/User talk:Apokryltaros Archive 1 /User talk:Apokryltaros Archive 2

While I don't question the need to update the image "I understood that the two turtles were separated by an ocean and the Neogene" is wrong. While Meiolania is primarily known from Pleistocene remains on Lord Howe and New Caledonia with a Miocene Australian species, It is well known in the literature that there is an undescribed Pleistocne species known from fragmentary remains found in queensland that was sympatric with Ninjemys, so you weren't wrong after all. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thought Ninjemys was from the Oligocene. It's from the Pleistocene? So it is from the Pleistocene. I need to get back to work on it!--Mr Fink (talk) 22:39, 26 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Page Patrol needs experienced volunteers

• New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
• If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions and review our instructions page. You can apply for the user-right HERE. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 22:36, 1 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are welcome.

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:03, 20 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you know if this IP who's insisting on IOC classifications is a long-time IP-only editor or a sockpuppet? I feel like I've seen this kind of combative behaviour before but I'm not sure. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could we find a way to get an admin to block this user? All they do is vandalise pages adding unsourced incorrect information. I have requested administrator intervention so hopefully they get blocked, but we'll have to see. Gilbert.JW (talk) 11:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We can make a request on the vandalism noticeboard.--Mr Fink (talk) 12:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good news. The user has been blocked for 1 week. Gilbert.JW (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Our friend Mr Caesar finds the heat to be oppressive and has fled the Loughmoe kitchen.--Quisqualis (talk) 04:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, my kingdom for a can of diatomaceous earth.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

)))

Dear Apokryltaros, the references in the infobox in Pineberry confirm the parents of this cultivar to be Fragaria virginiana and Fragaria chiloensis. Every hybrid with these two parents, and also their F2 and further generations, and possible back-crosses on one of the parents, is called Fragaria × ananassa, as ruled in Art. H.4.1 of the ICN. With the parents known, we do not need any extra reference to the effect that the 'Pineberry' is also a Fragaria × ananassa. You probably wouldn't find one because publishing such a statement would be redundant. With the parents known, the 'Pineberry' is definitely a Fragaria × ananassa, not just a Fragaria; the name should be given accordingly, and the link to the nothospecies to which it belongs should be to strawberry. 77.164.133.132 (talk) 10:44, 15 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Guess what--User:JuliusCaesar16 is Un-block JuliusCaesar16!, of course, but they're also User:17u9e. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should we undo 17u9e's contributions, too, as per WP:DENY, or leave it?--Mr Fink (talk) 02:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Apokryltaros, I received your notification noitifying me of a possible block for spamming of pages as I was adding images to some articles for the WPWP contest. Thanks for calling my attention as I didn't realise that. While I reflect on my possible wrongdoing, I assume it's because I was adding images to articles which are readily rich in image and thus make my image unnecessary. Please note that though I was doing all these for motives relating to the contest, I equally have the motive of improving Wikipedia in mind and I was doing that in good faith, which is why I took it upon myself to always check through first to verify whether the new image am bringing is already present and then determine a suitable spot to place it according to my discretion. In fact, there are many instances of images which I did not add to articles as I felt not appropriate. I as much care about those articles and I don't want to be responsible for vandalizing them, I only thought having more illustrative images will do good for adding those seemingly unnecessary images.

