User talk:Prescov/Archive 1

Ediacaran fossils

As I have already mentioned, the Internet-paleobases contain a lot of errors, outdated data and outright nonsense. I advise you to get acquainted with scientific literature instead of databases. The Ediacaran fauna is a complex and controversial topic, without knowledge of the literature, the history of its study, the views and misconceptions of various researchers, it is difficult to create good articles about these ancient organisms. Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 21:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC))[reply]

I try to fill in the Ediacara articles with reliable sources, but due to the very limited information on these, it cannot be referenced correctly. The only reliable source I can find is paleobiodb or fossilworks, not like other unverifiable ones like fandom. Prescov (talk) 13:19, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why create and edit articles on an unfamiliar topic? The Paleobiodb and Fossilworks are not reliable sources about the Ediacaran fossils, of course. I advise you to read the original scientific papers:

- https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Aleksey-Nagovitsyn

- https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Andrey-Ivantsov-2

- https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ilya-Bobrovskiy

- https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Dmitriy-Grazhdankin

- https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mary-Droser

- https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Scott-Evans-7

- https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alexander-Liu-8

- and etc. Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 14:47, 17 August 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Error. I did not try to say that paleodib or fossilworks are reliable sources, if not with minor information, but that it works. I know the information is a bit unreliable, but there is not much information about the taxa. I will try to find more information to reference well. Prescov (talk) 13:21, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seilacher's Vendobionta

Follow this link for a selection of Adolf Seilacher's articles on his Vendobionta. I hope it will be useful to you:

- https://drive.google.com/file/d/14NU-18od4BgXHtDJlptvbuTQpGJ6Ko7J/view?usp=sharing

Check out his last papers (2007 year) for an understanding of his last views on the vendobionts nature. This is not a subkingdom in the Animalia kingdom... And he did not distinguish any phyla among Vendobionta...

It is important to remember that the idea of Vendobionta died with Seilacher (it was an old man's quirk) and now has no supporters. But the term is sometimes used as an informal generic name for the Ediacaran fossils. Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 19:19, 18 August 2021 (UTC))[reply]

I am not trying to formalize Vendobionta as a kingdom or sub-kingdom, I know that the idea is obsolete but, even if it is obsolete (example: Articulata) it can be used to recognize previous synonyms or terms that are currently not used. The classification in Eumetazoa is very uncertain, but I repeat, I am not trying to formalize. Thanks for the links, they will help me to add more information. Prescov (talk) 13:17, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But this is exactly what you do when you specify Vendobionta as subkingdom in taxaboxes. In my opinion, the taxabox is not needed in the Vendobionta article, because Seilacher has repeatedly changed his views on the nature of Vendobionts. Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 13:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Medusoidea

Where did you find this nonsense? Why are you fantasizing? What kind of Medusoidea Hatschek, 1888 is this?

Kingdom:	Animalia
Subkingdom:	Vendobionta
Superphylum:	Coelenterata ?
Phylum:	†Medusoidea
Hatschek, 1888

Among other things, the ending "-idea" in taxon name means that this is a Class. Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Its right, no more. Prescov (talk) 20:49, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place to promote personal ideas, fantasies. Information for which no reliable, published sources exist will be removed. See wiki-rules Wikipedia:No original research. Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 21:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Please name a scientific paper in which the Phylum Medusoids was erected and was considered as an separate taxon of Coelenterata. What literature do you use? Or is it your fantasy? Don't even try to refer to B. Hatschek 1888 paper, I read it, his did not erected this "taxon". Let me remind you that all your unreasonable edits (fantasies) and false articles will be removed. Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC))[reply]

I made a mistake creating "Medusoidea", but then how do I classify it correctly? Like Psamcorallia? Medusoids did exist, and they were even named after Hatschek, and no, it is not a fantasy. They may not be included in Coelenterata, but how are they classified? Prescov (talk) 12:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Muzaffarabadmachli for deletion

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2b2t image

I'm sorry to have removed that image, but I am quite sure that it is not allowed per Wikipedia's copyright policies. The situation with images of 2b2t is a gray area no matter how you slice it. "Rocking the boat" really ought to be avoided please. I explained in full depth here: User_talk:Leijurv#Thanks_for_pointing_out_the_image_problem_for_me_but..., here's a quote: I'm cautious because I don't want to overly rock the boat regarding the 2b2t renders; I suspect if one gets deleted, all of them will. The Commons admin Geni said in the original discussion: "I think we need to be very clear that this is one courts could jump either way on so we are balancing risk factors ... Overall I don’t think there is a right answer here so its more of question of “is it worth the risk”". These things are on a spectrum and it's a judgement call balancing them. The Commons admins have a low risk tolerance for ambiguous situations like this so we're "lucky" that we have the renders we do on 2b2t. I count my blessings there, and I think it really does make the article a lot better with the visuals. In the case of that image, there is no copyright release from the person that WDL'd 2b2t and created the render, and the textures are the copyrighted Vanilla Minecraft textures (which cannot be used). Adding a render of the nether sounds fine to me, but it would need to be fully clear and demonstrable that you had world downloaded it yourself, rendered it yourself, and used your own textures (not the vanilla ones). Leijurv (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Entel (Peru) moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Entel (Peru), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Waddles 🗩 🖉 16:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]