User talk:Kevmin/Archive 9

DYK nomination of Equisetum similkamense
Hello! Your submission of Equisetum similkamense at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Z1720 (talk) 14:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Is Neuburg Siliceous Earth a thing or not?
Hello, I found you listed at WP:Rocks and need an expert mineralogy / geology opinion on Neuburg Siliceous Earth. Please help decide if the article subject is a thing at all or just another deposit of diatomaceous earth being hyped by the mining company. Note the ongoing discussion on the article's talk page about this. Thanks, ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 16:19, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Equisetum similkamense
--— Maile (talk) 00:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 2
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Weevil, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oxfordian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:15, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Florissantia (planthopper)
--— Maile (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Palaeoagaracites
Hi Kevmin, sorry, but I don't understand why you undid my contribution. The word antiquus doesn't need quotation marks just like the Greek words before. Also, it was not "possibly" coined by the authors from the Latin antiquus but it was definitely coined from that word. The only question would be if they probably chose it (as seems obvious) or possibly (which in my eyes would seem extremely cautious because paleo also means old and the mushroom is old indeed). Greetings, --Bernardoni (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem is, the describing authors did not give any of that detail, so adding it without a source that explicitly says it is considered WP:OR. The authors may have chose antiquus for a different (or personal) reason that was not enumerated in the paper, and by making the change you did, you explicitly put words into their mouths that they did not say.-- Kev  min  § 19:35, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, I do understand this argument but then saying what they possibly did would equally be OR. Anyway, it would've been nice if you had just reverted that instead of reverting everything I did. I'll try again, and I'll make the whole thing completely neutral. --Bernardoni (talk) 20:52, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 18
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Plecia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aquitanian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Draft: Wellheim Formation
Hi Kevmin and thanks for your contributions to the draft. Concerning the "formation" section: My version was more of a (mis-)educated guess mockup from the little info we already had in the previous draft. Completely unsourced. You have a proper source at hand, so please feel free to correct my false guess. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 16:47, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I just thought: That would also mean that the current subduction diagram (and caption) would mislead the reader, wouldn't it? Then it should also go. Do you think we could find a free illustration for the version in your source? --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 16:54, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Due to your previous contributions to Wellheim Formation, I'd like to ask you for your input on its talk page. I made a proposal for a sub-section that cleary states that certain claims by the producer (and other sources repeating them, while referring to that company) do not represent the view of mainstream geological research. I feel that this is an important point for the article that will likely get challenged by the producing company in the future. So why not get consensus for such a clear statement now? --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 16:21, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Wide toothed hutia
Bet you skimmed over the ASM reference, huh? Haha all good. I'm glad you caught your mistake. J0ngM0ng (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No, actually I was attempting to move the article to the Genus page where it should be per WP:palaeontology guidelines and WP:TOL monotypic taxon guidelines.-- Kev min  § 19:17, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't think that's the move. J0ngM0ng (talk) 23:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * WP guidelines are actually pretty clear on this, Its monoty0pic, the genus is more frequently used, and its extinct thus should be at the genus page.-- Kev min  § 23:07, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I put sources on the discussion page that indicate otherwise. Pretty much every source also has the common name listed alongside the genus name. While it is monotypic and extinct, the scientific is not used more. J0ngM0ng (talk) 23:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I responded at the move discussion.-- Kev min  § 23:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Sorbus arvonensis
--Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation of Fissure
Please join conversation at Talk:Fissure

The article Fissure used to point to an anatomical article as the primary target. Now it points to Ground fissure, which may or may not be ok as a primary topic. As per the discussion on the Talk page, I think the most common use of the word fissure is as a generic term for a fracture that has opened up significantly. This definition is described in the list of terms at Fissure (geologic fracture) which redirects to Fracture (geology). There are lots of links to "fissure" that mean this specific kind of geologic fracture. You don't want these links pointing to the main article at Fracture (geology) because not all fractures are fissures. Fissures have opened up. Here's a source but there are others that make this distinction. Note that Fracture (geology) points to the disambiguation page, so you don't want to replace links to Fissure (geologic fracture) with links to that redirect.Coastside (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

