Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:09, 28 February 2015

/User talk:Apokryltaros Archive 1

January 2014

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to List of Zyuden Sentai Kyoryuger characters. This contravenes Misplaced Pages's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. --Mr Fink (talk) 22:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

But the episode that came out has covered it at the end.70.126.22.132 (talk) 04:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Dire Wolf

Even though I looked up "Dire wolf" because of the Grateful Dead song I enjoyed your comments on the talk page about "trivial cameos." Although I've never actually done it (and won't), I've been tempted to add text to some of the articles that I've created or extensively edited stating that "such-and-such has never been referenced on The Simpsons, South Park, or Family Guy." PurpleChez (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd recommend making a "Dire wolf in popular culture" article, or something along those lines.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 4

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

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

Largest organisms

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

Understood.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Taxonomy vandal

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

AIV

I think you meant to use the template {{IPvandal}} as opposed to {{vandalIP}}. They are similar but the latter is seemingly a talk page warning. Mkdw 06:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Pardon, I've been meaning to wean myself off of copying and pasting. I find myself repeatedly reporting an infuriatingly persistent vandal.--Mr Fink (talk) 06:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I've taken care of it for the time being. Mkdw 06:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so very much for your help.--Mr Fink (talk) 06:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Starfish

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

There are about 1,500 living species of starfish to be found on the seabed in all the world's oceans, from the tropics to subzero polar waters and from the intertidal zone down to abyssal depths, 6,000 m (20,000 ft) below the surface. Starfish are among the most familiar of marine invertebrates. They typically have a central disc and five arms. The upper surface may be smooth, granular or spiny, and is covered with overlapping plates. Many species are brightly coloured in shades of red or orange, while others are blue, grey or brown. Starfish have tube feet operated by a hydraulic system and a mouth at the centre of the lower surface. They have complex life cycles and can reproduce both sexually and asexually. Most can regenerate damaged parts or lost arms and they can shed arms as a means of defence. Starfish such as the ochre sea star and the reef sea star have become widely known as examples of the keystone species concept in ecology. With their appealing symmetrical shape, starfish are found in literature, legend and popular culture. They are sometimes collected as curios, used in design or as logos, and in some cultures, despite possible toxicity, they are eaten. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: Just Checking

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

Thylacosmilus Page

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

I also asked another artist on Deviant Art if we might be able to use his rendition, which is slightly inaccurate (the snout is turned a little more upwards than it would have been in life), but certainly a far cry from these two drawings. Until I get an answer though, I think that no illustration is better than two bad ones. Zirojtan (talk) 03:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

In that case, why don't we just swap in the skull photo and delete the gallery section?--Mr Fink (talk) 03:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

What a creative solution! Haha. I must retarded. Yeah that sounds like a good idea until I hear back from Mauricio or this other artist. Zirojtan (talk) 04:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Everyone has brainfarts. I think Mauricio will eventually permit the picture's use, as we have his reconstruction of the woolly mammoth. Ideally, the taxobox should always have a picture, ideally of the holotype, or a cast, or of a clear fossil, though, as you pointed out, an accurate reconstruction works very nicely, too.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 24

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

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

Liberty taking

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

Atopodentatus

Hi, thanks for your edit. Would you consider making an illustration of it? AshLin (talk) 17:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely. It's the latest prehistoric fad in DeviantArt, too.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Meteoraspis

Hello. I have a couple of issues with the Meteoraspis article as it stands right now:

• I think it is over the top to use the distinguish template for Parameteoraspis, which is not easily confused with meteoraspis. I haven't tried, but I am sure I can come up with several closer generic names. I have replaced it with another template that is more useful in my humble opinion.
• Meteoraspis Stensio, 1927, would precede Meteoraspis Resser, 1935, so the text was confusing. However, I think this authority assignment is faulty. It took some time, but look at this citation, page 201, starting 10 lines from the bottom: "... Parameteoraspis nov. nom. (in replacement of Meteoraspis Janvier, 1981a - type species C. gigas Wängsjö, 1952 - preoccupied by Meteoraspis Resser, 1935: Trilobita) appears in the Benneviaspis horizon with P. pinnifera (Wängsjö) ..."
• Placing this information under the heading Synonymy is incorrect. Janvier's name is a jr. homonym of Resser's. It would be consistent with many trilobite articles to create a heading Reassigned species, and add the homonymy information in the box. I made these changes.
• Although GNI indeed lists Meteoraspis partim, I do not think this is a species, "partim" meaning "partially". So I removed it from the specieslist.

