Hello Dunkleosteus77. I should have introduced myself yesterday, but was still finding my way around Wikipedia editing. Thankyou for fixing those link issues. I am unsure as to your comment "that is not what Wikipedia is for" and I have no wish to enter into a changing each other's edits 'game', but I need to clarify that I was asked by the Society for Marine Mammalogy Education Committee, along with a team of marine mammal researchers to update and maintain species pages. That is not to say that your previous work is unappreciated, but the edits I have made follow the format requested by the SMM Education Committee and were published only after review by an expert on the species (in this case, Dr Robin Baird from Cascadia Research). I would hope that you can see the amount of work that has gone into making sure the info is current, accurate and reflects the important literature published on MHWs, not just by myself, but also Dr Baird and the Education Commitee. Best wishes, VickihamiltonVickihamilton (talk) 07:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vickihamilton: I know who you're affiliated with and you've added a lot of good information, but Wikipedia is not TripAdvisor, we don't say things like "it is important to choose a company that follows responsible whale watching guidelines". Giving out instructions for how to have a fantastic trip to Dominica is not what we're about   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vickihamilton: so I'm going to delete it again. If you're adamant about it's inclusion, we can discuss further on the article's talk page and get other inputs   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dunkleosteus77: I am sorry if you have misunderstood the intent. Advising someone who has consulted Wikipedia as a source of info on melon-headed whales, and may want to see them in the wild to "choose a company that follows responsible whale watching guidelines" is broad, general advice, recommended by the Society for Marine Mammalogy and the International Whaling Commission. There are a large number of whale watching operators in the world that do not put the safety and wellbeing of cetaceans foremost, those that do follow guidelines set by an independent authority will obviously be a better option if an informed choice is to be made. If I had mentioned a specific company (in say Dominica to quote your example) now that would be akin to Tripadvisor, and completely inappropriate, we are in agreement on that front. VickihamiltonVickihamilton (talk) 10:07, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cool page!

Alan Schlickmann (talk) 21:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place ((subst:Dobos Torte)) on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

whales and cats

Thank you for quality articles about whales, baleen whales, porpoises (to name a few), for inviting to peer reviews and reviewing GAs, for redirects and the cat-life on your user page, infobox and all, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Truly well-deserved, congrats for the TFA! Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:24, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have the best userpage ever. That is all ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were recipient no. 1401 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for today's Steller's sea cow! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:33, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for today's Paleocene, about "the 10 million year period after the dinosaurs went extinct"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

... four years now --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia! BrightRoundCircle (talk) 14:35, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant work on this article. You should be very proud! Josh Milburn (talk) 22:36, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

F uyck you. 173.91.69.114 (talk) 23:46, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For all the work on animals; here's another one!

RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 00:34, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Ursus rossicus, Dunkleosteus77!

Wikipedia editor Animalparty just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

make sure taxon articles have a valid ((taxobox)) (I've already added one to Ursus rossicus). A quick and easy shortcut is to copy and paste a related taxobox, just changing the specifics. Cheers,

To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Also, make sure that sources discussing "cave bears" are actually referring to U. rossicus and not for example Ursus spelaeus, much more widley referred to as "cave bear". I removed the incorrect photos that were of U. spelaeus. lastly, you can group duplicate repeated footnotes of the same source with <ref name=...>.: see WP:REFSTART for more tips on formatting references and citations. Let me know if you have any questions (Wikipedia can be a tricky place at first), and welcome to Wikipedia! --Animalparty-- (talk) 04:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re [1]: citations are usually not repeated in the lead per WP:LEADCITE. Cheers! jonkerz ♠talk 00:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That's an hour of my life I'll be needing back... Dunkleosteus77 ^{(push to talk)} 00:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch :/ by the way, why did you remove the previous comments you added a couple of hours back ago? Was this on purpose or did you perhaps edit an old revision of the page? Curiously, jonkerz ♠talk 00:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I based my comment on GA criteria; copy/pasted the GA criteria onto the page and made some comments on each one. I meant to delete the criteria list and just keep the comment, but I was in a rush and hit save, meaning to delete the criteria list later (which I did just now). Dunkleosteus77 ^{(push to talk)} 00:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see :) If you're interested in reviewing another ant article you should take a look at the FAC Banded sugar ant. jonkerz ♠talk 01:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you're interested in reviewing another animal article, you should take a look at Peer Review Whale. Dunkleosteus77 ^{(push to talk)} 02:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a few comments. I'll try to find time to read the whole article and return with more comments, if not, then perhaps whenever the article is a GAC, which I hope it will be soon! jonkerz ♠talk 14:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time Dunkleosteus77 ^{(push to talk)} 21:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for expanding the article; I can only imagine how much hard work you've put in, well done! I've marked my comments as resolved. jonkerz ♠talk 21:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Even-toed ungulate, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Molar, Diurnal and Canine. 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) 09:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Whale you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look, it's the reviewer's job to decide if a comment is resolved. The nominator's job is to resolve each item to the best of their ability; the reviewer then decides if indeed the right action has been taken, or whether something more needs to be done. I have—repeatedly—reminded you of this but you're still at it. The article is not going to make it to GA if you keep modifying the taxobox, for example. May I suggest you now apologize, and state here that you accept the process. Thanks.

By the way, that applies a fortiori to the GA Table, where all signoffs are (I hope obviously) only for the reviewer's use. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, I've formatted a lot of refs in the article and fixed a few things. When I noted that the species list was redundant with both the List of cetaceans and the Cetaceans template (at the bottom of the article), I decided that the lists really had to go - sorry about this, but after looking at them every which way, it seems clear they simply aren't needed (and this isn't Cetacea, either) - I suspect the closeness of Whale to that article has caused quite a bit of the difficulty really. Similarly, I've removed some paragraphs about dolphins which may be relevant in Cetacea but don't belong here - at least, if dolphins are whales, then Whale = Cetacea and we need to merge the two articles, which I doubt is what anyone wants.

All that is left is a little bit of history and culture; the history of whaling can be derived from the Whaling and History of whaling articles, while a brief account of whales in art should not be too difficult. You might look at Werness 2006, van der Grijp 2009, Wallace 2004, Kaalund 1983, for example. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello
I have been tracking down edits by User:GammaCepheus001 (who is now banned, and is probably a sockpuppet of User:Jonas Poole who has been banned for a long time) and I notice he left some here. I have been undoing them as they are more than likely to be disruptive, but There were some on the Bryde's whale and Omura's whale pages which I would be pleased if you s could review for me as you will know more about the subject than I do. If I have undone content which is actually worth keeping, please feel free to undo what I have done there. Regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 01:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You were correct to undo his most recent edit on the Bryde's whale page, but the edit he made on January 2, 2015‎ was correct since it's redundant to say "rorquals baleen whales". GammaCepheus001 was right to delete the sentence "notably within Komodo National Park" on Feb 12, 2015. All of his edits on the Omura's whale page was non disruptive and verifiable and should be kept. Glad to help, and good luck! Dunkleosteus77 ^{(push to talk)} 02:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Odd-toed ungulate, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lacrimal. 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) 09:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Dunky. As I said before, European whaling in the South Pacific didn't begin until 1789. American whaleships didn't reach the South Pacific until the early 1790s and British whaleships didn't reach Australia until the early 1790s as well. Read Dakin's Whalemen Adventurers and Colwell's Whaling Around Australia. SplashyHumpback (talk) 01:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry. Forgot to change that.

No, worries. If you need any help or need to find references for something just post something on User:Grimlock1986's talkpage or whichever one isn't banned. Apparently if I post anything constructive on someone's talkpage it gets deleted by certain simpletons. Oh, well. Good luck. SplashyHumpback (talk) 02:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I really need some help with the Conservation section of the Whale article to fit within the GA review suggestions. Dunkleosteus77 ^{(push to talk)} 03:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You could start with talking about Foyn's monopoly off Finnmark in the 1870s and 1880s and the British licenses in the Falkland Island dependencies in the early 1900s to reduce waste. Then you could mention the protection of right and gray whales, cows with calves, in the early 1930s; negotiations in the mid to late-1930s on quotas in the Antarctic; the formation of the IWC in the late 1940s and the use of the BWU (Blue Whale Unit) and why that failed. You could then mention the protection of various species and stocks in the 1960s and onwards; the "Save the Whale" movement in the 1970s; the UN asking for a moratorium on commercial whaling in the early 1970s; US protection in the same deacade; and finally the moratorium in the 1980s and the rise of scientific whaling. Oh, and how ship strikes, entanglement in fishing gear, and habitat degradation are now their main threats. This is off the top of my head and I haven't really taken a good look at the conservation section but hopefully it will help. SplashyHumpback (talk) 01:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Whale you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Whale for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, congratulations on bringing Whale to Good Article status. Please do not spoil this achievement now by attempting to undo the hard work we have both put in, in the past week, as we sought to make the article conform to the required standard: such behavior is entirely unacceptable on Wikipedia and is not expected from experienced and committed editors. Unlike Cetacea, Whale is not a taxon article and it is not appropriate for it to duplicate the article on Cetacea. If you want to create detailed lists of whales with images and so forth, Cetacea and its subsidiary articles are the (plentiful) places for that - Whale is not. Thank you for your understanding. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will be changed the college image to add a beaked whale and a porpoise so you should change the image map. LittleJerry (talk) 15:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What?

