (typically requiring tens of thousands of years, at a minimum) which would exclude virtually all Hawaiian specimens.  Kiwikiu (talk) 17:38, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * From my experience, there are no set guidelines. Ideally, "Extinct" should be used for species that went extinct during historical times and, ideally whose living occurrences were more or less well documented, i.e., an unequivocal oral tradition, written accounts, specimens collected, or accurate, unambiguous depictions in art.  "Prehistoric" would be species known from prehistoric human trash middens, or those that went extinct during historical times, but whose existences were not known until someone excavated its remains.  "Fossil" would be those species known from remains dating from the Early Holocene or earlier.
 * Personally, I like to just leave the conservation status blank, under (my) given excuse that "it's a paperweight now." Unless, of course, there is an imperative to give it a conservation status, like, say, the situation of Cryptoprocta spelea.  In my opinion, I recommend giving the prehistoric Hawaiian birds known from the Early Holocene the status of "Fossil," and giving those Hawaiian birds that went extinct during the Late Holocene as either "Extinct" or "Prehistoric."  Check at the IUCN site, too, to make sure.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:39, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Eoanabas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Climbing perch ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Eoanabas check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Eoanabas?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

This good enoight to convine you that troodon is 66 MYA/65 MYA
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/4330218/Dinosaurs-could-survive-cold-conditions.html-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubblesorg (talk • contribs)
 * Why can't you look for it in a scientific journal, like through scholar.google.com ?--Mr Fink (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

http://doc.rero.ch/record/232469/files/PAL_E4465.pdf
 * Did you notice that the paper does not mention Troodon as among the eleven dinosaur taxa found there?--Mr Fink (talk) 15:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

15:43, 19 May 2018 (UTC)sorry wrong article 15:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC) Pectinodon is troodon it is Troodon bakker

I had a concern on one of your at pieces
One of the Dunkleosteus Paleo art drawings might not be accurate as some new evidence. I heard this in a Paleontology YouTube channel i am subscribed to called Trey the Explainer. I later checked and i found a forum and an article of Dunkleosteus having lips. I do Admire your art however I do want to bring this into consideration encase you need to redo it. I know evidence of this is at the mement just speculation with just a few pieces of evidence.

Peer review papers only 128.189.204.164 (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No offense intended, but I'm planning on waiting until there is more evidence found about Dunkleosteus and similar arthrodires having lips, first. Thank you for the heads up, though.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:38, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Bubblesorg (talk) 18:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)I created a wikipedia article on Balaenoptera bertae. I saw a piece f aleo art and i was thinking of using it. I am not sure if it protected or not. If you could create a simple art work for the page or get permisson from the original creator it would be great. if not Its Ok. And no I am not offended on the Placoderm Lips decision I understand that you are waiting on more evidence. Thanks. (Bubblesorg (talk) 21:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC))If you could leave a response that would be great
 * It would also be nice to remember that I have a life outside of Wikipedia and to understand that I kind of have to portion how much time I can devote to stuff, too.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:08, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

(Bubblesorg (talk) 22:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)) I know that. I did not say you had to do it. I said it would be great if you could help me ou on somethings. Sorry if I was vague. I was just giving a suggestion. By the way thanks for checking my article.

What thing do you use to make your art?
What software do you use. If you could let me know please provide a link as that would be very helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubblesorg (talk • contribs)
 * I draw them out on paper by hand using pencil, followed by pen, then I scan them and color them with Adobe Photoshop CS2--Mr Fink (talk) 02:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your work
I stumbled across a couple of disruptive edits to NZ exinct bird pages, which I've undone, and then noticed you've been hard at work reverting more in this series of anonymous edits to lots of fossil bird articles, from someone with some odd ideas about the timing of Polynesian arrival and extinctions. Thanks for doing this! I find it hard to understand the mindset of a persistent fixated vandal. I just hope they get tired of being reverted. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 20:27, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the kind praise, it's greatly appreciated. Unfortunately, this particular vandal is persistent, stupid enough to assume it knows better than original sources, and also likes to engage in genuine vandalisms.  I think it learns, though, eventually, as it finally got the picture after two or three months of reverting that inserting "Pleistocene" in prehistoric Hawaiian animals won't be tolerated because the Hawaiian fauna did not exist until the islands emerged at the start of the Holocene.  Hopefully, it won't be as infuriatingly persistent as the "Disney's Pete is a wolf" vandal, who's been trying to insert his original research opinions into Wikipedia for over 10 years now.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:52, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

New Page Patrol?
Hi Apokryltaros,

I've recently been looking for editors to invite to join New Page Patrol, and from your editing history, I think you would be a good candidate. Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; we could use some additional help from an experienced user like yourself.

Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. If you choose to apply, you can drop an application over at WP:PERM/NPR.

Cheers, and hope to see you around, —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  21:21, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the invitation, I will consider it.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Need your eyes...
Would you look at this edit - is it correct? <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 18:38, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe so, yes.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:16, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Inanna and Athena
Regarding this edit you made to Inanna, there actually is good evidence for a connection between Inanna and Athena and the subject has been extensively discussed in scholarly sources. Walter Burkert mentions Ishtar in his description of Athena in his classic 1985 work Greek Religion. Charles Penglase writes at length about similarities between them in his 1994 scholarly monograph Greek Myths and Mesopotamia: Parallels and Influence in the Homeric Hymns and Hesiod, where he devotes a whole chapter to the subject, titled "The Birth of Athena." Susan Deacy discusses Penglase's analysis in her 2008 book Athena and accepts his propositions. The main evidence for a connection is that Inanna and Athena are both fierce warrior goddesses who are frequently shown dressed in armor and bearing weapons. Both goddesses are also have important roles in their respective pantheons as enforcers of divine justice, and both are associated with creation in various forms.

There are even similarities between Inanna's return from the Underworld and Athena's birth from the head of Zeus. For instance, the Greek word used to describe the place from which Athena springs means "peak," in reference to the peak of Zeus's head; the Mesopotamians, however, envisioned the entrance to the Underworld as a mountain, so Inanna's return from the Underworld presents her springing from a literal mountain peak. The fact that Athena is born fully-clothed is also reflective of what Penglase calls the "dressing motif" in Mesopotamian literature, wherein a hero or deity's power is conveyed by their clothing and lack of power is shown by nakedness. When Inanna enters the Underworld, her clothes are stripped away, but, when she exits, they are restored. Athena being born fully clothed therefore seems to reflect a Mesopotamian motif that was at least sometimes associated with Inanna. Athena was not always a virgin goddess either; notice the bizarre legend of the birth of Erichthonius, which seems to have been invented in the classical era to explain an older, archaic story in which Erichthonius is actually Athena's literal son.

On the whole, however, Athena is clearly very different from Inanna in a number of significant ways and, although Athena may have been influenced by Inanna at an early stage in her development, she originated separately as an Aegean palace goddess. Aphrodite certainly has a much stronger case as Inanna's "Greek equivalent," since she actually originated from her and the specific similarities between them are both striking and undeniable. (e.g. Both were uniquely honored with dove sacrifices; both were shown bearing weapons; both had an androgynous form; both were venerated as "Heavenly"; both were associated with love, beauty, and sexuality, etc.) The Greeks themselves also equated Aphrodite with Ishtar; for instance, Herodotus glosses "Ishtar" with "Aphrodite" and the second-century novelist Iamblichus, who wrote exclusively in Greek but was purportedly a native Syrian, only refers to his native goddess Ishtar as "Aphrodite." --Katolophyromai (talk) 06:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Someone has falsely claimed copyright on your work
User:Hiolif (who is suspected to be a sockpuppet of User:Lapitavenator) has uploaded to wikipedia claiming to be the copyright holder, when clearly you are the copyright holder of this work. I'm not sure what the best course of action is so I thought I'd let you know. Kind regards Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:19, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * At the very least, it should be deleted because I did not give permission or authorization to have it posted. Thank you for informing me.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:09, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

orcinus size


So whats wrong?--Bubblesorg (talk) 05:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's poorly designed, the details are too small and unclear, and the dark gray makes everything even more unclear.--Mr Fink (talk) 11:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

should i make it bigger? also i will take the grey out.--Bubblesorg (talk) 19:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Make it bigger, crop more, and take the awful looking gray out.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:40, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean i got rid of the grey? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubblesorg (talk • contribs)
 * It's still gray.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

? i updated it and it is white on my screen. --Bubblesorg (talk) 00:49, 9 August 2018 (UTC) dude i changed it i tryed updating it again doe it still look grey?--Bubblesorg (talk) 04:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. It is still gray.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Tag you added on User:Lapitavenator
User:Lavalizard101 was confirmed by CheckUser at SPI to be unrelated to Lapitavenator and friends. 75.156.69.248 (talk) 03:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Except that some of his sock accounts, like Iceiguana13 are also confirmed to be socks of Lapitavenator.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Iceiguana13 was reported at the SPI page for Lapitavenator, and, to quote the page, "These four accounts [Iceiguana13 & three others] are Unrelated to Lapitavenator. [...] Please create a new case with Lavalizard101 as the master." 75.156.69.248 (talk) 16:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