Regards, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

a) The template you've used now works better than the one I'm using. If you come up with a better one, so much the better.

b) That is a good point, though, I think the move may have been a matter of nomen oblitum. Either way, though, it's a moot point as agnathan researchers appear to be just fine with Parameteoraspis.

c) I have no disagreement with your retitling the section: thank you.

d) Yeah, some of the information in the GNI is questionable: it lists "Meteoraspia delia," but, I could not find anything about it in google beyond its listing in the GNI, and misspelling of "MeteoraspiS"--Mr Fink (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

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

AIV

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

Understood.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Abiogenesis

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

Timelines

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

Hey, I have a crap load more of those fish timelines still in my user space. I was wondering if you wanted to have a look at them. If you think they're inaccurate I'll just have them deleted instead of articlespacing them. Abyssal (talk) 09:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Or amended as the case may be.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 25

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

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

Seahorses

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

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

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

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

I finally found it. It is in the caption under the diagram in the section on "Reproduction". I still think it is not as clear as it could be, but if a reader reads the sentence in "Births", the caption will be clear enough. Sorry to bother you. CorinneSD (talk) 01:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't reply to this message because I didn't notice it. Sorry about that.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Pictures

I just looked at your User page for the first time. Where did you get all those wonderful pictures in your "To Done" list? CorinneSD (talk) 14:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I drew and colored them all.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

They're fabulous. I love all of them. CorinneSD (talk) 15:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much!--Mr Fink (talk) 16:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

You could sell them as prints, or put a book together (perhaps with articles about the animals). Would you mind if I posted one of them on my User page, giving you credit? I could include a link to your User page, too. I would just like to look at it now and then. If not, that's fine. CorinneSD (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I (try to) sell them as prints at my DeviantArt account, and yes, I am in the process of collaborating with some of my paleoart friends to put a prehistoric animal book together. And yes, please be my guest.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Creationism

I think you need to add the {{hab}} on its own line as the {{hat}} wasn't closed. I assume that you didn't add one so, I added another. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 17:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting that.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:58, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

What do you think about creating a template....

...for a series on primitive species? The template would link together sturgeon, paddlefish, bowfin, garfishes, and there's one other species I can't think of right now. I would very much appreciate your input. Atsme☯ talk 20:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

That would be a good idea. Would we include the bony tongues, and would we focus on particular groups, i.e., primitive bony fish, mammals, reptiles, etc?--Mr Fink (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Numerous possibilities, and it would prove extremely beneficial to Wiki readers, and student researchers. Hopefully you know how to get a template started, because I've never done it before. If you don't have the time to set it up, I'd be happy to get it started if you could point me in the right direction. I'll also be happy to collaborate setting it up, and adding the various articles. Atsme☯ talk 20:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Just saw your art - WOW. Very nice!!! Atsme☯ talk 20:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Coelacanth? CorinneSD (talk) 20:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

@CorinneSD: Absolutely. And so it begins. Atsme☯ talk 20:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, and yeah, that's a good idea, too.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok - I'm going to start the template, and will post here when it's ready for collaboration. Atsme☯ talk 20:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Hmm?

I'm a blocked troll? I think you may have filled in the wrong username. Who did you mean? Yngvadottir (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

My sincerest apologies, I believe I have confused you with BryndisYngvadottir--Mr Fink (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Seahorse

I tried to fix a red link at the beginning of Seahorse#Reproduction so that it would be a blue link but without success. Can you fix it? CorinneSD (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Which link? To "Brood pouch (Syngnathidae)"? In my opinion, either, someone starts that page, or we make it a section of Syngnathidae--Mr Fink (talk) 22:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's the link. I wouldn't be able to start that kind of article (I haven't written any WP article.) If one is started, how much information would it contain? How much information is there about the syngnathidae brood pouch? I can't imagine a whole lot. I think if information on it is added to the article on Syngnathidae it would improve the article, which is now only four paragraphs long. CorinneSD (talk) 00:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