Oh I see now. Done Dunkleosteus77 ^{(push to talk)} 17:31, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Dunky. This section talks about JJ the gray whale, which was kept at SeaWorld in 1997-98, but your citation is from 1991. The citation is probably about GiGi, the first baleen whale to be successfully kept in captivity in the 1970s. It appears you (or whoever added it) confused the two. SplashyHumpback (talk) 01:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing that out Dunkleosteus77 ^{(push to talk)} 01:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Cetacea

added a link pointing to Papillae

Whale

added a link pointing to Norse

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Whale, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Beluga. 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) 14:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dunkleosteus77, I notice you archived the talk page [2] for Dolphin, but I don't see where that is. cygnis insignis 20:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I see that you implied on the Whale FAC that citing sources will be a problem for you, so did you need any assistance with that? I'll be glad to help. Burklemore1 (talk) 15:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I really desperately need help on this. Thank you very much. Dunkleosteus77 ^{(push to talk)} 22:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll get around to it shortly. I'll first take a look at what the reviewers suggested with some of the sources. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In a recent edit, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you.

I am referring to the changes on Whale and River dolphin. I am sure you were just trying to achieve consistency, but who's to say consistency should be achieved by changing everything one way or the other? Well, the way the issue has been resolved on Wikipedia is to stick to the first version of each article (unless it has strong ties to a nation, but I don't think that's the case for either of the articles in question). Since both articles were originally written using American English, and your edits changed a substantial portion into British English, I do not think it was fair to impose respect of that with "Use British English" templates: in fact, my research showed the opposite (meaning, American) templates should be used.

Hope you understand, LjL (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was informed that the Whale article was originally written in British English, and the template ((Use British English)) has been on the article (not the talk page) since April, when I tried to resolve British/American English inconsistencies by changing it to American English.

Uhm, well, I checked the article's actual history and as soon as it was no longer a stub (while it was a stub, there were no variety-specific words in it) it was immediately full of American-style words. Sometimes people just "decide" that an article is written in a given variety and slap a template on it, so maybe this was the case here. Hopefully the research I've posted on the article's original terminology solves this issue for good. The article should now be in consistent American English as I've used a nontrivial automatic tool (VarCon) to convert it. LjL (talk) 22:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll continue this debate over at the Whale talk page

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article River dolphin you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cwmhiraeth -- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article River dolphin you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:River dolphin for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cwmhiraeth -- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I will finally clean up all of the refs on the article tonight. In the meantime, another Myrmecia ant species has been nominated for GA (Myrmecia inquilina), so feel free to check that out if you're in the mood for reviewing. Cheers, Burklemore1 (talk) 10:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw the requirements for DIY passing, and it says that the claimed tidbit must be present and cited with an inline citation in the article, but I don't see the word "turn" anywhere. Unless it uses different wording (but it should probably use the verbatim wording used in the did-you-know question), it ought to get added... --LjL (talk) 13:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks for taking on this review LjL

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/River dolphin at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with ((db-g7)), or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 02:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of River dolphin

Hello! Your submission of River dolphin at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! SusunW (talk) 02:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On 13 November 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article River dolphin, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the river dolphin is one of the few cetaceans that can turn its head? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/River dolphin. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dunkleosteus77. Porpoise, an article you either created or significantly contributed to, has been nominated  to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 04:27, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Porpoise at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Human3015^TALK  09:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On 15 January 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Porpoise, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that porpoises (pictured) were one of the most accessible species for early cetologists, because they could be seen very close to land, inhabiting shallow coastal areas? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Porpoise. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Baleen whale at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On 13 February 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Monk seal, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that monk seals (example pictured) are the only earless seals that live in tropical climates? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On 23 March 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Baleen whale, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that baleen whales, although carnivorous, have gut flora similar to that of herbivores? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Baleen whale. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent job on this, keep it up!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Marine mammal

Hello! Your submission of Marine mammal at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! EdChem (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dunkleosteus77! I noticed that you had the top icon for administrators (((administrator))) at the top of your user talk page. It doesn't appear that you are an administrator, so could you please remove it? It's misleading to editors, as upon seeing it, users might unwittingly approach you with requests for administrative attention. Thanks! Kind regards, Mz7 (talk) 23:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How'd that get there? Dunkleosteus77 ^{(push to talk)} 14:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edits at Odd-toed ungulate because it is not how you put an image in a taxobox. It's supposed to be |image=image.jpg and not putting in some unnecessary image map voodoo in.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should perhaps be aware that the article was nominated (in good faith, I'm sure) by an editor with very weak English skills and very little Wikipedia experience, who has not contributed to the article. Before investing a lot of effort you might wish to find out whether anybody is around who can act on the points you raise. Best wishes, Looie496 (talk) 12:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Porpoise you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Porpoise for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cwmhiraeth -- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 22:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Oceanic dolphin page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Porpoise

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Porpoise you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cwmhiraeth -- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 15:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dunkleosteus. I noticed that you did substantial work on this list when it was at FAR and am interested in selecting it for a Main Page appearance in the near-future. The only concern I have is a shortage of references in the last two paragraphs of the new lead section, for passages that are not cited in the body of the article. I wouldn't want to see a bunch of cite tags being added to the lead on the article's big day. If you have some spare time, would you mind beefing up the referencing in the lead, so that my concerns over scheduling the list at TFL are eased? Thanks for any help you can provide. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with the references you provided and have scheduled the list to appear on January 8, 2016; you can review the TFL blurb here. While preparing the blurb, I did notice something interesting. It says multiple times that there are 88 species, but the IUCN counts only go up to 87 and it later says there are 90 living species (including one functionally extinct, but not two). Meanwhile, I count 92 entries in the various tables. You might want to reconcile the numbers before this has its main page date. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see what happened. I'm pretty sure the source you're referring to was published before the Yangtze finless porpoise was accepted as a different species by the IUCN. Also, there are 3 having a conservation status of "NE" (Not Evaluated), meaning they're not recognised by the IUCN, but I'm almost certain they're recognised by other conservation groups. I changed the "90 living species part" to 89, and changed "2 Critically Endangered" to 3

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) 17:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have addressed all your concerns and them some. Please take a look at the improvements. I think we are done. User:Atsme should take a look, too. 7&6=thirteen (☎)

I think so too   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would you kindly post a note? Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dunkleosteus77. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Bottlenose dolphin/1.
Message added Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 04:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.[reply]

Hello, Dunkleosteus77. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by DES ^(talk) 23:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((teahouse talkback)) template).[reply]

Heres a book you can use for information on feeding mechanisms. LittleJerry (talk) 22:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited River dolphin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Morphological. 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) 11:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Porpoise, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page WWF. 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) 12:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of cetaceans, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vulnerable. 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) 13:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 23

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.

Amazon river dolphin

added links pointing to Black River, Croaker, Caroni River, Caura River and Fonte Boa

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Toothed whale, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Echolocation. 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) 09:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Monachus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sealer. 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) 09:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Baleen whale, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Seal, Sinus and Auditory meatus. 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) 10:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Baleen whale, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Rostrum, Canine and Lens. 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) 10:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bottlenose dolphin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page T. australis. 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) 10:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marine mammal, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Saint Paul Island and Monotrema. 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) 10:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 19

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.