OK the giant thresher shark
it is called the giant thresher shark. Most media calls it that like this one http://www.lowcountrygeologic.com/FossilSharkTeeth/Alopiasgrandis/tabid/53/Filter/187n202/Default.aspx http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/19630-giant-thresher-aka-alopias-grandis/ https://www.deviantart.com/sameerprehistorica/art/Sharks-636685659 — Preceding unsigned comment added by bubblesorg (talk • contribs)
 * Um, a forum and Deviantart aren't "most media"--Mr Fink (talk) 17:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Its not just a fourm i put another link--Bubblesorg (talk) 19:09, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * They still are not reliable sources. A reliable source would be an academic paper or a commonly read book.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:28, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Lowland kagu and others
They are back then! A few blocks handed out - probably only a token gesture. Protected Lowland kagu for a month, then pending changes. I think I've already done similar to all the other pages a while ago! If it gets too much with PC, then ping me and we'll put a long semi-protect on. <b style="border:1px solid #dfdfdf;color:green; padding:1px 3px;background:#FFD">Ron h jones </b>(Talk) 00:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for your help.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:50, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Blue macaw
I think that guy mixed up Hyacinth macaw with Spix's macaw (Cyanopsitta spixii) aka the Little Blue Macaw which may be Extinct in the wild (EW), but is still surviving in captivity. It is therefore not extinct. Hyacinth macaw is, as you wrote, still VU. Dan Koehl (talk) 23:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, there was a recent magazine article about one of the blue macaw species being extinct in the wild leading to this spike in vandalisms in those pages.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I see, well that explains, I guess its not pure vandalism then, one has to Assume good faith.. Dan Koehl (talk) 23:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikispecies?
I can see your great interest in Zoology, did you ever look into the project Wikispecies? Dan Koehl (talk) 23:49, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I've come across it, I'll look into it.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Ankalagon saurognathus.JPG
Can you descript the order in which the species mentioned are depicted, please?--Yellow Horror (talk) 06:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you!--Yellow Horror (talk) 13:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 20
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Conus huttoni, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aquitanian ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Conus_huttoni check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Conus_huttoni?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

check this out
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Orcinus_citoniensis--Bubblesorg (talk) 20:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Your drawings
I like your drawings. I make drawings too, like on my userpage, but yours are way better. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! I'm lagging behind in coloring mine.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:38, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Petalodontiformes
Howdy - just noticed that this is completely unreferenced, and apparently always has been. Did you have something on hand for sourcing? Looks a lil' naked at the moment :) Cheers -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:47, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Will get on it, then.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Behemoth
I just returned it to the status quo ante the recent changes. We need to reflect whatever the reference said. Editor2020 (talk) 22:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * How does using the general term for both dinosaurs as "sauropod" contradict the reference? (To say nothing about how not capitalizing and not italicizing Diplodocus and Apatosaurus would go against status quo) I mean, it isn't a direct quote from the source, is it?--Mr Fink (talk) 22:47, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I have failed to explain properly. I just returned the article to the way it was, without changing anything. If the reference says sauropod I'm fine with that. Editor2020 (talk) 03:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

 * Mmmmmm!--Mr Fink (talk) 21:38, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Multiple IP Brachiosaurus vandal
I think the user has been repeatedly disrupting and needs attention but I don't know how. Can you make a report? 2001:569:782B:7A00:1CEA:155E:972E:CF4E (talk) 07:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Which pages are the IP attacking? Can you follow the instructions at WP:Requests for page protection to have the pages semi-protected?--Mr Fink (talk) 12:57, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

NAMB
FYI, this edit is in line with Wikipedia's Manual of Style at WP:NAMB, and in fact the edit summary essentially states the guidelines there. Dave (talk) 01:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Block request
Hello Apokryltaros, as you said on User talk:165.161.18.45, you stated that they would be blocked if they vandalized again, and, despite your warnings, they vandalized an article. If you meant what you said, and/or are an administrator, I request that you block them! Thanks. <b style="background:#0000ff;font:Helvetica;padding:0.4em;font-size: 80%;border-radius: 2em;margin: 0.25em;"> Madducko </b> (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madducko (talk • contribs)
 * Hi,, I'm not an administrator, could you report the vandal IP here at Administrator intervention against vandalism?--Mr Fink (talk) 21:34, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Re this edit
FYI: The IP's edit was not actually part of a quote (the quoted text is just above). But in any case, I see no good reason to remove "an angry" as a description of Zeus, since the cited passage in Hesiod says: "And in the bitterness of his anger Zeus cast him [Typhon] into wide Tartarus". Regards, Paul August &#9742; 14:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

