User talk:Boverisuchus

Keep it up

A (belated) welcome to Wikipedia and a thank you for your attention to amphicyonid pages. The group definitely needs some love on her and I'm happy to see someone's putting in work on the respective pages. Also good luck with your work on the Hammerschmiede locality page, looks promising so far. Armin Reindl (talk) 10:46, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Your pages are a big reason why I even started writing mine (and also serve as a good template for the structure). And yeah, many of the Amphicyonid pages are very lacking, despite the fact that there’s a lot of good, recent open access papers (though it doesn't help that some of them are an utter taxonomic mess, which is the sole reason I haven't touched Cynelos/Hecubides). Boverisuchus (talk) 13:26, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Boverisuchus. Thank you for your work on Hammerschmiede clay pit. User:EchidnaLives, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Great article, good job!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|EchidnaLives}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

echidnaLives - talk - edits 23:39, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Boverisuchus. Thank you for your work on Katifelis. User:Onel5969, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Nice job on the article. Keep up the good work!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Onel5969}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:38, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request for eventual cooperation on editing Amphicyon

Hello! I saw that you primarily specialize on editing Amphicyonidae and as such edited several genera pages to write well-sufficient articles of them in addition to writing the Hammerschmiede clay pit page! After eventually finishing the Enhydriodon page, I do plan on expanding my focus on more mammals of the Paleogene-Neogene (I will work on more bunodont otter pages), and Amphicyon is one of my focuses for the near-far future since it is a critical component of the Eurasian and North American ecosystems of North America (although far from the only carnivores in these regions, they tended to be apex predators) since the "Old World" amphicyonids (especially the Amphicyoninae subfamily) were highly successful to the point of migrating from Eurasia to North America at different points in time. There is a lot of research papers focusing on the Amphicyonidae family as well, meaning that researching their biology won't be too hard to find. If you'd like, we can eventually cooperate on writing the Amphicyon page together, although not for a while since I have other tasks currently.

There are several problems I do notice that'll prove troubling for research. For instance, the language gap and lack of online resources for old sources that had initially described Amphicyon itself will prove troublesome since I can't understand French and can't find sources of the 1800s mentioning it even after learning of their titles. Another problem likely will be its complicated taxonomic history, as Amphicyon was a highly diverse genus and has had undergone a lot of research on what defines it as a genus in addition to the complicated history of the Amphicyonidae family since for a while it was considered to be a Canidae or Ursidae subfamily until around the late 1900s (per "European Miocene Amphicyonidae: taxonomy, systematics and ecology," 1996). Nonetheless, I think that Amphicyon would be a vital article to expand since it represents a once-diverse carnivoran family that went extinct due to late Miocene climate change (like the Vallesian event in Europe and the late Miocene climate change and faunal turnovers in the Siwaliks).

Amphicyonidae is well-researched within Eurasia (including where you're from) but not North America (where I'm from), so I could really use your help in writing a well-detailed and long Amphicyon article. I can tag you someday for when I'm available for expanding the article and need your help if you'd like. Let me know if you're interested! PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:17, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Apologize for the very late reply, I just haven't looked at Wikipedia in a while due to exams and such. But I'd love to cooperate on Amphicyon! I already had some ideas on how to start expanding that page, although the amount of material available and taxonomic uncertainty (such as questions regarding the validity of Megamphicyon and the obscure Asian taxa, of which at least some shouldn't be part of the genus, etc.) makes it a very task indeed! So if you want to discuss an outline, or start working on it altogether, I'd be very happy to help! And I'm going to make it a habit to look at Wikipedia more often.

Also, great work on the otter pages - that Enhydrion page especially is amazing. Boverisuchus (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I do have a sandbox for the Amphicyon page, and while I didn't start editing information quite yet, I've been listing species of Amphicyon according to the latest sources, consisting of those from North America, Europe, the Indian Subcontinent, and East Asia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PrimalMustelid/sandbox (A. giganteus is apparently also in Moghra, Egypt during the early Miocene; some people argue it belongs to Megamphicyon, but some others argue that it belongs to Amphicyon still, so that'll need to be addressed on the page). I'll be busy for a bit and do want to prioritize finishing the Enhydriodon page first, maybe set it up for a peer review, but afterwards then I'll let you know if I'm available for cooperation on the Amphicyon page (you can edit my sandbox if you want to for any reason)!

And thank you, have a nice day! PrimalMustelid (talk) 00:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I'll probably add to your species list, compile sources, and add the basic information on stuff like distribution and validity of genera such as Megamphicyon and Arctamphicyon. I'm also going to be focusing on some more obscure bear dogs for now, but researching those means stumbling upon information relevant to Amphicyon regardless.

I do, however, already have two ideas: One is that the article should probably center around A. major, as it's the type species, known from great material and a potential redescription of the genus may lead to the exclusion of other species. And I think we should at the very least consider making a separate article for M./A. giganteus. The species on its own is known from a lot of remains, with a great amount of papers published on its palaeobiology, distribution, taxonomy etc., and could probably fill out a page on its own (it has more going for it than the various mammoth species which all have their separate pages). The taxonomic controversy just strengthens the case for giving it a separate case—although I'll compile the various arguments for and against the validity of Megamphicyon and we can decide then. Boverisuchus (talk) 14:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Namibiocyon is a very good page. Well done! BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 04:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Aurorarctos, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ursini. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:12, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lonchocyon moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Lonchocyon. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it contains extensive passages copied from the (single) source, which is against our copyright policies (see copyvio report: [1]). This needs to be reformulated to avoid these violations. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Elmidae: No, it does not need to be reformulated, because the underlying work is under a CC-BY 4.0 license. (see end of source) All that needs to be added is a "This incorporates text from" disclaimer, which I have done. It is now perfectly ready for mainspace. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:28, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well duh. That there detail appears to have escaped my attention. All right, moving her back out. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clay pit Hammerschmiede

Hallo, ich persönlich interessiere mich für die Hammerschmiede. Im vergangenen Jahr habe ich mich mit Frau Seitner getroffen. Der von Ihnen zitierte Supplementary 2004 stammt nicht von ihr und ist ihr nicht bekannt. So halte ich es für fraglich, auf dieser Arbeit eine Veröffentlichung aufzubauen. Desweiteren war Siegulf Guggenmos schon 1965 in der Hammerschmiede und hat einen ersten Fund, ein Nucheale einer Schildkröte, gemacht. Unterlagen hatte ich von Frau Guggenmos bekommen. Weiter habe ich mir Ihre Seite bei Wiki nicht angeschaut. Danuviana (talk) 14:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, danke Ihnen für die Information. Ich habe die Referenzen zum Supplementary Material 2004 entfernt.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen Boverisuchus (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]