Marine mammal

added links pointing to Echolocation, Norse, Poplar and Beluga

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:32, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marine mammal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barrier reef. 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) 09:31, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mammal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Beachmaster. 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) 10:34, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Heart into Mammal. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted ((copied)) template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 13:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are still not adding the required attribution, as required under the terms of the CC-by-SA license. Please have a look at this edit summary as an example of how it is done. Please let me know if you still don't understand what to do or why we have to do it. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again I remind you to provide attribution when copying from one article to another. It's easy to do by mentioning the source page in your edit summary. Please start doing this right away; it's a legal requirement. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Monk seal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sealing. 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) 09:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Monk seal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cabo Blanco. 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) 09:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

List of parrots

added links pointing to Ono, Santa Cruz, St Thomas, Ambon, Washington Island, Gonâve, Middle America, Zanda and Kadavu

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can I ask why you removed the paragraph about the Prishibinsk tiger, in the article Caspian tiger? That was sure a huge tiger, compared to the one which had the greatest skull length amongst Caspian tigers. Leo1pard (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that was a uniquely large tiger because the average length is not mentioned. You can re-add it if you want   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of recently extinct mammals, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Knud Andersen. 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) 09:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just checked progress and see that all but Evolution, Adaptations, Protection, and Military sections are now complete. None require much work to get to GA. Hope all's well with you, if you need to hold for any reason just let me know. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...for the edits I made to the article on porpoises. I so loathe words like "baby" when referring to newborn animals, and the milk squirting thing seemed absurd to me until I found a source! Seems it is true after all. I see you are the individual responsible for getting Whale to good article status— good show! KDS4444 (talk) 16:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dunkleosteus77. 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]

Hi, Dunkleosteus77. I'm just posting to let you know that List of parrots – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for March 13. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 23:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm now through with my additions to your sea cow article! Please feel free to revert if needed. I would suggest requesting a good copy edit, and renominating it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dunkleosteus77. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Steller's Sea Cow at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! El cid, el campeador (talk) 17:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dunkleosteus77, Just under a year ago, you kindly completed a very detailed GA review of an article I had just written, social immunity. Sadly near the end of the review I dissapeared from enwiki due to various off-wiki events, and I completely forgot about the article in the intervening period. However I now have, again due to off-wiki events, a considerable amount of free time for the next few months. Hence I've fixed the remaining suggestions you had made for social immunity (it was just a few cite/grammar issues e.g. dashes). If you do want to complete the review that would be great; equally if you'd prefer not too that's fine and please know that your efforts were not wasted!

Thanks, Acather96 (click here to contact me) 13:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I feel like the reproductive system subsection should include information on sex organs. In marsupials, male have a forked penis and females have three vaginas. LittleJerry (talk) 02:21, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@LittleJerry: I can take some stuff from Marsupial but I'm worried that it'd just be a copy/paste. Think you can have a go at it?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:02, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I could try. LittleJerry (talk) 13:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well alright then   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the Steller's sea cow article has been scheduled as today's featured article for September 2, 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 2, 2017, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:31, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for picking up the common loon for a review! I noticed that you just put Sirenia up for a review, so would you mind if I picked it up (not so familiar with the topic, but could give it a go)? Adityavagarwal (talk) 06:01, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why not, thanks   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:06, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! I hope you are doing great. Could you also pick up the Yunnan hare for a review (I think it is a shorter article, so might entail lesser work than the common loon)? However, if due to any reason you are unable to, I understand that too. I hope you have a great rest of the day! Adityavagarwal (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you are doing awesome! Would you also like too have a go at the common loon FAC? As always, if due to any reason you are unable to, I completely understand that, and have a colourful rest of the day! Adityavagarwal (talk) 02:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, Dunkleosteus! While reviewing Megalodon, I came across the species Dunkleosteus which might be the reason you chose the username. It is really cool! :D All the more reason to push it to FA hood. ;) I have one more request for you, that the brown pelican article is currently at GAN, but the reviewer is really busy in real life and is unable to complete the review. Would you like to take it on from there? I would be much obliged. Also, I am looking forward to contributing to extinct species after finishing all my current GANs/FACs! Have a wonderful rest of the day! Adityavagarwal (talk) 07:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to working with you. Thanks for taking this on. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, would you be interested in joining me and Chiswick Chap on Bat as a possible FAC. I feel we could use another higher (monophyletic) mammal taxa. We're not in any hurry at this point. LittleJerry (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@LittleJerry: sounds fun, alright   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Our biggest issue is that since we don't write most of the article, we may have trouble with sourcing. Also, Chap says that many of the source are primary. LittleJerry (talk) 17:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Megalodon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mega Shark (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) 11:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you persisting on this? It is preposterous, citable as MOS or not. It just adds wildly annoying and distracting clutter to a page. This is neither a common sense nor, crucially, a user-friendly approach. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 16:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding alternative text for images isn't a user-friendly approach? Call me confused. As editors we should be willing to navigate clutter while editing for the accessibility of our readers. Compared to the "wikiclutter" that citations generate, what's a couple sentences on an image link? – Rhinopias (talk) 17:15, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the Sea mink article has been scheduled as today's featured article for November 6, 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 6, 2017. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:46, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, since Swpb wants the joy of being on the main page asap ... I've swapped sea mink with Rotating locomotion in living systems, so you're now scheduled for the November 22, 2017 date. Sorry! Ealdgyth - Talk 17:28, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for "a species of mink that went extinct in the 1800s, and everything about its behavior and biology comes from skull fragments and stuff fur traders said"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:44, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was randomly reading through it and I saw you said you were busy. Figured I could attempt some quick ref fixes… :X – Rhinopias (talk) 22:07, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

it was kinda funny how I started editing directly after you’d fixed everything   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:08, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My bad for confusingly jumping in. I think "fixed everything" is an overstatement though. ;] – Rhinopias (talk) 01:00, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just to say I'm disappointed to see you starting a hare running during a GAN that we are conducting together. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

as an American, I do not know what that means   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not trying to be needlessly obscure. I mean, starting a new thread which might lead to extensive informal discussion while we're hard at work trying to close down a formal discussion. It's something always best avoided in my view. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you are one of the finest contributors in this community and take keen interest in prehistorical topics. I run a community named The World of Animals (http://theworldofanimals.proboards.com/). Assuming that you are not a member, please consider joining. We can discuss paleoecology and paleobiology of any prehistoric animal in detail there. --LeGenD (talk) 10:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dunkleosteus77. I moved "Museo storia naturale di Pisa" (which contained at least one mistake) to Natural History Museum of Pisa... but the official website names the museum as "Natural History Museum of the University of Pisa". Do you agree with that name? seems to be official regarding the English language... Kintaro (talk) 22:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kintaro: well if that's what's on the official website I guess   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done!! Kintaro (talk) 23:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On 25 November 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bat, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the diets of different species of bat include frogs, fish, other bats, nectar, and blood? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bat. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What was THAT??? Never ever do that again!2001:A61:370B:2E01:B514:F2DE:9FAC:EF30 (talk) 09:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dunkleosteus77. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos for getting it through. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 18:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	Wish you a Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year 2018!
	A very Happy, Glorious, Prosperous Christmas and New Year! God bless!  — Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to need your help at the FAC page, since Chap is out for Christmas. LittleJerry (talk) 16:41, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I’m also out for Christmas   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:24, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Cryptid whales. Since you had some involvement with the Cryptid whales redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 20:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Cryptid whale. Since you had some involvement with the Cryptid whale redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 20:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Janjucetus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mya (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will clear up some time to help and check over your article. Thanks for asking.

I think what we should do is put a list of Cretaceous polar dinosaurs and ones from the late Jurassic. All dinosaurs in that list should be 145 mya at the oldest and the youngest 66/65 mya for the list. This is stated in the article that the polar forests formed 145 mya and lasted into the end of the Maastrichtian.

Think this is good?

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited South Polar dinosaur, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Equatorial (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

D'you think the guy's bats (talking only encourages him) or has any sort of rational point? His argument doesn't make a lot of sense to me: happy to oppose, if it'd help. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand any aspect of his argument at all. I assume he's planning the same layout as Whale vs Dolphin vs Cetacea (which I hate, honestly), so I think I'm opposing   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the Megalodon article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 22, 2018. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 22, 2018, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A question ... you removed "sometimes" (which I had added) from "puncturing heart and lungs". This is a model of Megalodon's jaws and teeth; this is the skull of a blue whale. How do those teeth reach that whale's heart and lungs in one bite? I can't form a mental image of what's going on here. We may need a different verb. - Dank (push to talk) 14:59, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dank I don’t understand, how is the skull related to puncturing the chest cavity?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem may center on the meaning of the word "puncture". The largest tooth discovered so far is under 3 inches. I have no trouble visualizing a shark with 3-inch teeth chewing on a whale until it reaches vital organs, but that's not the image that "puncture" suggests. If I take a 3-inch knife and use it to carve up a house until I reach the bathtub, then stick the knife in the bathtub, that's not "puncturing" ... puncturing would be driving something 10 feet long into the house until it hits the tub. - Dank (push to talk) 16:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can make an edit taking the "puncturing" part out, if that will help. I'm sure we can come up with something that will work for you. - Dank (push to talk) 16:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It punctured the chest cavity by targeting the abdominal region as far’s I know, so would “crush” work? “Targeting the heart and lungs” maybe?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:54, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. - Dank (push to talk) 20:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the article! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Steropodon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Subclass (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whats an Informal Grouping in a biological or scientific sense of the word?