What was wrong with my edits?
What was wrong with my edits on the Microvenator page? Augustios Paleo (talk) 00:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The Microvenator was a good attempt, but I changed it back due to the loss of some of the preexisting citations, and need for clarity on where the new information was sourced from. Feel free to re-add it with more indepth citations.-- Kev  min  § 15:07, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 8
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * Klondike Mountain Formation
 * added links pointing to Sequoia, Acer, Amia, Tsukada, Comptonia and Florissantia

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 18
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Florissantia (plant), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Calyx.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Wes Wehr
Hi Kevmin

I would like to understand why you undid most or all of my contributions to the article about Wes Wehr. The changes you made happened years ago; I just noticed. While I am not a frequent editor, as you appear to be, my additions were based on personal knowledge (Wes was a good friend) as well as research on relevant topics. Wes was a complex person, and art was an important dimension of who he was. Your removals short-change this side of him, which I think does a disservice to the article. Can you please respond? Thanks! Wild salmon≈≈≈≈ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wild salmon (talk • contribs) 19:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I was also a good friend of Wes', through fossils and the Burke, and I knew him though the last years of his life. The reason I removed the edits you had made was, sadly, because they were not source-able to secondary literature.  One of the key foundations of wikipedia is anyone should be able to follow the "papertrail" of sources in an article and check that the information is true to those sources. Personal knowledge is sadly not a source that one can do that with, and thus we must go by what is present in secondary sources. PLease, if you have access to verifiable sources that discuss more in-depth Wes' art and interactions with others of the NW school, by all means add that information.-- Kev  min  § 19:20, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Wild salmon response:

Hi Kevmin...while I appreciate your response, I stand by my earlier assertion that your edits do readers of Wikipedia disservice - by limiting perspective about Wes. I do understand the need for citing sources in scientific literature, and am guessing those conventions are the basis for your editorial attitude(?) This article about Wes is not science, it is biography. If Don Ellegood and the University of Washington Press had applied the science-based criteria you used here on stories Wes was telling, The Eighth Lively Art and The Accidental Collector would not have been published.

The material I posted was factual and objective. It was based on secondary sources as well as personal knowledge, things that Wes told me over several years which I made notes about. You also removed material I found online from The Whatcom Museum, The Evergreen State College, The Art Gallery of Victoria, the Henry Gallery, and other sources. I continue to believe that what I added was informing and interesting as well as accurate. Since you were also friends with Wes, I imagine you and I could talk in person to resolve this- however, I am not writing a thesis nor adding to scientific literature, so quite possibly, we'd still disagree. I contend that your removal of my contributions was unwarranted. If it bothers you as an editor, instead of removing this information, you could have simply flagged it as anecdotal, or noted a complaint that citations were not included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wild salmon (talk • contribs) 14:08, 20 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Please take a read through Biographies of living persons, which covers article rules for Persons living and deceased in the recent past (1800-present). Biographies actually have a much more stringent set of rules than those for biology articles in general.  If you look at the source code of the page I did not fully delete your text, as the rule perscribe, I commented them out, so they do not show in the live version.  WP:BLP clearly states ALL information that is present in a Biography article must be neutral and sourced. As I have said in my previous responce, if you are able to source your contributions to Wes' page, please please please re-add them.-- Kev  min  § 16:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Jonah’s icefish
Please see Naming conventions (fauna), specifically (my bolding)

“and the article (if there is no common name) should go under the scientific name of lowest rank, but no lower than the monotypic genus. Redirects should be created from the other ranks to the actual article.”