As a stub, it wouldn't need to contain too much information. Ideally, a definition, and maybe some links or references.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

O.K. Then I guess more information can be added later as it becomes known. Do you want to create the stub? CorinneSD (talk) 00:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Why not you have that honor, and I'll touch it up afterwards.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 21

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for April 29

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

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

Corsican giant shrew

I was looking at an edit to Corsica just now in which an editor added several extinct species. I clicked on the some of the links to read the articles. I saw that there was no picture for Corsican giant shrew, and I remembered that you have drawn many pictures of extinct animals, so I thought I'd tell you about this. Maybe you could find, or draw, a picture for this article. CorinneSD (talk) 19:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• goes digging for his pith helmet for reference hunting, and preps Yakkety Sax as theme music*--Mr Fink (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you are conveying. I figure it's humor, but it escapes me. Are you making fun of the editor who added the names of the extinct animals, or are you jesting about yourself as you search for more information? I'm not familiar with that piece of music, either. I really wish I did understand the allusions. You're brilliant, talented, articulate, and kind, and I feel bad that I don't follow you. I thought you'd be interested in both this kind of edit and in the challenge of finding a suitable image for an extinct animal. CorinneSD (talk) 23:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm jesting about as I hunt for more information on the animal, which is thought to be related to watershrews.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 21:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Block-evading, IP-hopping vandal

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

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

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

Calcium

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3) In the section Calcium#H and K lines is the following sentence:

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

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

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

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

Well, that's all for now. CorinneSD (talk) 02:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

1) That one is a grammatical mess, especially since it was written with, what appear to me to be, easter egg style links, which only serve to make the sentence too ambiguous.

This sentence is much improved.

2) I tweaked problem sentence #2 to eliminate "common," though, as it stands, it still seems a bit wordy.

I'm going to see what I can do with it.

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

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

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

That sounds good, too.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

What are "easter egg style links"? I can't figure out how to go back and look at it the way it was (in order to see what you were referring to). It's easier just to ask you. CorinneSD (talk) 15:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Links that are not intuitive to the reader, or that surprise the reader, or otherwise do not explain or too subtly hint at the linked page's connection with the article.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Brachiopod

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

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

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

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

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

"Linguids and discinids".

I searched on WP for "linguids" and found nothing besides this very instance. I wonder whether it might be a typo and it should be "lingulids". I know very little about marine (or any) zoology, so I thought I'd add it to my list of questions here. CorinneSD (talk) 01:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I rewrote that problem sentence as:

"The plankonic larvae of articulate species do not resemble the adults, looking like blobs with yolksacs, and remain only among the plankton for only a few days before leaving the water column upon metamorphosing."

I want to tweak it further as soon as I find a picture of what an articulate brachiopod larva looks like.

As for the problem of "linguids," I'm almost certain that it's a misspelling of "lingulids."--Mr Fink (talk) 01:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Primitive Species Template

Primitive Species Template has been nominated for deletion. Can you please provide input. AtsmeWills☯ talk 02:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Will do.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:08, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

The template was removed from the sturgeon article, I undid it, and he reverted it. I don't understand how he can suddenly decide something doesn't belong just because he doesn't like the title. Shouldn't the template be allowed to remain until a consensus has been reached? Isn't that what policy dictates? AtsmeWills☯ talk 22:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Policy suggests that, yes, though, to avoid escalating into edit warring, we should just wait until the consensus decides what to formally do.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thank you, Mr. Fink. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs) 23:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, the discussion has escalated into 10,423 words - more than most Wiki articles. I'd laugh if I wasn't so tired from typing. Much to my dismay, there was some purposeful deletion of several primitive fishes templates along with references to the term "primitive" in the articles I listed to justify keeping the template. I've been reverting, and adding back the template, but at the same time, I don't want to get tangled up in an edit war. I've already compromised a little on my end by allowing the image on the template to be deleted, and even welcomed a little housekeeping on the order of the linked articles. Now I see where the following sentence has been added in the section above the template at the various articles: ‹ The template below (Primitive fishes) is being considered for deletion. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus.› Not quite sure what to do next except wait out the 30 days to see what happens. AtsmeWills☯ talk 05:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Apokryltaros Do you know how to make the primitive fishes template the same width as the Taxobox? AtsmeWills☯ talk 13:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Such is the heartache of wikidrama. I looked through the Taxobox template information, and I'm not sure what to do to adjust the width of the template. I'll ask around.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

