A
proposed deletion template has been added to the article
Roachoids, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the
proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the
speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to
Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if
consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{
db-author}}
to the top of
Roachoids.
Shyamal (
talk) 14:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Petter Bøckman ( talk) 05:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I have uploaded three images (I believe that photographs of the public exhibits would not come under any copyright protection under Norwegian law, let me know if otherwise)
Shyamal ( talk) 15:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
No, they are under no copyright protection, save you own. Feel free to use them! Petter Bøckman ( talk) 16:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
What can I say, I just saw the folder for the Oslo natural history museum with a program on Sunday the 20th and saw that you have an excursion to Huk. Was wondering if I could join, is there a fee to join for the field trip? Shyamal ( talk) 06:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Any ideas on the following critters? Shyamal ( talk) 17:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, there is a proposed move that I would like your input on as it concerns terminology. Banjeboi 01:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Hope to make it to the bat-watching outing at Østensjøvannet on Saturday evening before leaving Oslo on Sunday morning. Shyamal ( talk) 07:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for adding information to the above article, however, I would be grateful if you would add some references for the section you added about their systematical position and clarify the section as it presently reads like a textbook and isn't really understandable to the layman. Richerman ( talk) 13:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Petter, hope you are doing well. I have a query on this http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:FOP#Norway interpretation of the Norwegian copyright act. Some one deleted a photograph that I took and uploaded of the Olav V statue from near the Holmenkollen ski jump claiming that Norwegian law does not allow this if the subject is the main part of the picture. Any idea if this interpretation has been examined on the Norwegian wikipedia ? Cheers. Shyamal ( talk) 15:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
EDIT: I just phoned the National archive who handles matters of copyright. She quoted the law, saying that all art mounted in the public room can be freely photographed. The exception is if the subject is the main part of the picture and the photo is to be used for commercial purpose. If you put this picture out on Wikipedia, you won't earn a dime, so that is not a problem. If someone download your picture and plan to make money out of it, they will have to ask permission to do so. Petter Bøckman ( talk) 09:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
You added a tree to that article, stating that the tree came from the Sarcopterygii article. However, at that time that article looked like this. Where did you get the tree? Shinobu ( talk) 01:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for being polite. Petter Bøckman, I appreciate an evolutionist who does not go off on me for my beliefs. I think it would be worth your while, though, to do a little research in intelligent design. If you would at least study our views, I would greatly appreciate it. Try reading The New Answers Book, edited by Ken Ham.-- Whatinthewampa ( talk) 15:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I would really enjoy hearing what you have to say about reptiles. -- Whatinthewampa ( talk) 15:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I am rather interested in snakes, particularly the poisonous ones.-- Whatinthewampa ( talk) 15:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Seems like this is keeping you busy on a holiday ! :) Shyamal ( talk) 07:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Great find. isn't it? I hope you are doing well! Petter Bøckman ( talk) 08:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your response on the reptile page. My problem is that I have data on Australian reptiles but not on the snakes in the top ten snakes listed in the VERY suspect page. If it was up to me I would just ditch the article but whoever wrote it MIGHT have guessed a few right. The list is described as a personal list anyway (says "my list"). I was looking for a second opinion and some support from someone else before I take the course of action I propose which would be
1) Ditch the WORLD list (scrap someone's work even if it is extremely questionable and totally unsupported)
2) Place my AUSTRALIAN list on the page (that would somewhat invalidate the page title)
3) Invite submissions on the discussion page for anyone with real data to insert entries
If someone else could take a good look at the article and my data I would appreciate a comment on my talk page. Thanks anyway
Euc (
talk) 20:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
FYI, WP:DFTT. -- Banjeboi 01:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello Petter, thanks for adding details about Arion species. Does the Portuguese slug Arion lusitanicus s.s. live in Portugal only? -- Snek01 ( talk) 12:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, a counter example would be an non-evolutionist athiest. Wouldn't you agree? Shicoco ( talk) 05:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your updates to the article New Village Leadership Academy. I clicked on the article Against Nature?, looks quite interesting! Cirt ( talk) 21:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Petter, In this edit you added "Early in the period, the diapside reptiles split into two lineages, the lepidosaurs (forfathers of modern snakes, lizards, and tuataras). The group remained lizard-like and relatively small and inconspicuous during the Permian." but that only describes one of the two lineages. Can you expand on what the other one was? Thanks, Rojomoke ( talk) 10:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Re your edit at Clade, about J. Huxley coining the term, see the citation to Lucien Cuénot in the Cladistics article. Cuénot is the person credited by Willi Hennig in his Phylogenetic Systematics as the first user of the term clade:
A paper with a good overview of the first uses of the terms is:
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (
link)EdJohnston ( talk) 15:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
The English word "bout" doesn't make sense in this context. If you don't mean "both", what do you mean?-- Curtis Clark ( talk) 13:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Hej Petter! I noticed you uploaded a map to the Cro-Magnon article, which is funny, since I've been working on a series of 4 maps that I'm fixin' to upload just now. :P These 4 maps show expansion into Europe and North Africa by Cro-Magnon (modern humans) from between 37,500 ybp to 32,000 ybp. I think I'm going to go ahead an upload them and arrange them to look pretty in the Cro-Mag article, and then I'll let you decide whether to keep them or move them around or whaterver. Talk to you later. -- Saukkomies talk 06:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
(Margin readjusted) I got this information from an article that analyzes whether there might have been any interbreeding between Neanderthal and modern humans in Europe. The article does not come right out and say either way whether the map includes other modern humans than Cro-Magnon alone. Here is the article's URL: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0020421 And here is a quote from it concerning the maps (figure 2 in the article) that I used to base my maps on:
Further in the article the authors talk about how long of a time they gave to factor for a "generation":
So I used their 25 years per each generation rate as the basis to calculate how long ago each of the maps were representing by simly multiplying 25 by whatever number of generations each map indicated (e.g.: 25 times 1500 = 37,500). So to answer your question, the dates are based on genetic analysis of mtDNA, but I don't really know all of the precise ways in which mtDNA dates are established - I'm not sure if radiometric dating is incorporated into that analysis or not.
Throughout the article they seem to use the terms "Cro-Magnon" and "modern humans" interchangeably, with no distinction made between them, which although they don't come right out and say so, seems to imply that they are talking about Cro-Magnon each time they use the term "modern humans" in the article. No where in the article do they state that there were other modern humans included in their analysis, nor do they state that Cro-Magnons were a separate group from the early humans. So I think that it is fairly safe to assume that they are refering to Cro-Magnons throughout the article.
As per the North Africa question: I simply do not know whether the maps are accurate or not - I'm simply using their data, and they seem to be knowledgeable about what they're talking about. I mean, they're just as qualified as any other academicians. Here is the authority statement for the article:
Further, it says (refering to the authors):
Here are the sources they used to set up their map data (some of them, though, were only discussing the numbers of modern humans, not specifically their location):
So I'm assuming they got their map data somewhere in all that. However, the article cites a total of 68 sources, so maybe I'm overlooking the source(s) they got their map data from... Perhaps the best solution would be to contact the authors directly for any questions regarding their maps...
I hope that helps. I believe without any doubt that the maps do show at least one version of the ranges of Cro-Magnon/modern humans into Europe. -- Saukkomies talk 13:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm curious -- how would fuel starvation lead to flooding, as your recent edit of Miss Shilling's orifice says? Regards... Nibios ( talk) 20:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Hei Petter ! Hope you are doing well. Yet another complication caused by the law ! Do you know the artist / age of this reconstructed Auk ? Seems like Norway needs some copyright amendments to pictures taken in the public space. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:GreatAukOslo.jpg Shyamal ( talk) 02:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, for your updates to the article, Citizens Commission on Human Rights. There is enough coverage in independent reliable secondary sources on this issue, first of course in the article where you added it, and quite possibly also as its own independent article in some fashion. Cheers, -- Cirt ( talk) 23:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Cro-Magnon, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. UtherSRG (talk) 04:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Cirt! UtherSRG, if you had cared to read what i actually did, you would have seen that I was trying to tidy up the article a bit. The current "An example of this..." does not work, as it does not point to what it is an example off. If you would care to check the history of the article and compare the present one with the one before I started working on it (26th of April version), I think you will find that vandalism is hardly my motivation.
The Cro-Magnon article stil has a long way to go. If any of you gentlemen know a bit about Cro-Magnon culture, it would be very helpful if you would help flesh out that part.-- Petter Bøckman ( talk) 06:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I'm the one who edited the Clade definition on here to include an organism and its "most recent common ancestor" in the definition. I'd like to know, which definitions am I getting mixed up? Is it the "most recent common" part? I know for a fact that a clade is an organism and all of the descendants of that organism. I'm a Biology major here, so it's kind of embarrassing that I'm getting my definitions mixed up, apparently. Haha. (Though truth be told I haven't looked at cladistics in a while...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.84.53.164 ( talk) 22:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
An endocast is a cast of the endocranium rather than a synonym. The problem with having it as a separate article is that there is really very little to say about endocasts other than that they're casts of the endocranium. The article would be a permanent stub. Abyssal ( talk) 15:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. While I strongly doubt the Grimaldi finds are a forgery, after reading the article again, I believe it is categorized as such due to how the skull was rebuilt which is why I later reverted my edit. However, seeing as using the term forgery implies an intentional attempt of deception, I would agree it is rather unfair to actually label it as one.
