Jump to content

User talk:Rnnsh

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Greetings!

[edit]
Hello Rnnsh, Wilhelmina Will has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Greetings, Rnnsh! I hope you have a good day!

Also, a belated welcome to Wikipedia!!! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Award

[edit]
The Fauna Barnstar
For valiantly performing tedious tasks related to the years in paleontology articles. Abyssal (talk) 18:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

[edit]

Hello, Rnnsh, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

Pharaoh of the Wizards

Happy editing! Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Finding your way around
Editing articles
Getting help
How you can help

Hello!

[edit]

I see your edits frequently on my watchlist, especially with regards to new taxa, so I thought I'd drop by and say hello. Keep up the good work! J. Spencer (talk) 04:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! I think your English is good. I've noticed that over time your edits adopt changes that I've made to your edits in the past, so I hope I'm being helpful!. Out of curiosity, what is your first language? J. Spencer (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's cool! You're certainly getting in a lot of practice in writing English here. J. Spencer (talk) 23:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up!

[edit]

Hi, Rnnsh;

I just found out about these, and since I can't get to them until later, I thought I would pass them on to you:

J. Spencer (talk) 14:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I expanded Chuxiongosaurus a bit because the abstract is a little confusing, and so are prosauropod/sauropod relationships in general. J. Spencer (talk) 02:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ichthyosauria

[edit]

Hi, Rnnsh;

I am interested in contributing, but I can't make any specific promises this time of the year. I will be around, though. J. Spencer (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatroller

[edit]

Hi Rnnsh, I enjoyed reading one of your articles at newpage patrol, and after checking through some more of your work I have taken the liberty of flagging your account as WP:Autopatrolled. This entitles you to display this userbox {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}}, and indicates that in my judgement the articles that you create are likely to belong here. Cheers and happy editing. ϢereSpielChequers 16:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Barnstar

[edit]
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
For work on fixing misdated taxa in the years in paleontology articles. Abyssal (talk) 14:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extinct turtles

[edit]

Hi! I see you have been creating extinct turtle articles. I've create this template above just to navigate between extinct turtle articles. If there is anything that should be changed/corrected please go right ahead and edit the template (edit is the 'e' in v.d.e top left). If you create more extinct turtle articles it would be helpful if you could add the template at the bottom. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 02:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leonerasaurus

[edit]

Thanks for helping :) However, please do NOT move refs into the main text! it is annoying to have to search for the all over. HMallison (talk) 08:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I do not like articles starting with Etymology. Remember that most readers are laypeople, who are mostly interested in what the animal looked like. I'll re-oder the sections; if you disagree please talk to me on my talk page. HMallison (talk) 08:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
btw, thanks for re-formatting the ref with the template - maybe now I will learn how to use it ;) HMallison (talk) 15:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New dinosaurs

[edit]

Hallo, Rnnsh! I see you have qualified the four new dinosaurs of this week as nomina nuda. However, the articles describing them are apparently part of a special volume, the Proceedings of the Third Gondwanan Dinosaur Symposium. This book has been published on 16 March. So they are all valid names. Not that I have the volume or the correct citation yet :o), but nevertheless...

Greetings, --MWAK (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editing note

[edit]

Hi, Rnnsh;

I just wanted to remind you to avoid directly taking sentences from original sources. For short usages, like a single sentence, you can use quotation marks, but it's best to restate material if at all possible. Thank you, and keep up the good work! J. Spencer (talk) 00:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amphibamidae and Doleserpetontidae

[edit]

Thanks for pointing that out, I didn't realize that Doleserpetontidae was a junior synonym when I created its taxonomy page. I'm not sure if it was the proper way to do it, but I redirected Template:Taxonomy/Doleserpetontidae to Template:Taxonomy/Amphibamidae. Redirecting pages would be an easy fix if you ever come across this problem again in the future. And I also appreciate the work you do, especially in creating pages for new species. They seem to appear almost every day! Smokeybjb (talk) 23:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeocursor

[edit]

