User talk:Trilletrollet

--199.106.149.180 (talk) 22:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)--199.106.149.180 (talk) 22:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Tom cruise never made any appearance on Any tv show please kindly check your info thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghaza1994 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Constructive suggestion
Hi, the article here would be better and more sourced by copying and pasting the entire text source here, it will result like this. Can you do it because some articles need an account to edit. Thank you!--2605:B100:51C:26D9:5D41:1C01:4479:E200 (talk) 19:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems kinda fishy to be honest. Trilletrollet (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Good instinct. This IP is a block-evading sockpuppet who has been disrupting that article for many years. Safely ignored. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Fish classification
Thank you for your work on fish automatic taxoboxes. Some of the fish classification on Wikipedia is not up-to-date. It's been agreed to have taxoboxes follow the classification given in the fifth edition of Fishes of the World (website), but there are some groups of fish that haven't been updated to follow that classification. Other classifications could perhaps be used if discussed (e.g. Betancur-Rodriguez, which is a source for many of Wikipedia's cladograms of fishes).

Some of your edits to taxonomy templates haven't been in accordance with Fishes of the World. I'm not sure if you're just copying (the possibly outdated) classification already in Wikipedia, or following a classification other than Fishes of the World. If you want to follow a different classification that should be brought up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fishes.

has a better knowledge than I do of what groups of fish need to have their classification brought up to date. Plantdrew (talk) 21:22, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip. Seems like I need to read the project pages more thoroughly before going on editing binges 😂. It doesn't really look like there's that much of a difference between the classifications, so it shouldn't take that long to fix. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 23:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Be aware that taxoboxes don't support some of the ranks used in the Fishes of the World classification (but you can just enter them as clades). It's OK to omit some ranks/clades from the taxonomy templates when Wikipedia doesn't yet have articles for them (follow the framework of Fishes of the World, but you don't need to include every detail of the classification if Wikipedia is only going to have red-links for the details). Plantdrew (talk) 23:51, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 00:04, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Please warn editors after reverting
Hi, I see that you've done many reversions but not given many editor warnings. Please warn editors after reverting inappropriate edits. Sometimes it helps them learn, and the rest of the time it builds up a record of notifications that support a block. You can configure Twinkle (which I see you use) to automatically open an editor's talk page when you do a revert, so then it's just a matter of selecting the correct level and reason, very quick and easy to do. Thanks for all of your contributions! Schazjmd  (talk)  20:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 20:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

"Your recent edit to Creation science seemed less than neutral and has been removed." That is ironic...you remove my edit to creation science because it is "less than neutral" when all my edit does is point out that the page is anything but neutral....Wikidpedia is full of hypocrites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven867 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

A puppy for you!
nbdfxsftvygbyuhiunjoim

Helpedia (talk) 21:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)  '

Late revert
Sorry, my edit gone late. Please keep an eye on the articles 2019 Jamia Millia Islamia attack and Safoora Zargar. Thanks. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 07:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

allegra bad!!!
hi! i am so sorry that you are ugly. allegra threatened me so i was just throwing a little shade :) i hope you feel good about yourself for deleting my hate comment:) i hate you so much — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allegra.bad (talk • contribs) 21:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Not sure why you reverted edits
Hey there, I wanted to inquire regarding this reversion of yours. The IP in question had removed a table which belonged to the article of Whoopi Goldberg. Clicking on the reference given for that leads to the Grammy page for Whoopi Goldberg and not Aldo Miyashiro. Therefore, I don't think that table should be there. I have not reverted your edit because I thought discussing about it would be better instead of potentially starting an edit war :). Cheers and keep up the good work! --Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 21:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Charassognathidae moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Charassognathidae, has previously had issues as to whether it is a distinct taxonomic family. See []. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:22, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Attack helicopter
Good catch there. That's what I get for doing recent changes patrolling at 1 o'clock in the morning my time! Emma (chats ✦ edits) 05:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Mirrored images
Hi, and woah, just saw you were able to mirror images, never seen that feature before. Is it possible for all images? FunkMonk (talk) 13:32, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It should work for anything that supports CSS, like this text for example. If you want to learn more, you should check out Template:MirrorH and Template:MirrorV.
 * Cool, should save us from some redundant uploads! FunkMonk (talk) 15:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Gypsonictops
Sorry, forgot we bottom out at genus with monotypic taxa. Swapped them round again. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:07, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Brasilestes has been accepted
 Brasilestes, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

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

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Brasilestes help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

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

Thanks again, and happy editing! Hitro talk 11:39, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on crocodilian evolution!
I just wanted to say thanks for the work you've been doing on crocodilian evolution! I've been wading my way through it all, trying to make sense of it, and I appreciate the edits you have made in this area as well.

