User talk:ScienceApe

2008
Hi ScienceApe! Under modern classification (called phylogenetic nomenclature), a group is defined by its shared evolutionary ancestor and includes all descendants of that ancestor. If a group contains some descendants of that ancestor but not others, it is called paraphyletic and not considered valid by most modern researchers. The group Reptilia is defined as the common ancestor of all modern reptiles (lizards, turtles, snakes, crocs, etc.) and all its descendants. Birds evolved from reptiles (specifically dinosaurs), so birds are among those descendants. Therefore, birds are a type of reptile. If birds are considered separate from reptiles even though they evolved from them, "reptile" becomes a paraphyletic group. Similarly, mammals are a type of synapsid. Synapsids and mammals are not reptiles, however, because they did not evolve from the common ancestor of modern reptiles and birds, but from the common ancestor of all amniotes. Dinoguy2 (talk) 02:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The way reptile is defined in modern classification is based on the ancestor of all kinds of reptiles alive today. The ancestor of all these was actually more advanced than the things mammals evolved from. So technically, mammals did not evolve from reptiles, their ancestor was more "amphibian" like. So the term mammal-like reptile is technically wrong. In fact, skin impressions from early Synapsids (the actual ancestors of mammals) show that they had scaly skin--but not similar to reptile scales--rather their scales were the same as the ones found in primitive tetrapods ("amphibians") like Ichthyostega, and are similar to fish scales! The sclaes of lizards, snakes, crocs, and birds evolved later, in true reptiles. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, hopefully not to make things even more confusing, but for similar reasons, reptiles and mammals are not amphibians. Just like Reptilia now refers only to the group composed of living types of reptile, Amphibia is defined as the group of living amphibians (frogs and salamanders, etc.) and their common ancestor, and all its descendants. This includes things like Eryops, but not other things traditionally thought of as amphibians like Ichthyostega]] or Diadectes. A better name for this whole group is tetrapods. So, to simplify, it goes like this: Tetrapods evolved from things like Tiktaalik. Amphibians (frogs, salamanders) evolved from some of these early tetrapods. Later, reptiles and synapsids evolved from a different set of tetrapods. Much later, birdsevolved from other reptiles and mammals evolved from other synapsids. Mammals are therefore synapsids and tetrapods, but not amphibians or reptiles. Ambibians and reptiles are other kinds of tetrapods. Birds are another type of reptile, and also tetrapods.

However, many people still use "amphibian" in a general sense, to mean any frog or salamander-like tetrapod that needs to reproduce in the water. In that sense, yes, mammals and reptiles evolved from amphibians, just as "amphibians" evolved from "fish" (another informal term for a broad type of animal). Dinoguy2 (talk) 02:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Dinosaurs
Hi ScienceApe, I saw you just added yourself to the participants list. Welcome to the team! :) Firsfron of Ronchester  03:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Largest dinosaurs
Hey SA. As you can see in the image, the weight estimates for Bruhathkayosaurus are either ridiculously over-inflated or the weight estimates for Amphicoelias leaned towards the conservative end of the spectrum, and it probably weighed more than Carpenter was willing to speculate. Or both, which is most likely. Remember that diplodocids also tend to be much slimmer and more lightly built than titanosaurs, so even if a diplococid appears larger in profile than a titanosaur, the titanosaur can still weigh the same amount or more. Still, I have serious doubts that Bruhathkayosaurus is nearly as large as the estimates say. Amphi estimates are based on one detailed drawing of a member of a well-known group. Bruha is based on one extremely poor drawing of a member of a poorly known group. To simplify, as you can see the Bruha in the chart is 34 long, matching the length estimate. For a 34m animal to weigh 140 tons, it would have to be incredibly fat ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 02:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Gigantoraptor didn't actually preserve any evidence of feathers--it's assumed to have feathers based on its relationship to known feathered dinosaurs. Some larger dinosaurs are also thought to have feathers based on relationships, including Therizinosaurus, which was larger. It's possible that T .rex had feathers, it would have been the largest feathered dinosaur in that case. The largest dinosaur found with direct evidence of feathers is either Beipiaosaurus. Sinocalliopteryx was a bit longer but lighter. Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello, I am known Gears of War, I am a part of Wikipedia and I would like to welcome you to Wikipedia, here is some stuff you should know and some links to follow.