Example of your usage of the word. [3]

it’s not a taxon so there isn’t one   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gallimimus, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Spine and Manus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much that the automatic taxobox system is complicated but that it looks complicated, especially if one's already used to manual taxoboxes. The sheer amount of documentation might be a bit off-putting as well, even if much of it pertains either to the back-end of the system or to highly specific, complex circumstances that one's not very likely to run into frequently. Since you expressed difficulty learning from that documentation (again, understandable), if you'd like, I could help you learn how to use it. Even if you end up never adding any automatic taxoboxes/speciesboxes it to articles yourself, it's good to know how it works when something needs updating or when someone adds a mangled automatic taxobox somewhere. Alternatively, feel free to ask me if you ever need a hand with one (but I'm prone to random longer absences, so it might be a good idea to check if I'm active first). If you're not interested in either, that's fine too, of course. AddWittyNameHere 19:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's really my problem with mandating automatic taxoboxes: I'm pretty familiar with how this whole Wiki stuff works, and even I can't figure out one thing about how this works   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:25, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I think it's in part because you're so familiar with how Wiki works. I found it hard to get used to automatic taxoboxes while I kept the way "normal" taxoboxes worked in mind. I was like "okay, so this is like manual taxoboxes...except this, and this...oh and this, this, this, this and that over there", which basically boils down to "how the hell am I supposed to memorize all of this, let alone work with it?".

So I let them be for a bit, then came back to it but this time approaching it as an entirely different system with the same purpose and some similarities (such as some of the parameter names)—rather than essentially the same system with "some" differences—and suddenly it was fairly easy to "get". AddWittyNameHere 19:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't even figure out what page I'm supposed to edit for automatic taxoboxes   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:39, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the slow-ish reply. Was afk due to eating dinner.

In regards to your question:

• If the underlying infrastructure (the taxonomy templates) exists—something that will become increasingly the norm if/as more areas of the ToL adapt to using the automatic taxobox system—and is up-to-date, then all you need to edit is the relevant article. This is what much of the adding of automatic taxoboxes/speciesboxes is like, as well as what repairing a lot of wrong automatic taxoboxes is like (e.g. when someone added the wrong binomial or authority, or misformatted the taxobox)
• If the underlying infrastructure doesn't exist, then you'll need to edit 1. the article and 2. create the relevant missing taxonomy template. This sounds harder than it is: what you'd do is add the automatic taxobox just as you would if everything *does* exist, then follow the link in the error message ("Click here to enter the taxonomic details for [taxon]", with "Click here" having a light blue background). This brings you to the taxonomy template to create, with much of the code already pre-formatted. At that point, all you have to do is add to the already-existing-but-empty parameters the rank and parent taxon information, as well as (preferably but not mandatory) a reference. This is the second-most common situation when adding a speciesbox/automatic taxobox to an article in most areas; in some highly speciose areas with sizeable portions of the lower-level infrastructure not yet in place—such as Lepidoptera—it is more common than in areas with a high level of infrastructural coverage.

• Now, sometimes the parent taxon also doesn't exist yet. (Though the higher the taxon rank, the more likely it is that someone already created the relevant taxonomy template, regardless of whether or not they're actually *used* in the relevant articles. Eventually, the sole higher taxon templates that will not exist are those recently erected or of which the rank was recently revised and that involve name changes.) The system gives you another error message with, again, a link to create the template at the correct location with all the code pre-loaded. Barring large-scale taxonomic revisions involving the name-and-rank change of a taxon, you do the same here: create, then add rank, parent (and preferably, reference) to the pre-loaded contents. If that parent taxon doesn't exist yet, rinse and repeat. Not very common any more in most areas

• If the underlying infrastructure *does* exist but isn't correct, you click the pencil icon on the taxobox. This leads you to the relevant taxonomy template. On the right-hand side is a long Ancestral Taxa table. Check where the error is occurring (that is, which taxon has the wrong parent information or rank information, e.g. if Felinae is listed as subfamily of Canidae, or if Felinae is listed as family), click the link to edit that template and correct the information. Second-most common when repairing an existing automatic taxobox

• If the case is especially complex (e.g. due to a revision or a mistake on the side of whoever created the taxonomy template, the issue also involves the taxon's name), it may require moving or going through a larger number of taxonomy templates to fix issues—but that's no difference from mainspace, where large numbers of articles would *also* need checking and some would need to be moved to the new name. Those cases do require some familiarity with the system, but they're fairly infrequent and generally aren't something we would want new editors to handle in the first place—much like we wouldn't want new editors to handle the moving/renaming of its mainspace and category-space counterparts. Uncommon.

Essentially, in all cases it is "start from the article that needs a (change to its) taxobox, and follow the links the system provides". AddWittyNameHere 21:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say it's no big deal, and just start a discussion on this edit as being misguided. There have been many, many RM discussions in which discussion is intermixed with the Survey section (whether marked as that or not. However, the Discussion section never contains !votes so far as I have seen. When the discussion becomes complex, it's quite common to start a separate section without refactorinng the existing discussion, as I did. I appreciate the logic of what you've done, but AFAIK it's unprecedented and will only serve to make the closer's job more difficult. It's not just this RM that is affected. Others will see !votes in the Discussion section. If you disagree with the established practice, discuss this, and perhaps we can change it.

But the more I looked at your edits the more concerned I became. I have therefore reverted them both. The refactoring, merging the previous discussion into the RM, destroys the stringing.

Please discuss. Andrewa (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Rajasaurus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Spine, Punjab University, Generic name and Specific name

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should we work on the south polar region of the Cretaceous article? Also Editor number 4 is not editing for a while so we will have to ask Hemiauchenia to help us.

Bubblesorg All I can see that’s left is the Geology section and expanding the lead. How about you finish those up and we can co-nominate it for GA. Also, make sure to use reliable sources, not just the first ones you find after googling it (unless those happen to be reliable)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:00, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bubblesorg can you do that?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure let me just get finished with camp which in 1 day and i will be ready--Bubblesorg (talk) 20:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good I think I will make a list of things rather thanks to camps and tuitions.15:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Bubblesorg What? I don't understand   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What an unfriendly comment! Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chiswick Chap Hold up, it’s a good article, just a couple things   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks. If you did that IRL I'd have spilt my coffee all over your lap! I'll tweak the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah takes me some days but i will submit after completion

how and where exactly do you draft your articles? I think I should see your finished product before you publish it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

yes i will show you the draft after i am done with it on word.--Bubblesorg (talk) 17:41, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You could always use your sandbox if you need to draft first   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:01, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks i will submit the draft day after tomorrow.--Bubblesorg (talk) 17:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Put it up on your sandbox first so I can read it and I'll tell you if anything needs fixing, and then after that little process, you can put it on the article   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So how's that geology going for you?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:47, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bubblesorg: Hey   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bubblesorg: Okay don't bother with the Geology section, I just wrote it. Do the lead instead and we can continue with this. All you need to do is, in 3 paragraphs, give a nice summary of the article information without getting too specific. I recommend doing it in one editing session, just sit down and do it, so you don't delay yourself so long   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bubblesorg: do you still wanna do something on this article or no?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:09, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will kep working and i have some what.

Bubblesorg, from what I can tell, everything you’ve written has either been deleted or rewritten, so let’s try to get whatever you write for the lead to stick   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:37, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok sure. I will work on it more later.

