Hi Cougroyalty! I noticed your contributions to Decapoda and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.
Happy editing! Epipelagic ( talk) 19:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Crab, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Menippe. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 06:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited "Crocodylus" megarhinus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Basal.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:56, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi Cougroyalty! Thank you for your edits to
Alligator. It looks like you've copied or moved text from
Alligatoridae into that page, and while you are welcome to do so,
Wikipedia's licensing requires that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied in an
edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and
linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution
. If you've copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at
Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thanks!
DanCherek (
talk) 02:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tomistoma, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Extant.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
The morphological data set used by Lee and Yates has a very high error rate. More recent studies have been published using more reliable data, and they should be used wherever possible. If one of those trees came from a different source, it wasn't evident. Email me if you want to discuss this further. (As whatever deity or deities may or may not be my witness, I'm not trying to be a jerk here. You've done a ton of work, and it's mostly very, very good.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabrochu ( talk • contribs) 01:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Their data set is better than Lee and Yates, though I would focus on trees that did not include continuous shape variation. There are also some oddities in Rio and Mannion (e.g. their position of Eocaiman; last year's revision of Eocaiman would be a far better source on that; and their recovery of a non-monophyletic Planocraniidae). So if you went with their tree, I'd at least mention that Lee and Yates suggest non-gavialoid affinities for thoracosaurs (which might be correct, albeit not for the reasons cited in their paper) and that most analyses strongly support planocraniid monophyly (the JVP paper that came out a few weeks ago re-describing Duerosuchus is what you should use). I would look to the many papers recently published by South American systematists for caimanine relationships.
And I would still go with Salas-Gismondi et al. for gryposuchines.
Suggesting it is a personal preference of mine is not an appropriate response when reverting to your own preference, or requesting reasons that were already given. Assume this instead, it might be an improvement, done in good faith, by an experienced editor, familiar with guidelines and policy, who was updating something they did at a related article, noted on its talk page, and you should open a discussion instead of insisting you just know better. ~ cygnis insignis 17:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dunkleosteidae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dorsal.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gunggamarandu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Morphology.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:12, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
I just saw your TOOTBLAN edit on Ryan Theriot's page. I love it! I thought I was pretty knowledgeable about baseball stuff, but this was news to me. Wonderful addition! Matza Pizza ( talk) 18:06, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
The Pebas Formation dates to the Colhuehuapian, which is around 21 mya, and you reverted my edit on Purussaurus by saying it was original research. Then you changed it back to the Friasian, which would have matched the citation. Magnatyrannus ( talk | contribs) 23:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Minor ranks and clades aren't routinely displayed except for when they are between the subject of an article and the next higher rank. I.e., minor ranks between order and family are displayed in a family article, but not a genus article. A genus article should show any minor ranks between genus and family. Automatic taxoboxes always display the immediate parent, so |display_parents=
is only necessary when there are two or more minor ranks before the next higher major rank. If a minor rank (e.g. suborder Brachythoraci) is sufficiently important that you want to display it in the taxoboxes for all lower taxa, the way to do that is to set |always_displayed=
in the taxonomy template for the important minor rank.
Plantdrew (
talk) 21:39, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
|always_display=
not |always_displayed=
.
Plantdrew (
talk) 19:48, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cetacea, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Taras.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Crayfish, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Interstitial.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 01:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi Cougroyalty! I noticed your contributions to Decapoda and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.
Happy editing! Epipelagic ( talk) 19:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Crab, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Menippe. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 06:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited "Crocodylus" megarhinus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Basal.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:56, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi Cougroyalty! Thank you for your edits to
Alligator. It looks like you've copied or moved text from
Alligatoridae into that page, and while you are welcome to do so,
Wikipedia's licensing requires that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied in an
edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and
linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution
. If you've copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at
Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thanks!
DanCherek (
talk) 02:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tomistoma, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Extant.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
The morphological data set used by Lee and Yates has a very high error rate. More recent studies have been published using more reliable data, and they should be used wherever possible. If one of those trees came from a different source, it wasn't evident. Email me if you want to discuss this further. (As whatever deity or deities may or may not be my witness, I'm not trying to be a jerk here. You've done a ton of work, and it's mostly very, very good.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabrochu ( talk • contribs) 01:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Their data set is better than Lee and Yates, though I would focus on trees that did not include continuous shape variation. There are also some oddities in Rio and Mannion (e.g. their position of Eocaiman; last year's revision of Eocaiman would be a far better source on that; and their recovery of a non-monophyletic Planocraniidae). So if you went with their tree, I'd at least mention that Lee and Yates suggest non-gavialoid affinities for thoracosaurs (which might be correct, albeit not for the reasons cited in their paper) and that most analyses strongly support planocraniid monophyly (the JVP paper that came out a few weeks ago re-describing Duerosuchus is what you should use). I would look to the many papers recently published by South American systematists for caimanine relationships.
And I would still go with Salas-Gismondi et al. for gryposuchines.
Suggesting it is a personal preference of mine is not an appropriate response when reverting to your own preference, or requesting reasons that were already given. Assume this instead, it might be an improvement, done in good faith, by an experienced editor, familiar with guidelines and policy, who was updating something they did at a related article, noted on its talk page, and you should open a discussion instead of insisting you just know better. ~ cygnis insignis 17:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dunkleosteidae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dorsal.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gunggamarandu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Morphology.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:12, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
I just saw your TOOTBLAN edit on Ryan Theriot's page. I love it! I thought I was pretty knowledgeable about baseball stuff, but this was news to me. Wonderful addition! Matza Pizza ( talk) 18:06, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
The Pebas Formation dates to the Colhuehuapian, which is around 21 mya, and you reverted my edit on Purussaurus by saying it was original research. Then you changed it back to the Friasian, which would have matched the citation. Magnatyrannus ( talk | contribs) 23:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Minor ranks and clades aren't routinely displayed except for when they are between the subject of an article and the next higher rank. I.e., minor ranks between order and family are displayed in a family article, but not a genus article. A genus article should show any minor ranks between genus and family. Automatic taxoboxes always display the immediate parent, so |display_parents=
is only necessary when there are two or more minor ranks before the next higher major rank. If a minor rank (e.g. suborder Brachythoraci) is sufficiently important that you want to display it in the taxoboxes for all lower taxa, the way to do that is to set |always_displayed=
in the taxonomy template for the important minor rank.
Plantdrew (
talk) 21:39, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
|always_display=
not |always_displayed=
.
Plantdrew (
talk) 19:48, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cetacea, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Taras.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Crayfish, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Interstitial.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 01:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)