Wikipedia's official policies and guidelines can be summarized as five pillars that define the character of the project:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or place helpme on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Gears  Of War
 * Introduction
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

My Reference to The Digestive System
Sí (Yes), I am referring to getting kicked in the testicles and its effects on the digestive system]. ¡Claro que sí! (of course I am). Ericthebrainiac (talk) 19:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Platypus
Her SA, not my area of expertise, but if I had to guess, I'd say that the most likely explanation is that the sex chromosome setup seen in platypus and birds is the original one shared by reptiles and synapsids, and this changed in the line leading to marsupials and placentals. Would be interesting to know what setup modern reptiles have. Dinoguy2 (talk) 07:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Grand strategy
Before you change the result here to tactical again, will you consider a couple of things? First, the result had enormous strategic & grand strategic consequences. It started a war, for instance. And second, the objective was to achieve strategic aims, knocking out the Pacific Fleet. Either one qualifies for more than a simple tactical result. Both combined certainly do. TREKphiler  hit me ♠  00:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Extinction
Hey SA! It looks like it's true in general that smaller animals survived more than larger ones in the K/Pg extinction. However, it's not as simple as you may imagine with respect to birds and small dinosaurs. First of all, birds are small dinosaurs, so yes, it's fair to say that the only dinosaurs that survived were small. In fact, it may also be fair to say that the only small dinosaurs alive at the time were birds. The only lineages of small dinosaurs present during the extinction were deinonychosaurs, enantiornithes, and avians (neornithes). Of those, only the avians (modern birds, as opposed to opposite birds or raptors) lived through it, and even many avian lineages died out. It's incorrect to say that small dinosaurs made it through and then evolved into birds, since birds had evolved long before the event, during the Jurassic. Major bird lineages (like the duck/geese group) were already flying around alongside T. rex. The borderline are the ornithomimids, which it wouldn't be fair to call birds as far as we know as they lacked true feathers and flight. But even there, only one ornithomimid species lived long enough to see the meteor hit. Only two or three deinonychosaurs were alive then as well. The vast majority of small dinosaurs were enantiornithes and avians, so it's no surprise that those were the ones that survived (actually it's pretty surprising that enantiornithes didn't, as they were the most dominant and diverse Mesozoic flying birds).

So er, to answer your question in short, the small dinosaurs at the time were all birds already, and that's likely why the birds were the only dinosaurs to survive. Why some birds lived (aves/neornithes) and others didn't enantiornithes, deinonychosaurs) is a mystery, but in the case of deinonychoaurs, it was probably lack of diversity. With only a few species left, their odds were pretty grim. Also, I'm sure being flightless din't help--as far as I know, no Mesozoic flightless birds survived the extinction. They tend to be very extinction-prone today as well. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey SA, hard to say because of preservation bias. It's far easier for big animals to get preserved, and much of the small animal diversity is based on very scrappy remains. We have more fossils of big dnosaurs like tyrannosaurs, hadrosaurs, and ceratopsians, but other evidence hints that the small ones were more common and diverse. There's a new paper, for example, that looks at fragments of bird remains from Maastrichtian North America and shows that both ornithurines and enantiornithes were very widespread and diverse at the time (previous theories said enantiornithes were in decline by the latest Cretaceous). As far as number of species, because of poor preservation, it's hard to say. Most of those bird "crumb" fossils will never get names or identified as species. For an overview of named species, take a look at Flora and fauna of the Maastrichtian stage. It lists what species are known from the time period at or near the extinction. Dinoguy2 (talk) 04:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Concerning your Edit of Kardashev Scale made on July 17, 2008
You added that a Type III civilization...

"They may also be able to tap into the energy produced from a supermassive black hole which are believed to exist at the center of most galaxies."