I'm not sure if you're aware, but "Archaeocursor" was an April Fools joke started on a Polish message board. Please stop adding it to dinosaur articles. If you knew about this, please think twice before adding hoaxes to Wikipedia next time. MMartyniuk (talk) 21:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rnnsh, I notice you added a reference in this article to the paper entitled "Basalmost theropod with filamentous integumentary structures and new clade of basal 'carnivorous' dinosaurs". Did you read the information in this paper? If not, please do not add references to papers that you did not read the information in. See WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Thank you, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 09:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Decuriasuchus

[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 08:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Eosuchia

[edit]

Hi again. The name Eosuchia has not been used very often in recent years because the it is generally regarded as a paraphyletic group of early diapsids. Laurin's definition makes it include pretty much all diapsids except Araeoscelidia. Many amniotes would be left out of the group, including parareptiles, protorothyridids, and turtles (if you don't consider them diapsids). So Eosuchia and Amniota wouldn't be synonymous. Smokeybjb (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Arenysuchus

[edit]

Calmer Waters 06:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For adding Epichirostenotes and Ojoraptorsaurus to 2011 in paleontology faster than reasonably possible. Abyssal (talk) 15:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Samrukia

[edit]

Have you read or seen any of the paper you added as a reference in this diff? Thanks ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 15:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

YES, I have an early version of the paper, which I got from one of the authors by email. Your ref is based on this study... Rnnsh (talk) 17:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Thanks! Yes, I know it is based on the paper written by the same person. Perhaps we should get rid of my blog reference. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! For now, maybe the blog ref is even better. The "in press" version will be available soon, I think. Rnnsh (talk) 17:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Smok (archosaur)

[edit]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ornithischians

[edit]

Unfortunately, this is something that won't be settled until Phylocode. For now, it's probably best to go with either the most recent usage or the original usage. MMartyniuk (talk) 12:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suuwassea

[edit]

You changed the template to include suuwassea in Dicraeosauridae--is there a recent source to back this up? Both the original paper and cranial osteology find that it is basal to the split between Diplodocidae and Dicraeosauridae, but I don't have the complete osteology paper. As the templates are not watched by a lot of editors, please refrain from changing them without first backing up any change in the article for the taxon itself. MMartyniuk (talk) 12:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary

[edit]

In undoing my edit, you wrote "family doesnt named with the sp as in most recently named genera in paleo. (like in basal romerids, basal tyrannosauroids, basal iguanodonts, ect... etc...)". What does this mean? I can't make head nor tail of it. Specifically, what is "family doesnt named with the sp" supposed to communicate? --Stemonitis (talk) 12:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that in "modern" paleontology only a few newly named taxa described in their own families to avoid uncertainties in the future. Lycophocyon was tested in phylogenetic analysis and found to be basal form (like a vast amout of other taxa). Therefore, I think we should not mark everything that lacks family as a incertae sedis. Rnnsh (talk) 12:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phylogenetic position may inform taxonomic placement, but the two are not the same. Basal forms are also placed in families. I don't see any reason not to include the information, particularly as it is explicitly noted in the original description. Omitting the family merely makes the article look slapdash, because there will be conspicuous gaps in the hierarchy. Including the family but showing that it is uncertain clarifies that. I see no disadvantage to including it, and considerable advantage. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apparently missed the "n.b." label... I known that the two are not the same. My point is different: do you think we need to add the same line to the box of Appalachiosaurus or Bistahieversor, for example? Rnnsh (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In short, yes. Major ranks should, in my opinion, always be included, even if placement is uncertain. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 2011

[edit]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. mgiganteus1 (talk) 21:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Due to their editing history, some pages can only be moved by an admin. You can request the Pliosaur-->Pliosauroidea move at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Current requests. Cheers, mgiganteus1 (talk) 07:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol survey

[edit]

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Rnnsh! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only. 
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Ziphosuchia

[edit]