I have come across this misunderstanding before, see the discussion on the talk page of Ocellate soapfish. My own view is that the policy of using the genus name for monotypic taxa may be appropriate for palaeontology articles but is not appropriate for living taxa. For fish articles I use the main common name given on FishBase. FishBase calls this species Jonah’s icefish. Quetzal1964 (talk) 08:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 27
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Allenby Formation, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Amia, Decodon and Comptonia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Dipteronia brownii
-- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Florissantia (plant)
--Amakuru (talk) 12:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 12
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Klondike Mountain Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Decodon.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Allenby Formation
-- — Maile (talk) 12:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Pteronepelys
--Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Canada 10,000 Challenge fifth anniversary

 * WikiProject Canada 10,000 Challenge fifth anniversary Kev  min  § 13:25, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of List of extinct plants for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of extinct plants, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/List of extinct plants until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Tetrapodophis
I saw that you undid the corrections that I made in the article Tetrapodophis. For each of these changes I had a good reason. For example, names are usually derived from ancient greek and not modern greek. I do not think that a link to Locomotion in space belongs in an article about a genus that lived 120 million years ago. Also, if the genus Coniophis is mentioned in a sentence, it is more logical to mention the other genera in that sentence by their genus name instead of by a species name. I therefore consider it correct to undo some of the changes by Rex65mya. Keesal (talk) 00:15, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * While Locomotion in space was a poor target, the other links are actually the most accurate. The genera are monotypic, so mentioning species, where possible is most accurate, and the genus name is derived from a neo-Greek combination of word elements, so linking to ancient greek is not accurate.-- Kev min  § 02:25, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Plecia canadensis
--Amakuru (talk) 12:12, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

The Giant ripple article
Just letting you know I'm currently in the process of rewriting that article, and have given up on trying to produce something sane out of it. Giant current ripples also occur in other environments, so I don't think I can create a balanced article from what's already there. Licks-rocks (talk) 13:02, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , understandable, I have been thinking about it, and much of it is gibberish, while the small coherent bits are basically about the glacial lakes of the Altai. Maybe move and rewrite into something to match Glacial Lake Missoula, Glacial Lake Columbia, and the Channeled scablands?
 * I was actually considering something like that, yeah. It'll please you to know that an article that meets your description already exists however, which might spare us some effort.--Licks-rocks (talk) 18:57, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The thread at WP:Geo is how I came across the ripple article, and I agree, Altai flood would be a perfect fit for what little we can salvage from the ripple mess.  I see both had heavy editing from the same editor, along with Diluvium, which is a iffy article as well to be honest. -- Kev  min  § 23:44, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Arecaceae
Hello Kevmin please stop edit warring. I attempted to talk with you at the Talk: page and you refused to respond further. I allowed you eight days to explain your repeated reversions. Clearly I and other editors disagree with your contention that (Boiling your addition down, its not notable to the family of plants, as its in essence say, these trees are planted by people to look pretty.) ornamental uses should not be discussed in that article and you oddly did not remove the entire paragraph so I think you do not really believe that anyhow. Ornamental uses are commonly described in taxon articles and Ornamental plant exists.

Continuing to revert war while refusing to talk on Talk: is one of the clearest kinds of disruptive editing. Additionally, removing cited, relevant, neutrally phrased material is disruptive. You need to either stop silently reverting and discuss or withdraw. Invasive Spices (talk) 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I have responded at Arecaceae, and will note that the added sentence was not neutrally worded, and not supported by the citation.-- Kev min  § 22:09, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 3
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2021 in mammal paleontology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hairy armadillo.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Pings
Hi! This ping wouldn't have worked. A ping needs to be on a newly added line that also ends with a signature: see WP:MENTION. – Uanfala (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ahh, fair enough!-- Kev min  § 18:46, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 10
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2022 in paleomammalogy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Canine.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Request for peer review help
Hi kevmin. I hope you are doing well and staying safe during these times! Apologize to bother and posting a random request. I have just started to work on a stub (Fontainea Venosa)and had added some sections. I am trying my best to get the article to B class hopefully. Knowing your expertise, I would love if you can help me to review and left a comment on what I can do to improve my edits. I hope that this is okay, but no pressure if you are busy. That is completely fine and understandable :) Hope to hear from you soon. The article is Fontainea Venosa

Thank you so much :