Do you have a reference for that? a citation, url? I'd like to keep it, but without a citation it could be viewed as speculation or original research.--Sparkygravity (talk) 12:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Apology
As noted here I owe you an apology for a personal attack re: the Ashkenazi Intelligence discussion. I don't agree that this is relevant or that the article should be deleted, but I was out of line with my response. Sorry. CAVincent (talk) 03:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I appreciate it. ScienceApe (talk) 05:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is actually ScienceApe who owes ME an apology, unless you think that attacking what you infer is a user's religion as a basis for bias is cool. A Sniper (talk) 08:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sniper, what I said was a reasonable assumption. That people who are Jewish who vote "Keep" in an article on Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence, might be biased. Just as Wikipedia isn't politically correct, nor censors factual information at the sake of personal emotions, neither am I. I do believe it's a valid possibility whether it's politically correct or not. ScienceApe (talk) 18:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Few answers
Hey SA, Theropods are the only ones that look specialized to eat meat and not much else, but some primitive members of the other groups must have eaten at least some meat as well. Primitive sauropods like Panphagia and primitive ornithischians like heterodontosaurs were probably omnivorous (after all, they all evolved from meat-eating ancestors, so each group would need to go through a transition from meat-eating to plant-eating). Regarding your breakdown, first remember that most dinosaurs, pterosaurs and many plesiosaurs were not giant! In fact the vast majority of dinosaurs and pterosaurs were pretty small, or at least in range of most modern mammals. But beyond that, you're missing a few groups--besides plesiosaurs (which were sauropterygians, along with pliosaurs and placodonts), there were ichthyopterygians (ichthyosaurs and relatives) and mosasaurs (true lizards gone marine). Also, severla groups of giant therapsids lived in the Triassic before dinosaurs replaced them, such as Placerias, etc. And don't forget the giant crocodilians and their relatives, such as phytosaurs, aetosaurs, rauisuchians, marine crocs like Dakosaurus, etc. So there were actually many different groups of reptiles that got to large or giant sizes in the Mesozoic. Dinoguy2 (talk) 04:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup! A few theropods had at least omnivorous diets too. We're not sure what oviraptorosaurs and ornithomimosaurs were eating, but it definitely wasn't just meat with those specialized toothless beaks. Some theropods probably ate mainly insects, like alvarezsaurids and scansoriopterygids. Troodontid teeth resemble those of ornithischians, and they probably ate some plants, or at least seeds. Caudipteryx and Jinfengopteryx have even been found with seeds or small nuts in their stomachs. And of course the therizinosaurs became mainly or completely herbivorous.
 * On the flip side, one thing I forgot to mention is the suggestion that ceratopsians were partial carnivores ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 13:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey SA, worth asking that one because the question has changed! Giganotraptor is believed to have feathers because it's ancestors did, through bracketing. Previously, feathers were bracketed to coelurosaurs only. However, if the filaments of Tianyulong ARE actually feathers, that means all bets are off, and literally any dinosaurs could have had feathers. for all we know, the largest animal with feathers might have been Amphicoelias! ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, sauropods are more closely related to birds than crocs, and even more closely related to birds than ornithischians are. All dinosaurs are closer to birds than crocs, and so are pterosaurs (probably). Sauropods actually are very bird-like in many respects, including their system of air sacs that were incorporated into the bones and connected to the lungs to give them a bird-like breathing system. They are true reptiles, but so are birds! Whether or not they were cold blooded is debatable but it's unlikely. Dinoguy2 (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Basically, the order of closeness to birds goes like this:

Dinoguy2 (talk) 20:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Mammals and other synapsids (glandular skin)
 * Lizards, snakes, and maybe turtles (scaly skin)
 * Crocs (scaly skin with 4-chambered heart)
 * Pterosaurs (scales, filaments, 4-c heart?, warm blooded)
 * Ornithischians (scales, filaments, 4-c heart, warm blooded)
 * Sauropods (scales, filaments?, 4-c heart?, warm blooded)
 * Theropods and birds (scales, filaments, 4-c heart, warm blooded, true feathers)

Dino smell
I don't think any studies of dromaeosaur olfaction have been done, but birds certainly can smell! Some have a reduced ability, but some don't, and some even depend on it as a primary means of finding food (kiwi, vultures, etc.). Dinoguy2 (talk) 03:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