I appreciate your notice and will most appreciate if you might help me with a guidance/advice for making future edits and adding images. I will suspend any further edits till I have a clear insight to adding the images to articles. Thanks. Osenibabalola0 (talk) 03:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again, please ignore the warnings I gave you, and please feel free to revert my reversions of your edits. I did those under the mistaken impression that the contest was not allowed. Feel free to ask anything.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your response and the encouraging replies. And I as well appreciate your mention of the flaws of the other editors in the same offsite contest as mine. Actually, the contest is one organized for members of the Wikimedia Club of my school. I will definitely call the attention of the of the organizers to this issue in order that they may call other editors to order. Thanks once again and for your interest in improving Wikipedia. But before I leave, do you think I may continue with the way I was adding the pictures? Osenibabalola0 (talk) 13:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You should continue on. Take care to make sure that, if you are uploading the pictures yourself, that you have or have met the necessary copyright requirements or permissions. Some of the other contestants were not doing that.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello A. Logan241293 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) only has two edits. The first one intimates a sock account and the second was to remove that huge section of the article. Since I don't see one vandal type edit that added the info in the first place I wanted to double check to make sure that you think it doesn't belong in the article. I see that it isn't sourced but I still wanted to make sure of the situation with you. Regards. MarnetteD|Talk 21:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oops I missed this ips 2409:4072:6D9C:A942:48DF:F909:301A:CC9E (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edit so now I know why you removed it. Sorry for the error. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 21:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I undid the editor's first edit under the assumption he was a sock puppet or evading a block, and restored his 2nd edit because it turned out he was undoing a big vandalism.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for understanding ! Cheers Logan241293 (talk) 08:39, 22 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you have an interest in the Hanging Gardens of Babylon page, you might like to participate in the discussions going on its talk page at the moment. No obligation, but I see you've made one or more recent edits. The Parson's Cat (talk) 09:49, 26 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The synonymy is made by Cidade (2019), but I want to know if it may or may not be 100% sure — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 13:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wouldn't know, I would need to read Cidade (2019), first.--Mr Fink (talk) 13:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is it 100%sure? did you read Cidade (2019)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 20:41, 1 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What part of my statement of "I have not read Cidade's paper yet" can you not bother to understand?--Mr Fink (talk) 20:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The paper is ≥here, Cidade also made Balanerodus as a nomen dubium. One thing is i cannot get access to this paper, you probably can get it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 01:36, 2 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Haven't you read it yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 11:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Huinculsaurus:, please understand that I have a busy life outside of Wikipedia, with many things in addition to prehistoric animal restorations to draw, and other tasks to complete, and please understand that I don't appreciate being nagged to do something I have not yet committed to do yet.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You may already know this, but they're operating from a 32 CIDR range, which is unfortunately too large (4+ billion) to block, but that range link is at least useful for quickly detecting them. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I understand. But at least it's a fun but tedious game of whackamole.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IP adress 51.171.113.150 is ignoring your warnings about adding unsourced material to Wikipedia.

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]

It's a 14 or 15 year old rumor that gets brought up once in a blue moon, that the Punisher made a cameo appearance in the Spider-Man 2 film, but the only thing it's being based on is that the guy somewhat looks like Thomas Jane (opinion) and is wearing all black... that's it. It's never been proven from anyone, no "quotes" or statements, they claim it's from a Wizard Magazine and the audio commentary from Spider-Man 2, but after 14 or 15 years, you would think we would know that by now. Story wise it makes no sense, also, Sony didn't own the rights to use the character, they would have gotten sued by Lionsgate, there was no MCU at the time. The so-called sources are conveniently very vague with no actual statements or quotes from anyone making that claim. First it was Thomas Jane who made that cameo, now it's his stunt double... they can't make up their minds on this.108.208.137.67 (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I reported them to the AIV.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:32, 1 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Haven't you heard about this Eocene rattail? I saw this on Fishtreeoflife. I also wonder if it is an otolith species because I saw the fossils list there were no otolith based species — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 14:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

According to this paper, N. lindsayi is an early Paleocene species known from otoliths.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also about Gephyroberyx robustus and Istiophorus calvertensis, I see papers of them being referred too extant species, are they 100% synonyms? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 08:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It hasn't been mentioned in the review of fossil labridae (Bellwood et al, 2019),what do you think about this genus? why isn't it mentioned in the review? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 08:24, 6 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was removed from this list because it there are no synapomorphies that allows to place it among extant taxa so it is excluded, doesn't mean its dubious though? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 13:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's what the paper is implying, apparently.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:28, 6 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

what would the adult form of this larval surgeonfish like? like today's relatives and Eonaso and Arambourgthurus and Marosichhtys?

I'm sorry, but I don't do requests for free drawings about original research anymore ever since the last person I drew free art for their Wikipedia articles thanked me by totally ignoring what I did for one article, angrily whine at me about how I didn't make the other picture "bigger than Megalodon" despite my following the paper's description to the letter, and then nag me for months on end that I draw him a "Miocene coelacanth" for his pet science project article.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

see here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 04:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eochanna is known from from jaw fragment from E Eocene , Anchichanna is known from a skull fragment from E-M Eocene boundary. In 2008, Murray and Thewissen cannot determine whether they are the same or not.