2022 in archosaur paleontology
Hello -- When I created the 2022 in archosaur paleontology page, I used the same formatting and structure for the heading levels and titles as the last several "20XX in archosaur paleontology" pages. It was also consistent with the past "20XX in reptile paleontology" and "20XX in paleontology" pages. Twice, you have adjusted most of the headings to contain the word "research," which is repetitive and unnecessary. In one of your comments, you said that it "is needed to prevent issues when editing and saving," but it hasn't been a problem in the past? Is there a reason the headings can't reflect the past pages? I know I'm a fairly new Wiki user, so I could be missing something. -SlvrHwk (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * When i edit pages that have multiple heading that are the same eg "new taxa", upon saving the browser will reset the page placement to the first instance of that title, which is not a good situation. for example, if I were to edit an entry in the 2021 Other Organisms "new taxa" table, upon saving, I will be punted to the Fungi "new taxa" heading. Additionally WP guidelines advise against the use of the same section heading multiple times, and it makes it cleaner to have just a "Fungi research" subheading as opposed to both a new taxa and a research subheading in a page. These are my main reasons why I reworded the 2022 in XXXX articles across the spectrum, and have reworked the layout of the past couple years for both paleomammalogy and Archosaur paleontology.-- Kev min  § 01:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, that makes sense. Thank you for explaining. -SlvrHwk (talk) 14:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Recent bowfin image removal
Can you please clarify why you removed it? I am just a little unsure what the problem is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by An anonymous username, not my real name (talk • contribs) 02:08, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * the bowfin article already has this image present, in the section you placed the other image in. This image already covers the details you noted, and is clearer.-- Kev  min  § 02:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. --An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 14:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Cone structures in quartzite
Dear Kevmin, I just looked at your commons page and saw this cone-y structure you want to know about.



I can't say what it is without looking at it up close (and even then I doubt I could give you anything definitive) but I wanted to tell you my impressions. The first thing that leaps to mind is that it might be a cone-in-cone structure, but only if that's not actually a quartzite. How sure are you that's quartzite? I assume you know what it is, so my next best guess would be that those are worm tubes or root casts that have survived through the metamorphic process (surely worms and not roots if that is Cambrian). How big around are they? Are all the cones oriented in the same way throughout the entire rock? If so, that would tend to make me think they're not metamorphosed worm tubes, but it's still possible I suppose. I have seen fossil sponges with a very similar character, but never in a quartzite. If you could get a thin section of one and find some spicules, assuming sponge spicules can survive metamorphism and still be identifiable, that would be pretty definitive, but I wouldn't bet money on sponges. They could also be metamorphosed stromatolites, I suppose - I can't see any lamination, but then, maybe lamination would be destroyed in the metamorphic process? Just looking at them my brain says "orthocone!" but then when I peer a little closer and see the grainy exteriors my brain says, "no!" but then, who knows what happens to orthocones during metamorphism? Who knows, maybe those are metamorphosed orthocone steinkerns, but I really wouldn't bet on it. I'm offering all these fossil suggestions, but it's probably not fossils at all, and you really need a metamorphic petrologist, not a paleontologist like me.

I have one other guess, and it would be very unusual and also very exciting, in addition to being consistent with this being a quartzite and all of the cones being oriented in the same direction, but I left it for last because it's probably the least likely option. It's just vaguely possible that you've found some shatter cones from an ancient meteorite impact. Your cones don't look exactly like other shatter cones I've seen, so I doubt that's it, but who knows? They're just close enough that I'd consider looking into it. Is there any evidence that the surrounding rock has been shocked? Do you have any thin sections from this rock? If you could find evidence of shocked quartz in thin section, I'd say that would be good evidence that those are shatter cones.

Anyway, all of that is probably wrong. Just wanted to give some suggestions. Would you be so kind as to ping me if you ever figure it out? I'd love to know what those are myself. Cheers!