TPS
Requested third opinions here. bridies (talk) 06:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Metal Slug Zero Online
A tag has been placed on Metal Slug Zero Online requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a  message on my talk page. 14:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello!
I hope you don't mind occasional inane interruptions. I just wanted to say hello from a fellow simian editor! I know there are others of us out there-- maybe we should form a cabal to challenge the penguins =) Dar-Ape 00:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Penguins
Hey SA. It depends on the context. Technically, since birds are dinosaurs, yes, penguins did evolve from dinosaurs. But the direct ancestor of the penguin was also a true bird, so you should be careful not to make it sound like penguins evolved from different dinosaurs than the rest of the birds. Also, it's a bit vague. It's equally true that penguins evolved from birds, or that penguins evolved from archosaurs, or that penguins evolved from vertebrates. In other words, what information do you gain from knowing it? Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * All birds share the same dinosaurian common ancestor, so it would have been something similar to Archaeopteryx or Jeholornis. There were no penguins in the Mesozoic that we know of, the earliest species people would refer to as a penguin is Waimanu, from the Paleocene, about 60 million years ago. Dinoguy2 (talk) 14:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, according to most scientists, there's no such thing as an animal that evolved into both dinosaurs and birds. Archosaurs evolved into dinosaurs, and dinosaurs evolved into birds. Dinoguy2 (talk) 16:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup, Archaeopteryx evolved from a paravian dinosaur, the group that includes dromaeosaurid, troodontids, and scansoriopterygids. We don't know what the specific dinosaur ancestor was and probably never will, but it was probably very similar to Anchiornis. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Deinonychus
Looks pretty accurate to me, though a little awkward. A lot of feathered dino models and drawings look too much like "traditional" dinosaurs with feathers glues on, so they end up being a weird hybrid between bird-like and lizard-like that's a bit unnatural. This is literally the case with that new image! It's a model made by Steve Czerkas, and originally was all scaly. He has updated these model by simply gluing feathers onto the old models. Not inaccurate per se, but a little inelegant from an artistic standpoint if you ask me :) Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Both Anchiornis and Microraptor have feather crests on the head, so it's a reasonable guess to put them on Deinonychus. No way to know for sure the exact arrangement of course. Dinoguy2 (talk) 04:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Brachiosaurus
Hi SA, there's no evidence of Brachiosaurus skin, but we know Diplodocus had spine-like strictures on the body and tail so it's not unreasonable to think other sauropods had something similar. Not to mention the more feather-like quills of some ornithischians. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Wasting our time?
Your response here seems to suggest you already knew the answer but asked the question anyway. Do note that RD volunteers give their time to help out people with genuine queries they were unable to answer themselves, preferably after doing some basic work themselves. It's annoying enough to come across those who are too lazy to type a few simple things into a search engine (yet ironically are capable of typing more words into a discussion) as I thought may have applied to you originally but now that you have stated it is not, a claim which I obviously accept in good faith I consider this is a far more serious matter to take up with you directly. So yes, I would like an explaination of why you felt it necessary to ask a question you already knew the answer to, in a manner which suggested it was a genuine question that you didn't know the answer to. Frankly I find this extremely rude unless you have a very good reason (and I admit I can't think of any). In particular, if you were aware of quantum teleportation but were confused by why this didn't allow FTL travel (even though the article seems to do a decent job, and I don't particularly like that level of physics), then a better thing would have been to explain that so that answers could be better directed to the question and people didn't spend time searching for stuff you already knew. This isn't quite so bad, and is probably a not uncommon beginners mistake (although you're not exactly that new to the RD) so in such a case, just consider this a strong suggestion for next time to avoid any misunderstanding. However all other possibilities I can think of are a lot more dubious. If you are doing an experiment I would consider your methodology highly questionable, for example the recent papers discussed about the RD didn't use anything like that, and I'm not surprised, the way this panned out should show one of the reasons why it's problematic. If you think teleportation should link to quantum teleportation then take that up in the article talk page and/or just change it yourself. I would note it already links to Teleport (disambiguation) which links to quantum teleportation. Similarly, if you are not pleased with the state of either article, you're welcome to take that up on their talk pages, fix it yourself, ask for help on an appropriate wikiproject or if you really want to ask on the RD, while this is usually not encouraged you should ask for that rather then pretending to ask a question. If you are trying to promote the video, spamming is highly unwelcome, even more when it's hidden under the guise of a question. If you are trying to start a debate, the RD isn't the place for that AND even more so when you pretend you're asking a question. If you're simply bored, then spend your time on Youtube or somewhere else. Please don't waste the time of others by asking questions you know the answer to. If you are trying to make fun of the media or Michio Kaku, wikipedia isn't the place for either, particularly not in this way, and particularly not for the later. If by chance I have misunderstood your comment, then I apologise, but I can't read it in any other way then you're stating you already knew the answer before you asked (or perhaps found it before hitting submit) and decided to ask anyway), whether from searching (as I did for example) or because you knew enough that you didn't need to search to find out (I believe Tango is a case like this) I don't know, but it doesn't seem particularly relevant. Please don't let this discourage you from asking genuine questions which you don't know or don't understand the answer for, particularly when you've made some effort yourself but do take it on board that the RD is not there for you to ask questions you already have and understand the answer for, particularly in a manner which suggests it's a genuine question, probably for any reason Nil Einne (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I was being sarcastic. I was poking fun at your reply because honestly I thought you were being a jerk. Obviously if I knew the answer already I not only wouldn't bother to ask on the reference desk, but I wouldn't be able to search for it as you suggested. Why would anyone search the answer to a question they don't know the answer to? I can understand if you are frustrated with people not using the search feature, but don't be a jerk to people for it. It just makes things worse. ScienceApe (talk) 02:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Ashkenazi intelligence
Would you mind refactoring the most recent discussion on the talk page? I admit, the title I gave to the section (Merge, delete keep) can confuse readers and does not clearly communicate my intent.