In a 2019 paper says: We recognize †Parachanna fayumensis as the oldest reliable channid fossil and argue that the three oldest so‐called channid fossils (i.e., †Eochanna chlorakkiensis, †Anchichanna kuldanensis, and †Ophiocephalus lydekkeri) lack clear diagnostic features that would allow them to be unequivocally placed within Channidae.

What's your opinion, are they still putative channids to you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 03:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If the current specimens of them don't have any reliable channid-specific features, then we should follow what the 2019 paper says.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then if you want to reconstruct them can you describe them as potential channids ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 09:20, 21 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Better reconstruct them with Drazinderetes... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 09:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's called Engdahlichthys milviaegis, but I cannot get access to this paper, maybe you can. So can you draw an illustration of this Paleocene sturgeon and the paddlefish Polyodon tuberculata please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 11:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@@Huinculsaurus:, no offense intended, and I know you mean well, but I have not been motivated to do free requests, even to help Wikipedia, ever since this one Wikipedian repaid me by angrily scolding and whining about how I didn't make his shark big as Megalodon, then bothered me for months to draw him a "Miocene coelacanth."--Mr Fink (talk) 13:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. As Ivantsov said, the resemblance of Keretsa with proarticulatas (like Spriggina and Cyanorus) is very strong to not consider this hypothesis. "The pleural parts of arthropod segmentscan be preserved by a similar way, in a form ofechelons with a sharp posterior margin. In thesame time the isomers (“half-segments”) of the Proarticulata, a well-known group of Vendianmacroorganisms, also look similarly". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.69.136.168 (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I made a compromise by quoting Ivantsov where he mentions the possible proarticulatan affinities.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wasn't necessary, but Ok. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.69.136.168 (talk) 15:29, 21 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your help with the feline vandalism is appreciated. Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:48, 22 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My pleasure. And now that the page has been semi-protected, the vandalism campaign will hopefully ease up a bit.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Up until now, fossil greenlings were known onlyfrom the late Miocene deposits of Southern California.Jordan and Gilbert (1919) described Achrestogrammusachrestus , Zemiagrammus isistius , and Ophiodon ozi-mandias . Later, Jordan (1925) included Z. isistius in thesynonymy of fossil species Araeosteus rothi describedby him within the family Zaproridae, and tranfered it intothe family Hexagrammidae. In her revision of fossilfishes of California, David (1943), describing A. ach-restus , noted a poor condition of its imprints and theirpossible affinity to the family Cottidae. Judging fromthe original descriptions, this is not correct. She con-cluded in her work that Jordan’s original opinion on thesystematic position of A. rothi is correct, and returnedthis species to Zaproridae. She did not mention O. ozimandias in her monograph. Judging from thepublished descriptions (Jordan and Gilbert, 1920; Jor-dan, 1921), material on this species is of unsatisfactoryquality and, most likely, it does not belong toHexagrammidae. Thus, until now, only one member ofHexagrammidae, A. achrestus , is known.

That's from the Paraophiodon paper in 1997, you can see this, this, although the book do call Ophiodon ozymandias as Ophidion ozymandias.

So what to do with O.ozymandias page? what's your opinion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 10:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would leave it alone until more papers studying O. ozymandias and verifying or refuting its current placement are put out.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trying to standardize the introduction between different handfish species pages. Can we work on a preferred format? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iismitch55 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've heard about Lutianus hagari, but the correct spelling should be Lutjanus not Lutianus.

See here, it's made as a synonym of a unnamed species of Scorpaena.

Should i refute what the paper says? or we should retain it as Lutjanus?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs)

If the paper says it's a misspelling, then it's misspelled and should be corrected as such.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But the review also says it's sunk within an unnamed species of Scorpaena, is it true? or we should treat this species like Ophiodon ozymandias?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs)

According to this, it is a synonym of Lutjanus fulviflamma.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:06, 22 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00114-016-1336-5?shared-article-renderer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs)

First off, @Huinculsaurus:, can you please be assed to sign your own messages for a start?--Mr Fink (talk) 13:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Second, the paper says that Chamaeleo caroliquarti is the oldest chameleon known in Miocene/Neogene Europe.--Mr Fink (talk) 13:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Prehistoric animals of China has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Apokryltaros do you know when materialscientist will check his talk page. As well as this, I recently added another source to this page, can you check if i did it right? 82.3.185.12 (talk) 14:47, 18 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know the schedule in which @Materialscientist: checks their talkpage. From what I can tell, your newer edits are fine.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:50, 18 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Bony fish incertae sedis requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/41148758#page/117/mode/1up