I have tried to find more info on these skeletons, but it's rather sparse. It is quite odd how it seems there has been no interest in investigating this find using modern technology at all. It's frustrating how it has been dismissed completely, and the motivations behind the dismissal are very suspect(and probably racially oriented). Until a proper investigation is carried out with reliable evidence, I don't think it should be labeled a forgery.
AlecTrevelyan402 ( talk) 18:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
You seem to just be arguing with me, not based on the issues I've raised, though. [1] There's so much energy on wikipedia expended in pointless discussions. Can we stay on target and let me get the link to the community support for the chosen classification, rather than your guessing what I am supporting? I'm not a strict cladist for general encyclopedia taxonomies. When a bot comes by and makes a choice about a higher level taxonomy, that is in disagreement with other higher level taxonomies for the same taxa, or is selected from among a number of different taxonomies, I want to know what community support the bot operator has for the choice. It is a fair question for me to ask, and I should not be forced to address issues you imagine I have for the asking of the question. Thanks. -- Kleopatra ( talk) 08:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
You've obviously put a lot of work into this article, and it shows. I've just put up a more detailed assessment, and the only reason I gave it a start-class rating instead of B-class was because of the lack of inline citations. To have a citation for each paragraph would be ideal, but even one or two for each section would get this up to B-class - I notice that the sections "Aircraft and antiaircraft gun," "British production," and "Post-war development" are all completely unreferenced. If there are not many references out there, then finding more might not be solution - just using what you have to cite more fully would be a big step forward. I'll take a look and see if I can help out at all. The article seems to have a lot of potential, and could even make it to GA if we work at it. -- Cerebellum ( talk) 21:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for all the updates made to EQ, and breaking it off from brain to body mass ratio. The original article was quite a mess prior. Niluop ( talk) 00:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! I was doing it for WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles's assessment drive. We currently have 1229 unassessed articles in the auspices of our project...a hefty backlog, but it's pretty important. If you could take some time to chip away at the backlog (list here), that would be fantastic! Cheers, bibliomaniac 1 5 08:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm guessing from the way you wrote part of the Evolutionary grade article that you think of the English word "moss" as similar to the German "Moos" (and to the Norwegian equivalent?). However, at least in contempary English usage, "moss" does not include "liverwort": in English we have to say "mosses and liverworts" for them both. Thus the standard British text by Watson is called "British Mosses and Liverworts". Hence the term "leafy moss" is odd in English (and redundant since mosses are by their nature "leafy" compared to liverworts). Just thought I'd mention this – languages and their idiosyncrasies are endlessly fascinating to me! I'm about to edit the article. Peter coxhead ( talk) 08:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Your edit to Template:Taxonomy/Reptiliomorpha seems to have caused changes in other articles, which you were perhaps not aware of. I have reverted it, but I thought you should know why; see Template talk:Automatic taxobox#Bird for more information. -- Stemonitis ( talk) 09:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
No, we cannot have "Class Aves" being a child of "Class Amphibia" in a Linnaean hierarchical taxobox, which was one result of your edit. I suggest we keep the discussion at Template talk:Automatic taxobox#Bird, where more people can contribute. -- Stemonitis ( talk) 10:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't really know what the solution to your question is; I was just fixing a reported problem. The best people to ask would be User:Smith609 and the other automatic taxobox enthusiasts; that's partly why I suggested Template talk:Automatic taxobox as a location. -- Stemonitis ( talk) 11:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks back atcha! It's good to know the work is appreciated! I'll have you know, though, that Martin's responsible for most of the behind-the-scenes work; while I've been debugging, setting up the database, making minor alterations to templates, and providing extended support, he's been the one who has done the meat of the work, which is developing the entire system and running the bots involved. Be sure and let him know you appreciate his work, too! Bob the WikipediaN ( talk • contribs) 16:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
You have been awarded the Manliness Award for helping to construct a great encyclopedia.
Keep up the great work!
A Very Manly Man (
talk) 08:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I saw your assessment of Monophyly, which I totally agree with. I have been collecting some papers, etc. to improve the article with sources, but I would prefer to merge Monophyly, Paraphyly and Polyphyly first, since otherwise there are large amounts which simply need to be duplicated. These three concepts cannot, in my view, be understood in isolation from one another. What do you think about this idea? The other problem is to avoid WP:SYNTH or even WP:OR. I've looked back at some of the early papers (only available in print form), and it's clear to me that these have been misunderstood by some later writers. It's also a quite contentious area, as you know! Peter coxhead ( talk) 10:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I suppose fewer longer articles or more shorter ones are a matter of taste. I'm partial to the shorter ones, but I do see the point that paraphyly and monophyly need an understanding of monophyly to be informative. The question is what to call a "-phyly" article. Groups in phylogeny? Phylogenetic terms?
Another question is illustrations. The one used to illustrate the point in cladistics is actually incorrect, in that it indicates Reptilia is a subset of Sauropsida. Traditional Reptilia covers mammal-like reptiles as well as the first (pre-sauropsid) amniotes). We need a better example. Petter Bøckman ( talk) 07:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Sigh. Took me some time /a lot to do at work). Here's Sauropsida and Reptilia at least: Petter Bøckman ( talk) 11:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. It looks like 'unranked' may actually the best solution for this group at the moment. MMartyniuk ( talk) 20:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Discussion moved to Talk:Labyrinthodontia. Petter Bøckman ( talk) 06:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, have a look at User:Peter coxhead/Test/Clade now. At present adding text opposite the bars/brackets is defeating me, but do you think that the ability to add 'brackets' in any chosen colour is sufficiently useful to be added to a revised version of the main clade template? I suggest you reply at Template talk:Clade, where Bob has sensibly moved the discussion. Peter coxhead ( talk) 07:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Petter,
you seem to be quite interested in the article; how about we leav ethe xisting article alone (it needs major revisions) and take the discussion [ [3]], and the editing [ [4]]? How about we work out a structure, as (IIRC) you suggested? HMallison ( talk) 11:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to James R. Lewis (scholar). Thank you. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•( contribs) 13:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
If the definition of "stem group" is the maximum stem group, as it seems to be in your revision of my addition, then you need a different cladogram I believe.
stem-group birds (maximum) |
If the total-group = Panaves and the crown-group = Neoaves, then the stem-group is as shown. However, in the context that the total-group = Aves and the crown-group = Neoaves, then the stem-group is as on the diagram currently in the article, i.e. only from Archaeopteryx upwards.
One problem is that the names "Panaves" (not always used for this clade) and "Aves" suggest that "Aves" is the crown group. As ever in anything to do with cladistics, it has become complex and muddled, as we at least agree. Peter coxhead ( talk) 11:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
In the Evolutionary grade article, you wrote: "Under phylogenetic nomenclature paleontologists consider birds to be dinosaurs and not just their descendants (see Origin of birds and Feathered dinosaur), though the difference between the two expressions is one of semantics rather than phylogeny."
I've been arguing about what exactly informal or common words like "bird" mean elsewhere (largely about "ape"). Paleontologists are entitled to consider members of the clade Aves to be members of the clade Dinosauria. As biologists, they can give precise definitions of "Aves" and "Dinosauria". Biologists in general may, or may not, come to a consensus as to these definitions.
But biologists cannot decide what the common word "bird" means, or even the common word "dinosaur" (in spite of its being derived from "Dinosauria"). They can urge particular usages, but these may or may not be accepted.
So I think that what is actually correct is this statement: '[Some] paleontologists consider members of the clade they say should be called "birds" to be members of the clade they say should be called "dinosaurs".'
Now I'm not suggesting we should write this in Wikipedia. But I am suggesting that we should try to distinguish between words which are part of the science of biology, whose meanings are determined by definitions, and words which are in common use, whose meanings are not determined by definition but by use. At present, I would argue, the evidence from use is that the common English words "dinosaur", "reptile", "ape", etc. usually refer to paraphyletic groups/grades, although they are also, but less often, used to refer to clades. Peter coxhead ( talk) 16:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
That's great stuff you've added on egg size and yolk. However, can you further cite your additions? For example, the section on macrolecithal eggs and the overview table have no sources at all. Regards. -- Epipelagic ( talk) 08:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Could I have a source? I thought that they went extinct in the Oligocene.