Yours, Joe  (talk) 06:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Fagus langevinii
--— Maile (talk) 12:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Bison and Bos are separate genera
You do not have and never stated any references of Bison and Bos being placed in the same genera. And if they truly are the same genus then why did you not include the other extinct Bison species. Not to mention species of the genus Bison are characterized for their chubby faces, crest and wool like fur while species of Bos are characterized for their erect stand, flat face and less fur. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:56FireLeafs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 56FireLeafs (talk • contribs) 22:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If you have WP:Reliable sources that support that position, and are NEWER then Mammal Diversity and this 2011 Ungulate Taxonomy paper add them. But do not WP:edit war.-- Kev  min  § 22:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

First of all, its THAN not THEN (learn to type). Second, pdfs are not very trustworthy since they can be done by anonymous people, not to mention than a studies credibility is not always about how new it is but weather if its valid or not. There are some Universities that believe that Humans where the cause of the extinction of the Wooly Mammoth while other say it was Climate Change (the latter is more credible as regular Mammoth hunts are certainly unlikely). Also, the morphological and genetic differences between Bison and Bos species (both extant and extinct) and the fact that breeding Bisons with cattle has resulted in genetic pollution for both species confirms they are indeed separate genera. Not to mention that Mammal diversity is not very trustworthy, not just because it was made by a random dude but because it lists both Bison species as on in the genus Bos even though its confirmed both American and European Bisons are separate species of their own genera. And the pdf you showed me also referenced theories, THEORIES. THEORIES are not trustworthy. So yeah i believe that my edit is justified. (talk — Preceding undated comment added 22:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "Whether"?, you mean "whether" I assume. (Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones).  The articles that I gave, and which are used at Bos (genera are italicized btw) are written by trained mammologists, and based on published peer review papers, they are not random self published articles with no credibility. The fact that bison and cattle are able to breed and sir vital offspring is a clear indication that they are the same genus, not separate genera. (hyperbole like genetic pollution doesn't help your position)  Also please take time to carefully read Scientific theory, which will show why your last sentence shows just how lacking your personal view of Bos taxonomy is.  Your edit does not follow cladistic and molecular phylogenetic data, and if you object you MUST provide reliable sources not WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.-- Kev  min  § 23:15, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I would also direct you to read the main page of Mammal Diversity Welcome! The Mammal Diversity Database of the American Society of Mammalogists (ASM) is your home base for tracking the latest taxonomic changes to living and recently extinct (i.e., since ~1500 CE) species and higher taxa of mammals. Here we are curating the taxonomic implications of new research publications in real time — with the goal of promoting rigorous study of mammal biodiversity worldwide. Its not some "random guy" as you claim, but the Mammalogists who actively research and publish on the subject.-- Kev  min  § 23:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

-First of all, the problem with phylogenetic classifications of Bison and Bos is that the tribe Bovini appears to suffer from incomplete lineage sorting. Making their classifications to be problematic. And the concept of Bisons being in the genus Bos is rather controversial. Controversial studies are not a really good way to inform people.

-Second of all, "The fact that bison and cattle are able to breed and sir vital offspring is a clear indication that they are the same genus". And who says they can? Early generations of Bison and Cattle hybrid (which where made by humans via artificial insemination or forced breeding) calves cannot be born naturally (birth is not triggered correctly by the first-cross hybrid calf, so they must be delivered by Caesarian section).

-Third, genetic pollution is not a hyperbole, organizations already confirm that one of the many threats of Bison conservation is insertion of Cattle genomes in their gene pool: https://www.buffalofieldcampaign.org/are-wild-bison-in-danger-of-extinction

-Fourth, unlike what many believe, only a few rare cases of Bisons breeding with cows in the wild where reported which only happened by accident from individuals that either got confused, where really dumb or simply where very horny. Hybrids of separate genera are genetically deformed, polluted and can pass on hereditary diseases, although rare, inter genus hybrids sometimes happen but by mistake and the results are rather awful.