User talk:72.131.57.101

Letting you know I removed the vandal warnings from this guys page. The edits to saber-toothed cat seem to be good-faith and I'm gonna try the welcoming approach :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 04:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Understood.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:56, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand.....

You, of course, are free to post on my talk page any time.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:50, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course, I know when to take a hint to hike. I haven't spent half my life watching Jack Benny without learning anything, after all.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:09, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely loved Jack Benny, but didn't appreciate his humor then as much as I do now. Hope you don't mind me chiming in, considering the expense of giving away my age, but then I can always refer back to having seen reruns purchased via Time Life. AtsmeWills☯ talk 17:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

You're thirty-nine twice, too?--Mr Fink (talk) 18:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Uh oh. You must be referring to radio. I'm referring to television reruns of the Jack Benny Program in color, but there are definitely times when I feel thirty-nine twice. AtsmeWills☯ talk 19:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Bowfin question

I have found over the years that biologists tend to write scientific prose rather than engaging prose, even though both maintain accuracy. Wiki guidelines suggest engaging prose, especially in the lead-in. Considering you've been editing the bowfin article from time to time, may I please ask your opinion on the following diffs with regards to which lead-in you think more readers would be inclined to stay "hooked"? AtsmeWills☯ talk 18:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

From what I've learned is that Misplaced Pages's primary function is to educate the reader, not entertain, though, yes, it is extremely difficult to educate an unhooked reader. Or at least, err towards scientific prose, but veer away from jargon, and use only a small amount of science technicalities when appropriate. But, anyhow, please proceed.--Mr Fink (talk) 19:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Ooops, forgot to include the link, so here it is now. Memory issues...must be early onset of the thirty-nine twice anomaly. AtsmeWills☯ talk 19:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I think I would go with Cyclopia's version, if only because "only true "bony fish"" sounds both awkward and misleading. We can still integrate both versions further.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm flexible. The term came right from a cited reliable source, so it wasn't something I made up, but I did think it was an interesting point to emphasize since not all "bony fish" are bony. Cyclopia prefers to use the category "bony fish" instead of "ray-finned fish" even for species that are almost entirely cartilaginous. Also if you'll look in the first paragraph of the sturgeon article, it uses the term, "true sturgeons". Seemed to fit, but I'm always open to "better". AtsmeWills☯ talk 20:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

We could mention in the anatomy section about how, of all the extent members of Osteichthys, the bowfin is the only member whose skeleton is not cartilaginous.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

That could work. I'm tickled to see the article growing from starter to at least something with information!! Know what I mean? AtsmeWills☯ talk 20:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Like vitamins.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeppers, but in this case, in light of the ongoing discussions at Cfd and Tfd, it's more like "Miracle Grow". AtsmeWills☯ talk 20:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Bowfin assessed

Congrats - our collaborative efforts made a difference. AtsmeWills☯ talk 22:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Excellent! Congratulations!--Mr Fink (talk) 23:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I posted the same "congrats" on Cyclopia's talk page. He thought it was some kind of joke, and didn't understand. Since he doesn't listen to me, would you be so kind as to explain it to him on his talk page? AtsmeWills☯ talk 01:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Seahorse

Maybe Humandictionary should be warned because this is the second time his/her vandalizing edits to Seahorse have been undone in the last few minutes. I don't know if there is a warning template that can be used, or where to find it. CorinneSD (talk) 00:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Humandictionary's edits remind me too much of those of a vandalism-only account.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Prolibytherium may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ' remains in flux. At one time, it was described as a relative of '']'' (as a precursor to "Libytherium maurusium" (''S. maurusium''). Later, it would be regarded as a [[

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:01, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Nelumbo