Thanks,
Peter M. Brown ( talk) 01:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Petter, since I'm not very well-versed with large minor clades like those, let's take this to WT:TOL where hopefully we can come up with some sort of resolution; it sounds to me like the ones I added last night may not be the only ones creating controversial clutter (if I've understood correctly). Bob the WikipediaN ( talk • contribs) 17:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Answered here. Mithril ( talk) 11:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I thought I'd mention. You reverted a vandalism by 142.25.180.33. However this user made two vandal edits back to back. You reverted this one but missed this one. Anyways, nice to meet you. Slight Smile 02:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
...for replying at Red wolf! I was thinking about asking your permission to swipe it to the Tree of Life Project's Red Wolf section, but the bot'll add my signiture and confuse people. Would you mind cutting and pasting it there as well? I lot more people will read it there and it will encourage others to comment. Chrisrus ( talk) 13:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I think that the definition of "homoploid" that you added to ploidy was incorrect, so I've edited it accordingly. I'll look up some genetics dictionaries to add citations when I get a chance. It does seem to be a good idea to have a definition of that term on that page. Nadiatalent ( talk) 14:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
...for your contribution to Canid hybrid! Chrisrus ( talk) 15:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi. :) While it's great to add relevant images to articles, I'm afraid that there are restrictions that limit how we can use non-free images. I see that in April of last year, you added an image to Kristian Alfonso, here, but we are not able to use this image in that article. Non-free images must meet the requirements of WP:NFC for each article in which they are used, and a "fair use rationale" must be given for each image in which they are used to verify that the meet those requirements. Strangely, although we do allow promotional images of actors in articles about the characters they depict, we can't have them in articles about the actors. We may be able to make a case for a non-free image once she has retired from acting, but until then, so long as she's alive, we have to hope that somebody will take a picture and release it under a free license. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I did not know. Petter Bøckman ( talk) 20:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. In your recent article edits, 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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately I seem to be the only editor actively watching this article, but I saw your comment about unclear text and have attempted to clarify it somewhat. If you have a moment, would you mind letting me know if you think it's better now, and if not, what parts are unclear and still need improvement? Part of the issue here is that these obscure cladistic terms are very difficult to find relevant sourcing for, especially when it comes to specific examples and "layman" explanation. Any input would be appreciated. - Ferahgo the Assassin ( talk) 23:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Palaeontology for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. - Mabeenot ( talk) 19:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I was delighted to see the edit you made to Crown group#Stem groups last night. I've done a fair bit of editing since the first of the year, and it's always nice to know that someone notices!
The article correctly notes that "It follows from the definition that all members of a stem group are extinct." Unfortunately, it is not at all obvious how it follows, and readers are not likely to be comfortable accepting the bald statement that it does.
We have both tried to address this. In rewriting the section last August, you included the text, "As all living species are by definition in a crown group, it follows that all members of the stem-group of a clade are extinct." You've dropped that, perhaps because you noticed that a taxon can be both in a crown group and in a stem group; pterosaurs are in crown Diapsida and in stem Aves. I tried yesterday but, as you find my account incomprehensible, I cannot believe that the general reader is likely to fare any better.
Do we give up trying to explain it? I do not think that we should leave things as they are, but we could include extinction in the very definition: "A stem group is a group composed of all extinct organisms more closely. . . ." Other ideas? I do think the fact that stem-group species are extinct does need to be noted in a responsible account of the concept.
Peter M. Brown ( talk) 19:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. - Mabeenot ( talk) 23:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to the article. As you can see, I have created a peer review for it.
-- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 01:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Cooksonia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ferns ( 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) 10:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
If you follow taxonomy, Pisces includes Tetrapoda, Tetrapoda includes Amphibia, and Amphibia includes Amniota; the branching works from there, but it is wrong in principle to show that a group is paraphyletic by comparing it against a cladogram that is not itself taxonomically correct: either you put in a completely "traditional" one, where everything, including birds, branches off, and say "this is what some old geezers still believe", or you put a correct one and show the paraphyletic group by highlighting, as you did. A hybrid like the one on the reptile page is extremely confusing. With all this, I don't think the Reptile page, in its current form, should even exist, and ought to be replaced by a short note saying "imaginary class our grandfathers believed in, see sauropsida for sound science", and be grouped together with turbellaria and geocentrism in cat:Discredited Scientific Theories. As a zoologist, I am sure you agree. complainer ( talk) 08:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I would be interested in any comments you have on User talk:Peter M. Brown#Mammals, but only if it's no trouble. Thanks, Peter M. Brown ( talk) 15:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Swartz, 2012 is here. Maybe the paper is so new the DOI isn't recognized yet by the template. Looks like my laziness didn't pay off... Smokeybjb ( talk) 20:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Hallo, I've started the GA Review and there are some comments you might like to look at. With best wishes Chiswick Chap ( talk) 08:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Christen Smith, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Norwegian ( 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) 14:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello! Sorry to disturb you.
I've done some edits and posted my concern on the article of king cobra and its discussion page for a long time but it seems that no one gave any response there. As I'm new to here, I don't know if my edits are proper. I've read your discussion on the page of wiki amphibians and reptiles project and found that you might also be interested in such topic. So, I'd like to have your comments there. You can check the article to see if there is any mistake when you have time. Apologies for adding such work for you.
Thank you very much!
User:Toxic Walker ( talk) 15:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
You've not contributed to either en.wikipedia.org or no.wikipedia.org for two weeks though, on a quick perusal of your contribution list, I don't see similar gaps. Your inquiry at 12:46, 15 June 2012 appears to be made in expectation of future contributions.
http://www.nhm.uio.no/english/about/organization/exhibitions-public-services/people/ still lists you as a staff member, evidence that you haven't died or abandoned civilization for a monastic life.
I have been looking forward to the replacement of File:Phylogenetic-Groups-Rev.svg by your File:Monophyly-paraphyly-polyphyly.jpg. The existing image shows Reptilia as a node equivalent to Sauropsida; as you have convinced me in a talk-page exchange, that is not a common use. The situation in the Paraphyly article is particularly awkward; according to the text, "the mammal-like reptiles. . .are classified as reptiles (see the illustration above)", which is now true only of one of the two illustrations, your File:Traditional Reptilia.jpg which I recently added to the article. The other illustration, File:Phylogenetic-Groups-Rev.svg, is the only place in the article that "Reptile" or "Reptilia" is used in in the Modesto-Anderson sense.
I am eager to have File:Monophyly-paraphyly-polyphyly.jpg implemented in all three -phyly articles. Shall I do it myself?
Peter M. Brown ( talk) 16:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Aliafroz1901 ( talk) 09:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I posted this here because you haven't responded there for over 10 days despite the page being on your watchlist. Aliafroz1901 ( talk) 13:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Petter, could you please look at User:Peter_coxhead/Work/Phyletic terminology#Diagram to illustrate polyphyly? It tries to explain my puzzle over how to define and illustrate "polyphyly" and the issues I have with the diagram which I think you originally drew. I've felt obliged to put this on one of my user pages, rather than a talk page, because of the need to include quite a number of diagrams. I'm inviting Curtis Clark and Peter M. Brown to look at this, too. There may be others who should be asked to comment. Peter coxhead ( talk) 10:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, you have restored a statement which is very problematic. See my reaction at Talk:Metaphysics#Dubious statement in the lede. Maybe you would like to answer there. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 22:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
The Fossilized Barnstar | |
For the guidance in keeping Wikipedia's paleoart accurate! -- OBSIDIAN† SOUL 12:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC) |
My very first star! Thank you! Petter Bøckman ( talk) 12:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Good point. I'm basing this navbox on groups currently in use in scientific literature, i.e. mostly clades. Most uses of Tetrapoda within the last ten years or so (like Daeschler et al. (2006) [5]) include everything crownward from elpistostegalians like Panderichthys and Tiktaalik, so most of these fishes wouldn't be included. Crown tetrapods in this template are of course those within crown group Tetrapoda, which depends on whether Lissamphibia falls within Lepospondyli or Temnospondyli. What I meant by stem tetrapods are those tetrapods stemward of the crown group, which I now realize is very confusing because it's not the same thing as the stem of Tetrapoda sensu lato (which as you said would include a lot of fish). I'd rather not use more traditional, non-cladistic names in this template (they're in the taxoboxes) so I'm changing "stem tetrapods" to "basal tetrapods". Smokeybjb ( talk) 13:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Petter, could you take a look at the exchange at Talk:Dimetrodon#Phylogenetic vs. Linnaean taxonomy? Is Smokeybjb's view really uncontroversial, or is there a point in being sticky about weasel words? Thanks, Peter M. Brown ( talk) 19:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps you could also respond to the last item in that section? Peter M. Brown ( talk) 13:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I am most grateful for your note at User talk:Peter M. Brown#A cup of tea for you! Except for the barnstars, one seldom encounters appreciative comments; it is much more common for editors to call each other's views stupid when they disagree and to say nothing when they don't. Your use of File:Meissen-teacup pinkrose01.jpg was most tasteful and very welcome.
You might reconsider the use of POW to mean Point of View; the standard wikronym is POV. In America, anyhow, POW commonly stands for Prisoner of War.
Since you have young children, are you familiar with Our Family Tree: An Evolution Story by Lisa Westberg Peters? A wonderful read-aloud book, well worth some translation effort. Though you'll see a few problems (a Devonian dragonfly, for example), both text and pictures are generally superb.