From my understanding, the science is disputed, all because the paleontologists can only compare morphology of skeletons, whereas the extant biologists can also compare molecular evidence acquired through DNA sequencing. The dispute seems to largely center around the gharial. It is so weird looking with it's long thin snout, so the paleontologists think it diverged from all the other crocodilians first and is the least closely related (and sister to the proposed clade Brevirostres). However, DNA comparisons continue to show that the gharial emerged much more recently, rapidly acquiring it's unique features. And that it recently diverged from it's closest relative, the false gharial, and that together, they are more closely related to crocodiles than to alligators (supporting the alternative clade Longirostres). At this point, I wish the paleontologists would stop ignoring this molecular evidence...

This is why I like the 2018 Lee & Yates study, since it seemed to cover all the different types of evidence. (But when I reached out to Brochu, he really didn't like it, which is odd since he co-authored the 2021 Hekkala et al. study which favorably cited the 2018 Lee & Yates study.)

It also seems like you have access to more articles, whereas I'm limited to just the free articles. I have compiled a list of the freely available studies here. If there are any free articles I'm missing, could you let me know? Thanks.Cougroyalty (talk) 16:35, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I suggest you check out Rio & Mannion (2021). Despite being a morphological study, it mostly agrees with Lee & Yates (2018). —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 16:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thanks! I was just looking for that one based on one of your recent edits. I'll go give it a read-through. Cougroyalty (talk) 17:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, many paywalled articles can be accessed for free by entering their title into Google Scholar. This is how I accessed Iijima & Kobayashi (2019), for example. Look for the link that says "[PDF] researchgate.net", or something similar. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 17:15, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Images on taxonomy templates
Just curious; why is it that when you create or edit taxonomy templates, you only include illustrations of extinct taxa, even for groups with extant members? Miracusaurs (talk) 02:45, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Because in my experience, the extinct taxa often have prettier illustrations. That's all there is to it, really. Please feel free to add pics of living taxa if you want. —Trilletrollet [ Talk &#124; Contribs ] 03:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Most illustrations of living taxa on Wikimedia Commons are taken from 19th-early 20th century books, and are often of rather low quality as a result. —Trilletrollet [ Talk &#124; Contribs ] 03:22, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Category redirects
Hello, Trilletrollet,

Thank you for setting up some category redirects. All of those categories showed up on today's Empty Categories list and it was nice to see that they now had a future as redirects rather than deletion. Many editors don't even know there are category redirects so I appreciate you taking a moment to set them up. Liz Read! Talk! 01:12, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Indricotheriinae
Hi Trilletrollet. I moved the page Indricotheriinae per your request, but please note Paraceratherium refers to Indricotheriinae throughout, so probably needs correcting? Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 09:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. A lot of our articles about extinct perissodactyls are horribly outdated, unfortunately. —Trilletrollet [ Talk &#124; Contribs ] 09:34, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I have this page watchlisted from earlier communication, and was the FAC nominator of Paraceratherium, and while I noticed some newer Chinese papers use the name Paraceratheriidae, are we sure this is really the correct name, and not, say Indricotheriidae? As the article notes, just because a genus is considered a synonym, it doesn't affect higher level rank names based on that name. FunkMonk (talk) 10:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not just Chinese papers that use the name Paraceratheriidae. For example, Tissier et al. (2018) and Etienne et al. (2020) also use it. But if Indricotheriidae has priority, then we should of course use that name instead. —Trilletrollet [ Talk &#124; Contribs ] 10:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know, but I can imagine there might be some inconsistency in the sources. At least what I outlined above is why the name Indricotheriinae has been used for a long time (it's covered in the article). FunkMonk (talk) 10:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem is that both names were published in the same year, and sources disagree on which one has priority. Fossilworks and Eberle et al. (2019) both imply that Indricotheriidae is a junior synonym of Paraceratheriidae, for example. —Trilletrollet [ Talk &#124; Contribs ] 11:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, I guess there's no easy solution unless some newer paper directly deals with the issue. But yeah, the affected articles of course need to be modified accordingly, but I'll see if I can find a way to keep the mention of the alternate name and why it was used. FunkMonk (talk) 11:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I just had a look at the Paraceratherium article again, and what it currently says about the issue is the following: "Though the genus name Indricotherium is now a junior synonym of Paraceratherium, the subfamily name Indricotheriinae is still in use because genus name synonymy does not affect the names of higher level taxa that are derived from these. Members of the subfamily are therefore still commonly referred to as indricotheres.[24]" and "In 2016, the Chinese researchers Haibing Wang and colleagues used the name Paraceratheriidae for the family and paraceratheriine for the subfamily, and placed them outside of Hyracodontidae.[32]" So I changed subfamily Indricotheriinae to family Paraceratheriidae in the intro. But the subfamily Paraceratheriinae also seems to be a thing, just not mentioned in the family-level article? FunkMonk (talk) 17:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * According to Wang et al. (2016) Paraceratheriidae has two subfamilies, Forstercooperiinae (which contains Forstercooperia and Pappaceras) and Paraceratheriinae (which contains the rest). But some other papers (like Bai et al. (2020)) instead treat Forstercooperiinae as the separate family Forstercooperiidae. —Trilletrollet [ Talk &#124; Contribs ] 17:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Nice, yeah, I don't think we can do much more at this stage. FunkMonk (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bonacynodon
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bonacynodon you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AryKun -- AryKun (talk) 12:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bonacynodon
The article Bonacynodon you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bonacynodon for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AryKun -- AryKun (talk) 14:41, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Question
Dear Trilletrollet, how did you create the user box to the right of your user page? Can you please teach me how, I would like to make my own. Quincy43425 (talk) 15:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You may wanna read how to use the Userboxtop template. First, place into your user page. Then insert the names of the userboxes you want, wrapped in two pairs of curly brackets. Lots of userboxes can be found here. You should then place  below the userboxes. The code should look somewhat like this:


 * If you need more help, you can also ask the Teahouse. —Trilletrollet [ Talk &#124; Contribs ] 15:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Board of Trustees election
Thank you for supporting the NPP initiative to improve WMF support of the Page Curation tools. Another way you can help is by voting in the Board of Trustees election. The next Board composition might be giving attention to software development. The election closes on 6 September at 23:59 UTC. View candidate statement videos and Vote Here. MB 04:11, 5 September 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) 01:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Nur Muhammad Taraki
Old Man 2A01:C23:8096:B800:ED35:3AF3:1EA2:F66F (talk) 21:02, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Undone for what?
That person changed the eras to BCE without discussing it on the talk page so i changed it back because there was no consesus to change it Yezohs (talk) 11:09, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You could have explained that in your edit summary then —  Trilletrollet  [ Talk &#124; Contribs ] 11:15, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

There :)
 * Actually, some parts of the article already used BCE before the recent edits, while other parts used BC. Therefore I think we should discuss this on the talk page. —  Trilletrollet  [ Talk &#124; Contribs ] 11:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Which one are you talking about there's 3 of them?
 * Look at this diff from before Tombah's edits. The article used both BCE and BC in various places, so there was clearly no strong consensus for either variety. I will make a talk page discussion —  Trilletrollet  [ Talk &#124; Contribs ] 11:50, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Egeria
Hi, regarding Egeria (pilgrim) and your removal of the image, isn't this the same person? Thanks. — holly  {chat} 01:12, 1 June 2023 (UTC)


 * The question is, why would some random Christian lady from Gaul be depicted in an Egyptian mummy portrait? It just doesn't make sense. —  Trilletrollet  [ Talk &#124; Contribs ] 10:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a fair point, but if we have a reliable source that says the image depicts this person, who are we to judge? — holly  {chat} 16:55, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * BTW, the source only states that it's a possible portrait of her. —  Trilletrollet  [ Talk &#124; Contribs ] 17:09, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Well that's annoying. Why do they have a giant banner on that page that has this portrait in it if it's not even confirmed or even believed to be likely??? Le sigh. — holly  {chat} 17:18, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Ebionites
Hi Trilletrollet, thanks for correcting my error and letting me know, i always assumed that the Ebionites were what Paul and the Church Fathers called "Judaizers". Due to them opposing circumcision and their strict requirement of following the law. HugeAnt (talk) 22:21, 8 June 2023 (UTC)


 * supporting not opposing HugeAnt (talk) 22:24, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Short desc
"Carnivorans" might be a better choice, if you are changing from "carnivores". - UtherSRG (talk) 16:55, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Hope you're well
I was sorry to hear that certain discussions were taking a toll on you. Be well. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I'll probably be fine, I just needed to get away from all the political drama. I'll probably go back to editing palaeontology articles, which is what I used to do until recently. Anyway, I really appreciate your work on this site, and hope you'll be fine too. —  Trilletrollet  [ Talk &#124; Contribs ] 19:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Very sorry for accidentally accusing you of sockpuppetry for 78 seconds
. Fixed. -- Tamzin  &#91;cetacean needed&#93; (they&#124;xe&#124;she) 15:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

"Pan-Primates" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pan-Primates&redirect=no Pan-Primates] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. jlwoodwa (talk) 07:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 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 2023 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) 00:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Taxonomy/Archosauria/Reptilia
Template:Taxonomy/Archosauria/Reptilia has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

You my  on the  page with the summary: please don't break the taxobox. I just want to point out all my edit did was remove the unexplained Thai name that was added the other day and did not at all mess with taxobox. wound theology ◈  01:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that lol. For some reason, the taxobox didn't render properly after your edit. —  Trilletrollet  [ Talk &#124; Contribs ] 07:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I noticed that when looking at the diff; have no idea why it would do that. wound theology  ◈  08:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Lysorophian merge discussion
Hi Trilletrollet, I apologize that I only just noticed your merge discussion, a day after it closed. I am in support of the merge, from my perspective pretty much every paper of the last 30 years which discusses lysorophians in detail agrees that most previously named lysorophian genera (including Lysorophus) are most likely synonymous with Brachydectes. I see you've already gone through with a lot of the merging, thank you. NGPezz (talk) 16:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Do you support merging Lysorophus too then? I'm fine with that. —  Trilletrollet  [ Talk &#124; Contribs ] 16:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A merge wouldn't hurt in my opinion, these articles in their current state are pretty short anyways. NGPezz (talk) 21:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)