I happen to agree with all of your objections. But you and i are taking different tacs - you are calling attention to the profound problems with the article as it is. The prupose of my comments was to sugest an entirely different line of attention (away from biologiy and towards sociology) that might make the article truly encyclopedic.

Your comments following mine serve to derail the discussion I am trying to open up.

I want to emphasize how much I appreciate the comments you are making. I just think they belong in a different (perhaps their own) section. If you think it makes sense to change tht itle of the section I began, feel free. I hope this makes sense, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, I made some changes on the talk page. ScienceApe (talk) 16:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; for what it is worth, i think it also highights yor own points more effectively. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think so too, thanks. ScienceApe (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I just tried addressing your points on Talk:Ashkenazi_intelligence. Sorry you got talked around so much. I don't agree with the merge proposal, but your points should be addressed respectfully and directly. Hopefully this will all lead to a better article. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Ashkenazi intelligence
I am making sure that it isn't deleted. Again: the article is about an historical incident - these guys wrote what they wrote, and the encyclopedia reflects the notoriety. I couldn't care less whether or not there is an article on 'African stupidity'. Go ahead and write a theory or conjecture that gets some notoriety, and perhaps somebody will create a page about it. Best, A Sniper (talk) 00:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I have already made myself clear, so you appear to be questioning or arguing with the wrong editor. I have already stated that if some scientists, researchers or other academics come up with a theory or conjecture (such as any you have suggested) and it receives notoriety - enough to pass Wiki standards for notoriety - then that may indeed become an article. I am not a scientist and couldn't particularly care less about the science or the lack of...merely that this was notable enough an occurrence (that the chaps came up with it and it received some notoriety) to garner an article - one that other have attempted to have deleted or merged but have failed. A Sniper (talk) 08:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

If you're going to attack the editor, then stop engaging. You're throwing around a circular argument and appear displeased I won't fall for it. I've stated what I'm talking about, and you've done the same. now give it a rest. I'm no more a single purpose account than you. Good day. A Sniper (talk) 16:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Go contact an admin - I'd like that admin to check out your hostile attack. Hopefully others will remove your merge tag, which appears to be motivated by your own frustration that I refuse to engage. Now stop focusing on me, please. A Sniper (talk) 16:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

village pump
I am not very familiar with it either ... I think it is a mechanism they developed after the article improvement drives were abandoned. I think you just go to the village pump and ask if anyone has expertise in certain areas and can research the following questions (x y z) to improve the article. I think you just go ahead and do it but I am not sure. Sorry. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 19:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Your Humanities Ref. Desk question
That's nice, but some people might see it as compounding your offense, rather than adding any supposed "balance". If you're really trying to get a serious substantive factual discussion going, then it would really be by far the best thing to use standard English capitalization conventions -- since some will be quick to see a deliberate choice not to use standard English capitalization conventions when asking somewhat sensitive questions as a deliberate choice to be obnoxious. It's really your call as to whether or not you want to create distractions which have the potential to detract from a serious substantive factual discussion... AnonMoos (talk) 07:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Dimensions
I left this link in the archives in response to your question on sci desk, and am merely reposting it here.