Peter M. Brown ( talk) 15:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I am working on the article Amphibian with a view to getting it promoted to FA. I am told you are knowledgeable about amphibians and any help you could give to get the article up to standard would be most welcome. I think the taxonomy/evolutionary history part is most in need of assistance. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 05:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 14:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi. In response to some concerns, you wrote at Talk:Tetrapod#No {{Page needed}} in Zimmer book?, "I'll look into it." Soon? Peter Brown ( talk) 19:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Petter, no, on the contrary, the Great Chain of Being was exactly and in its essence static. God at the top, worms at the bottom, every grade of creature in its place. Worms exactly never turn into humans, humans exactly never turn into angels, it is not our lot in the GCoB worldview. This is what was replaced by, in turn, the Copernican view of the universe as heliocentric - we were not at the centre (between worms and angels); as infinite and continuous, not permanently separated from the heavenly realms (Giordano Bruno); and (therefore) able to change (Galileo) and evolve (Darwin). Eppur si muove. all the best Chiswick Chap ( talk) 11:52, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
My understanding has always been that the static GCoB (or scala naturae as it was also called) was a fundamental part of the education of a scholar in the 18th and 19th Cs, and that it was only natural for the scientists of that time to reinterpret it according to their understanding, rather than create something new (a propensity that continues to the present day, and is probably an important aspect of the sociology of science). It's not clear what article you are both referring to, but I don't think the static nature of the scala can be ignored, since that was an important part of the way it had been taught for centuries.-- Curtis Clark ( talk) 01:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
The Philosophy of Science Barnstar | |
Not good at philosophy, eh! I should have known. What a wonderful enhancement to Great chain of being. All the best Chiswick Chap ( talk) 11:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC) |
Thanks for creating Spur (zoology), Petter Bøckman!
Wikipedia editor FreeRangeFrog just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Excellent work!
To reply, leave a comment on FreeRangeFrog's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Spur (zoology), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Nail and Testudo ( 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) 12:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Petter, as an expert in this business, do you regard this August 4 edit as constructive? The revised classification of the tetrapods is unsourced but so was the one it replaced, so that is not a serious criticism. However, the editor dropped Diadectidae, which I'm pretty sure is a well-supported family, while adding Pegasoferae, which apparently is not; the Pegasoferae article cites one source in support and four in opposition. On balance, do you regard the revision as an improvement?
On August 5, the editor supplied common names for all taxa. While this is doubtless of value, I'm pretty sure that it's OR since, despite my meager background in zoology, I found and corrected twelve that were in error without much difficulty. (I was tipped off by "labyrinthodontians"; I was sure that the animals are called labyrinthodonts.) If the August 5 edit is OR, though, is the August 4 edit competent? Or should it be reverted? Peter Brown ( talk) 18:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Hei Petter, just noticed a map of museums involved with Wikipedia and thought you might like to get yourself listed too. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedian_in_Residence_on_Open_Science Shyamal ( talk) 07:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
(Note: I'm listing this on the talk pages of all editors active at
Talk:List of common misconceptions for the last two weeks).
I started an
RfC on the "glass is a liquid" issue that caused the edit war leading to protection status. Your comments would be appreciated, so that we can build a consensus and avoid further edit warring.
siafu (
talk) 20:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
In response to your comment that Mark Marathon might be the same as Amatulic, this diff seems to indicate otherwise. siafu ( talk) 23:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Petter,
I liked your recent idea of using a diagram similar to File:Spindle diagram.jpg on Dinosaur. Although I would definitely prefer a cladistic approach, a simple diagram could help the lay reader understand various families and groups of dinosaurs. However, the spindle diagram you created in 2011 is based on a source from 1998, and was probably outdated then; Benton's 2004 classification of the vertebrates lists 90 valid "Reptile" families outside of mammals and birds, not including quite a few superfamilies and the like. Would it be possible for you to create an image, perhaps based after Benton's taxonomy (or something more recent), which shows groups of non-avian dinosaurs in a similar diagram, updated for 2013? Firsfron of Ronchester 07:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
File:Spindle diagram.jpg shows Chondrichthyes as basal to Placodermi. TOL and Benton's Vertebrate Palaeontology (2005, p. 35) have it the other way around. The Vertebrate article is internally inconsistent, with both File:Spindle diagram.jpg and a TOL-based cladogram. Are you planning an update to the diagram? Or is the dominant opinion today to the effect that Chondrichthyes is basal? In the latter case, we should update Vertebrate and also Gnathostomata. Peter Brown ( talk) 02:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
On 8 March 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bark bread, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that famines have repeatedly led Scandinavians to eat bread made partially out of bark? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bark bread. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Orlady ( talk) 00:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Per your inquiry:
In articles, we expect the general reader to believe most of what is said. Intellectual responsibility and Wikipedia policy require citations; these are generally provided by little blue endnote flags that the general reader is expected to ignore. Talk pages are another matter; here we debate about such matters as verifiability, undue weight, reliability of sources, and notability. It is often a major concern who said what. Rather than little superscripted numbers, a specification of author and date is, I think, more useful. I like to use {{Harvtxt}} to provide this; the basic format is {{Harvtxt|Author|date}}, which is rendered Author & date . The date need not be numeric, so we can distinguish Smith (2000a) , Smith (2000b) , etc.
Of course, we also want to provide linkage to the full citation. The templates {{
cite journal}}, {{
cite book}} etc. each provides a parameter ref=
that provides the needed tie. There are several ways of specifying this parameter. I usually code the link and the citation separately; I then determine what the link is looking for and then fill in the ref= parameter accordingly.
For example, my full citation may be {{cite book |author=Dodgson, Charles, aka Lewis Carroll |year=1876 |title=The Hunting of the Snark |publisher=Macmillan}} and my reference may be Carroll (1876). Using the preview, I then determine what the link is looking for; in this case it's http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Petter_B%C3%B8ckman&action=submit#CITEREFCarroll1876. Only the part after the # is relevant, so I specify |ref=CITEREFCarroll1876 as a parameter in {{cite book}}. The result is
Dodgson, Charles, aka Lewis Carroll (1876). The Hunting of the Snark. Macmillan.{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Now, I can say, "at least according to Carroll (1876), the snark was a boojum". Click on the link and you will be brought to the citation and, to pick it out uniquely, it shows on a blue background. For a better example, try clicking on Dupuis (1984).
Peter Brown ( talk) 22:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Petter, I was thinking of doing a restoration of Sunnyodon, since remains of it have been found in Denmark (first Scandinavian multituberculate), where I live, and I've already drawn Dromaeosauroides (first Scandinavian dromaeosaur). So I think it could be nice with some more Danish/Scandinavian fossil animals. Og siden du er norsk, går jeg ud fra du forstår dansk? Anyway, what do you think I should base it on? Can't find any images of it... FunkMonk ( talk) 03:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I hope that you are having a productive Wikibreak. When you return, you will find that I have deleted here the claims that Morganucodon was nocturnal; you were attempting to find adequate sources but, for reasons explained in a comment, I don't think you have done it yet. You may wish to try further. Best, Peter Brown ( talk) 22:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC).
/info/en/?search=Talk:Common_House_Gecko I've edited your original comment a bit. I'm somewhat familiar with the Common House Gecko, not Mediterranean species Hemidactylus turcicus. Both the adult and juvenile H. frenatus seem to have the black and white tail. (I at times have captured H. frenatus inside a building as I have slowly sealed the perimeter from their enterance). I've moved an image from the H. frenatus page of what vaguely seems to be H. mabouia to the H. mabouia page.
The first two images on the H. frenatus page I can seemingly vouch for having seen the same look in my captives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nodove ( talk • contribs) 20:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
-- Bejnar ( talk) 19:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your note on my Talk page. You seem knowledgeable and it's nice to have your contributions here. As I understand it, the paleoanthropology literature doesn't generally use the term Cro-Magnon, as explained in the quote you gave from Fagan (1996). He says it's used primarily in popular texts. But I'm an avid reader of popular accounts of paleoanthropology (including several by Fagan), and I don't see the term used any more. Do you have a source that shows Cro-Magnon represents a culture? TimidGuy ( talk) 12:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Petter. There is a discussion on the talk page of Animal sexual behaviour where you have been mentioned and may like to respond. Regards. -- Epipelagic ( talk) 09:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Articles that you have been involved in editing— List of Dimetrodon species and Dimetrodon borealis —have been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. 65.255.88.233 ( talk) 01:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Greetings, firstly thanks for your support and feedback to the proposal to form a user group for military historians of Wikipedia. As there is enough support for the proposal, it is time to choose a title, and go ahead. Please vote at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians#Group name. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 11:41, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
I guess User Путеец misunderstood your words [6]. Please clarify your words on Talk page to avoid farther misundrestoodings. He tries to change the meaning of your words. Thanks in advance. M.Karelin ( talk) 13:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you so much for fixing up the Evolution of insects article Petter! I am fascinated by the evolution of eukaryotes and particularly non-microscopic animals, so it pained me that I couldn’t get through the first paragraph of the body without noticing errors. And you cleaned it up much more than I had asked! It was very kind of you. Dogshu ( talk) 00:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi Petter, this addition needs a source... and it should be in the World War II section. Nice to see you editing again! Chiswick Chap ( talk) 09:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
The article Vermiform has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Dictionary definition.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Chiswick Chap (
talk) 18:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Auctor until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello! This is a bit of a long shot, but it just might work. Thirteen years ago you added a reference to the quarterly journal of the Geological Society, from 1927. This included a web citation, which is now dead, not on wayback machine, and removed from the page, and a DOI reference code which leads me to a paywall. Do you have any physical copy (or any copy of any sort which we can actually see) of this? I ask because the abstract which is shown by following the DOI link looks distinctly dodgy (as though it describes the wrong part of Wales), but it might be all right after all; I don't know until I can see. Thanks, WT79 ( speak to | editing analysis | edit list) 10:41, 29 December 2022 (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) 00:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
A
proposed deletion template has been added to the article
Roachoids, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the
proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the
speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to
Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if
consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{
db-author}}
to the top of
Roachoids.