Sorry. You're right.
I mistook it as redundant when it's not. 99.238.74.216 (talk) 23:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

No worries.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

RE: Trump caterpillar

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

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

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

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

(talk page stalker) I can't judge the reliability of that source, but I know Apokryltaros can, and will. I just wanted to add that just because something is published doesn't mean that it is in good taste or adds significantly to an article. CorinneSD (talk) 22:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I already reverted what I did.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand, another editor rereverted, stating that such a controversial statement does need a citation to support it, and that such a statement can be potentially (mis)construed as libel, as per WP:GRAPEVINE, and was the original reason why I mistook it for vandalism in the first place.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Richard Proenneke

I posted a question about an edit to Richard Proenneke at User talk:Vsmith#Richard Proenneke. Vsmith replied and suggested looking at the source to find out what was used there. Can you either help me find the source or make a determination yourself regarding the edit? "Contiguous United States", while possibly correct technically, sounds a little odd to both Vsmith and myself (and I don't know who else to ask about U.S. geography). CorinneSD (talk) 23:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

When the term "Contiguous United States," they mean "the Continental United States" or "48 States," i.e., those States that border each other, thus excluding Alaska and Hawaii. I will check your question, and see what I can do to help.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. (I knew that. It still sounds odd in this context.) CorinneSD (talk) 23:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

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

Abiogenesis

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

I've read some of the discussions on the talk page of Abiogenesis. I can only follow it to a certain extent since I'm not a scientist, but I have been fascinated by the exchanges. I noticed that a consensus was reached regarding the use of the verb "arises" at the beginning of the article. I just thought I'd share with you my reaction to that word. It seems to me to be a rather boring, vague verb that doesn't really say much. Is it so on purpose because no one really knows exactly when or how life arose from non-living matter? (Please understand that I firmly believe in evolution and am not a creationist.) I would have chosen a more active, interesting verb such as "springs", "develops", "emerges", etc. (or the past tense form if that is appropriate). Just a thought. I'd love to learn more. CorinneSD (talk) 00:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, as an encyclopedia, I've been informed that our ultimate goal is to inform the reader, and not to entertain the reader. Having said that, I do recognize, as you've pointed out, that we do need to capture our readers' attention. Of the suggested synonyms you bring up, I would think that "develops" has the best potential.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Dire Wolves on Game of Thrones

Why remove that information we all know Dire Wolves appear on Game of Thrones and that is probably where most people have heard of them from. Byzantinefire (talk) 22:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

As was mentioned on Talk:Dire wolf several times, a) fantasy "dire wolves" are invariably magically enlarged grey wolves and do not actually have anything at all to do with Canis dirus save for the same common name, b) are the "dire wolves" of the Game of Thrones franchise really are C. dirus, or are they merely stock fantasy enlarged grey wolves? c) if dire wolves really are integral to Game of Thrones, then how come they are not mentioned in the appropriate article page beyond a one-word mention? and, most importantly, d) "In Popular Culture" sections are about how society and or popular views the topic, and not uncited laundry lists of "Spot the Monster" cameo appearances (which was why Dire Wolf's "In Popular Culture" was removed in the first place). In other words, if you want to include mention of "Game of Thrones" on Dire Wolf as a part of the "In Popular Culture" section, please provide an explanation, supported with reputable sources, that Game of Thrones "dire wolves" are the reason "most people have heard of them from." That, and are you really certain that most people have heard of dire wolves through the HBO series, and not, say, books on prehistoric animals?--Mr Fink (talk) 22:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Well actually i first learned of Dire Wolves through books but it might not be the cass with everyone else. Byzantinefire (talk) 22:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Either way, it would strongly help your case if you were to find reputable sources that support the notability of Game of Thrones dire wolves, and or that the Game of Thrones dire wolves are, in fact, C. dirus.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I guess George R.R Martin might have the answer. Byzantinefire (talk) 00:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 04:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Fossil

Do you agree with the latest edits to Fossil? I wonder particularly about changing "Petrification" to "Petrifaction". CorinneSD (talk) 15:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Seems a little like word-mincing, but, the article is "Petrifaction," after all.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