Hello! I just noticed you made the automatic taxonomy for Ziphosuchia. Notosuchia is a clade within Ziphosuchia, so most of the notosuchians should have their parent taxon as Notosuchia, not Ziphosuchia, while Ziphosuchia should be the parent taxon of Notosuchia. Just a heads up, since it looks like you spent awhile changing all the notosuchian's taxonomies to have Ziphosuchia as their parent taxon. Smokeybjb (talk) 18:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, what am I saying? I meant Ziphosuchia is a clade within Notosuchia, but not all notosuchians are ziphosuchians. But now I see you didn't do that. All these new studies can get confusing. Never mind me! Smokeybjb (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about this, but one more thing :)... Sebecosuchia isn't used very often anymore, since sebecids and baurusuchids are rarely grouped together to the exclusion of other notosuchians. Sebecia seems to be more commonly used. Maybe we should scrap Sebecosuchia from the taxonomy, or in other words, not give it any child taxa to show that it isn't really a valid grouping. There's a good overview here. Then again, Turner and Sertich (2010) recently supported Sebecosuchia (see here), so maybe we should just keep the taxonomy as it is and wait for a future study to clear things up. Smokeybjb (talk) 19:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clearing that up. I don't have access to the Caipirasuchus paper, so I might not be up-to-date with notosuchian phylogeny right now. Maybe you could put a cladogram from the paper in one of the Wiki articles? Smokeybjb (talk) 19:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice! Smokeybjb (talk) 19:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tokosaurids

[edit]

I just reverted your edit over at Reptiliomorpha. If you have some newer sources confirming Tokosaurus fall on the amniote side of the divide (I'm relying on Carroll and Benton here), feel free to ad it there. These critters are a bugbear to keep track of. Petter Bøckman (talk) 22:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will add the refs a.s.a.p. (currently I'm editting from my laptop which is quit hard)... Rnnsh (talk) 04:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bonapartenykus?

[edit]

Seriously? --Shirt58 (talk) 06:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

click here Rnnsh (talk) 06:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That name, and the whole Alvarezsauridae angle! All the makings of a great news story very soon for the Science journalist that comes across it first. --Shirt58 (talk) 07:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC) ps: click here[reply]

Taxoboxes and other cleanup

[edit]

On 16 January, you created a number of taxonomic articles without taxoboxes (Albertwoodemys‎–Protoxinjiangchelys‎), often with the edit summary "more to come". Those articles were quickly tagged as needing taxoboxes, as well as needing other work (references, categories, etc.) Then, yesterday, you created another group of similarly incomplete sub-stubs, without taxoboxes, and needing other work (Tassiliodus‎–Oklatheridium‎). It seems unfair to expect others to put time and effort into cleaning up after you, so perhaps it would be better if you returned to some of those articles and worked on fixing the problems, rather than creating more problems and leaving them for other people to fix. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will fix them, but I can do it only at weekends (I'll try to start or/and finish it tomorrow, or today after work) Rnnsh (talk) 13:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A place to look for which ones to work on is the category Category:Missing taxobox. This is populated by the {{missingtaxobox}} template. Most (but by no means all) of the articles currently in that category were created by you. Thank you for this cleanup effort.
As just a side note, I personally know little of biological classification. I actually came across the ones I have tagged because they were popping up on the Short Pages reports, which I regularly patrol. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aetosaurs

[edit]

Hello again! I just noticed that you've included the cladogram of the Aetobarbakinoides paper in several articles, so I assume you have access to the whole paper. Unfortunately I don't have access (bummer...). Anyway I was wondering, since Typothoracisinae is now outside Aetosaurinae and is instead the sister taxon of Desmatosuchinae, do Desojo et al. now consider it a subfamily? I know it's sort of implied by the -inae suffix, but if Desojo et al. don't call Typothoracisinae a subfamily, we probably shouldn't rank it as a subfamily in the automatic taxonomy. Smokeybjb (talk) 04:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I'd think if Typothoracisinae was orignially designated as a subfamily, but Parker (2007) never calls it a subfamily. In fact, he placed Typothoracisinae within Aetosaurinae, which is why this taxonomy can get confusing. The only reason I can think of for why there's an -inae suffix is that Parker found more support for Typothoracisinae than Aetosaurinae in his analysis. If this is put into Linnean terms it would be like saying Typothoracisinae is the subfamily and Aetosaurinae is a level above the subfamily, but of course this is never stated in any study. If there's no mention of Typothoracisnae as a subfamily, I still don't think we should call it a subfamily. Smokeybjb (talk) 15:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Paleontology articles