Shyamal (
talk) 14:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Petter Bøckman ( talk) 05:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I have uploaded three images (I believe that photographs of the public exhibits would not come under any copyright protection under Norwegian law, let me know if otherwise)
Shyamal ( talk) 15:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
No, they are under no copyright protection, save you own. Feel free to use them! Petter Bøckman ( talk) 16:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
What can I say, I just saw the folder for the Oslo natural history museum with a program on Sunday the 20th and saw that you have an excursion to Huk. Was wondering if I could join, is there a fee to join for the field trip? Shyamal ( talk) 06:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Any ideas on the following critters? Shyamal ( talk) 17:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, there is a proposed move that I would like your input on as it concerns terminology. Banjeboi 01:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Hope to make it to the bat-watching outing at Østensjøvannet on Saturday evening before leaving Oslo on Sunday morning. Shyamal ( talk) 07:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for adding information to the above article, however, I would be grateful if you would add some references for the section you added about their systematical position and clarify the section as it presently reads like a textbook and isn't really understandable to the layman. Richerman ( talk) 13:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Petter, hope you are doing well. I have a query on this http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:FOP#Norway interpretation of the Norwegian copyright act. Some one deleted a photograph that I took and uploaded of the Olav V statue from near the Holmenkollen ski jump claiming that Norwegian law does not allow this if the subject is the main part of the picture. Any idea if this interpretation has been examined on the Norwegian wikipedia ? Cheers. Shyamal ( talk) 15:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
EDIT: I just phoned the National archive who handles matters of copyright. She quoted the law, saying that all art mounted in the public room can be freely photographed. The exception is if the subject is the main part of the picture and the photo is to be used for commercial purpose. If you put this picture out on Wikipedia, you won't earn a dime, so that is not a problem. If someone download your picture and plan to make money out of it, they will have to ask permission to do so. Petter Bøckman ( talk) 09:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
You added a tree to that article, stating that the tree came from the Sarcopterygii article. However, at that time that article looked like this. Where did you get the tree? Shinobu ( talk) 01:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for being polite. Petter Bøckman, I appreciate an evolutionist who does not go off on me for my beliefs. I think it would be worth your while, though, to do a little research in intelligent design. If you would at least study our views, I would greatly appreciate it. Try reading The New Answers Book, edited by Ken Ham.-- Whatinthewampa ( talk) 15:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I would really enjoy hearing what you have to say about reptiles. -- Whatinthewampa ( talk) 15:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I am rather interested in snakes, particularly the poisonous ones.-- Whatinthewampa ( talk) 15:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Seems like this is keeping you busy on a holiday ! :) Shyamal ( talk) 07:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Great find. isn't it? I hope you are doing well! Petter Bøckman ( talk) 08:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your response on the reptile page. My problem is that I have data on Australian reptiles but not on the snakes in the top ten snakes listed in the VERY suspect page. If it was up to me I would just ditch the article but whoever wrote it MIGHT have guessed a few right. The list is described as a personal list anyway (says "my list"). I was looking for a second opinion and some support from someone else before I take the course of action I propose which would be
1) Ditch the WORLD list (scrap someone's work even if it is extremely questionable and totally unsupported)
2) Place my AUSTRALIAN list on the page (that would somewhat invalidate the page title)
3) Invite submissions on the discussion page for anyone with real data to insert entries
If someone else could take a good look at the article and my data I would appreciate a comment on my talk page. Thanks anyway
Euc (
talk) 20:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
FYI, WP:DFTT. -- Banjeboi 01:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello Petter, thanks for adding details about Arion species. Does the Portuguese slug Arion lusitanicus s.s. live in Portugal only? -- Snek01 ( talk) 12:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, a counter example would be an non-evolutionist athiest. Wouldn't you agree? Shicoco ( talk) 05:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your updates to the article New Village Leadership Academy. I clicked on the article Against Nature?, looks quite interesting! Cirt ( talk) 21:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Petter, In this edit you added "Early in the period, the diapside reptiles split into two lineages, the lepidosaurs (forfathers of modern snakes, lizards, and tuataras). The group remained lizard-like and relatively small and inconspicuous during the Permian." but that only describes one of the two lineages. Can you expand on what the other one was? Thanks, Rojomoke ( talk) 10:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Re your edit at Clade, about J. Huxley coining the term, see the citation to Lucien Cuénot in the Cladistics article. Cuénot is the person credited by Willi Hennig in his Phylogenetic Systematics as the first user of the term clade:
A paper with a good overview of the first uses of the terms is:
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (
link)EdJohnston ( talk) 15:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
The English word "bout" doesn't make sense in this context. If you don't mean "both", what do you mean?-- Curtis Clark ( talk) 13:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Hej Petter! I noticed you uploaded a map to the Cro-Magnon article, which is funny, since I've been working on a series of 4 maps that I'm fixin' to upload just now. :P These 4 maps show expansion into Europe and North Africa by Cro-Magnon (modern humans) from between 37,500 ybp to 32,000 ybp. I think I'm going to go ahead an upload them and arrange them to look pretty in the Cro-Mag article, and then I'll let you decide whether to keep them or move them around or whaterver. Talk to you later. -- Saukkomies talk 06:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
(Margin readjusted) I got this information from an article that analyzes whether there might have been any interbreeding between Neanderthal and modern humans in Europe. The article does not come right out and say either way whether the map includes other modern humans than Cro-Magnon alone. Here is the article's URL: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0020421 And here is a quote from it concerning the maps (figure 2 in the article) that I used to base my maps on:
Further in the article the authors talk about how long of a time they gave to factor for a "generation":
So I used their 25 years per each generation rate as the basis to calculate how long ago each of the maps were representing by simly multiplying 25 by whatever number of generations each map indicated (e.g.: 25 times 1500 = 37,500). So to answer your question, the dates are based on genetic analysis of mtDNA, but I don't really know all of the precise ways in which mtDNA dates are established - I'm not sure if radiometric dating is incorporated into that analysis or not.
Throughout the article they seem to use the terms "Cro-Magnon" and "modern humans" interchangeably, with no distinction made between them, which although they don't come right out and say so, seems to imply that they are talking about Cro-Magnon each time they use the term "modern humans" in the article. No where in the article do they state that there were other modern humans included in their analysis, nor do they state that Cro-Magnons were a separate group from the early humans. So I think that it is fairly safe to assume that they are refering to Cro-Magnons throughout the article.
As per the North Africa question: I simply do not know whether the maps are accurate or not - I'm simply using their data, and they seem to be knowledgeable about what they're talking about. I mean, they're just as qualified as any other academicians. Here is the authority statement for the article:
Further, it says (refering to the authors):
Here are the sources they used to set up their map data (some of them, though, were only discussing the numbers of modern humans, not specifically their location):
So I'm assuming they got their map data somewhere in all that. However, the article cites a total of 68 sources, so maybe I'm overlooking the source(s) they got their map data from... Perhaps the best solution would be to contact the authors directly for any questions regarding their maps...
I hope that helps. I believe without any doubt that the maps do show at least one version of the ranges of Cro-Magnon/modern humans into Europe. -- Saukkomies talk 13:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm curious -- how would fuel starvation lead to flooding, as your recent edit of Miss Shilling's orifice says? Regards... Nibios ( talk) 20:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Hei Petter ! Hope you are doing well. Yet another complication caused by the law ! Do you know the artist / age of this reconstructed Auk ? Seems like Norway needs some copyright amendments to pictures taken in the public space. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:GreatAukOslo.jpg Shyamal ( talk) 02:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, for your updates to the article, Citizens Commission on Human Rights. There is enough coverage in independent reliable secondary sources on this issue, first of course in the article where you added it, and quite possibly also as its own independent article in some fashion. Cheers, -- Cirt ( talk) 23:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Cro-Magnon, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. UtherSRG (talk) 04:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Cirt! UtherSRG, if you had cared to read what i actually did, you would have seen that I was trying to tidy up the article a bit. The current "An example of this..." does not work, as it does not point to what it is an example off. If you would care to check the history of the article and compare the present one with the one before I started working on it (26th of April version), I think you will find that vandalism is hardly my motivation.
The Cro-Magnon article stil has a long way to go. If any of you gentlemen know a bit about Cro-Magnon culture, it would be very helpful if you would help flesh out that part.-- Petter Bøckman ( talk) 06:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I'm the one who edited the Clade definition on here to include an organism and its "most recent common ancestor" in the definition. I'd like to know, which definitions am I getting mixed up? Is it the "most recent common" part? I know for a fact that a clade is an organism and all of the descendants of that organism. I'm a Biology major here, so it's kind of embarrassing that I'm getting my definitions mixed up, apparently. Haha. (Though truth be told I haven't looked at cladistics in a while...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.84.53.164 ( talk) 22:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
An endocast is a cast of the endocranium rather than a synonym. The problem with having it as a separate article is that there is really very little to say about endocasts other than that they're casts of the endocranium. The article would be a permanent stub. Abyssal ( talk) 15:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. While I strongly doubt the Grimaldi finds are a forgery, after reading the article again, I believe it is categorized as such due to how the skull was rebuilt which is why I later reverted my edit. However, seeing as using the term forgery implies an intentional attempt of deception, I would agree it is rather unfair to actually label it as one.