OMG. I had not even checked to see the title of the article to which the link led. I had never heard the word "petrifaction" and confused it with "putrefaction". I had only heard the word "petrification" and associated that with "fossil". It shows I need to check things more before I ask a question about it, and I learned something new. Sorry to have bothered you. CorinneSD (talk) 17:08, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

No problem. That I helped clarify things is always a plus.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Review American paddlefish, FA nominee

Good day to you, Mr Fink - if you find a lull in your relentless schedule, would you be so kind as to look over the American paddlefish article, and consult with me regarding its FA potential? Atsme☯ 16:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it has good potential. I did a little tweaking of the prose to help.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, kindly. One question, though...you wrote: A second, extinct species, P. tuberculata, fossils of which are found in the Lower Paleoscene Tullock Formation in Montana, approximately 60 million years ago. Perhaps it's just me, but it seems incomplete. Should the sentence begin with "There is" or "There was" a second, now extinct species, P. tuberculata,.....??? Atsme☯ 23:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

"There is" as the second species still has a distinct status. Actually, neither would be necessary.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Good evening, Mr. Fink. Remember my question above regarding the incomplete sentence? Following is the comment from the FA reviewer: "A second, extinct species, P. tuberculata, fossils of which are found in the Lower Paleoscene Tullock Formation in Montana, approximately 60 million years ago" - This sentence has no verb. I'm going to make the change I suggested above. If you had something different in mind for that particular sentence, please feel free to make any changes you deem appropriate. Atsme☯ 03:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The changes you've just made are more than adequate, thank you.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Question about Redundant Categories

I have found other pages of sharks that had the prehistoric cartilagenous fish as a added category, should I replace them with (XPeriod) sharks? I'm not sure if the prehistoric cartilagenous fish category applies or not.Tnophelia (talk) 21:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

"Prehistoric cartilaginous fish" should be a super-category, so, yes, those articles that have it should be replaced with "category: (XPeriod) sharks" as necessary. The only articles that should have "prehistoric cartilaginous fish" as a category are higher-taxon articles (i.e., Paraselachii, etc).--Mr Fink (talk) 22:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

WWD dinosaurs....

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

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

No. I know that now. Checked site and books nothing. But please remove Dromaeosaurus, also Pleslioplureodon (never mentioned that). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.66.220 (talk) 23:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Bringing up a Tu quoque does not excuse you from inappropriately identifying those animals. That, and you're not yet blocked, so you don't need to boss me around, either. Also , and that Plesiopleurodon is identified as such according to the British original.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Balnibarbi

Thank you for your kind note, after which my comments will seem to cavil. As I explained on the article talk page, I moved the page to the new title "-(trilobite)" for consistency with the disambiguation used in the given category; you've moved it with the edit summary "genus rather than trilobite". Is that just personal preference, or is there a wider reason? if so, the other pages will need moving also, for consistency: If not, I'd be inclined to say this page was better where it was.
What do you think? I will look for a reply here, or at the article talk page: Either way I will need to fix the links to the Balnibarbi title, but I'll need to know where to fix them to. Regards, Moonraker12 (talk) 12:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

It's been my experience that if there is only one biological taxon named after something, then it's best to simply title it "Name (genus)". If there's more than one entity with one name, like, say, Orthoceras, or Proteus, then it would be prudent to have a more specific descriptor.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, but that doesn't really resolve the issue. Is there a naming convention for these things? Or another guideline that is also applicable? Otherwise the category is 3:1 in favour of "-(trilobite)", and the "Trilobites sorted by geochronology" category is 6:3 in favour overall. And "-(genus)" is as uninformative as "Gulliver's Travels (print)" would be. Moonraker12 (talk) 14:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

PS:I've not seen a reply to this, so I've gone ahead and reverted the move.

If you feel strongly that the chosen title is incorrect, and have a guideline to support that, perhaps it'd be best to take it to Requested moves for a third party to decide on it.

