User talk:Hemiauchenia

A mostly complete archive of talkpage discussions can be found at User talk:Hemiauchenia/Archive1

Thanks for your work on Chimerarachne. My institution doesn't subscribe to Nature Ecology & Evolution so it was good to be able to read a knowledgeable and well written article here. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks 😃 for helping me out here. Spirits of the Ice Forests is outdated. Most of the dinosaurs are not from Southern Australia let alone Antarctica. Australovenator is from the Winton formation so that could be a polar dinosaur. I do agree with some of your general points.

• I know that, "Spirits of the Ice Forest" even though it is inaccurate really typifies the typical dinosaur cove esque conception of "South polar dinosaur" with Leaellynasaura etc. I guess that your ill fated Australian Spinosaurid counts as a south polar dinosaur in this regard, given that both taxa originate from the same formation. In regards to Australovenator the Winton formation is supposed to have been warm enough that it barely ever frosted, having a more subtropical climate which doesn't lend itself to being being "South Polar" really.Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Bubblesorg (talk) 18:40, 30 May 2018 (UTC))Austrlian spinosauride is from northen Australia. Queensland[reply]

• I'm not sure where you're getting that from, the paper describing it clearly says its from Victoria Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Bubblesorg (talk) 02:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)) Sorry i was referring to the wrong theropod.[reply]

		Paleontology Barnstar
		Dear Hemiauchenia, thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, especially your recent creation of Grünbach Formation. Keep up the good work! You are making a difference here! With regards, AnupamTalk 06:32, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	For your contributions to Wikipedia's coverage of stratigraphy. Abyssal (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, together we are working hard I see. Thanks for following my steps and correcting hasty mistakes. Still a lot to add in new articles, but the maintenance of the South American, African and Oceania geologic formations is nearly completed now. Cheers, Tisquesusa (talk) 17:53, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I've largely fixed the Jurassic-Cretaceous sequence of the UK at this point. I've tried to fix up some of the french articles, but their informal terminology of formations and lack of a stratigraphic database makes it difficult, also there are a lot of duplicate articles around which need to be dealt with. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:23, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your tireless contributions to all the geologic formations and paleontology in general. Tisquesusa (talk) 00:53, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work keeping wild horse up to date. Iamnotabunny (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Congrats on nominating for deletion the longest running hoax on Wikipedia! Amazing that nobody else managed to get it deleted. Thank you for actually CSDing it! MrAureliusRTalk! 00:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hemiauchenia, this litoptern you get for the continuing improvement of and attention for the fossiliferous formations of this world! Have a great weekend, Tisquesusa (talk) 16:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit was an unintentional rollback in Windows. Thanks for correcting. SamHolt6 (talk) 00:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	Vicennalia
	Thanks for all your work for the encyclopaedia; it's twenty years old today! GPinkerton (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thank you for your good work at Whitney Wolfe Herd! Marquardtika (talk) 03:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Hemiauchenia, I'm so so sorry for mistakenly indeffing you. I must've clicked on the user I reverted to, rather than the user I reverted, by mistake. That was completely my fault. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Writ Keeper: Nooo my clean block record! :P Don't worry, I found it more funny than anything else, wasn't long enough to cause any serious disruption. Thanks for being on top the vandalism. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) "Clean block log" Ha! I raise you this wrong CU block (which was obviously much more frustrating). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Proficiently understands the usage of reliable sources at Talk:Dream (YouTuber) and defends Dream (YouTuber) from unsourced claims. As one of the creators of the article, I bestow this barnstar upon you. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 16:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 10,617.5 views (884.8 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of June 2021 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for using your expertise to improve Amabilis uchoensis and Podocnemididae, and for your kind helpful remarks at DYK. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Million Award
	For your contributions to bring Chicxulub crater (estimated annual readership: 1,276,899) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Chicxulub crater to be today's featured article for an unspecified date. As an editor who has worked substantially on this article, you are invited to comment on its suitability as a TFA on the nomination page. Thanks, and happy editing. Z1720 (talk) 19:05, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edit to Paleollanosaurus! Good job! —asparagusus (interaction) sprouts! 18:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Plantae Barnstar
		For helping out with the Article 61.6 renaming. awkwafaba (📥) 22:27, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The barn star of reality
	I wish we could clone you a bunch of times. Great work. Thank you! Polygnotus (talk) 03:42, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I just came across an older (2021) archived discussion regarding the questionable Code-compliance of Malkani's publications, and hoping to hear from someone familiar with this to contact me via email in my capacity as an ICZN Commissioner. The Commission is looking for more examples of cases where an e-only journal is not compliant with Code regulations, but still publishing new names anyway. My contact info is on my user page. Thanks, Dyanega (talk) 16:32, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dyanega: I've sent you an email. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm going to do a minor rewrite the atmospheric oxygen levels section again to better reflect the nuances in the scientific literature, but given your interest I wanted to flag this to you first so we can discuss if need be. That there is disagreement over the levels of O2 in the atmosphere during the Carboniferous is clear, but there is consensus over the increase in levels during the Period. Brand et al 2021 is being used as evidence for low levels throughout the Period. However, the measurements apply to the Visean only, the authors call for further research to expand the use of halite. Importantly, two of the authors of this paper, including Brand, are also authors on the Cannell et all 2022 paper (info from which I'm adding in), which incorporates the halite data with the pyrite data to show an increase in O2 levels through the early to mid Carboniferous with values up to 30% before decreasing again. So it is correct to say models show an increase in O2 levels during the Period, but by how much and for how long is the subject of ongoing research. I'll put this explanation on the Carboniferous talk page when to publish it too. Thanks Silica Cat (talk) 17:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Silica Cat: Sure that's fine. My main concern is that the article should make the uncertainty about the estimates in recent literature clear and shouldn't uncritically repeat the claims about Carboniferous atmospheric oxygen concentration that are often asserted as fact in sources that aren't specifically about prehistoric atmospheric oxygen concentration. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you get tired of scrolling. Or think your guests do. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I'm not EEng, so done. Hemiauchenia (talk)