I have tried to find more info on these skeletons, but it's rather sparse. It is quite odd how it seems there has been no interest in investigating this find using modern technology at all. It's frustrating how it has been dismissed completely, and the motivations behind the dismissal are very suspect(and probably racially oriented). Until a proper investigation is carried out with reliable evidence, I don't think it should be labeled a forgery.
AlecTrevelyan402 ( talk) 18:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
You seem to just be arguing with me, not based on the issues I've raised, though. [1] There's so much energy on wikipedia expended in pointless discussions. Can we stay on target and let me get the link to the community support for the chosen classification, rather than your guessing what I am supporting? I'm not a strict cladist for general encyclopedia taxonomies. When a bot comes by and makes a choice about a higher level taxonomy, that is in disagreement with other higher level taxonomies for the same taxa, or is selected from among a number of different taxonomies, I want to know what community support the bot operator has for the choice. It is a fair question for me to ask, and I should not be forced to address issues you imagine I have for the asking of the question. Thanks. -- Kleopatra ( talk) 08:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
You've obviously put a lot of work into this article, and it shows. I've just put up a more detailed assessment, and the only reason I gave it a start-class rating instead of B-class was because of the lack of inline citations. To have a citation for each paragraph would be ideal, but even one or two for each section would get this up to B-class - I notice that the sections "Aircraft and antiaircraft gun," "British production," and "Post-war development" are all completely unreferenced. If there are not many references out there, then finding more might not be solution - just using what you have to cite more fully would be a big step forward. I'll take a look and see if I can help out at all. The article seems to have a lot of potential, and could even make it to GA if we work at it. -- Cerebellum ( talk) 21:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for all the updates made to EQ, and breaking it off from brain to body mass ratio. The original article was quite a mess prior. Niluop ( talk) 00:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! I was doing it for WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles's assessment drive. We currently have 1229 unassessed articles in the auspices of our project...a hefty backlog, but it's pretty important. If you could take some time to chip away at the backlog (list here), that would be fantastic! Cheers, bibliomaniac 1 5 08:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm guessing from the way you wrote part of the Evolutionary grade article that you think of the English word "moss" as similar to the German "Moos" (and to the Norwegian equivalent?). However, at least in contempary English usage, "moss" does not include "liverwort": in English we have to say "mosses and liverworts" for them both. Thus the standard British text by Watson is called "British Mosses and Liverworts". Hence the term "leafy moss" is odd in English (and redundant since mosses are by their nature "leafy" compared to liverworts). Just thought I'd mention this – languages and their idiosyncrasies are endlessly fascinating to me! I'm about to edit the article. Peter coxhead ( talk) 08:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Your edit to Template:Taxonomy/Reptiliomorpha seems to have caused changes in other articles, which you were perhaps not aware of. I have reverted it, but I thought you should know why; see Template talk:Automatic taxobox#Bird for more information. -- Stemonitis ( talk) 09:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
No, we cannot have "Class Aves" being a child of "Class Amphibia" in a Linnaean hierarchical taxobox, which was one result of your edit. I suggest we keep the discussion at Template talk:Automatic taxobox#Bird, where more people can contribute. -- Stemonitis ( talk) 10:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't really know what the solution to your question is; I was just fixing a reported problem. The best people to ask would be User:Smith609 and the other automatic taxobox enthusiasts; that's partly why I suggested Template talk:Automatic taxobox as a location. -- Stemonitis ( talk) 11:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks back atcha! It's good to know the work is appreciated! I'll have you know, though, that Martin's responsible for most of the behind-the-scenes work; while I've been debugging, setting up the database, making minor alterations to templates, and providing extended support, he's been the one who has done the meat of the work, which is developing the entire system and running the bots involved. Be sure and let him know you appreciate his work, too! Bob the WikipediaN ( talk • contribs) 16:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
You have been awarded the Manliness Award for helping to construct a great encyclopedia.
Keep up the great work!
A Very Manly Man (
talk) 08:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I saw your assessment of Monophyly, which I totally agree with. I have been collecting some papers, etc. to improve the article with sources, but I would prefer to merge Monophyly, Paraphyly and Polyphyly first, since otherwise there are large amounts which simply need to be duplicated. These three concepts cannot, in my view, be understood in isolation from one another. What do you think about this idea? The other problem is to avoid WP:SYNTH or even WP:OR. I've looked back at some of the early papers (only available in print form), and it's clear to me that these have been misunderstood by some later writers. It's also a quite contentious area, as you know! Peter coxhead ( talk) 10:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I suppose fewer longer articles or more shorter ones are a matter of taste. I'm partial to the shorter ones, but I do see the point that paraphyly and monophyly need an understanding of monophyly to be informative. The question is what to call a "-phyly" article. Groups in phylogeny? Phylogenetic terms?
Another question is illustrations. The one used to illustrate the point in cladistics is actually incorrect, in that it indicates Reptilia is a subset of Sauropsida. Traditional Reptilia covers mammal-like reptiles as well as the first (pre-sauropsid) amniotes). We need a better example. Petter Bøckman ( talk) 07:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Sigh. Took me some time /a lot to do at work). Here's Sauropsida and Reptilia at least: Petter Bøckman ( talk) 11:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. It looks like 'unranked' may actually the best solution for this group at the moment. MMartyniuk ( talk) 20:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Discussion moved to Talk:Labyrinthodontia. Petter Bøckman ( talk) 06:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, have a look at User:Peter coxhead/Test/Clade now. At present adding text opposite the bars/brackets is defeating me, but do you think that the ability to add 'brackets' in any chosen colour is sufficiently useful to be added to a revised version of the main clade template? I suggest you reply at Template talk:Clade, where Bob has sensibly moved the discussion. Peter coxhead ( talk) 07:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Petter,
you seem to be quite interested in the article; how about we leav ethe xisting article alone (it needs major revisions) and take the discussion [ [3]], and the editing [ [4]]? How about we work out a structure, as (IIRC) you suggested? HMallison ( talk) 11:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to James R. Lewis (scholar). Thank you. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•( contribs) 13:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
If the definition of "stem group" is the maximum stem group, as it seems to be in your revision of my addition, then you need a different cladogram I believe.
stem-group birds (maximum) |
If the total-group = Panaves and the crown-group = Neoaves, then the stem-group is as shown. However, in the context that the total-group = Aves and the crown-group = Neoaves, then the stem-group is as on the diagram currently in the article, i.e. only from Archaeopteryx upwards.
One problem is that the names "Panaves" (not always used for this clade) and "Aves" suggest that "Aves" is the crown group. As ever in anything to do with cladistics, it has become complex and muddled, as we at least agree. Peter coxhead ( talk) 11:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
In the Evolutionary grade article, you wrote: "Under phylogenetic nomenclature paleontologists consider birds to be dinosaurs and not just their descendants (see Origin of birds and Feathered dinosaur), though the difference between the two expressions is one of semantics rather than phylogeny."
I've been arguing about what exactly informal or common words like "bird" mean elsewhere (largely about "ape"). Paleontologists are entitled to consider members of the clade Aves to be members of the clade Dinosauria. As biologists, they can give precise definitions of "Aves" and "Dinosauria". Biologists in general may, or may not, come to a consensus as to these definitions.
But biologists cannot decide what the common word "bird" means, or even the common word "dinosaur" (in spite of its being derived from "Dinosauria"). They can urge particular usages, but these may or may not be accepted.
So I think that what is actually correct is this statement: '[Some] paleontologists consider members of the clade they say should be called "birds" to be members of the clade they say should be called "dinosaurs".'
Now I'm not suggesting we should write this in Wikipedia. But I am suggesting that we should try to distinguish between words which are part of the science of biology, whose meanings are determined by definitions, and words which are in common use, whose meanings are not determined by definition but by use. At present, I would argue, the evidence from use is that the common English words "dinosaur", "reptile", "ape", etc. usually refer to paraphyletic groups/grades, although they are also, but less often, used to refer to clades. Peter coxhead ( talk) 16:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
That's great stuff you've added on egg size and yolk. However, can you further cite your additions? For example, the section on macrolecithal eggs and the overview table have no sources at all. Regards. -- Epipelagic ( talk) 08:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Could I have a source? I thought that they went extinct in the Oligocene.