I am trying to link the genus of the false killer whale to its genus article but I am seeming to be unsuccessful could you help thanks Bubblesorg (talk) 22:14, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t understand what you’re trying to say, where are you trying to wikilink Pseudorca? Also editing questions can be answered at the Teahouse   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This is my second insect GA nomination. Not my professional area of expertise. Given widespread fascination with Luna moth (masks, poems, tattoos...) I was surprised how little content there was at the article. David notMD (talk) 20:54, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question: I just received a note on my Talk that the nomination has failed, but I do not see any comment at the article talk about that. Am I missing something? Is it possible that because the name change was accepted and implemented that I should reapply with a nomination for "Luna moth"? David notMD (talk) 00:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As of this morning, looks as if the GA nomination has been reactivated for "Luna moth." I am going to wait a day, and then continue with the revisions. David notMD (talk) 10:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are we done with the GA review? I replied at Talk on the owl and egg predation questions. David notMD (talk) 12:41, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, brevity is a virtue, but not a requirement. This is not an overly wordy article. I appreciate your diligence and time put into this review process, which has gone on for more than ten days, but we clearly have different preferences for detail. I would prefer that you fail the GA nomination so that I can renominate it for a new reviewer. David notMD (talk) 09:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wordiness doesn’t necessarily fail an article, I would’ve just liked it to be more concise and straight to the point before I passed it, but if you’re not moving, I guess I’ll just go on ahead and pass it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciated. I did shorten the parasite content a bit more after my note to you. David notMD (talk) 18:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note for the future, word count doesn’t matter. And also I just realized there’s no Taxonomy section which should probably be there   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited False killer whale, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lactate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pterygotioidea, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Superfamily (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://depositsmag.com/2017/12/05/australias-polar-cretaceous-mammals/

Well the author’s a museum curator so I’d say it’s okay. Why? What’re you planning?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:59, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just stuff on the mammal section.--Bubblesorg (talk) 15:26, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay just remember not to get too detailed on individual species and such. They all already have their own articles. And check your spelling before publishing   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:08, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bubblesorg, so how’s the lead coming along?

is this ok "Dinosaurs from these region are known as south polar dinosaurs"--Bubblesorg (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, that’s a given. It’s like South Polar mammals or South Polar plesiosaurs   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:38, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bubblesorg so how's that lead coming?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:45, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK--Bubblesorg (talk) 17:02, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bubblesorg When do you think you'll be done with it? It shouldn't take you more than 10 or 15 minutes since you just have to summarize what's already in the article   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:44, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bubblesorg, you don’t need refs in the lead because it’s summarizing what’s already in the article. The refs you added are not formatted right (use template:cite journal for those). Keep going on the lead, and I thought you said you’d show it to me before you added it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Thalassocnus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pterygoid muscle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Metamynodon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grazer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An FYI that Luna moth in in Prep stage for DYK, should move into Queue, then show up on the main page evening of the 12th (assuming I have the date count right). With picture. Curious about how many extra views that will gender over the ~750/day it gets now. David notMD (talk) 02:52, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And it's on the main page. And I meant "engender." David notMD (talk) 01:03, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, with your GAN in progress for Thalassocnus and the other articles you worked on, Livyatan (FA), megalodon (FA) and Acrophyseter (GA) and many more possible articles to boost, I thought it was time for an own category, as the other important Lagerstëtten of South America have too, see Category:Pisco Formation. I will work on the geology part of it in the coming weeks to get it better and focus on the paleo-environment, as I think that will be useful for the other articles. There is just still so much to do, until now I have mostly focused on re-organizing, categorizing and infilling existing formations, so a little break from my earlier work on for instance the Honda Group and Cocinetas Basin, as important other fossiliferous formations, but we will get there. Bahía Inglesa for sure needs proper coverage, as do many others in the SALMA lists. Good luck with getting it to GA, if you want me to review, I am happy to do it. One thing I would like to see is a better use of references, not these walls of unreadable text inside the paragraphs, but rather how I refer to the bibliography, also because then you can refer to the specific page, which is more professional than just quoting a full paper 20 times over. Cheers, Tisquesusa (talk) 22:39, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, I’ll get to adding that category around articles (lotta sharks), and you can review Thalassocnus if you want to. I didn’t realize how many Pisco Formation articles I did, I just like marine mammals. Also I did that specific-page format for references at whale and I find it very confusing. What I could do, if you want, is put those especially-used references in Further reading, that’d work I should think   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:15, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the last point, that is what I am doing now with the South American (and African) geology articles, adding the articles as Further reading for now, so they can be incorporated later into the articles. On the point of mammals, I like the land mammals and hence the SALMA expansion, but there is such a lot that is missing, even for well-known Lagerstätten. We have some work to do, which is nice. I will start the review this weekend, and I am sure it will be good to pass soon. Have a good night Tisquesusa (talk) 03:23, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything more?--Bubblesorg (talk) 01:32, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, the lead. You can add a lot more there and condense some things you’ve already added. Get to 2 to 3 paragraphs   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:03, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

is this formation good? Hidden Lake Formation--Bubblesorg (talk) 16:22, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:25, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You know what you did to the Whale article right? where you replaced the taxon box with the object box. Could we do that with the tree frog article?--Bubblesorg (talk) 20:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

you could. You could also do it how they did it in jellyfish   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:37, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah i did that and some users who no nothing about taxonomy took it down saying it is not appropriate for an animal page.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tree_frog&action=history--Bubblesorg (talk) 19:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then make your case if you’re really adamant about its inclusion (but remember other stuff exists is not an argument here)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A certain editor is beginning to get to be a pest. Would you believe that I got a smiley from CF today for deleting a random irrelevant picture which they had added to List of mammal species? Narky Blert (talk) 22:59, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

&$%£! [4] Narky Blert (talk) 23:58, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have searched for reliable sources for persistence hunting and have found nothing about non-human animals, and (especially) nothing about orcas. If you know of any such sources, I'll be happy to use them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:04, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

this doesn't specifically use the words "persistence hunting" but it describes a pod of orcas pursuing a sperm whale over the course of several hours   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:38, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but we'd be committing collective OR if we assumed such a connection. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay but I’ve still left other examples on the nomination page that specifically use some synonym of “persistence hunting”   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:36, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied there. "Cursorial" (which just means running) is not a synonym of persistence; that's easy to see with spiders, as they can't breathe when running, so they cannot be persistent in the run-for-five-hours-across-the-Kalahari sense. Any predator with running limbs is cursorial, including short-burst cheetahs, the antithesis of a persistence predator. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

However they contrasted it with ambush predation, meaning they defined cursorial predation as the opposite, and when appendaged with "hunter" the word refers to endurance running   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:29, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's really not right, and you mustn't try to argue by synthesis. A cheetah certainly isn't a persistence predator, and it's certainly cursorial - indeed they use the cheetah as their example of a cursorial predator. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

where is the GA i don't see it?

I wanted your go-ahead first, I nominated it just now   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will start in just a bit i am in school--Bubblesorg (talk) 16:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

what do you mean ‘start’? There aren’t any comments yet. We just need to wait now for somebody to review the article and do last-minute fixes on the article if you see any   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:27, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, we think we've done everything here, unless there are any more comments? Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:52, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Eurypterid, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Superfamily (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Yamatocetus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blowhole (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ... tomorrow I'm going to try to tie up some loose ends at WT:TFA. I want to give people some examples from previous TFA blurbs, and ask for opinions on whether any part of the given text is redundant or not. I'm usually completely rewriting these examples so that no one will feel like I'm doing any public finger-pointing, but for this example, I'm not sure how to rewrite it ... do you have any objection if I use the following text with just a few modifications from Baleen whale? "Once relentlessly hunted by commercial industries for their meat, blubber, baleen, and oil, cetaceans now have some protections under international law. [Besides hunting,] baleen whales also face threats from marine pollution and ocean acidification." (I actually have no idea how people will vote on this one ... both the original and my modified form are fine in a Featured Article, I think ... the question is whether I did the right thing in removing "Besides hunting" when I did the blurb.) - Dank (push to talk) 20:40, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, go on ahead   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dunkleosteus77. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dunkleosteus77. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having one, thank you for your patience in the face of my exasperation. cygnis insignis 07:07, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maiabalaena

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Whale barnacle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Superfamily (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, a reply has been posted onto the request on 'parrot' that you made a while ago for a review! PS: yes, cats are very nice?

Qwerty number1 (talk) 23:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. My edit to oceanic dolphin was not vandalism, and frankly I fail to see why you would think it was. It did three things:

• It moved the opening comment tag (<!--) up. The way it was before created a double line break and therefore created extra white-space, which was clearly not what it was intended to do.
• It added a closing italic tag ('') to the genus name Steno in one of the citations, which was erroneously omitted.
• It moved the refs up so that they appeared on the same line as the text they referred to. If there is a good reason for them to be separate then I apologise, but I am not aware of one.

If you have any reason to disagree with any of these changes that is fine and they can be discussed if necessary (although it probably isn't worth the bother given how minor they are). However, vandalism is defined as behaviour/edits which are deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose. Unless I have missed something, nothing that I did is even potentially disruptive (all were minor formatting changes), let alone counter to Wikipedia's purpose, and it certainly wasn't done with malicious intent. Please assume good faith and try not to accuse other editors of malicious behaviour without a strong justification.