I had the same unarchived talkpage as you, when the third editor kindly asked me, I gave in. I've asked EEng too, but you can see the result. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

You have recently made edits related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. This is a standard message to inform you that India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I recall that I alerted you in February regarding ARBIPA contentious topics. It didn't look that you had read it properly. Now would be a good time to do so. Kautilya3 (talk) 10:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Thank you for your due diligence in attempting to stick to what the sources say, and then verifying yourself that new additions are appropriately in line with their content, at Asian News International. I personally believe that it's pretty obvious they're a mouthpiece for the current Indian government, but I applaud your efforts at sticking to verifiability and NPOV. LaughingManiac (talk) 00:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the closure of Talk:Wikipedia and antisemitism#Proposal to merge to Criticism of Wikipedia, it states: "If anyone objects I will take the article to AfD." A few questions:

1. Since it says not to modify that discussion, where would it be best to raise an objection to the closure?
2. What's the deadline for such an objection?
3. Would you consider letting the Merge discussion to run at least 7 days? Would you allow for 4-5 days for revisions before submitting the AfD?
4. I'm thinking about a potential rename (Move) of the article to name such as Antisemitic bias on Wikipedia. Is there a mechanism that would enable such a proposal to be considered before the AfD?

Please ping me with your reply. ProfGray (talk) 20:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ProfGray: I think this page is the correct place to object. Is this a formal objecton? If so I will unredirect the article and take it to AfD. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your prompt reply. If you don't mind, it'd be helpful if you respond to my other questions. For example, re: #2, I'm (supposedly) about to board an airplane and don't want to make a hasty decision about a formal objection. Btw, is there a policy page that explains this process of objections etc? Thanks, ProfGray (talk) 20:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ProfGray: I believe the guidelines are at Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#Challenging_a_closing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like guidelines are at WP:Merging. The link above is for deletions, which have more formal rules.

If nobody else comes forward, then consider this statement my objection to the Merge closure. I'd prefer to have some more time for the Merge and, ideally, to propose a Move to another article name, before the AfD. Thanks for your consideration. ProfGray (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to echo ProfGray, while it's not required, I'd also ideally prefer if the article is given 4-5 days or so before AfD, and I would also try to do some work on it. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 02:21, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, maybe it makes sense to draftify it for now, and try moving to mainspace once it's been organized and flushed out more? And I assume an AfD would follow at that point (assuming you or others still find it problematic after the work). — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 04:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thx for understanding a newbie's errors. Google search of that Wiki immediately changed, but Bing... Pmcc3 (talk) 17:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You recently brought Lewis (baseball) article from Delibird afd, but what dyt about Michael? Do you think this is afd worthy also? 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 03:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I don't regularly take "fictional elements" related articles to AFD, so I'm not going to be a good judge over whether the coverage passes or not (or, what matters more, if the editors who frequent those discussions think so). However, from my judgement it looks like there is a lot of routine coverage of the TV show rather than the character itself, so I wouldn't say it's a slam-dunk "keep". Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to the talk page Younger Dryas with best wishes. ChaseKiwi (talk) 01:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Straight-tusked elephant 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Straight-tusked elephant you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Straight-tusked elephant for comments about the article, and Talk:Straight-tusked elephant/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:01, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § RfC: Times of Israel. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I'd like to restart (with your feedback), a new RfC for the blog "Science-Based Medicine". Could you help me to write the opening so that it does not violate the neutral part? I will then publish it. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Iljhgtn: Fundamentally. you must not present your opinion in the opening section of the RfC. You are free to give your opinion in the voting section, but the actual question itself should be short and brief. My advice to you is that the question should be something like Is the website Science-Based Medicine in whole or in part, a self-published source? You can then give your reasoning as to why you think this is the case in the voting section. You also need to add a {{rfc}} tag to the top of the RfC, as elaborated on in Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Creating_an_RfC.

Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK I will try again with this structuring and advice. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:11, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to do this now, but the RfC tag does not seem to be working properly. I picked two of the categories from the Science-Based Medicine page for instance and it is giving me error messages. I am going to publish it for now since it seems to mostly be a straightforward request other than the RfC tagging which I am hoping you will be able to correct on for me? Iljhgtn (talk) 01:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the link to my second attempt, this time incorporating the neutral guidelines removing any opinion of mine from the RfC on this source: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RFC_Science-Based_Medicine. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your ping. That section has become so pinched I find it exhausting to try to read it. I doubt that was your doing. I'll check in tomorrow and see if I can wade through that talk page.Dan Murphy (talk) 00:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dan Murphy: I don't blame you for not replying to that gargantuan discussion, so to give you a summary:

• Racingcloud (the newly created account of the IP you reverted) proposed the following new version of the lead:Cargo cults were diverse spiritual and political movements that arose among indigenous Melanesians following Western colonization of the region in the late 19th century. These practices would range from tribal rituals incorporating colonial military parades meant to secure goods, or "cargo", from ancestral spirits and misunderstood imitations of western technology and practices (the John Frum movement), to syncretic movements that blended tribal beliefs and Christianity, to even a rejection of reliance on western goods and attempts to emulate more technologically advanced cultures by creating their own writing and education systems (Turaga nation)[10]. These belief systems were characterized by charismatic strong men who would often foretell of approaching cataclysmic or apocalyptic events, Millenarianism, with promises of wealth or material abundance if followers believed in him and followed his rituals. Anthropologists have described cargo cults as rooted in pre-existing aspects of Melanesian society, as a reaction to colonial oppression and inequality disrupting traditional village life, or both.
• There was disagreement about whether or not cargo cult groups "misunderstood" Western technology.
• There was disagreement about whether the fact that users who had been canvassed to the talkpage months ago by the viral twitter thread was significant or not r.e. consensus for the lead content.

Truthfully, I don't think the Racingcloud's proposed lead is better than the current version, but it's really hard to write a concise introduction what a "cargo cult" is when the conception of cargo cult is so vague in the anthropological literature, as so clearly articulated by Marc Tabani in What's the Matter with Cargo Cults Today?. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also just wanted to bookmark somewhere that the entirety of Tabani's 2008 book on the John Frum movement is open access. [1]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He was considereded as "seal of prophet's" in Islam and as a neutral pov too cuz he stated it by himself. Therealbey (talk) 18:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is writing from a external, non Islamic perspective. Muhammad is most notable from an external perspective as being the founder of Islam, not as being Islam's last prophet. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:43, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Make sense! Let me change it again to "Founding Prophet of Islam" Therealbey (talk) 19:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have a bit of an editing situation at Animal, with a daft phylogeny that claims to be a consensus but actually sits on the fence between 2 competing views, one of which has garnered quite a bit of support in the past few years. An editor has plonked a 'don't change this' note in the text, which is not helpful in this situation. Ideas? Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No better at Deuterostome, where the tree is cheerfully announced as "from multiple sources"! And the same editor has "updated" the tree from an unstated source. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:19, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are looking for User talk:Hemiauchenia. SilverTiger12 (talk) 23:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly haven't been keeping up with this dispute over the last year or so. As I recall the support for deuterostomes is much lower than that of protostomes, and I have no idea what's going on currently in the ctenophore v. sponge as earliest diverging animal group dispute. If a node remains in serious dispute, I would just code it as a polytomy, or provide multiple sourced trees with competing hypotheses. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]