Litoria magna is a extinct tree frog from Riversleigh, but I have some problems about this genus. Litoria is revealed as a paraphylletic genus with all the big former species transferred to Ranoidea and two in Nyctimystes. The paper says the genus is bigger than any species of Litoria, and only former species of Litoria is mentioned.So I wonder if I create this page should i name it Ranoidea magna or Nyctimystes magna rather than Litoria? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 07:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unless we can find a paper that specifically states Litoria magna as having been transferred to either Ranoidea or Nyctimystes, we have to leave it in Litoria.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Salmo australis is described from Pleistocene from Southwestern Mexico, but the genus Salmo is absent from Mexico and only Oncorhynchus salmons found in Mexico, so I wonder if I create this page can I name it Oncorhynchus australis rather than Salmo australis?

There are fossil tree frog species referred to Hyla but now the genus is absent from the Americas and now either Dryophytes or Pseudacris. There are three species (miocenica from Texas,baderi and goini from Florida) known from fossil record. So my opinion is that the species from Florida should be moved to Dryophytes (even if AmphibiaWeb is still treating most of the North American species in Hyla)

Tupinambis uruguaianensis is found in Rio Grande do Sul, but in the Callopistes rionegrensis paper says that the species should be allocated to Dracaena but the paper's phylogeny do not put a bracket for T. uruguaianensis. There are Tupinambis species found in nearby Sao Paulo.

Morone ionkoi from Miocene Moldova is classified in the subgenus Dicentrarchus, but Dicentrarchus is classified as a full genus so can I say it Dicentrarchus ionkoi? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 06:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Salmo australis is synonymized as Oncorhynchus australis by the time this paper was published. As for the others, try searching for them in scholar.google.com, with the binomial in parenthesis. If nothing turns up, then my advice would be to keep their names as they were originally described, as it would otherwise be WP:Original Research. If, later, it turns out that they've been synonymized, we can just move the page to the new name.--Mr Fink (talk) 07:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Continue with the amphibian problem: Litoria magna is known from Miocene Australia and it's bigger than any recent Litoria but that genus now only contains small genus but AmphibiaWeb is still regarding the traditional Litoria phylogeny as the same as Hyla, they are still regarding some of the American tree frogs within Hyla — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 02:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's like I said earlier, that you apparently didn't read, or I didn't make clear enough, until someone officially moves Litoria magna out of Litoria, we can not change its name as per WP:Original Research.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The grebe Podilymbus wetmorei is known from the Pleistocene but it has been synonymized with P. podiceps so I wonder if the synonymy is 100%? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 12:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If it's been synonymized, then it's been synonymized. You do know how to search through google or scholar.google right?--Mr Fink (talk) 14:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There has been phylogenetic analyses that says the B. bertae should not belong to Balaenoptera but this is only said in Michaelangelo Bisconti's papers. So I wonder if we still can have the page titled Balaenoptera bertae? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 07:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Until Bisconti or someone else actually moves B. bertae out of Balaenoptera, the most we can do in Wikipedia is mention that Bisconti says it shouldn't be in Balaenoptera.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It has been said that this species gone extinct in 1827, but that wasn't 100% sure, and the page doesn't even has a extinct date being put. So I wonder it may be a subfossil species. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 14:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[4]--Mr Fink (talk) 15:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know the specimens I wonder are those subfossil remains? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 02:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The subfossils are from earlier in the Holocene. It's been declared extinct as of 1996.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So I wonder if it is a species only known from subfossils — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 12:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The fact that the type specimens are two dead skinks in formaldehyde demonstrates your claim of them known only from subfossils to be false.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I heard someone say that Euleiognathus, Ikiculter, Coreoperca maruoi, Genypterus valdesensis, Abruzzoichthys, and Aethesia wasn't mentioned in the page xxx in paleontology because they are not registered by ICZN but I found subsequent papers mentioning them (those include papers by other authors), and there is a page called Aethesia. So what's your opinion, in my opinion it's safe that I create pages like Abruzzoichthys and Ikiculter. And I saw illustrations of them made by you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 02:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The ICZN is not complete, and sure, WP:Be Bold, create those pages. The very worst that can happen is that they'll be deleted and remade later.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I guess I didn't think it was a grievous error. Your change looks better, but it didn't look grievously bad. Invasive Spices (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I refer to it as "grievious," in the taxobox, short description and italic title templates all go at the top of the article's html stuff, and that having them below the lede is like having the title page and contents of the book after chapter one.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:49, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