In that spirit I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you either mis-clicked or misunderstood the edit. (Perhaps an edit summary would have helped.) However, some clarification would be appreciated.

Thanks, Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 20:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alphathon It looked like a hidden comment that you for some reason made unhidden because I saw in the wikitext that you took off the ”<!--“ but not the ending “-->” so it would have displayed “[text]-->” and seemed like some low level vandalism on my end   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:42, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that makes sense and I can see why it might have looked like that. Thanks for the clarification. Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 01:38, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Llanocetidae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Edward Mitchell (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was accidental taking out the scale diagram on the Tylosaurus page! I am sorry about this, didn`t notice it at the time at all. Please put a new one in (or get somebody to) as it was a genuine mistake on my part. Orthogonal Orthocone (talk) 14:27, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I made this page, so far im the only one except for shellwood on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pachyacanthus you have a talent of editing cetacean pages so can you help me?--Bubblesorg (talk) 18:22, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated List of cetacean species for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I feel like your pinniped list is better suited for a List of pinniped species article. LittleJerry (talk) 04:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Paleocene, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diurnal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:20, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Belemnitida, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Doyle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:02, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dunkleosteus77. I'm just posting to let you know that List of fruit bats – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for October 7. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 00:25, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you stop, I have tried to stop making those accounts, so can you stop pointing old ones out. I dont like that. Im trying to be a better person, just please leave it alone.--Bubblesorg (talk) 01:18, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bubblesorg: You have completely lost all of my trust and respect, you will own up for all your past "mistakes" and I will watch you closely   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:22, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

sure, but what can I do to regain your trust? --Bubblesorg (talk) 01:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bubblesorg:, in all your time here I can't think of a single constructive thing you've done. I doubt you even try to be constructive as the best things you've produced have had to be seriously reworked and ironed out by other editors, and it's fine to accept help from other people, but right now you're depending on other people to do the actual work for you. You've been on here for a long while, I expect you to have a handle on this. You're pulling stunts that can't be explained by inexperience, and I'm fully convinced you're just screwing with us   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:32, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, Im not even trying to do that, I actually tried to help, I even tried to be constructive here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilosaurus. Dude, just give me one more chance, i can prove to you that Im worth it, please :(, I will try as Hard as I can, but I need your help--Bubblesorg (talk) 01:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bubblesorg: I guess I'll get to work fixing that up for you   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :D--Bubblesorg (talk) 16:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Im making a plan, this time I will be more reliable, I will be like how I was last year (not all like how I was isnce that was filled with crap), but try to make an effort. I will own up and stay strong, I apologize for my past self --Bubblesorg (talk) 01:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Basilosaurus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Molar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:44, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your contributions at Aquatic ape hypothesis and my use of "revert" was not meant to be insulting: [5]. I think you are correct that Brenna believes this, but I think it may be giving the opinion too much of a platform to push it so explicitly as you did. I think it best to just let the uncontroversial conclusions be. jps (talk) 02:44, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:ජපස, the way I see it, the section is already trying to heavily imply Brenna is putting evidence towards past human aquatic habituation), so as it stands it just seems like a lot of weasel wording to try to get out of saying something you're already saying. And saying "Brenna says this is evidence" gives nobody platform and expresses absolutely 0 support for Brenna's conclusion. That's like saying we can't say things like "Morgan wrote that..." because it gives Morgan's opinion too much of a platform   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:48, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not sure that the paper itself is making the claim as explicitly as what we are saying. What I think is obvious is that Brenna wants this to be the implication, but I also think that while he has published this in Scientific Reports (rather than a less, shall we say, "sprawling" journal) and that the focus of the paper is on the novelty of looking at the chemistry of the vernix from seals means that I think it better to focus on the inspiration rather than the implication. jps (talk) 02:51, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:ජපස, the sentence from his publication "Its presence in a marine mammal supports the hypothesis of an aquatic habituation period in the evolution of modern humans" is exceedingly straightforward, and in every article I've ever seen we either write about both the inspiration and the implication or just the implication. We never lop off the implication   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:34, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unsupported speculation is not a good thing to report on in Wikipedia namely because this idea has not been noticed by others. If this proposal was cited by independent sources as a means to reinvigorate some connection between aquatic habituation and evolution, that would be one thing. But there seems to be no analysis as to why the authors think this is so supportive, and that's why it's a bit misleading to lean so much on one sentence in a large review in our tertiary reference, in my opinion. jps (talk) 09:37, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:ජපස, in any article I've never seen so much caution towards using a source published in a journal. He's either reliable or unreliable, he cannot be both, and as the article stands, we're already very strongly implying Brenna has put this forward as evidence in a very weaselly way   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:19, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I mean... I don't know what your experience is with editing WP:FRINGE articles, but this is par for the course. We are already relying heavily on one article. Normally we would not devote more than a sentence to a single journal article. Here, the verifiably empirical result is that vernix on seals and humans contain similar chemicals. There are also opinions and speculations included in the article, but these are best attested in a larger context which we attempt to do by citing Brenna's appearance on Attenborough's program. I think it not a very good idea to add much more than this. After all, it didn't take much for us lowly Wikipedia editors to discover some glaring errors in the article content, which isn't surprising given the unevenness of Scientific Reports as a journal. Rather than throwing it away completely or running into WP:SYNTH issues, the best thing to do in the case of relatively obscure works like this is to keep reporting on it as succinct as possible. It seems to me we all agree with what is currently being said. To continue to hammer home ideas that this paper is somehow AAH evidence is a bridge too far, in my estimation. jps (talk) 16:49, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Paleocene, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anoxia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me out with the pectinodon page? I dont think I like it the way it is, may you help? --Bubblesorg (talk) 20:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to be more mature than me and talks differently, and besides why would you suspect that, he is under the wrong IP address. Not mine Also can you help--Bubblesorg (talk) 20:14, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I find it funny how I leave that message up for over a week and then you respond, and then no more than a day later the IP responds   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:05, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What do you expect? I stalk Bubblesorg's contributions. I don't have any good reason to stalk yours. You're legitimately acting in bad faith here. There's a time to hang up the tinfoil hat and start applying Occam's razor. 2001:569:7BB3:9200:5024:A936:F7C1:B1BB (talk) 17:41, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We didn't ping you, there's absolutely no way you should know we were discussing you here   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:52, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware that there's a little page at [6] which conveniently lists every single edit Bubblesorg has made? 2001:569:7BB3:9200:1D7C:B949:2CEE:DE41 (talk) 21:58, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow a distraction   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:59, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I get it. Bubblesorg is another unfortunate entry in a long list of unhelpful-to-disruptive users who have used sockpuppets for various reasons. I was here in 2016 when WelcometoJurassicPark started edit-warring over size estimates, and I had the pleasure of dealing with several other prolific puppetmasters. But there were occasions when I was wrong. I didn't like being wrong, but in hindsight they made me rethink why exactly I was trying to find these sockpuppets in the first place. Please just take a break. It's not only for your good but also for the good of the project. There's a repentant user here who clearly wants to contribute (but is just not totally competent) and this kind of mud-flinging is only going to alienate them and make it worse. 2001:569:7BB3:9200:1D7C:B949:2CEE:DE41 (talk) 22:49, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Birds aren't really my style   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:05, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ip you are making It worse, stop your edits, you make dunk think you are me (which is not true)--Bubblesorg (talk) 14:40, 14 October 2019 (UTC) Actually dunk, i told the user about this, thats why he is here--Bubblesorg (talk) 14:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No you didn't, there are no messages on the IP's talk page   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not like that, I ment in another way, I talked to the guy who blocked me and I mentioned the user. Also, the guy talks more maturely --Bubblesorg (talk) 14:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you're trying to say   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Never Mind, I not making much sense here. Can I drop the stick for today? --Bubblesorg (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC) what do you say to that? we can continue this weekend--Bubblesorg (talk) 15:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't force you to respond   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

why not?--Bubblesorg (talk) 16:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why not what?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

why cant you force me? You seem to have authority in this case (oh and the discussion is being debunked me)--Bubblesorg (talk) 16:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't reach through the screen and throttle you until you answer if that's what you're saying   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all, just asking to make a schedule. Okay, I have an idea, can we take this to the sockpupet investigations--Bubblesorg (talk) 18:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC) Also what do you mean when you say birds are not my style?--Bubblesorg (talk) 18:22, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to open a sockpuppet investigation on yourself?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really interested in doing a bird article   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who to make a sockpuppet investigation. Anyways what does a bird article have to do with anything?--Bubblesorg (talk) 18:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for my help on Pectinodon   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah?--Bubblesorg (talk) 18:42, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to because birds aren't really my style   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:47, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pectinodon is not a bird, its a troodontid.--Bubblesorg (talk) 19:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did not realize my rampant edits cause you to feel bad, I hate to give you stress. You are a respectable wikipedian--Bubblesorg (talk) 19:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bubblesorg, you have been on Wikipedia for a really long time now and it amazes me how you have avoided learning anything about it. You can't just contribute to an article, call it good enough, and then expect (or request) someone else to fix it for you. You should know by now what good, encyclopedic writing looks like; you should know how to talk on a discussion page, like putting colons before your response to easily identify the convo string and who you're responding to, and maybe even proof-reading your response to verify it's understandable; you should know how to cite a source and what a reliable source looks like. I am done babysitting you. You don't need my help, please stop asking for it, and learn to do things on your own. Yes, editors help each out, but they also do things for themselves, something you have a hard time doing. You've lost my trust a long time ago. I think everything you do, including the bad, is done on purpose with full intent, and likewise, I will probably never trust you again. And for the love of God, do something constructive–not partly constructive, not 80% constructive, completely and unequivocally constructive. Goodbye Bubblesorg   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, goodbye.--Bubblesorg (talk) 20:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Neanderthal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Western Desert (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Neanderthal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ilium (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Marine mammal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Antarctic Polar Front (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:20, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Neanderthal article has its history and gate-keeper(s), so I think your large edits are welcome and are very beneficial. I hope you get it to Good article rating. Don't let disagreement on one word to stop your work. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Danuvius guggenmosi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alpine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The word "initial" means "first". Calling something the "initial" or "first" example of a phenomenon carries no implication whatever, one way or the other, about the existence of a 2nd or 3rd example. This has nothing to do with language comprehension; it is basic logic. What is the problem? WolfmanSF (talk) 19:42, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@WolfmanSF: Iin the context you're placing it in, when you say "initial" this means you're distinguishing it from "secondary", such as "in the initial report" which implies there's also "in the revised report" or something similar.  User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Christmas imperial pigeon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Canopy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:42, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Baleen whale (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Extant

Boring Billion (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mantle

Elasmotherium (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Alveolus

Wolf (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Fig

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please remove your comments. We forgot to close the PR and were expecting to start the FAC at the end of the year. LittleJerry (talk) 16:22, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand how any of those statements are related but okay   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:38, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Boring Billion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:30, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the Paleocene article has been scheduled as today's featured article for January 8, 2020. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 8, 2020, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted on or after October 1, 2018, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:58, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Christmas Island flying fox at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 14:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On 25 December 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Christmas Island flying fox, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Christmas Island flying fox matures more slowly than nearly all other bats? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Christmas Island flying fox. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:01, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, anyway, your actions in the midst of merge discussion, "condensing" articles, is not being viewed in a kind light by me. ~ cygnis insignis 06:08, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cygnis insignis: you can re-expand them if you want, but the articles as they stood were filled with page filler and repetition and were cut in half. The article's aren't complete, if you find new information to add, go on and add it. Don't revert it and re-add all the redundant and long drawn out passages   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:29, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you think the above article was "page filler and repetition" when you poached it for a dyk? ~ cygnis insignis 04:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cygnis insignis: No, I made sure there wasn't page filler, and I wasn't involved very much at all un DYK so I don't know what poached is supposed to mean   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		Tree of Life Decemberween contest participation barnstar
		Thank you for all the hard work you did on Christmas Island flying fox and Christmas imperial pigeon for the contest. Unless my math is off, you earned 18.2 points! I hope to see you in the next contest! --Nessie (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Neanderthal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diaphragm (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Before everything about mtDNA was removed from the section in question, it contrasted the mtDNA findings that showed D as outliers compared to N & AMH with the autosomal DNA analysis showing D closer to N, more different than AMH. That is why the autosomal sentence begins with 'However, . . .' - to highlight the difference between the two results. You have removed just the mtDNA part, but left the autosomal DNA part, and the However. Maybe you can explain to me why you think the autosomal DNA result belongs in this section, but the mtDNA one does not, because it seems pretty arbitrary to me. Likewise, now that the mtDNA bit is removed, by leaving "However, . . ." it has the appearance of contrasting the autosomal DNA result with what is said immediately before, the discovery of human artifacts, but the two have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

Finally, as much as you would like to segregate all mention of mtDNA to the DNA analysis section, it is central to the story of the discovery. This is not your typical DNA study, where we have a species and then we sequence it to get the mtDNA and figure out the phylogeny. When they got a mtDNA sequence that was different from both AMH and N represents the moment of discovery of Denisovans as a (sub)species. The phylogeny doesn't need to be in the discovery section, but to pretend that determining the mtDNA sequence was not a fundamental aspect of the discovery seems to miss the plot. Agricolae (talk) 02:47, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just talk about the same DNA studies in every section. The Discovery section is already sizable as it is just talking about where specimens were found and how big they were. You can get into DNA studies and their significance in their relevant spaces. I thought I moved there autosomal DNA part too, I'll get to removing it right now (because it's already said in the Nuclear genome section)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feature article reviews have been introduced to the WikiCup for the first time this year. There was some reluctance by the FAC community about permitting this as they did not want the quality of FAC reviews to be lowered. As a result we adopted a rule, mentioned on the WikiCup scoring page. "You must mention in your review that you are planning to claim WikiCup points for the review." So please add such a statement mentioning the WikiCup to your review of Segnosaurus, and any other reviews of FACs or FLCs in the future for which you wish to claim WikiCup points. Thanks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just had to correct the entirely wrong list of species you inserted into the Drosophila saltans species group article. Care to explain the genesis of your error? Are there other articles that need checking? Abductive (reasoning) 01:33, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dunkleosteus77, in this edit, you have added: "In 1792, German naturalist Johann Julius Walbaum scientifically described Steller's sea ape as Siren cynocephala, from the mythical sirens and Latin cyno "dog" and cephala "head".[7] You seem to suggest that Walbaum indicates that cynocephala is derived from Latin cyno and cephala. I can not find such an error in the source. Walbaum (p. 560) writes: "Siren, cynocephala, capite canino [with a head of a dog/with a canine head]". In Latin, "dog" is of course, canis (caninus = adjective of canis with canino as ablative case) and head is caput (ablative case = capite), while in Greek "dog" is κύων and "head" is κεφαλή. Could you quote the specific sentence from Walbaum that would indicate that "Latin cyno [is] "dog" and cephala "head""? Thank you in advance, with kind regards, Wimpus (talk) 11:21, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wimpus:, you're right, it's actually from Ancient Greek   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Walbaum, does not seem to mention κύων and κεφαλή. So you have to use an additional source that mentions that cynocephala is derived from κύων and κεφαλή, as Walbaum only indicates that it means "capite canino" (with a head of a dog/with a canine head"). Wimpus (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening,

I saw your comments in the peer review for the AHP, and was quite impressed with the thoroughness. A year ago, the state of global warming was such that I wouldn't have passed it at GA. We've worked hard to bring it back to FA level, but as far as I know none of the active contributors have ever had an FA article, so I'm not sure if it meets those criteria. Virtually all of the content in new since it was promoted in 2006 and I could really appreciate some critical eyes. Would you possibly have time to help out in the peer review? Thanks in advance! Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:05, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Femkemilene: Of course, I’ll take a look later today   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Homo naledi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Femoral (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reference for your statement that Discover (magazine) is not a reliable source? Geoffrey.landis (talk) 22:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Geoffrey.landis: Discover Magazine is not a scientific authority, it reports scientific authority, it's just a middle man of information. It takes what an expert has written in a vetted peer review journal article and crams it into 500 to 1000 words, and then maybe if the writer's feeling up to it, s/he adds his/her personal non-expert opinion, or some quotes from interviewing the journal authors where they said speculation that they were not confident enough to put in their vetted journal article. That's why we like to cut out the middle man, and just cite the source that they're citing. In the case of, for example, a news story or any political or biographical article, where there aren't peer reviewed journals or anything, then Discover Magazine could potentially be included as a reliable source. But for species articles, there is a plethora of journal articles, and any news site is just going to be piggy-backing off one of those, so Discover Magazine will not be included on Neanderthal   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:02, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of that indicates that Discover is not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. The citation was not to a fact about the Neanderthals, it was a citation to the fact that both names are used. This does not require a scholarly source, but one saying both names are used. A popular source is fine. If you would like a different reference, go ahead and find one. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 02:02, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Geoffrey.landis: There already was a better source from a journal article saying that. Please do not attempt to re-add Discover Magazine   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Please do not attempt to re-add Discover Magazine". I'm sorry, why not? Discover Magazine is a reliable source according to Wikipedia's definition. The definition of reliable source is not "whatever I think is reliable", it is according to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources definition.