-Fifth, again the fact that a study is new does not really prove anything. Its not its date but its reliability. There are studies that say that pterosaurs had fibers while others said they did not (the latter is more credible as the presence of fibers where found in the clade dinosauria, and pterosaurs are excluded from Dinosauria). Not to mention it would make more sense to ask help from a biologist that studies all sorts of organisms than to one who only focuses on certain ones. Not to mention some of the team amongst this website might have some weird ways of thinking. And the problem with the inclusion of Bisons in the Bos genus is that A)They never talk about the other extinct species of the genus Bison and B)They only mention the American Bison but never talk about the Wisent, in many cases they group the American and European Bison as the same even though genetics confirm they are separate species. ironically enough genetics also found close relationships between both American Bisons and Wisents. And also, PDFs are not reliable, specially when they mention THEORIES. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:56FireLeafs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 56FireLeafs (talk • contribs) 00:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 22
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of the Cenozoic life of Washington (state), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sequoia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Ulmus chuchuanus
--— Maile (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Eoseira
--Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

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

On the revertion of my edit on the "Wastebasket taxon" page
Hi Kevmin, I noticed that you have reverted. Your reasoning is that the references are about the wrong topic. Indeed, I didn't pick these articles, they were borrowed from the page "Nilo-Saharan languages". So if you'd say these references are not correct, you might want to remove the references on the Nilo-Saharan languages page as well. Alternatively I can go find better references about this topic. Windywendi (talk) 21:44, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstood. I reverted your addition, as it was placed on the wrong article as a whole. Wastebasket taxon is a subtopic on the classification of life, which is explained in the opening paragraphs of the article, while your addition is on a linguistic topic, and not on biology. The sourcing you provided is fine from what I saw, but it should be placed in a linguistic article and not Wastebasket taxon.-- Kev  min  § 22:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Kevmin, i edited Placerias and you asked for proof. I got that information from this book =isbn: 978-1-4093-5467-3 Crater bug (talk) 12:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Promastax
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 17
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Amiidae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Regarding "potential copyvio"
Hi Kevmin, thank you very much for letting me know that the citation is "not prose for general audiance", I will pay attention to it in the future. When I have the free time these days, I will try to see if I can quote only the easy-to-understand parts or just share a few images. Regarding "potential copyvio", can you please tell me the reason in order to avoid it in the future? (My English is very bad, I hope there is no impoliteness. I am already seventy years old, and I don't know anything about computer editing. I just like to share the magical and beautiful feelings that plants bring to me). Best regards. Ping an Chang (talk) 01:57, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * good morning, I couldn't be sure, but your original text you placed looked very much like verbatim copy-pasting of the source texts diagnosis. Re-writing into plainer text and reorganizing the text will solve that worry very nicely.-- Kev  min  § 13:56, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Good morning! Kevmin. Your reply made me realize that I did have an oversight: I used citation and completely forgot to put it in quotes. (It's been a long time since I left writing papers.) I thought I specifically pointed out my citation sources, then there wouldn't be any copyright issues. Thank you so much, really! I hope you will continue to pay attention to my sharing and give your precious opinions. (Having time to appreciate the amazing world of plants is very recent to me) Best regards. Ping an Chang (talk) 02:41, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Paleoflora of the Messel Formation
-- Gatoclass (talk) 12:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Uhlia
--Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Leaf/flea
Hi, regarding this, I had made the change because the article refers to "leaf beetles", but doesn't include the word "flea" at all. This will have to be taken care of before the nomination can be approved.   M ANdARAX       XAЯAbИA M    21:38, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I added "flea" with reference to the section in question.-- Kev min  § 23:05, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 1
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1929 in paleontology, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Cassia and Comptonia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Eocene Okanagan Highlands
--Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Alnus parvifolia
--— Maile (talk) 00:02, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Fossil section on Sequoia page
If you think a wikitable is a poor way of representing the information for fossils please incorporate the information such as the location and the authority in another format instead of blanking the section because you don`t like it. --Cs california (talk) 02:30, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Moving this to the genus page.--17:14, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Plecia avus
--Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Cryptodidymosphaerites
--Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of List of prehistoric insects for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of prehistoric insects, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/List of prehistoric insects until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Paleoflora of the Eocene Okanagan Highlands
--Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