thanks for reverting the sock edits, but the additions were referenced, so i added them back, feel free to check them in case theres any errors. Mariothecoolpumbler (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The species Sarda stockii is known from California. The page Sarda chilensis says it's a synonym as well as a 1975 book I found in Google Books. But several later studies indicates that it's a distinct prehistoric species including the descriptions of Scomber gnarus and here. So by your opinion if it's ok to leave it as a distinct species? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 03:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would leave it as a distinct species, as no one apparently took the synonymization seriously.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Insect incertae sedis has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I’m always amazed at how nearly every placoderm ever described has been illustrated by you. I can’t imagine how long that must have taken! Your wonderfully colorful artwork is actually what got me into drawing these fish and also what ultimately drove me to become a Wikipedian. Thanks for being such a wonderful member of the paleoart community for so long! :) Entelognathus (talk) 04:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you very much for such generously kind words, it's much appreciated. I guess I should stop dragging my feet and get to work on an article for the newly described freshwater selenosteid Bulongosteus, then.--Mr Fink (talk) 13:19, 15 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know you and I probably disagree, but I'm glad you reverted me and did so professionally.--Phil of rel (talk) 02:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your understanding. It is greatly appreciated.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Any of this any use? https://fist.toolforge.org/wd4wp/#/enwiki/20/23038290image

I'm struggling with latin etc. RogerNiceEyes (talk) 16:18, 24 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know how to use that tool, sorry.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Any particular reason why you reverted me on Spix's macaw? Just curious. Ddum5347 (talk) 01:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My apologies, force of habit from having to revert well-meaning, but misinformed edits coming to say *every* blue macaw is extinct or some other (insert conservation status here) solely because they read some buzzfeed mirror.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I found it weird seeing you in the Cnidaria talk page as "Mr. Fink" because ... that's my actual legal name. IAmNitpicking (talk) 02:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's also my legal name, too: I put it as my signature because I got sick and tired of people not being able to copy and paste "Apokryltaros" in replying on talkpages.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:52, 26 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! I recently got a new fossil in my collection of the lower Devonian osteostracan Wladysagitta, and I noticed there's no article for it on here, so I cranked out a draft. I've never created an article myself before and I'm not entirely certain I did everything right, so I'd really appreciate if you could look over it real quick and see if everything is in order. Here's the link to it. Thanks so much for your help! :) Entelognathus (talk) 17:32, 1 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What you have so far is great. I dare say it's ready to be promoted to full article.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:59, 1 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bagarius gigas (Gunther) is described from Indonesia the fossil age is interpreted as Eocene but later doubted, thisLook at this, suggests that B. gigas is a Pleistocene species but the study isn't included in the 2020 in paleoichthyology page and it doesn't say much about Bagarius gigas but they gave an fossil image for us.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs)

It's a part of the Sipang fauna, originally thought to be "Eocene," but maybe Miocene or Pleistocene-aged due to the species being very similar to modern fishes.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:21, 13 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just wanted to say your art is gorgeous and it does a great job of brightening up wikipedia pages. Firewing The Wyvern (talk) 18:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you very much for the kind words!--Mr Fink (talk) 19:24, 10 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In Elephas beyeri, I edited the redirection of elephas namadicus towards the genus Elephas as Elephas namadicus has no real page. You could see here in this paper that both animals were excavated in the Namarda alluvial deposits hence their names. The Elephas and Palaeoloxodon connection of being a subgenus of another was changed back in 2007 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2007.02.003. It is erroneous to redirect Elephas namadicus to a different elephantid altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artemesiagentile (talk • contribs) 17:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Artemesiagentile:, except that, as according to all of the refs in Palaeoloxodon namadicus, most authorities still treat it as a species of Palaeoloxodon.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see, thanks for making that clear. I just see this confusing as I have been reading recent papers and that they still cite E. namadicus instead of P. namadicus (see https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2012.02.025). Also, the National Museum of the Philippines itself refers E. namadicus as E. namadicus while also citing a possible presence of a Palaeoloxodon sp. during the Pleistocene. Artemesiagentile (talk) 18:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Apokryltaros.

I am the Wikipedia user formerly known as "Carcharodontosaurid" and "AllosaurusfragilisEntertainment".I have made Wikipedia articles regarding Paleontological subjects since 3 years now. I have also edited and added some information on both my country's wikipedia (Germany) and the English one to this day. After a lot of time, my articles got better, because I listened to advice from my colleagues many times and also tried to get better when working with scientific papers. However, approximately 3 months ago,some people discussed about me on German Wikipedia, because some of the articles weren't good. During that discussion, I released another article, not knowing that this must not be done during such a discussion. As a result, an administrator blocked me from doing any more articles or edits, because I did " a lot of inadequate articles not suitable for Wikipedia" and because I was " absolutely resistent to advice". Later, another administrator has told me that my account can possibly be unlocked or that my locking could get changed if the article drafts I do show signs of improvement. As of now, this is the case. There were wikipedia users from my country who pointed out that my drafts show some improvements. However, my account has not been unlocked yet despite the administrator I have talked to saying so. I really don't know what to do. That's why I am asking you for advice. I also have never been in a situation like this before and I'm not aware of what I can do on Wikipedia in general in such a case. I have done what was required for my account to get unlocked as told by the german admin, yet nothing has changed as of now. No one on the german Wikipedia has done anything, not even the Support for the german Wikipedia. Can I do anything to really get unlocked now? Can I receive some help since I did what I was asked to do for my account to get unlocked but were not unblocked? --ImperatorAllosaurus1997 (talk) 23:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do not know what to do, as I am not an administrator. The most I can recommend would be to ask an administrator, such as, for example, NinjaRobotPirate (talk · contribs)--Mr Fink (talk) 23:24, 17 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is at German Wikipedia, right? Sorry, I don't think I know any of the German Wikipedia admins. But, generally, someone has to actively request a review of the situation before there's a review, and each project does things differently. On English Wikipedia, you'd make an unblock request. Try doing that on German Wikipedia, and tell them what you said here. But make sure you look at the instructions first. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your advice. I have been looking up unblock requests now. If you mean Wikipedia:Appealing a block, I have already tried that some times, but nothing changed. I have done everything I could, but the administrators haven't unblocked me. No one on the german Wikipedia has helped me as of now. That's why I was asking you. If no one from the German Wikipedia project will help me, how can this problem be solved? Can I contact someone else? I have done what the administrators wanted- I improved my article drafts. They told me that my account could get unlocked or that my lock can be changed if my article drafts improve. That is what happened now. However, despite this, my account being unlocked is nowhere in sight. I have done what I was asked for, but I didn't receive my account being unlocked for that yet as I was told. When I asked the administrator who told me that, she didn't reply to me in days. I have tried everything on the German Wikipedia, but no one has helped me. This is a special situation and I need some help. If no one from my wiki is unlocking my account despite me having done what I was asked for, can I contact someone more powerful on Wikipedia in general to help me out? --ImperatorAllosaurus1997 (talk) 22:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This might just be a quirk of the citation, but the sole source for the Aethaspis article now redirects to a paper on Yujiangolepis; the title is the same, just the generic name is different. I can't make heads nor tails of this; is this implying Aethaspis is a synonym for Yujiangolepis? Do you know what the deal with this is? Entelognathus (talk) 19:33, 9 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure, but I do know that it and the title of this mysteriously redirected mystery paper has it misspelled as "Aethapsis"--Mr Fink (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In my edits im trying to state that the dingo has replaced Thylacoleo, I'm just saying that it is the only terrestrial apex predator left in Australia. It's the same niche. 192.236.64.165 (talk) 18:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What you are trying to do is WP:SYNTHESIS.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chinlechelys' study in this year is cool, but in a 2017 review by Joyce places the taxa as a synonym. The authors of the Chinlechelys this year retains the taxa as distinct. But there are some questions I had about synonyms:

Guarinisuchus is made as a synonym by Jouve in 2019 and 2020, but other authors did not support this , such as the Brachiosuchus paper this year. Although it has been mentioned by the same authors twice but I can say it's not a definite synonym.

Berruchelus was placed into Compsemys by Joyce (2019)'s review, I saw many of the fossil turtle reviews by Joyce and Vlachos placing Notoemys again in Caribemys and some taxa such as Rhinoclemmys nicoyana, Emydoidea hutchisoni, Trachemys inflata and Pseudemys hibbardi to be nomen dubium, although the diagnostic traits is published in their original papers. A user merged Berruchelus and Caribemys. I think I cannot surely believe those reviews so I can say that Caribemys and Berruchelus is not definite synonyms although Joyce puts Berruchelus into Compsemys twice, as well as I can split back those pages. And I can also say that the above Emydidae taxa that is disputed by Vlachos' reviews is not sure, that we can still say that the above taxa is valid for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 04:55, 8 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would probably recommend splitting the pages back. Perhaps ask FunkMonk for additional advice before doing that, though.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:06, 8 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it's time to take this guy to ANI. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Given his blatant uncivility, adherence to WP:ICANTHEARYOU while misusing the talkpage, I've already reported him here--Mr Fink (talk) 05:17, 27 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Selenosteidae has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The page of Amsterdam wigeon in Wikipedia is classified as Mareca marecula, this was done on IOC bird list's taxonomic updates on following Gonzalez's study of ducks classifying Anas as paraphyletic, with the wigeons classified in Mareca along with the Amsterdam wigeon on the bird list. But IOC transferred the genus without a study, and Wikipedia bird taxonomy on birds listed on IOC always updates with taxonomic updates, and we cannot say no to IOC because IOC is the boss.

Wikipedia's page Aratinga vorohuensis is originally named as Nandayus vorohuensis, but the page was moved to Aratinga vorohuensis without a study too. The reason why the movement was made is because Nandayus is found to be a synonym of Aratinga, although there are some papers after the study of Nandayus being found as a synonym still classifying Nandayus as distinct. If we change the page again the taxonomy will be a mess again.

I think the Armbruster's wolf (Canis armbrusteri) should be changed to Aenocyon armbrusteri in the page because so far I only know Canis armbrusteri is the ancestor of the dire wolf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 13:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Armbruster's wolf sees more traffic than that Aratinga article, I would either wait, or ask for a consensus at the article's talkpage, first.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:19, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am still weird of why some ornithologist in the 2010s and the 2020s still classifying Nandayus as distinct and still considering Grus as Monophyletic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 23:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello sir. I'm not sure you remember me, but I'm rulerofprehistory on deviantart. I came to apologize for what happened a few years back, and as well as for your forgiveness and to unblock me if you can. I was hesitant to write this message for a while, given that I was anxious and fearful that you might misinterpret my actions. But I thought it might be alright to ask you anyway.

I don't even remember why you blocked me, though I assume it was from the questions I asked, which were about proposing some species you could draw, though I probably phrased it by asking hesitantly a couple times. I just hope you know where I'm coming from. Getting blocked by a celebrity was never something I ever intended to do in my life. So if you can, could you please unblock me? Don't worry, I won't message you, and I'll give you space. Believe me when I say that I feel pretty bad about pushing you. Firekong1 (talk) 03:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since you asked and apologized, I'll unblock you as per your request.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you sir. By the way, have you ever taken suggestions for species to draw? If not, that's fine. Firekong1 (talk) 11:44, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have, but, I've not been in the mood to accept suggestions since the last recipient repaid me by scolding and whining about how I didn't make Alopias grandis big as Megalodon despite following the paper's parameters to the letter, and then followed that up with constant badgering to have me illustrate his original research project for free.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Understandable. I hope I didn't sound annoying. If you ever need suggestions, feel free to contact me if you'd like. There are thousands of pages here that could use your illustrations. Firekong1 (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Congratulations! You have earned a kitten! You have earned this kitten because you're a very good person! Make sure to take care of it!

MasterWolf0928-Æthelwulf (talk) 13:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Heard about Tusoteuthis being a nomen dubium, so I am interested to learn more about it.

A post on Deviantart cited this regarding Tusoteuthis as a nomen dubium. Because I cannot get access to the full paper so I it is pretty interesting to know how the paper regards it and more… — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 05:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tusoteuthis is not a nomen dubium, T. cobbani was moved to Enchoteuthis--Mr Fink (talk) 05:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For your efforts in handling vandalism... Keep it going! Volten001 ☎ 21:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did notice the latest change of the page Carcharodontosaurus and Jobaria by an anonymous user, but all he done is to misplace the age to the age not supported by any recent scientifc study.

When someone warns him about wrecking pages, all he replied has no shame. We have to be more discreet with vandalism and assertions like what I said about Tusoteuthis being invalid by enthusiasts only. Huinculsaurus (talk) 03:35, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Revert, warn, block and observe if different IPs have the same editing habits to see if we're dealing with long-term-abuse IP-hoppers.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:50, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've seen your message to me on an IP talk page beginning "Unfortunately, I know from personal experience that the Megafauna Man Vandal doesn't not read any messages..." That is exactly what I thought, but it seemI might as well post my message anyway, on the extremely remote chance they might see it. JBW (talk) 21:01, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry to bother, could you edit the Siberian Tiger page with it's population status? I know it's not classified as a Distinct subspecies anymore, but it's population status is still present on the IUCN page ^[1] here's the source and the page. I'm not able to edit since the page is blocked. 195.120.173.18 (talk) 20:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You appear to have already done a good job with that as is, in my opinion.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Apokryltaros - I am passing along a request for interview from an author working on a book about Wikipedia. Would you be able to email me with a contact email?

Themarblemiracle (talk) 23:04, 24 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure, then. Who's the author? Mr Fink (talk) 23:42, 24 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, @Ta-tea-two-te-to has notified me yesterday on Discord about an uploader of mainly Precambrian images on the Commons, @Rugoconites Tenuirugosus, posting several images not respecting the appropriate licenses. Among them seems to be several examples of your work on DeviantArt, so we've estimated better to contact you first before starting their own deletion. Here is the upload page [5], and here's the deletion request [6], although some of them might be cropped from other images published here. Larrayal (talk) 11:42, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Happy New Year!

Apokryltaros,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 17:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding ((subst:Happy New Year fireworks)) to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 17:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to improve the wikipedia article about roasted dinosaurs? Primitive feather types Dinomarek (talk) 14:50, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So close to haiku, maybe Senryū?

Improve the article

roasted dinosaurs?

Primitive feather types

Love it! Sam Kuru (talk) 01:24, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Earlier today I partook in discussion and suggested to not call Taiwan as a country but instead as a partially recognised sovereign state, which the same term given to Pallestine in Wikipedia. Yet you constantly remove my entire argument [7]. What is your reasoning for that? It's not like anything I wrote, was wrong. I even supported my statements with sources and don't believe veteran editors have the right to undo other people's edits on Talk. Tudor89manners (talk) 05:24, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For starters, the boiler plate at the top of the talkpage clearly states that Taiwan is to be referred to as a "country" as per consensus, AND to search through the talkpage's archives to make sure you're not repeating someone else's argument that failed to gain consensus. Furthermore, it's spelled "Palestine," and your accusations of Wikipedia being politically biased aren't going to help you with gaining consensus. That, and other editors are free to revert other people's edits on talkpages as per WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:NOTSOAPBOX.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:43, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will read those rules first to check on that. Nonetheless I see others also saying not to call Taiwan as a country and their arguments are not reverted. And if nobody can question consensus within reason, then wikipedia is prone to lean towards whatever a handful of editors decide. I understand wikipedia is not a perfect site and why it shouldn't be used as a professional source. But it should be able to have pathways to question consensus especially when it conflicts with a lot of hard facts. [8]Tudor89manners (talk) 06:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Precious

Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:51, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I doubt anyone's going to see it, and I'm not sure it's overt enough to qualify. But, yeah, I did a range block that should stop the disruption. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That works, too. Thank you.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Apokryltaros Have you ever been uploaded "Gods and Heroes: Mythology Around the World" book by Korwin Briggs published by Workman Publishing to Internet Archive (archive.org)? Yuliadhi (talk) 00:04, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, mostly because I don't know how to upload to the Internet Archive. Have you tried making a formal request at WikiProject_Resource_Exchange? Mr Fink (talk) 01:52, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why would you include Valentine I know it's a slasher film but still it's terrible. 2600:387:F:6632:0:0:0:6 (talk) 15:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Matters of personal taste are irrelevant, as per WP:Original Research, unless you have reliable sources that would disqualify it on those grounds.Mr Fink (talk) 15:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know many years ago that you made a reconstruction of Squaloraja that you never uploaded to Wikipedia. I recently came across a paper describing Squaloraja, which included a life restoration. [9]. I have to say, I am impressed with how close your reconstruction is to that in the paper. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:58, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think I will post my restoration of S. polyspondyla later, then. Thank you very much. Mr Fink (talk) 21:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]