If the citation were to a sentence concerning a scientific fact the Neanderthals, your point might make sense that we should reference a scientific source (although even here, the Wikipedia preference is to cite a secondary source). But the citation here is not a reference to scientific facts; it is a reference for the statement that both names are used, and the citation is both accurate and to a reliable source.

Please do not attempt to delete accurate citations to reliable sources. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 15:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Geoffrey.landis: If Discover Magazine cannot be trusted enough to support a scientific fact, then it shouldn't be used at all for anything. A source can't be 50% reliable, it's either reliable or it's not. In species articles, we stay away from lay sources like Discovery Magazine because they're just there to report what scientists have said (as in, a non-authoritative source) and they present nothing new of their own. Sources like Discover Magazine are not appropriate for Neanderthal. If you're so adamant about it inclusion, you can go on the talk page and see what other editors think   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how I can say this more clearly. Discover is a reliable source according to Wikipedia's standards. Which are the only standards that are relevant here. You may have your own personal biases about what you like and don't like, but this is Wikipedia, and what is relevant is Wikipedia's definition of reliable source, not your personal opinions. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 20:14, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey is quite right - Discover magazine is indeed a reliable source, used multiple times over Wiki articles. IMHO they are more reliable than many news outlets that we have related as RS. 50.111.5.54 (talk) 23:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We do not use magazines or news outlets as sources for current scientific thought because they run a high risk of misinterpreting or over-extrapolating source material, they're just a middleman of information so it's better practice to go straight to the source, and in this instance there is absolutely no reason to include Discover Magazine on an article with about 350 perfectly good peer-reviewed references   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I've noticed that you're among the recent FA reviewers in Jan/Feb, so I wonder if it's allowed to ask this. I'm trying to make an article I've made to pass the FA nom, so is it good for you to review it if you have any spare time? Thank you. Dhio-270599 07:57, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2, with 57 contestants qualifying. We have abolished the groups this year, so to qualify for Round 3 you will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two contestants.

Our top scorers in Round 1 were:

• Epicgenius, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with a featured article, five good articles and an assortment of other submissions, specialising on buildings and locations in New York, for a total of 895 points.
• Gog the Mild came next with 464 points, from a featured article, two good articles and a number of reviews, the main theme being naval warfare.
• Raymie was in third place with 419 points, garnered from one good article and an impressive 34 DYKs on radio and TV stations in the United States.
• Harrias came next at 414, with a featured article and three good articles, an English civil war battle specialist.
• CaptainEek was in fifth place with 405 points, mostly garnered from bringing Cactus wren to featured article status.
• The top ten contestants at the end of Round 1 all scored over 200 points; they also included L293D, Kingsif, Enwebb, Lee Vilenski and CAPTAIN MEDUSA. Seven of the top ten contestants in Round 1 are new to the WikiCup.

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. In Round 1 there were four featured articles, one featured list and two featured pictures, as well as around two hundred DYKs and twenty-seven ITNs. Between them, contestants completed 127 good article reviews, nearly a hundred more than the 43 good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Contestants also claimed for 40 featured article / featured list reviews, and most even remembered to mention their WikiCup participation in their reviews (a requirement).

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Some contestants made claims before the new submissions pages were set up, and they will need to resubmit them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was an error in the WikiCup 2020 March newsletter; L293D should not have been included in the list of top ten scorers in Round 1 (they led the list last year), instead, Dunkleosteus77 should have been included, having garnered 334 points from five good articles on animals, living or extinct, and various reviews. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I listed Ooedigera as one of the "Other invertebrates" GAs, if this classification is incorrect, please change this. Hog Farm (talk) 22:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dunkleosteus77! I noticed you removed my timeline from the Paleocene epoch page, and I understand why you did it. I have no ill will towards you for what you did, and I'm not mad at you for it. I just wanted to ask if I could add it back in a way that wouldn't make it look as crowded? I could swap out the current template that's in the top-right corner for the epoch timeline one (In fact, I was going to do that originally, but I wanted to wait until I added the template to all the epoch pages before I removed it). I could also shrink the timeline to make it more compact if you want. I'm trying to add these timeline templates to all epoch pages to make them look more uniform and consistent with one another. I'm only asking because I don't want to start an edit feud or something.Benniboi01 (talk) 19:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Benniboi01: the timeline template is quite frankly not an improvement; it's really long vertically, and it doesn't show the Paleocene in relation to any other time period, it only records 2 major events in the fossil record, the text is really crowded on the left side (and I don't really like vertical text), and most all the information is already present in the much more compact and aesthetically pleasing Template:Geological epoch. I don't really understand its purpose (like how is this better than what we already have?) and it doesn't seem to really add anything   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:33, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you're right about that @Dunkleosteus77. I just don't find the other template very appealing, either, as it doesn't match the style the other geological subdivisions have (like eras, periods and eons), and it looks a bit archaic. But I understand where you're coming from. I want to make a change to the version of the template you want to keep that I feel like is a middle-ground option that makes this template match the style of the other geological subdivision pages more, while keeping things more orderly and easy to read like you like it. I won't have to replace anything on the Paleocene page, I just am using a placeholder. I was wondering if you're fine with how it looks:

Sorry if I'm being a bother, but I want to make all of the geological epochs have the same look and feel as the other subdivisions of time on wikipedia. also, feel free to remove this template example if it's cluttering up the page.Benniboi01 (talk) 00:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't particularly like the style for eons and eras. They just look so haphazard and messy   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:28, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How so? If it looks bad, maybe it can be changed/fixed. Benniboi01 (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the infobox for Cretaceous is a good middle ground   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:40, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the oxygen concentration, etc. part of it? I can do that.Benniboi01 (talk) 22:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, what exactly are you trying to change? What you've put here is exactly the same as what we already have save for that little top part. I thought your main goal was the change the relative box sizes to reflect the different durations of each epoch   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm sorry. I was going to change it, and I had other things to do, so I had put the code back on my sandbox page but didn't edit it. let me fix that. I'm sorry.Benniboi01 (talk) 21:47, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm sorry I've taken long. I have 2 proposals ready. I have 2 different proposals for you. the first one on the right is my preference: firstly, it includes useful data on things like sea level change, atmospheric CO2 levels, etc, and also has a shorter timeline, because I think you're right in saying it was too long. The second proposal is simply editing what's already there to look like the other templates I already have set up. The major difference between these two is that the one on the right would use the geological epoch template i tried inserting onto your page previously (just with more info/data so that it can be more like an infobox), while the one on the left would edit what's already on the page. I'm afraid that if i edit the table you already have on the Paleocene page to include the additions I proposed, it would mess other pages where that table is currently in use. I think the option on the right is the much safer bet. Benniboi01 (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The one on the left is better. Like I said earlier, vertical text is stylistically worse, all the letters get crowded together and it looks really messy, and the one on the right is all-in-all much harder to read and understand in general. Also, if you want the data box, you need to cite your sources. The best way you could improve the one on the left is if you make the box sizes roughly equate to the duration of each epoch/era, like the one on the right (but only change box size, nothing else)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:13, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I got it. I'll work on fixing things up and I'll come back with something soon. Stay safe man.Benniboi01 (talk) 00:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Million Award
	For your contributions to bring Neanderthal (estimated annual readership: 1,342,185) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Enwebb (talk) 17:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Neanderthal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Polyp (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My email address is _. Again, many thanks for doing this.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you find my GA review of Talk:Steller's sea ape/GA1 to be satisfactory? I try to make all of my GA reviews as thorough as possible, but then a few months later another user comes along and complains about that review without really specifying what's going wrong, all the while introducing several spelling and grammar errors into the article. Do you think the fault is with my review, or is the other user just being cantakerous? Hog Farm (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: I really have no idea what cygnis is talking about. There doesn't seem to be anything wrong about the prose of the article, he isn't being very clear what problems he has, and his actions have been to this point borderline disruptive, which seriously makes me question if there's really anything wrong at all   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Homo erectus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hunting and gathering (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 16:17, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Homo erectus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Paget's disease

Homo naledi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ilium

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Gigantopithecus at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with ((db-g7)), or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 01:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Gigantopithecus at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]