"Surprised no one's mentioned the Möbius strip." 67.243.7.245 (talk) 01:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Atheist Jew?
How can a person be an "atheist jew"?--Rockfang (talk) 23:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Sociology membership
I see that within the last year you have made at least one substantial comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sociology, but you have not added yourself to the project's official member list. This prevents you from, among other things, receiving our sociology newsletter, as that member list acts as our newsletter mailing list (you can find the latest issue of our sociology newsletter here). If you'd like to receive the newsletter and help us figure out how many members we really have, please consider joining our WikiProject and adding yourself to our official member list. Thank you, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Shekar Ramanuja Sidarth
Hello. Back in 2008, you contributed to a deletion discussion for this article at Articles for deletion/S. R. Sidarth. I believe he is still non-notable and have renominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Articles for deletion/Shekar Ramanuja Sidarth (2nd nomination). Robofish (talk) 00:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Straw man?
Sorry, ScienceApe, but I fail to see the fallacy in my question at Articles for deletion/Death of Mark Duggan. I did not claim that the IP said "he is notable because he got shot"--the IP said "the details of Duggan's death are notable in their own respect" without explaining which details were notable in which way, and what that "own respect" is. "Is he notable just because he got shot?" is a valid question, given that "he got shot" is presumably one of those unspecified details. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Satisfactory?
I hope you find my latest addition to the FAQ at Talk:Sega Genesis to be a satisfactory outcome of the point you raised there. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Predator X
I saw your question on Dinoguy2s page. The paper is written and published as a doctoral thesis, Knudsen, E.M. (2012): Late Jurassic plesiosaurians (Sauropterygia – Plesiosauria) from the Agardhfjellet Formation on Svalbard, but the the name is not official until published by the Norwegian Journal of Geology in a special expanded issue. I just ran into Dr. Hurum, and he told me 8 of the 18 papers are still in review, and he thinks it will come out in October or thereabouts.

When it is published, I'll move the Predator X article to the proper name. Petter Bøckman (talk) 11:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sooner than I thought, cool! MMartyniuk (talk) 13:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for the update :) ScienceApe (talk) 15:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The paper is due this week. Petter Bøckman (talk) 11:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent! I can't wait. ScienceApe (talk) 20:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Dino Beaks
Yes, many non-avian dines likely had beaks. The actual beak is rarely preserved but it's usually a safe bet that animals lacking teeth in the jaw tips (or whole jaws) were beaked. So Gigantoraptor as well as most other oviraptorosaurs had beaks (the exception being very primitive species like Caudipteryx which had teeth in the jaw tips). Most advanced ornithomimosaurs also had beaks, and in at least one specimen the actual keratin was preserved. Also, most ornithischians had beaked jaw tips while retaining teeth in the back of the jaws. The only other beaked theropods bedside ornithomimids and oviraptorosaurs is Limusaurus, a ceratosaur. So it looks like beaks evolved at least 4 times among non-avian dinosaurs: ornithischians, Limusaurus, oviraptorosaurs, ornithomimosaurs, and at least 4 more times among birds (confuciusornithids, Yandangornis, Gobipteryx, and euornitheans). Beaks also evolved in many non-dinosaurian archosaurs, including silesaurids, at least twice in pterosaurs, and several times in pseudosuchians (and, if they're archosaurs, in turtles). So they seem to be a common archosaurian feature. MMartyniuk (talk) 11:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Eternal Eden for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Eternal Eden is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Eternal Eden until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. David 1217  What I've done 17:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

January 2013
Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Suicide of Amanda Todd, especially if it involves living persons. Thank you. § FreeRangeFrog croak 00:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't leave any defamatory content. Thank you. ScienceApe (talk) 00:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not as such, but per BLP you shouldn't be posting the names of alleged suspects in cases, especially where it appears the police are saying he is not the culprit. Black Kite (talk) 01:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * His involvement is cited in 3rd party sources. Here and here. Constantly removing his name is censorship and wikipedia is not censored. ScienceApe (talk) 01:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring
This is your final warning. Next time you may be blocked. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ScienceApe, I don't agree with the wording of the above message, but the essence is correct. Note, please, that I've also told Doc James that they are edit warring. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 04:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, and can I help on Circumcision
I think I was baiting you, and I am not sure it was intentional. In any case, I would be interested in helping make the article more culturally sensitive, and will look for references if that is appropriate. I just don't like moral or religious, except historical religious stuff personally. Let me know any ideas.