You now have the rollback user rights
Hi Apokryltaros! I've been running into you in recent changes patrolling and I happened to notice that you don't have the rollback user rights. I hope you don't mind, but I went through your contributions and I noticed that you're quite active in recent changes patrolling, and you consistently view and undo vandalism and disruption to articles. I believe that rollback would be useful for you to have and that you'd make good use of the tools. Instead of having you formally request rollback at WP:PERM, I went ahead and just gave it to you. This user right allows you to quickly revert the edits of other users in cases of blatant vandalism.

Please keep these things in mind at all times when using rollback to revert edits:


 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle. It just adds a "[Rollback]" button next to a page's latest edits - that's all.
 * Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and never used to revert good faith edits.
 * Rollback should never be used to edit war. If it is abused or used for this purpose, the rights will be revoked.
 * Use common sense. If you're not sure about something, ask.

For more information on the user rights and how to use rollback, see this tutorial page.

I'm sure you'll do fine with rollback - it's a pretty straight-forward user right and it doesn't drastically change the interface you're used to, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into any questions, have any issues or troubles, or if you run into a revision or situation where you're not sure if using rollback is appropriate or not, and I'll be more than happy to help you. If you no longer want the rollback user rights, let me know and I'll be happy to remove it for you. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism - it's a very thankless job to perform and I want you to know that it doesn't go unnoticed and that I appreciate it very much. Happy editing! :-D  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   16:20, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! I greatly appreciate the promotion!Mr Fink (talk) 17:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

AIV
Hi Apokryltaros! I hope you're having a great day and that life is treating you well. :-) I just wanted to give you a quick heads-up about the edit you made here to AIV. You accidentally copied and pasted a bunch of other stuff when you tried to create that report. No big deal; I fixed everything for you, and nothing got hurt or anything like that. Accidents happen, and I've done that before as well... lol. I just wanted to give you an FYI so that you're aware is all. :-) Cheers -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   05:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Often, when I try to post there, I get this error message about how someone else already posted something while I was typing up the complaint.  I'll try to be more vigilant about that.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/2A02:C7D:A18D:1200:8000:0:0:0/65
I rangeblocked for one month; I see similar edits going back to August for this range. Feel free to ping me directly if they resume when the block expires. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:38, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your help!--Mr Fink (talk) 20:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Immigration voice
I enjoyed this: "You're going to hurt your feet jumping to such ridiculous conclusions while evading your block in continuing your edit-war to protect your unsourced personal opinions".--Bbb23 (talk) 00:16, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I had to say something about how the editor wasn't reading my justification for reverting him, and said something that contradicted the fact that the sole time I went to Asia was when my mother went to Taiwan while she was six-months pregnant with me.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Did you have a good time? --Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I wasn't in a position to see much.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Oreochima: Thanks for the Thanks :D
Hello! I was looking for you. I have updated the Oreochima article and now i want to talk with Arthur Weasley for it´s Oreochima Image. But if you are interested on post a environment recostruction like you have done with another Archaeomenids, you´re free!

Yewtharaptor 16:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the kind words, and thank you very much for the idea! Plus, I was the one who originally suggested he make that particular image, too, years ago.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:05, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

London Clay
Thanks for the edit...makes sense to me. It honestly seemed kind of unusual, but I was just going with the source.Grillo7 (talk) 12:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem. The London Clay is the remains of an ancient mangrove forest in an estuary, while those fossils mentioned from the book are beasts from one of the tropical inter-glacial periods.  With larger than average beavers of the genus Castor.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello Apokryltaros, im french user LoiDavid2307171, im very fan about your drawing in Wikipedia, and im questionned : can you make a picture about Simbakubwa PLS ?

Edit warring at The Land Before Time (franchise)
You are currently well beyond any argument that you are not edit warring. Please stop editing the article, stay with the discussion and see where this goes.

If you continue, you will be blocked from editing. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 05:14, 7 December 2019 (UTC)