I trust you are OK with that: Regards, Moonraker12 (talk) 11:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I am not okay with the move, especially since you appeared to have totally ignored the reasons I gave, i.e., if there are no other taxa with the same name, it is unnecessary to be so specific.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I think it's you that has totally ignored my answer, which was that the reason you gave doesn't really resolve the issue (being a statement of your personal preference); and that when I asked for you to suggest a naming convention or guideline that supported your contention, which you haven't yet given. But we'll see what the RM decides... Moonraker12 (talk) 14:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Your expertise is requested for bowfin...

Mr. Fink - would you be so kind as to review the following, and help me conform to the requested clean-up? The irony of it all. Doesn't seem that long ago I was arguing a "primitive fishes" battle, and here it is again, only this time in the reverse. *lol* Atsme☯ 14:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure thing.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Almost done but I'm having issues with the Evolution and phylogeny section. Will you please peruse , and let me know if any of the cladograms would work in concert with the Evolution and phylogeny section at Bowfin? Considering the section starts off with Competing hypotheses and debates continue over the evolution of Amia and relatives, it makes it hard to know which cladogram the reviewer would like to see. I included a diagram showing the 4 varying hypotheses, but I don't know what more I need to do. What are your thoughts on that section? Atsme☯ 02:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The second cladogram would be most helpful for the article, then.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

That's the one I recreated and uploaded, but there's just one problem - it doesn't follow in line with what's written in the article. The cladogram shows Actinopterygians can be divided into two distinct groups: basal actinopterygians and neopterygians while the article states two monophyletic groups: Chondrostei (holosteans) and Neopterygii (teleost fishes). At this point, I'm wondering if I should just scrap Cyclopia's hypotheses treatment, and just go with what is currently accepted - like what's at the link I gave you for the University College of London? We can always update the article with the most current information once the scientists get it all ironed out, right? As it stands now, there's just too much controversy and confusion. Atsme☯ 04:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

That would probably be the best course of action, then.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Think I got it all fixed. Thanks for your help, Mr. Fink. Atsme☯ 17:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Great!--Mr Fink (talk) 18:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for setting me straight regarding Evolution.

Yours,

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

You're welcome.

	You're welcome.
	You're welcome, Apokryltaros! Trevayne08 (talk) 11:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

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

another big thank you

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

Yours,

Johannon (talk) 21:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Evolution Thread

Thanks for removing the anti-Bible hate speech by Ian. It always surprises me when users describing themselves as non-biased engage in hate speech against a religion. NaN, ILoveProgramming (talk) 02:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Let's just say that I prefer to keep things as per house rules.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the gallery.

This one in particular.

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

Keep up the good work! InedibleHulk (talk) 07:24, November 7, 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Though, I need to redraw Sinotherium one of these days.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Interesting user name

I just thought you might be interested in seeing a new user name User:Platypusmonotreme who just edited Papua New Guinea. Perhaps a zoologist? CorinneSD (talk) 16:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Either that or another science fan. Platypus also did a lot of editing at Microbrachius, too: we could ask.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

there is a discussion going to be going on and you're involved

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive855#http:.2F.2Fen.wikipedia.org.2Fwiki.2FUser:4TheWynne_keeps_removing_valid_sources_and_is_protecting_a_deceptive_article 73.193.195.69 (talk) 01:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

FYI: I moved the discussion for the IP from the archive page over to the live WP:ANI page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Special wishes....

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

Your AIV report

I removed it. There is no "vendetta", and if you're filing a complaint for edit warring you should have reported the other party as well. There was no vandalism. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:57, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that I was a bit slower, but I was about to refer the case to WP:AN/EW instead, which is the appropriate place for edit warring (not vandalism). And Drmies is right about reporting other parties as well.--Slon02 (talk) 02:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

It's hard to accept that the editor's comments are not personal attacks.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:07, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, in that case you're going to have to be much more specific. "Grow up" isn't much of a blockable personal insult. Slon02, I appreciate the note. Merry Christmas Eve. I gotta put a trampoline together. Drmies (talk) 02:20, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. And remember to put the trampoline away from the good china.--Mr Fink (talk) 19:45, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Oh, you'd better watch out, you'd better not cry, you'd better not pout, I'm telling you why Christmas Velociraptor is coming to town He sees you when you sleeping, he knows when you're awake, he knows if you've been bad or good, so be good for your life's sake Oh, you'd better watch out, you'd better not cry, you'd better not pout, I'm telling you why Christmas Velociraptor is coming to town Merry Christmas, and watch out for the Christmas Velociraptor, IJReid (talk) 25 December 2014