[edit]
The Fauna Barnstar
Thanks for your recent contributions in creating new Paleontology-related articles. Your efforts to expand Wikipedia's coverage of these topics is greatly appreciated. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barlabel

[edit]

Do you mean the Anthracosauria label? It's not centered on the bracket, but everything else looks fine to me. I'm not sure if we're seeing different things on different browsers. I'm trying to do the same on the lepospondyl page, and it's a mess! Smokeybjb (talk) 18:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Croc templates, lists, categories

[edit]

All your ideas sound good:

  • Mesoeucrocodylia template: I agree this template isn't ideal, but it probably shouldn't be redirected to Template:Basal crocodylomorphs because it covers different taxa. We could propose it for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion, or just replace it with a more specific template in each article where it now appears. In any case, I think Template: Neosuchia should be created.
  • Notosuchia list: I made the Notosuchia table with only the traditional smallish notosuchians like Notosuchus in mind, but maybe it would just be good to get rid of it entirely. Template: Notosuchia does the job, although it's at the bottom of the article.
  • Terrestrial and marine crocodiles: A rename would be good, how about Category: Terrestrial crocodylomorphs and Category: Marine crocodylomorphs? I think a rename needs to be proposed first at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion.

Smokeybjb (talk) 02:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category: Marine crocodiles was probably intended for truly marine/coastal crocodylomorphs like thalattosuchians, dyrosaurids, and gryposuchines. The freshwater forms must have been added mistakenly, but if we include them in Category: Aquatic crocodylomorphs, we would also have to include nearly all of the more recent crocodylians, and it might get bulky. I think marine crocodylomorphs should still have their own category, but maybe a category for freshwater crocodylomorphs could also be created. Smokeybjb (talk) 15:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I proposed Category:Terrestrial crocodiles and Category:Marine crocodiles for renaming here. Smokeybjb (talk) 19:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Smokeybjb (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great! There's lots of information in Andrade et al. if this is true, and the information from Hulke's and Hooley's original papers would also be good (plus any old drawings of the specimens would be in the public domain by now, so they could be uploaded to Commons). I found abstracts of Hulke (1878) and Hooley (1907) here and here, but I don't have access to the full papers. Do you?
Also, great job with the Neosuchia template! Smokeybjb (talk) 21:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clades

[edit]

This came up at the Auto Taxobox talk page and there seemed to be consensus that we should simply use "clade". I agree it would be nice to list which definition we're using, but I'm not sure how that should be done. Hopefully, once PhyloCode goes into effect we won't need to worry about it since there will be only one correct definition for each clade. So maybe putting this on hold for now will actually save some time later on. MMartyniuk (talk) 15:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Microraptor(ians)

[edit]

I'd probably hold off on splitting out anything from Microraptor until somebody does an explicit examination. The newest Senter paper codes four "Micro" specimens separately, and Crypto doesn't clade with the rest, but that could be an artifact--the fact is there are probably either several species of Microraptor, or alternately people need to code better for ontogony--but somebody needs to actually study the possible species and ontogenetic differences first. I'm sure a paper studying Microraptor growth and diversity is upcoming (I hope so, such things are desperately needed when a "species" is known from hundreds of unpublished specimens). MMartyniuk (talk) 09:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio

[edit]

Hi Rnnsh,

It appears an article that you contributed significantly, Xenoceratops, may have been copied and pasted from the source material. Please see Talk:Xenoceratops#Significant_copy-paste_and_close_paraphrase. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Scolosaurus

[edit]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Rhachitomi

[edit]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here be dragons - or be there?

[edit]

I've declined your speedy request, but I've taken it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dracosuchus as I am not happy with the article. I don't find it blatant enough a hoax for speedy as such, and while an expert in the field might be able to judge vandalism, it's not obvious enough for most admins to agree or disagree. As you appear to have greater knowledge in the field, I'm hoping you'll give your reasons there. Peridon (talk) 17:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re:thanks

[edit]

You're welcome, I follow the paleontology pages here (and I translate someones). And I've thanked to Smokeybjb too. Greetings :).