Thanks,
Peter M. Brown ( talk) 01:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Petter, since I'm not very well-versed with large minor clades like those, let's take this to WT:TOL where hopefully we can come up with some sort of resolution; it sounds to me like the ones I added last night may not be the only ones creating controversial clutter (if I've understood correctly). Bob the WikipediaN ( talk • contribs) 17:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Answered here. Mithril ( talk) 11:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I thought I'd mention. You reverted a vandalism by 142.25.180.33. However this user made two vandal edits back to back. You reverted this one but missed this one. Anyways, nice to meet you. Slight Smile 02:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
...for replying at Red wolf! I was thinking about asking your permission to swipe it to the Tree of Life Project's Red Wolf section, but the bot'll add my signiture and confuse people. Would you mind cutting and pasting it there as well? I lot more people will read it there and it will encourage others to comment. Chrisrus ( talk) 13:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I think that the definition of "homoploid" that you added to ploidy was incorrect, so I've edited it accordingly. I'll look up some genetics dictionaries to add citations when I get a chance. It does seem to be a good idea to have a definition of that term on that page. Nadiatalent ( talk) 14:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
...for your contribution to Canid hybrid! Chrisrus ( talk) 15:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi. :) While it's great to add relevant images to articles, I'm afraid that there are restrictions that limit how we can use non-free images. I see that in April of last year, you added an image to Kristian Alfonso, here, but we are not able to use this image in that article. Non-free images must meet the requirements of WP:NFC for each article in which they are used, and a "fair use rationale" must be given for each image in which they are used to verify that the meet those requirements. Strangely, although we do allow promotional images of actors in articles about the characters they depict, we can't have them in articles about the actors. We may be able to make a case for a non-free image once she has retired from acting, but until then, so long as she's alive, we have to hope that somebody will take a picture and release it under a free license. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I did not know. Petter Bøckman ( talk) 20:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. In your recent article edits, 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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately I seem to be the only editor actively watching this article, but I saw your comment about unclear text and have attempted to clarify it somewhat. If you have a moment, would you mind letting me know if you think it's better now, and if not, what parts are unclear and still need improvement? Part of the issue here is that these obscure cladistic terms are very difficult to find relevant sourcing for, especially when it comes to specific examples and "layman" explanation. Any input would be appreciated. - Ferahgo the Assassin ( talk) 23:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Palaeontology for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. - Mabeenot ( talk) 19:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I was delighted to see the edit you made to Crown group#Stem groups last night. I've done a fair bit of editing since the first of the year, and it's always nice to know that someone notices!
The article correctly notes that "It follows from the definition that all members of a stem group are extinct." Unfortunately, it is not at all obvious how it follows, and readers are not likely to be comfortable accepting the bald statement that it does.
We have both tried to address this. In rewriting the section last August, you included the text, "As all living species are by definition in a crown group, it follows that all members of the stem-group of a clade are extinct." You've dropped that, perhaps because you noticed that a taxon can be both in a crown group and in a stem group; pterosaurs are in crown Diapsida and in stem Aves. I tried yesterday but, as you find my account incomprehensible, I cannot believe that the general reader is likely to fare any better.
Do we give up trying to explain it? I do not think that we should leave things as they are, but we could include extinction in the very definition: "A stem group is a group composed of all extinct organisms more closely. . . ." Other ideas? I do think the fact that stem-group species are extinct does need to be noted in a responsible account of the concept.
Peter M. Brown ( talk) 19:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. - Mabeenot ( talk) 23:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to the article. As you can see, I have created a peer review for it.
-- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 01:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Cooksonia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ferns ( 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) 10:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
If you follow taxonomy, Pisces includes Tetrapoda, Tetrapoda includes Amphibia, and Amphibia includes Amniota; the branching works from there, but it is wrong in principle to show that a group is paraphyletic by comparing it against a cladogram that is not itself taxonomically correct: either you put in a completely "traditional" one, where everything, including birds, branches off, and say "this is what some old geezers still believe", or you put a correct one and show the paraphyletic group by highlighting, as you did. A hybrid like the one on the reptile page is extremely confusing. With all this, I don't think the Reptile page, in its current form, should even exist, and ought to be replaced by a short note saying "imaginary class our grandfathers believed in, see sauropsida for sound science", and be grouped together with turbellaria and geocentrism in cat:Discredited Scientific Theories. As a zoologist, I am sure you agree. complainer ( talk) 08:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I would be interested in any comments you have on User talk:Peter M. Brown#Mammals, but only if it's no trouble. Thanks, Peter M. Brown ( talk) 15:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Swartz, 2012 is here. Maybe the paper is so new the DOI isn't recognized yet by the template. Looks like my laziness didn't pay off... Smokeybjb ( talk) 20:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Hallo, I've started the GA Review and there are some comments you might like to look at. With best wishes Chiswick Chap ( talk) 08:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Christen Smith, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Norwegian ( 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) 14:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello! Sorry to disturb you.
I've done some edits and posted my concern on the article of king cobra and its discussion page for a long time but it seems that no one gave any response there. As I'm new to here, I don't know if my edits are proper. I've read your discussion on the page of wiki amphibians and reptiles project and found that you might also be interested in such topic. So, I'd like to have your comments there. You can check the article to see if there is any mistake when you have time. Apologies for adding such work for you.
Thank you very much!
User:Toxic Walker ( talk) 15:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
You've not contributed to either en.wikipedia.org or no.wikipedia.org for two weeks though, on a quick perusal of your contribution list, I don't see similar gaps. Your inquiry at 12:46, 15 June 2012 appears to be made in expectation of future contributions.
http://www.nhm.uio.no/english/about/organization/exhibitions-public-services/people/ still lists you as a staff member, evidence that you haven't died or abandoned civilization for a monastic life.
I have been looking forward to the replacement of File:Phylogenetic-Groups-Rev.svg by your File:Monophyly-paraphyly-polyphyly.jpg. The existing image shows Reptilia as a node equivalent to Sauropsida; as you have convinced me in a talk-page exchange, that is not a common use. The situation in the Paraphyly article is particularly awkward; according to the text, "the mammal-like reptiles. . .are classified as reptiles (see the illustration above)", which is now true only of one of the two illustrations, your File:Traditional Reptilia.jpg which I recently added to the article. The other illustration, File:Phylogenetic-Groups-Rev.svg, is the only place in the article that "Reptile" or "Reptilia" is used in in the Modesto-Anderson sense.
I am eager to have File:Monophyly-paraphyly-polyphyly.jpg implemented in all three -phyly articles. Shall I do it myself?
Peter M. Brown ( talk) 16:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Aliafroz1901 ( talk) 09:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I posted this here because you haven't responded there for over 10 days despite the page being on your watchlist. Aliafroz1901 ( talk) 13:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Petter, could you please look at User:Peter_coxhead/Work/Phyletic terminology#Diagram to illustrate polyphyly? It tries to explain my puzzle over how to define and illustrate "polyphyly" and the issues I have with the diagram which I think you originally drew. I've felt obliged to put this on one of my user pages, rather than a talk page, because of the need to include quite a number of diagrams. I'm inviting Curtis Clark and Peter M. Brown to look at this, too. There may be others who should be asked to comment. Peter coxhead ( talk) 10:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, you have restored a statement which is very problematic. See my reaction at Talk:Metaphysics#Dubious statement in the lede. Maybe you would like to answer there. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 22:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
The Fossilized Barnstar | |
For the guidance in keeping Wikipedia's paleoart accurate! -- OBSIDIAN† SOUL 12:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC) |
My very first star! Thank you! Petter Bøckman ( talk) 12:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Good point. I'm basing this navbox on groups currently in use in scientific literature, i.e. mostly clades. Most uses of Tetrapoda within the last ten years or so (like Daeschler et al. (2006) [5]) include everything crownward from elpistostegalians like Panderichthys and Tiktaalik, so most of these fishes wouldn't be included. Crown tetrapods in this template are of course those within crown group Tetrapoda, which depends on whether Lissamphibia falls within Lepospondyli or Temnospondyli. What I meant by stem tetrapods are those tetrapods stemward of the crown group, which I now realize is very confusing because it's not the same thing as the stem of Tetrapoda sensu lato (which as you said would include a lot of fish). I'd rather not use more traditional, non-cladistic names in this template (they're in the taxoboxes) so I'm changing "stem tetrapods" to "basal tetrapods". Smokeybjb ( talk) 13:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Petter, could you take a look at the exchange at Talk:Dimetrodon#Phylogenetic vs. Linnaean taxonomy? Is Smokeybjb's view really uncontroversial, or is there a point in being sticky about weasel words? Thanks, Peter M. Brown ( talk) 19:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps you could also respond to the last item in that section? Peter M. Brown ( talk) 13:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I am most grateful for your note at User talk:Peter M. Brown#A cup of tea for you! Except for the barnstars, one seldom encounters appreciative comments; it is much more common for editors to call each other's views stupid when they disagree and to say nothing when they don't. Your use of File:Meissen-teacup pinkrose01.jpg was most tasteful and very welcome.
You might reconsider the use of POW to mean Point of View; the standard wikronym is POV. In America, anyhow, POW commonly stands for Prisoner of War.
Since you have young children, are you familiar with Our Family Tree: An Evolution Story by Lisa Westberg Peters? A wonderful read-aloud book, well worth some translation effort. Though you'll see a few problems (a Devonian dragonfly, for example), both text and pictures are generally superb.
Peter M. Brown ( talk) 15:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I am working on the article Amphibian with a view to getting it promoted to FA. I am told you are knowledgeable about amphibians and any help you could give to get the article up to standard would be most welcome. I think the taxonomy/evolutionary history part is most in need of assistance. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 05:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 14:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi. In response to some concerns, you wrote at Talk:Tetrapod#No {{Page needed}} in Zimmer book?, "I'll look into it." Soon? Peter Brown ( talk) 19:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Petter, no, on the contrary, the Great Chain of Being was exactly and in its essence static. God at the top, worms at the bottom, every grade of creature in its place. Worms exactly never turn into humans, humans exactly never turn into angels, it is not our lot in the GCoB worldview. This is what was replaced by, in turn, the Copernican view of the universe as heliocentric - we were not at the centre (between worms and angels); as infinite and continuous, not permanently separated from the heavenly realms (Giordano Bruno); and (therefore) able to change (Galileo) and evolve (Darwin). Eppur si muove. all the best Chiswick Chap ( talk) 11:52, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
My understanding has always been that the static GCoB (or scala naturae as it was also called) was a fundamental part of the education of a scholar in the 18th and 19th Cs, and that it was only natural for the scientists of that time to reinterpret it according to their understanding, rather than create something new (a propensity that continues to the present day, and is probably an important aspect of the sociology of science). It's not clear what article you are both referring to, but I don't think the static nature of the scala can be ignored, since that was an important part of the way it had been taught for centuries.-- Curtis Clark ( talk) 01:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
The Philosophy of Science Barnstar | |
Not good at philosophy, eh! I should have known. What a wonderful enhancement to Great chain of being. All the best Chiswick Chap ( talk) 11:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC) |
Thanks for creating Spur (zoology), Petter Bøckman!
Wikipedia editor FreeRangeFrog just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Excellent work!
To reply, leave a comment on FreeRangeFrog's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Spur (zoology), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Nail and Testudo ( 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) 12:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Petter, as an expert in this business, do you regard this August 4 edit as constructive? The revised classification of the tetrapods is unsourced but so was the one it replaced, so that is not a serious criticism. However, the editor dropped Diadectidae, which I'm pretty sure is a well-supported family, while adding Pegasoferae, which apparently is not; the Pegasoferae article cites one source in support and four in opposition. On balance, do you regard the revision as an improvement?
On August 5, the editor supplied common names for all taxa. While this is doubtless of value, I'm pretty sure that it's OR since, despite my meager background in zoology, I found and corrected twelve that were in error without much difficulty. (I was tipped off by "labyrinthodontians"; I was sure that the animals are called labyrinthodonts.) If the August 5 edit is OR, though, is the August 4 edit competent? Or should it be reverted? Peter Brown ( talk) 18:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Hei Petter, just noticed a map of museums involved with Wikipedia and thought you might like to get yourself listed too. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedian_in_Residence_on_Open_Science Shyamal ( talk) 07:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
(Note: I'm listing this on the talk pages of all editors active at
Talk:List of common misconceptions for the last two weeks).
I started an
RfC on the "glass is a liquid" issue that caused the edit war leading to protection status. Your comments would be appreciated, so that we can build a consensus and avoid further edit warring.
siafu (
talk) 20:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
In response to your comment that Mark Marathon might be the same as Amatulic, this diff seems to indicate otherwise. siafu ( talk) 23:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Petter,
I liked your recent idea of using a diagram similar to File:Spindle diagram.jpg on Dinosaur. Although I would definitely prefer a cladistic approach, a simple diagram could help the lay reader understand various families and groups of dinosaurs. However, the spindle diagram you created in 2011 is based on a source from 1998, and was probably outdated then; Benton's 2004 classification of the vertebrates lists 90 valid "Reptile" families outside of mammals and birds, not including quite a few superfamilies and the like. Would it be possible for you to create an image, perhaps based after Benton's taxonomy (or something more recent), which shows groups of non-avian dinosaurs in a similar diagram, updated for 2013? Firsfron of Ronchester 07:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
File:Spindle diagram.jpg shows Chondrichthyes as basal to Placodermi. TOL and Benton's Vertebrate Palaeontology (2005, p. 35) have it the other way around. The Vertebrate article is internally inconsistent, with both File:Spindle diagram.jpg and a TOL-based cladogram. Are you planning an update to the diagram? Or is the dominant opinion today to the effect that Chondrichthyes is basal? In the latter case, we should update Vertebrate and also Gnathostomata. Peter Brown ( talk) 02:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
On 8 March 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bark bread, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that famines have repeatedly led Scandinavians to eat bread made partially out of bark? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bark bread. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Orlady ( talk) 00:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Per your inquiry:
In articles, we expect the general reader to believe most of what is said. Intellectual responsibility and Wikipedia policy require citations; these are generally provided by little blue endnote flags that the general reader is expected to ignore. Talk pages are another matter; here we debate about such matters as verifiability, undue weight, reliability of sources, and notability. It is often a major concern who said what. Rather than little superscripted numbers, a specification of author and date is, I think, more useful. I like to use {{Harvtxt}} to provide this; the basic format is {{Harvtxt|Author|date}}, which is rendered Author & date . The date need not be numeric, so we can distinguish Smith (2000a) , Smith (2000b) , etc.
Of course, we also want to provide linkage to the full citation. The templates {{
cite journal}}, {{
cite book}} etc. each provides a parameter ref=
that provides the needed tie. There are several ways of specifying this parameter. I usually code the link and the citation separately; I then determine what the link is looking for and then fill in the ref= parameter accordingly.
For example, my full citation may be {{cite book |author=Dodgson, Charles, aka Lewis Carroll |year=1876 |title=The Hunting of the Snark |publisher=Macmillan}} and my reference may be Carroll (1876). Using the preview, I then determine what the link is looking for; in this case it's http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Petter_B%C3%B8ckman&action=submit#CITEREFCarroll1876. Only the part after the # is relevant, so I specify |ref=CITEREFCarroll1876 as a parameter in {{cite book}}. The result is
Dodgson, Charles, aka Lewis Carroll (1876). The Hunting of the Snark. Macmillan.{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Now, I can say, "at least according to Carroll (1876), the snark was a boojum". Click on the link and you will be brought to the citation and, to pick it out uniquely, it shows on a blue background. For a better example, try clicking on Dupuis (1984).
Peter Brown ( talk) 22:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Petter, I was thinking of doing a restoration of Sunnyodon, since remains of it have been found in Denmark (first Scandinavian multituberculate), where I live, and I've already drawn Dromaeosauroides (first Scandinavian dromaeosaur). So I think it could be nice with some more Danish/Scandinavian fossil animals. Og siden du er norsk, går jeg ud fra du forstår dansk? Anyway, what do you think I should base it on? Can't find any images of it... FunkMonk ( talk) 03:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I hope that you are having a productive Wikibreak. When you return, you will find that I have deleted here the claims that Morganucodon was nocturnal; you were attempting to find adequate sources but, for reasons explained in a comment, I don't think you have done it yet. You may wish to try further. Best, Peter Brown ( talk) 22:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC).
/info/en/?search=Talk:Common_House_Gecko I've edited your original comment a bit. I'm somewhat familiar with the Common House Gecko, not Mediterranean species Hemidactylus turcicus. Both the adult and juvenile H. frenatus seem to have the black and white tail. (I at times have captured H. frenatus inside a building as I have slowly sealed the perimeter from their enterance). I've moved an image from the H. frenatus page of what vaguely seems to be H. mabouia to the H. mabouia page.
The first two images on the H. frenatus page I can seemingly vouch for having seen the same look in my captives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nodove ( talk • contribs) 20:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
-- Bejnar ( talk) 19:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your note on my Talk page. You seem knowledgeable and it's nice to have your contributions here. As I understand it, the paleoanthropology literature doesn't generally use the term Cro-Magnon, as explained in the quote you gave from Fagan (1996). He says it's used primarily in popular texts. But I'm an avid reader of popular accounts of paleoanthropology (including several by Fagan), and I don't see the term used any more. Do you have a source that shows Cro-Magnon represents a culture? TimidGuy ( talk) 12:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Petter. There is a discussion on the talk page of Animal sexual behaviour where you have been mentioned and may like to respond. Regards. -- Epipelagic ( talk) 09:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Articles that you have been involved in editing— List of Dimetrodon species and Dimetrodon borealis —have been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. 65.255.88.233 ( talk) 01:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Greetings, firstly thanks for your support and feedback to the proposal to form a user group for military historians of Wikipedia. As there is enough support for the proposal, it is time to choose a title, and go ahead. Please vote at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians#Group name. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 11:41, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
I guess User Путеец misunderstood your words [6]. Please clarify your words on Talk page to avoid farther misundrestoodings. He tries to change the meaning of your words. Thanks in advance. M.Karelin ( talk) 13:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you so much for fixing up the Evolution of insects article Petter! I am fascinated by the evolution of eukaryotes and particularly non-microscopic animals, so it pained me that I couldn’t get through the first paragraph of the body without noticing errors. And you cleaned it up much more than I had asked! It was very kind of you. Dogshu ( talk) 00:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi Petter, this addition needs a source... and it should be in the World War II section. Nice to see you editing again! Chiswick Chap ( talk) 09:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
The article Vermiform has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Dictionary definition.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Chiswick Chap (
talk) 18:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Auctor until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello! This is a bit of a long shot, but it just might work. Thirteen years ago you added a reference to the quarterly journal of the Geological Society, from 1927. This included a web citation, which is now dead, not on wayback machine, and removed from the page, and a DOI reference code which leads me to a paywall. Do you have any physical copy (or any copy of any sort which we can actually see) of this? I ask because the abstract which is shown by following the DOI link looks distinctly dodgy (as though it describes the wrong part of Wales), but it might be all right after all; I don't know until I can see. Thanks, WT79 ( speak to | editing analysis | edit list) 10:41, 29 December 2022 (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) 00:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)