La Brea Paleobiota
Hey Kevmin, I saw that you were working a little on Paleobiota of the La Brea Tar Pits. I should inform you that me and @Armin Reindl are working on the article behind the scenes, and your edits are making the process a harder for us because we constantly have to check the live article against our own edits. If you have some good sources we would be more than willing to receive them, but I would like to ask that you stop editing the live page for the time being. Thanks in advance! TimTheDragonRider (talk) 12:07, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I will leave the article alone, and would have avoided doing work on it if i had known it was being worked with in draft space. The plants, insects and reptiles are all sourced to journals or the la brea tar pits museum site.-- Kev  min  § 15:16, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. TimTheDragonRider (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Copyedit notes for Eocene Okanagan Highlands
Migrate to Talk:Eocene Okanagan Highlands -- Kev min  § 21:22, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Paleoserenomyces
Hello! Your submission of Paleoserenomyces at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! GenQuest "scribble" 02:24, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Paleoserenomyces
-- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Pinaceae
Thanks for your revert of my recent edit. Rather than looking to reliable sources, I took a chance on the articles Cathaya and Laricoideae, found them in agreement, and used them as my "source". Currently, both are wrong regarding the position of Cathaya. As your expertise clearly exceeds my own, would you please have a look at those two articles and render them compatible with the current state of the taxonomy? I'm focusing on the unrelated topic of true crime at the moment. Thanks.-- Quisqualis (talk) 19:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Paleofauna of the Eocene Okanagan Highlands
--BorgQueen (talk) 12:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Polystoechotites
-- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I would be very grateful for your suggestion
Hello! You have often entered my computer recently and caused me a lot of trouble. If you have any comments on me, please leave a message in my TALK. I am a religious person, I am also a retiree, I am grateful for the existence of Wikipedia (I even donated a very small amount to Wikipedia a long time ago, when I saw a large font on the wiki page asking for donations), it makes my retirement is more fulfilling. I would be very grateful for your suggestion. Sorry for my English. Ping an Chang (talk) 15:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I really have no idea what you are trying to say here, to be honest. often entered my computer recently and caused me a lot of trouble. this statement is not reflecting reality, as I have only interacted with you when you have specifically asked me a question. I have not made any comments regarding you anywhere, so the assertion I have is confusing.-- Kev  min  § 19:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 16
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1936 in paleontology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Acer.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Saw an image you took in the news
See. Don't think the article is quite accurate and you weren't credited properly but still. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:17, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Nice, I have a few images that have made the paper and media rounds. Its a simplistic article but pretty close to accurate on the status of giant lacewing depopulation east of the Rockies. :) -- Kev min  § 19:34, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

BtrohToley
Hi guys. Thank you for undoing a page Kevmin. RubtYou is literally not an administrator, unless they have to adminship. No matter what, i suppose to thank you guys for seeing me at the Kevmin talk page. :) BtrohToley (talk) 14:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
--CMD (talk) 14:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 11
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Paleofauna of the Eocene Okanagan Highlands, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Acer.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Palaeorehniidae
Hello! Your submission of Palaeorehniidae at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!  Naruto love hinata 5 (talk · contributions) 23:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Counting species (and other taxa)
Hello Kevmin. You recently edited Acheta, thanks for pointing out the extinct species, but is there any good reason not to list species with "#"? I can't tell you the number of WP articles that 'hard wire' species counts into the text - and are (sometimes badly) wrong. You should note that the old version of this article stated 15 spp. in the taxobox, which I'm sure was correct at the time of writing; however, all taxa (and especially insects) are subject to revision and addition, in this case including A. pantescus in 2022. I think we should let WP help us do the counting and dissuade editors from stating numbers in the text and taxoboxes, unless it is something like "large genus of >100", etc. Roy Bateman (talk) 02:45, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Using the bullet points is the prevailing method in usage across all TOL articles at this point. In-house counting the number of taxa isn't something that we should be doing at any point, but rather we should be always using numbers and data that can be referenced back to a reliable source.  Additionally using the "#" gives the same appearance of completion that a hard number in line does, and will be just as out of date when new papers make changes so it is cleaner and more open to use "*" bulleting.-- Kev  min  § 12:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Palaeorehniidae
--Z1720 (talk) 00:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