Manda Beds

[edit]

The temnospondyl material has been referred to both Stanocephalosaurus and Eryosuchus, so it's probably best to attribute the specimens to an indeterminate capitosaur. I don't have access to Haughton (1932), but I think Stenaulorhynchus major might actually be known from only one specimen, the broken humerus (it might show up two times in the database because it has been mentioned two times, once in Haughton (1932) and again in Crompton (1955); both records are of the same locality). In this case Stenaulorhynchus major and Stagonosuchus nyassicus are definitely synonyms. Smokeybjb (talk) 17:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Stanocephalosaurus pronus holotype is the same as the Eryosuchus pronus holotype, which is from the Manda Beds. See this paper. In addition, Damiani (2001) referred several other specimens from the Manda Beds to E. pronus. S. tanganyikaensis could be added to the archosauromorph table, but I'm not sure if it should be labeled as a "reclassified taxon" shaded in red or a "dubious taxon" shaded in gray. Smokeybjb (talk) 20:26, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A little note on cites..

[edit]

I saw you made an edit over at the Teratophoneus article and reverted it because you removed the citation and replaced it with a cite tag. I'm sorry if this was an error on your end, but please be more careful and look at what you're editing before submitting the revision, as removing a cite and replacing it with a cite tag is kind of a bad idea, especially if that cite is a scientific paper, journal or another reliable source. Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 15:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced it with a template of the same citation, not a tag, so re-revert... See my the full replay at your talk page. Rnnsh (talk) 19:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Xinjiangtitan

[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Siats (dinosaur)

[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Europelta, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chevron (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, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Nankangia

[edit]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Europelta

[edit]

Gatoclass (talk) 20:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cladogram template on Tritylodontidae needs work

[edit]

Hi! I figured I should bring this issue to your attention since you made the relevant edit (it may have looked fine at the time; technical limits can change). GreenReaper (talk) 07:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seconding the call for action, especially since the error-containing cladogram also appears on Gomphodontia. In my opinion, it is needlessly complex to extend the trees to the level of genus in each case, and non-focal taxa should be trimmed to family level.--Animalparty-- (talk) 18:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice, and sorry for fixing it so late, I haven't logged in for awhile now. When I created that template it was fine and it didn't exceed 40 nested templates, so I can't understand what went wrong about it. It is so detailed to show both Gomphodontia and Tritylodontidae. The latter was considered to be a member of the former, so I think it is necessary to figure the entire tree... Rnnsh (talk) 12:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting Siats

[edit]

You are not the creator of Siats but just to tell you that a speedy deletion tag was on the page. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 14:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back!

[edit]

Welcome back! It's good to see someone creating those dinosaur articles within hours of their being named, instead of weeks!--MWAK (talk) 15:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It's good to be back for now.. And at least for a while I'll probably focus on non-dino articles that I missed, since most dino articles seem well cared for! Really enjoyed your recent articles and admire your consistency in editing :) Especially considering how the Nederlands version always exists hours (at least) before the English one! Rnnsh (talk) 19:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anguanax, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Oxfordian and Coronoid. 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) 09:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Albertonectes
added a link pointing to Capitulum
Vegasaurus
added a link pointing to Capitulum

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nundasuchus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pterygoid. 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) 11:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

[edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Allokotosauria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Disparity. 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) 09:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Spiclypeus, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Winifred and Nasal. 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) 11:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Medusaceratops, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hill County. 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) 09:27, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

[edit]

Hello, Rnnsh. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Taxonomy/Aristonectidae

[edit]

Template:Taxonomy/Aristonectidae has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page --Gonnym (talk) 15:57, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Pliosaurus andrewsi

[edit]

A tag has been placed on Pliosaurus andrewsi requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

to make way for draft article of same name

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Theroadislong (talk) 19:24, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rnnsh&oldid=1185912431"