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

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

Bruhathkayosaurus

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

Sure.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Conus

Hello, Apokryltaros! Happy New Year! If you have time, would you look at the latest edit to Conus? An editor added a clause, but it appears to be unsourced. I also feel the sentence is a bit heavy with a lot of very long words. This in particular seems awkward: "their role has been particularly elucidated in". Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 22:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Although it was obviously made with good intentions, I went ahead and reverted it, explaining that such a statement needs a citation. I should have mentioned that it was sort of vague, too.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, if it gets re-added with a citation, we can work on the wording. CorinneSD (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Carp

Do you want to see a long sentence? Look at the first sentence in Carp#Biology. CorinneSD (talk) 01:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

How terrible it is, too. We need to amputate it.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I just noticed an edit in which an editor added what looks like a company -- "The Fly Stop" -- to a list of groups that promote carp fishing. Can you look at that and determine whether that or any of the others are appropriate? I know WP avoids including anything like advertising in articles. CorinneSD (talk) 04:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I just checked that out, and it looks too advertise-y to be fit for use as a reference.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Did you look at the others in that sentence to be sure they aren't too much like advertising? Also, did you see the "clarification needed" tag I added? Perhaps you can clear that up. CorinneSD (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I will check out the clarification needed tag in a moment, I rewrote some of the sentences in order to correct some errors in that section: I just removed "Carppro" as the link leads to what looks like an abandoned website (pictures removed, etc).--Mr Fink (talk) 16:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

It sounds much better. I wanted to add a link to "labyrinth", but I couldn't find any reference to labyrinth in biology in the WP article on Labyrinth. There is some information on labyrinth in the article on Ear. I don't know if you think it would be helpful to add a link to the ear article or to a section in the ear article such as Middle ear. I don't know if the labyrinth in the carp corresponds to the labyrinth in the human ear. CorinneSD (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I decided to be WP:BOLD, and link to the bony labyrinth, as, as far as I can tell, that's the equivalent anatomical structure.--Mr Fink (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Episode lists

Could you start updating the Drive and ToQger episode lists as well? I'm just not feeling it anymore and I also probably won't be able to if I get banned.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I should start watching the episodes more often. I can't promise about updating the movie pages, though.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Therizinosaurus

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

I see my edit has been reverted by the IP. So you'll have to decide. CorinneSD (talk) 18:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

It's my preference to use the conversion templates when best appropriate.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

It is mine, too, but I think numbers such as "8.2 ft." and "11.5" ft. are not helpful to people who are used to feet and inches. I think "8.2 ft." should be rounded to 8 feet and "11.5 ft." should either be rounded to 11 feet or expressed as 11-1/2 ft. or 11 and a half feet. If you prefer "11.5 ft." I think that's all right, but I absolutely think the conversion template should not be used when it yields numbers like "8.2 ft." or "5.7 inches". CorinneSD (talk) 19:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Excellent point. If it were me, I would just switch to metric entirely, if only because the metric system easily lends itself with decimals. But, unfortunately, a large majority of readers are Americans, and that this particular editor who reverted you has a bad case of Can't-hear-you-itis.--Mr Fink (talk) 19:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, would you at least remove the conversion template for the first one, the one that yields 8.2 feet? Perhaps s/he would be satisfied with just 11.5 feet on the second one. (Even that would puzzle many Americans.) I don't want to engage in an edit war. CorinneSD (talk) 04:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I just got back from a block I got from editwarring with the user's sock puppet.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 19

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

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

Your revert of my deleted hatnote in Han (trilobite)

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

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

Regards --Cyfal (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, then.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! --Cyfal (talk) 23:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Thank you for standing up for honesty

I will probably be banned again soon, for being too honest, but before that happens I just wanted to say thanks for speaking up. Not many people will say what needs to be said here, with such aggressive people teaming up against anyone who dares to do so. Anyway, I for one appreciate you speaking your mind in spite of them. DonaldKronos (talk) 05:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)