DYK nom for Republicopteron
Hello! Your submission of Republicopteron at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! awkwafaba (📥) 18:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 8
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1936 in paleontology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Acer.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Republicopteron
--Aoidh (talk) 00:03, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Phenacoceratidae


The article Phenacoceratidae has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Does not meet WP:N"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. Hongsy (talk) 01:57, 21 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello, I noticed the PRODs were undone. Please explain how the articles are notable and not subject to PROD as per notability guidelens Hongsy (talk) 03:46, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * please note the taxonbar. The family appears in three major taxonomic databases, so is undoubtedly notable. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:47, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Why does appearing in 3 major taxonomic databases make it notable? Hongsy (talk) 15:13, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Each of the major taxonomic databases can be used as references to show that the taxon is accepted. So when a taxonbar shows that a taxon is widely accepted, there can be an issue of a lack of inline references – and an article can be tagged for this – but taxa are inherently notable if accepted by reliable sources, which taxonomic databases included in taxonbars are. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Wp:Tree of Life considers all major taxonomic levels (such as families) as inherently notable, Additionally ALL the taxa you prodded have references already, moving above the bar for keeping.  Please explain why you feel they fail W:n the TOL species outcomes.-- Kev  min  § 15:20, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * e.g. for Yimnashana hamulata - there is no reference, therefore this article fails Notability. Hongsy (talk) 04:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * similar reasoning for Hybolasiopsis abnormalis Hongsy (talk) 04:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Except BOTH of those have references to taxonomic databases, fulfilling WP:TOL base notability. Additionally the rational given at your Yimnashana hamulata nomination is false.-- Kev min  § 05:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello from Peaceray
I came here to make your acquaintance.

I noticed above that your recent DYK was on a katydid-like genus in the subfamily of Ensifera. I also created an article on katydid-like species in the same subfamily. This article eventually was moved to Prophalangopsis.

You probably noticed that I was adding instances of ill to genera in List of the Cenozoic life of Washington to promote the creation of articles for red links, since there is sometimes information conducive to this available in other language Wikipedias or Wikidata, often with links to Wikispecies & Commons (you probably already knew this). I also see that you have a user badge indicating that you live in Washington state. I also live in Washington, currently on the Olympic Peninsula. I do not know how close you live to the Seattle area, or how public you are outside of Wikipedia, but I thought I would inquire if you might be interested in an editathon to create genera & species articles off of this list page, perhaps sometime in the first half of 2024.

I also wanted to find out if you have met Another Believer, who moved to the Puget Sound area a couple of years ago. I have been acquainted with him approaching a decade, & we recently met up again at WCNA 2023 where he met the Commons admin Jmabel, also in Washington, for the first time.

Anyway, thanks for your work on Commons, enwiki, & Species. I hope you reply when you can. I am also contactable by email. Peaceray (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Good morning, I've mostly devoted my efforts to the Cenozoic fossil sites of Washington, British Columbia, and a little of Oregon & Idaho.  I did see them, and I will eventually get around to creating pages for a fair portion of the List of the Cenozoic life of Washington redlinked genera/species.  I tend to try to write at least start level articles, so Im a bit slow on the process, (As seen by my [|Sandbox notes & links], and at the moment I've been sidetracked with this list draft, Paleobiota of the Latah Formation. I really should get back on top of finding news coverage for Herschel the sea lion! :-D I know after I finish that article Ill be in a good spot to work through more of the redlinks.  I haven't actually met any editors in person, despite being an editor for closing in on 18 years now!  I'm up in Bothell, so I don't get down to Seattle that often, I'm more likely to visit Republic, Washington to play in nature and with fossils. I've seen the work of  and  in passing, and I'm always happy to collaborate on articles. You can email or ping me here.-- Kev  min  § 18:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)