Bob the goodwin (talk) 10:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Opinion on brian morris article
I have suggested the brian morris article should be deleted. What do you think? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brian_Morris_(biologist) Tremello (talk) 14:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Bird Traits
The top image here is a good overview of traits:. Other animals do have toothless beaks (confuciusornithids, gobipterygids, oviraptorids, pteranotonts, azhdarchids, turtles) but these evolved independently of birds and are not homologous. So far as we know only true birds have toothless beaks, though it's possible we will find some Ichthyornis-like theropod with a toothless beak homologous with true birds. Dinoguy2 (talk) 14:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Your Question in January or Science Desk about Hybrid Drives in Planes
(more) -- Hans Haase (有问题吗) 05:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:TITAN (1).jpg
Thanks for uploading File:TITAN (1).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Reverts on Elizabeth Warren
– Muboshgu (talk) 23:18, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

October 2018
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Elizabeth Warren. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. ― Mandruss  &#9742;  06:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Knock off with the personal attacks. Comments insulting people's intelligence are not welcome here. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't be biased. He was strawmanning me intentionally, and you didn't say anything to him. Knock off the obvious biased white knighting. ScienceApe (talk) 15:29, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I've filed an WP:AE request at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That's what you would do when you can't debate honestly, take sides, and silence the opposition. You cry like a little bitch to ban people from trying get rid of obvious POV pushing, lies, and rhetoric. Fuck off you imbecile. ScienceApe (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban
Not interested in wasting my time with corrupt individuals like yourself. It would be like trying to convince a trump supporter that trump is racist. If you guys were "fair" you would have applied a ban to NorthBySouthBaranof for personal attacks and Gandydancer for edit warring. Obviously you're all buddies that know each other and do tag team edit wars, and then cry to your admin pals when your feewings are hurt. Grow a pair, that's exactly the reason why the president is mocking pussies like you. ScienceApe (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Sup, ScienceApe. You might want to tone it down just a little, you know, for sake of appearing collegiate, etc. Just drawing your attention to my comment here, so you don't have to visit that page again—I should have considered that before pingng you. Anyway, don't reply there obviously. ——  SerialNumber  54129  17:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Sup SerialNumber, go fuck yourself. :) ScienceApe (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. RexxS (talk) 18:17, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

October 2018
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Bishonen &#124; talk 18:38, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Gee. I both linked you to the clear explanation at WP:TBAN, and told you you could come to me and ask, and you still violated your topic ban right away. And you were warned by another user that you had, and then you violated it some more and filled your page with coarse personal attacks (which were originally the reason you were topic banned in the first place). I'm quite surprised. Is this utter incompetence, or just that you don't care? Never mind which; I'm not going to bother with graduated blocks for violating your topic ban etc. Bishonen &#124; talk 18:42, 21 October 2018 (UTC).
 * Didn't I tell you to fuck off? ScienceApe (talk) 19:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Bishonen beat me to the punch taking action here. If (s)he hadn't already blocked you, I certainly would have done so. The clear incivility and personal attacks are just the tip of the iceberg in proportion to the various disruptive behaviors and issues that you've been directly involved in. I agree with Bishonen that your frequent disruptive behaviors and editing is to the level of considering you as not being here to help contribute positively to the project and build and encyclopedia.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   18:46, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No, other people were edit warring and provoking me intentionally. Basically akin to a cop giving you an unlawful order that you reasonably don't follow, then they arrest you for resisting arrest. The aforementioned people strawmanned me intentionally. If you strawman someone intentionally, you're an idiot. Banning people when you can't debate with them is the hallmark of a loser like you. ScienceApe (talk) 19:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

 Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive. ([ block log] • [ active blocks] • [ global blocks] • [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/autoblock/?user=&project=en.wikipedia.org autoblocks] • contribs • deleted contribs • [ abuse filter log] • [ • change block settings • [ unblock] • [ checkuser] ([ log]))

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice. Bishonen &#124; talk 19:09, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:TITAN (1).jpg
Thanks for uploading File:TITAN (1).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:36, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

-- Emperor of Oz&#39;s New Clothes (talk) 20:35, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Killing Day


The article Killing Day has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Non-notable cancelled game."

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. -- ferret (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Killing Day for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Killing Day is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. -- ferret (talk) 17:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC)