User talk:Hemiauchenia

Hi, you reverted my edits to Al Jazeera, but I only moved some information from the introduction to the controversies section. I also added some positive information to the introduction, but you reverted that as well. The Al Jazeera introduction is written to attack the news channel, but all news websites have controversies, which can be discussed in the controversies section, just like in other articles.

Gsgdd (talk) 08:35, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

§	Hi
	Thanks - Suggest you enter these ammendments as I am not great with the modern tech. Kind regards, Huiarau Huiarau (talk) 20:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Hemiauchenia. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! --Animalparty! (talk) 20:25, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Citreae (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Limonia, Severinia, Merope and Clymenia

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on Chimerarachne. My institution doesn't subscribe to Nature Ecology & Evolution so it was good to be able to read a knowledgeable and well written article here. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source/license for File:Cretamygale.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Cretamygale.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 15:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy - we may be editing at cross purposes there :) The general consensus with monotypic fossil genera is not to make the article about the species, but about the genus (while presenting the type specimen of the single species, naturally). I have edited accordingly. Were you aiming for something different? Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's honestly fair, it was a mistake, I thought the current article was using "Dungeyella is a species of chironomid" and was correcting it, without realizing that you had corrected it first. I am aware that the syntax is supposed to be genus first I was just being careless, my apologies. Kind regards Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the vague revert, but that sort of thing isn't really a good idea to publicize. Personal info and all that. Primefac (talk) 19:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand why you reverted the edit. His age is not a particularly identifiable attribute though. The problem is that people will treat him as if he's much older than he actually is, and won't give him the slack he ultimately deserves for at least trying to contribute at such a young age.Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 18:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks 😃 for helping me out here. Spirits of the Ice Forests is outdated. Most of the dinosaurs are not from Southern Australia let alone Antarctica. Australovenator is from the Winton formation so that could be a polar dinosaur. I do agree with some of your general points.

• I know that, "Spirits of the Ice Forest" even though it is inaccurate really typifies the typical dinosaur cove esque conception of "South polar dinosaur" with Leaellynasaura etc. I guess that your ill fated Australian Spinosaurid counts as a south polar dinosaur in this regard, given that both taxa originate from the same formation. In regards to Australovenator the Winton formation is supposed to have been warm enough that it barely ever frosted, having a more subtropical climate which doesn't lend itself to being being "South Polar" really.Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Bubblesorg (talk) 18:40, 30 May 2018 (UTC))Austrlian spinosauride is from northen Australia. Queensland[reply]

• I'm not sure where you're getting that from, the paper describing it clearly says its from Victoria Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Bubblesorg (talk) 02:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)) Sorry i was referring to the wrong theropod.[reply]

Do you have any expertise in Geology. Are you a geologist yourself. Or do you just have a good grip on the field. This is because Ashorocetus and dunkleosteus 777 said you did. We need you for the geology section for South Polar Dinosaurs. It might be key for the article to hit good article entry level.

• I've just come to the end of the 3rd year of my Geology degree, I'm a bit busy at the moment, but will be able to help in a few days Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Bubblesorg (talk) 03:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC))OK also help, Could you just redreict this for me ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platanistida). Thanks and that 3rd year degree sound great. Good job.[reply]

		Paleontology Barnstar
		Dear Hemiauchenia, thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, especially your recent creation of Grünbach Formation. Keep up the good work! You are making a difference here! With regards, AnupamTalk 06:32, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Carstone Formation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Conglomerate

Khok Kruat Formation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Conglomerate

Lameta Formation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Conglomerate

Phra Wihan Formation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Conglomerate

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hemiauchenia, I noticed that you changed a few infoboxes where I had set the period to the relevant Geological period, to the relevant Stage (stratigraphy). I've opened a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geology#Infobox_rockunit_colours. It's not a huge deal as only the infobox colour is changed. Consensus may be to change it to the stage, where we have that information, in which case the name of the parameter should probably be changed. Mikenorton (talk) 10:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hemiauchenia want to help with the article again. --Bubblesorg (talk) 21:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC) Are you there?--Bubblesorg (talk) 21:03, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly urge you to add additional content to these articles that you are creating. They are all notable, but something more can surely be found , even in the single source you are using. At the very least, who first described it. As they areu ndoubtedly discussed in multiple texbooks of British geology, there should be references. DGG ( talk ) 00:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a simple question of finding the person who named it, often times the unit may have been described by a different person earlier with a different name, with very similar definitions. In that case who would take credit? It's not as simple as you may assert. It's also not really an important detail for general readers, who are probably more interested in the lithology of the unit Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back--Bubblesorg (talk) 14:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

happy to have you man--Bubblesorg (talk) 14:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	For your contributions to Wikipedia's coverage of stratigraphy. Abyssal (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, together we are working hard I see. Thanks for following my steps and correcting hasty mistakes. Still a lot to add in new articles, but the maintenance of the South American, African and Oceania geologic formations is nearly completed now. Cheers, Tisquesusa (talk) 17:53, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I've largely fixed the Jurassic-Cretaceous sequence of the UK at this point. I've tried to fix up some of the french articles, but their informal terminology of formations and lack of a stratigraphic database makes it difficult, also there are a lot of duplicate articles around which need to be dealt with. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:23, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your tireless contributions to all the geologic formations and paleontology in general. Tisquesusa (talk) 00:53, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to anymore?--Bubblesorg (talk) 18:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bubblesorg: to give you a head start, I started this page, will fill in the other periods later: List of fossiliferous stratigraphic units in Antarctica. Cheers, Tisquesusa (talk) 21:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks--Bubblesorg (talk) 15:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification of the first appearance date of Trigonotarbids. However, the fact remains that 419Ma, as stated in the infobox, is Devonian, not Silurian. Plantsurfer 13:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have removed the dates from the article introduction and infobox and have simply replaced them with the appropriate geologic subdivisions.Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:41, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hemiauchenia

Thank you for creating Sebeș Formation.

User:DGG, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

This article really needs some additional references.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|DGG}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

DGG ( talk ) 20:18, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed your SPI report was made manually and was missing the template that lists it on the WP:SPI page, meaning no one would have seen the report. I'd recommend using Twinkle to automatically fill out these reports, it adds all the necessary templates. Also thanks for pointing this user out to me, sometimes you know you're dealing with a sock but have no way of finding out who :) – Thjarkur (talk) 12:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:09, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:15, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Jordan Peterson, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Doug Weller talk 10:59, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller Please don't send me automated messages for what was obviously a misclick, I have been a wikipedia editor for 3 years and have over 5,000 edits and to patronise me like a new user is incredibly rude. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I probably should have made it more personal and I've struck my warning and made the section heading explicit. But I'm surprised that with all those edits you are still misclicking. I've only looked at today and yesterday and see several content changes, including a fairly major deletion, marked as minor.[1] and [2] (and at least one more). I didn't even look at all your edits in the last 48 hours. Doug Weller talk 19:08, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller Thanks for the prompt response, In retrospect the blunt response for an automated message was rude on my part and I apologise. I tend to make repeat edits in rapid succession, which makes accidental misclicking more likely. I will be more careful in the future. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your gracious reply. I too will try to be more careful in the future. And I know all too well how too much haste here leads to errors. Doug Weller talk 19:46, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hemiauchenia,

Thank you for creating Perichelydia.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Ideally we want one more reference for this article to help meet verifiability requirements (WP:V). Nice start on this stub though! Great images.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Insertcleverphrasehere}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

— Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 21:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the heads up here [3]. Little annoys me more than rudeness to our editors. I must learn to stay cool in my dotage. Best wishes Graham Beards (talk) 10:56, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look, it seems my "by the rules" attitude may have upset you, in that you may or may not believe that you have deserve priority over newer editors simply because you're an older user. However that is not how things work, and indeed your opinion (or the opinion of anyone else) is no more valuable than someone who registered yesterday. We are all equal. This is what I believe is the root of the problem in that you haven't shown any reasonable idea of compromise or engagement on whether "China Virus" is a widely used term or not, where is your evidence? When you revealed that you believe that the name should be removed because the Chinese government disapproves of it, that was an implicit admission from you that the name is indeed used, as the Chinese government itself would have no reason to comment on something that isn't seeing wide use. Furthermore, Twitter is not representative of the general internet. For example people outside of the millennial generation are extremely unlikely to use Twitter, so that reasoning doesn't hold up. According to basic Wikipedia guidelines the term qualifies for inclusion because it is in the relevant context and has been used by multiple major reliable sources, including Reuters, Washington Post, ABC news, Aljazeera, among others. We are not trying to deliberately include terms with stigma, it is just that think we that Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines dictate that we should not be censoring reliably-sourced information for reasons of personal editor dislike. Symphony Regalia (talk) 20:04, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Symphony Regalia:, you're accusing me of being unreasonable and showing no reasonable idea of compromise? Who is "we" exactly? Every editor who has expressed an opinion has opposed you, this might be the lamest appeal to authority I've ever seen. This response isn't even coherent it's a mish-mash of various other passage fragments, like some great pacific text garbage patch. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:26, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Um... Is there really need for aggressive scolding? I know that Symphony Regalia may be more than a little unreasonable, but calm down, please. It hurts just looking at the paragraph above. Foxtail286 (talk) 16:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also @Hemiauchenia: Ok Boomer. You deserve it. Foxtail286 (talk) 16:28, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please link to any kind of policy declaration that states that divergence times should be indicated in the fossil range section of taxoboxes. I'm not aware of any. Obviously, if there is one, it contradicts what is indicated as the intent for this parameter in the Template:Automatic_taxobox instructions. As one example, the tuatara article indicates a fossil range of 19–0 Ma, with no mention of any ghost lineage going back to the Mesozoic. I think you (and possibly others) are conflating two different things, and that fossil range is intended to indicate the date range of actual recovered fossils. If it wasn't, it obviously should be renamed to a term that more accurately reflects its meaning. I'd also appreciate not being falsely accused of being obstinate. WolfmanSF (talk) 22:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WolfmanSF: Perhaps accusing you of being obsinate was aggressive on my part, but this is something worth a wider policy discussion, not simply enforcing your interpretation of its use. The Tuatara represents the genus Sphenodon, which only has a fossil record extending back into the Miocene, while the split of the lineage from other known Rynchocephalians obviously goes back much further, but it doesn't necessarily follow that the distant ancestors of the Tuatara in the Mesozoic would necessarily be members of Sphenodon proper. The Oligocene estimate is the divergence between Mullerornis and Aepyornis i.e. the origin of crown group Aepyornithidae, not the estimate of divergence of the Kiwi-Elephant bird split, which is around 54 ma in the Eocene, this represents the difference between stem and node definitions, I opt for the latter, as the most recent common ancestor of Mullerornis and Aepyornis is by definition an Aepyornithid, and therefore it is reasonable to state the origin of Aepyornithidae is at minimum in the Oligocene. Note that I didn't change the parameters for the fossilrange for either of the genera's articles, which was deliberate. While it isn't policy, fossil ranges widely use molecular clocks for extant taxa, especially those with a poor fossil record, for example, the article Bird uses a morphological clock to justify an Aptian origin for crown Aves, and many other bird group articles use molecular clock estimates for divergence. I note that Template:Automatic taxobox does not define the use of the |earliest= and |latest= parameters. If you want to dispute this then there needs to be a broader policy discussion involving the use of the fossil range parameter over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palaeontology and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds. Kind regards. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The documentation provided for both Template:Automatic taxobox and Template:Geological range is slanted towards displaying actual fossil ranges and neither explicitly supports insertion of last common ancestor dates into the box. Template:Automatic taxobox documentation describes the "youngest_fossil" and "oldest_fossil" parameters, while "earliest" and "latest" are not mentioned. The Template:Geological range document defines "earliest" as "earliest putative fossil" and similarly for latest, but does say that "earliest" and "latest" can be used to add ghost bars for "whatever you like". Allowing dates for things other than fossils potentially creates a muddle. One might use the date of the last common ancestor of a group, or the date of the split from a sister group. In the bird example, the "fossil range" of 121 Ma is not based on fossils, while the ghost bar going back to 161 Ma is based on avialan fossils, so the actual Aves fossil range is left out entirely. I'm not going to pursue this further, but I think consistency and transparency would be best. WolfmanSF (talk) 08:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:23, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki users like Hapa9100 and Shinoshijak suggested that I remove Huangdi and Bodonchar Munkhag from the blond wiki page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Blond ). Hunan201p also hasn't replied me in talk page since May the 4th after I provided evidence there's nothing wrong with the book sources about ethnic Hmong and Miao being blond. Can you give me your opinion. Queenplz (talk) 23:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am mighty confused, the account was not blocked when it posted this [[4]] yet within less than 12 hours they post this [[5]].

My issue is that when they posted the request they must have assumed they were blocked, yet had still posted (otherwise why ask if they can post because they are blocked?). This raises a number of questions. Moreover (and reviewing the block) it says "non. only, account creation blocked" yet they created an accountant at a time when they thought the block was still in place (which in fact it is). So I suppose they assumed (correctly, if only technically) they were block evading. As I said this raises some serious questions.Slatersteven (talk) 12:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: His Wikipedia account is OTRS verified and was created in 2018, well before current events to remove defamatory material from his page, it was never blocked. When he made the complaint at the BLP noticeboard he used an IP address rather than his account, and then made a legal threat. The Ip address was subsequently blocked for making the legal threat. When he re-activated his 2018 account to respond on the talk page. I reminded him that he needed to retract the legal complaint that he made on the IP address, as otherwise this would count as block evasion, and his account would also likely be blocked. I think he then confused the fully protected state of the page and my reminder to remove the legal threat with not being allowed to reply. Hope that clears it up Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, So yes then he thought when he posted my first diff he was in fact blocked (even though the account was not). It is what I thought, and why I said about this raises questions. He thought (in effect) he was blocked and still posted (twice in fact), so yes it was (in effect) block evasion (and they knew it, almost as if they assumed it was two different accounts as their wording (in the second post) implied they had not posted yet in that forum). This also (therefor) raises in my mind the suspicion they may in fact have more than one account in operation. This is all I will say, now.Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've noticed that on three Lilo & Stitch-related articles, you've removed information that used WatchMojo as a source. However, you didn't provide a proper explanation as why they shouldn't be used or even linked to a discussion that outright says they cannot be used as a reliable source, only calling them "terrible" in your edit summaries, which makes it seem that your edits were solely motivated by personal opinion. As a result, I had to undo them.

I have independently found some discussions for other articles on Wikipedia (here and here) about using WatchMojo as a source. Based on these discussions, I do agree that it should not be used for objective information about any topic, since much of their content is opinion-based (i.e. their many ranking videos) and the objective information they receive for their topics are taken from many other sources. (I did find a 2017 discussion about the company and website on WikiProject Video games where one user deemed WatchMojo as unreliable, even for opinion pieces, but that's only for the scope of that WikiProject—i.e. video game-related articles—and not for Wikipedia as a whole, and it was only discussed between two users.) However, in the three L&S articles in question, WatchMojo was only used with regards to the reception of those topics (or for specific parts of them in the case of the Lilo & Stitch: The Series crossover episodes) and how they ranked each topic in their own lists. (I did rewrite their Leroy & Stitch reception entry afterwards because, upon a personal re-read, the way it was originally written did give them too much undue weight, making it seem like they were an outright definitive opinion when it's really just based on their own ranking. I've also done the same to a lesser extent for the other two topics.) In fact, to quote a user in that one of discussions I linked:

Context matters when determining reliability ... in this case, the ref to WatchMojo is a primary source supporting the statement that WatchMojo itself gave a specific ranking to the band [Girls' Generation]. Now, that information may or may not be worth mentioning in the article ... but that is a WP:Due weight issue, not a reliability issue. Purely focusing on reliability, WatchMojo is a reliable primary source for its own internal rankings.

— Blueboar, 29 July 2017, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 229#Checking if these two can be considered reliable sources

Still though, I will ask you why do you think WatchMojo should not be used as a reliable source for even opinion or reception-based entries? And if you want an outright consensus on them, then should we get Wikipedia to discuss whether or not they should be used as a source for anything? –WPA (talk) 00:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiPediaAid: (Continuing from the discussion on your talk page). I agree that initially my edit summaries were bad, they improved in the second half of the ~200 WM citations I removed, my apologies. Thanks for the additional context. My issue with WM and opinion is that WM uses freelancers who have no expertise in the topics they are covering, and with no evidence of fact checking or editorial oversight, their opinion holds as much WP:DUE weight as someone's self published blog post. While many other more respectable media and entertainment websites published low quality listicle articles, their writers are more like to have expertise and therefore authority on the topic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work keeping wild horse up to date. Iamnotabunny (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just curious. If the Fox news RfC were to end today, would Fox News still be labeled as a reliable source? When do you think the discussion will end? Scorpions13256 (talk) 21:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea on both of these counts, the discussion will be open until the 7th of July at minimum, and I suspect that there will be a formal request for closure around then. It's up to the panel of closers to make their decision, which is based on the arguments rather than a straight vote, which I think would be firmly in "no-concensus" territory on a straight vote count. I think this RfC has challenged the nature of what the definition of a "reliable source" even is and why we even call RfCs in the first place. Fox News exists at the heart of public life in America in the same way that the Daily Mail does in the UK, so whatever the panels vote it will be seismic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Scorpions13256: Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May I kindly ask you to take a look at Talk:Mustang#Final_draft? I’m not certain I got the right sources cited to the right content, there was so much discussion and many drafts. (Seems like there were two Weinstock studies, but am now just seeing one...?) And we need consensus to unlock the article and fix the contested content. Montanabw^(talk) 16:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Hemiauchenia! I noticed in your comment here that you link out to Sourcewatch. Is this a generally good source for this kind of reliability question, or is it more like MBFC, where it isn't particularly 'reliable' itself, but is good for a gut check? Thanks in advance for your time. Jlevi (talk) 00:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jlevi: SourceWatch is run by the Center for Media and Democracy, a think tank. It appears not to be a totally-open wiki as you have to request to become a member. I only used it in the complete dearth of any other threads to pull from. The website appears to be mostly dead the recent changes section shows only 2 active users. Most of the information on the website appears to be lists of chief executives for companies. Like Wikipedia it is a collation of information from various places and I wouldn't consider it a reliable source in and of itself. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jlevi: It turns out that there were enough discussions about SourceWatch to create a perennial sources entry, most editors believed it to be akin to an open wiki and generally unreliable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the followup. Much appreciated! Jlevi (talk) 01:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

64+20+32+9=125 how did you come up with 132 total?--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:00, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sphilbrick: it was simply by using an in text search for all of of the "*'''Option" values in the responses section, obviously being based off a raw text search rather than manual counting the count was going to somewhat off due to formatting issues in the participants responses, I think in particular the 125 is likely to be an undercount. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We were working on Irish elk at the same time. I wiped out your changes. Sorry. Usually I painstakingly merge the other editor's changes into mine, but this time it was too complicated. Since you know what you were doing, it's easier for you than for me to do your changes again. Sorry again. —Anomalocaris (talk) 01:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Donghe Group, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conglomerate.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Jianfengia, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Please do not remove a redirect without establishing consensus. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@P,TO 19104: I had concensus to make this edit, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Palaeontology#List_of_Chengjiang_Biota_species_by_phylum. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemiauchenia: Oh good. Sorry to disturb you. My apoligies. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:09, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are familiar with BRD. An editor made a bold edit, (and refused to fix after a polite request) so I reverted. The next step is to open a discussion. Please do so.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't place {{banned user}} on a user's user pages unless they have been banned by the community or arbitration committee such as you did here --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hemiauchenia, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. However, you should consider adding relevant wikiproject talk-page templates, stub-tags and categories to new articles that you create if you aren't already in the habit of doing so, since your articles will no longer be systematically checked by other editors (User:Evad37/rater and User:SD0001/StubSorter.js are useful scripts which can help). Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Schwede66 22:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, hope its ok for me to ask you for help on RS from time to time. You have been quite helpful thus far.

I see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#HuffPost_contributors. Would this article be considered "contributor" or "staff" or maybe something else? I'm asking cause its used in WP:BLP.VR _talk 16:33, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vice regent: It's the opinion of well known intellectual Sam Harris, I think it's fine to use as long as it is WP:INTEXT attributed to Harris. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:35, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But WP:SELFPUB says,

Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.

Note the emphasis is not mine. Maybe using opinions in Sam_Harris#Works is better than selfpub stuff? VR _talk 16:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, how do I tell if a HuffPost article is "staff" or "contributor"?VR _talk 16:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vice regent: It's published in the HuffPost and there's no obvious contributor tag, I therefore don't think it's self published. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Just so I know what to avoid, can you give an example of an article with a contributor tag? VR _talk 16:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Harris's post is governed by WP:RSOPINION and WP:NEWSBLOG, here's an example of a contributor article [6] Hemiauchenia (talk)

Thanks! VR _talk 16:56, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CHECK THIS OUT! I wonder if the synonymy of Caiman venezuelensis is 100% sure? they also got Balanerodus as a nomen dubium. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 09:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Congrats on nominating for deletion the longest running hoax on Wikipedia! Amazing that nobody else managed to get it deleted. Thank you for actually CSDing it! MrAureliusRTalk! 00:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is the account that you claimed has multiple sock accounts. I have nothing to do with the other accounts that reposted my edit. The reason they did this is probably because I think it is clear that this edit improves the Wikipedia page President of Azerbaijan by adding reliable neutral information. I think that the IP adress 109.93.13.102 is edit warring since they reverted the edits that other users published and when reposted, they removed it again. I hope by reading this you have understood I have nothing to do with the other accounts. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Editor331 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Editor331: Do you accept that the three accounts are sockpuppets of another user than? It seems unlikely that three separate people would all have the same formatting and spelling errors. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:43, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemiauchenia it might be that they are sock accounts of another account, but as I said before I have nothing to do with them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Editor331 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC) @The Editor331: There's currently an open sockpuppet investigation, see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Editor331 If you aren't the sockmaster the CheckUser will exhonerate you. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's closed, as I suspected they were indeed the sockmaster. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:52, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hemiauchenia, this litoptern you get for the continuing improvement of and attention for the fossiliferous formations of this world! Have a great weekend, Tisquesusa (talk) 16:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I have a question about WP:RS again. I was reading WP:USESPS and noticed that "government publications" are considered "self-published" Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_self-published_works#Identifying_self-published_sources. Yet Pew Research Center is considered reliable at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. Many government agencies in north america publish high quality reports like StatCan. Both Pew and StatCan have their own internal editorial review that check for accuracy, and both collect their own raw data and have internal experts analyze and interpret it. So why is StatCan SPS but PEW is not? VR _talk 19:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vice regent: USESPS isn't a formal guideline. I would ask at WP:RSN about whether goverment Government sources are self published. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:22, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.

but only for a camelid connoisseur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1421:5D40:5173:B714:5D3B:C321 (talk) 04:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit was an unintentional rollback in Windows. Thanks for correcting. SamHolt6 (talk) 00:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Grès à Voltzia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dolomite.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dryosauridae

added a link pointing to Early

Myotragus

added a link pointing to Capra

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see this at all, what a strange conclusion to make... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

My comments made towards you about the spelling of The Grayzone were, in retrospect... 

I have no idea what it was about: I do not know either of yous (found it by chance), but bows to you for having written it.

Kudos! Zezen (talk) 19:01, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tanyderidae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oxfordian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello- Below are a few editing suggestions to make it easier for you and others to collaborate on the encyclopedia. Please preview, consolidate, and summarize your edits:

• Try to consolidate your edits, at least at the section level, to avoid cluttering the page's edit history; this makes it easier for your fellow editors to understand your intentions, and makes it easier for those monitoring activity on the article.
  • The show preview button (beside the "publish changes" button) is helpful for this; use it to view your changes incrementally before finally saving the page once you're satisfied with your edits.
• Please remember to explain each edit with an edit summary (box above the "publish changes" button).

Thanks in advance for considering these suggestions. Eric ^talk 00:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look dude, I can't stress how embarrassed I am for you when I see you post. I'll tell you straight just once, so you can be a full and equal participant, if you want to be. Sometimes people want to be caught. It's all about the circumstances in which they are caught. Wikipedia routinely invading the privacy of people with real sounding names, simply because they post about the Daily Mail, regardless of topic, regardless of location, that's a bad thing for Wikipedia. I know it, the people CheckUsering me know it. It's big boy stuff. You can do what you want, but have a look around first. Get to know the field. Do the people who get sucked further and further into the sock hunter / sekrit keeper role, and further and further away from the content writing, do they look happy? Do they sound happy? Are they having fun? Is it a hobby still? If the name Jytdog doesn't mean much to you, look him up. I don't know why you edit Wikipedia, you might genuinely be one of those people who thinks it's an encyclopedia, and are doing what you do out of simple innocent enthusiasm. Don't let me shatter the illusion for you. Get into my business for long enough however, you will soon get to learn things about Wikipedia you probably never ever wanted to know. It can be quite cruel, opening people's eyes. I've seem them change. You're only three years in, which is no time at all. Keep your innocence for as long as you can, and allow yourself the most peaceful way to leave Wikipedia, by just getting bored. Because if you're honest with yourself, you're already nearing that point. Watching out for me, with your big boy's mallet in your sweaty palm all ready to go, that's getting to be more fun than writing about boring old paleontology, am I right? Choose life. Barry The Bat, But Not BatMan (talk) 21:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC) Note: User is a sock of Brian K Horton (talk · contribs), almost certainly the same user as JackTheJiller/Crow's Nest on offwiki forums and also possibly the same as the long blocked MickMacNee. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Barry The Bat, But Not BatMan: JackTheJiller, thanks for your unusually non-hostile post. I read your post on Reddit about me (which was quite hostile) before it got deleted, no hard feelings. Paleontology is hardly "boring". On such topics I have essentially free reign and pretty much nobody intereferes with my edits, so it's relatively stress free with little risk of burnout. In all honesty, I don't think that your socking is accomplishing anything, even your colleagues on reddit are embarassed by it. Your "Forename X Surname" socks fool no one, and I am not sure that they are supposed to. The Daily Mail is a contentious issue, and I understand that. Is it your goal to make anybody who comes in asking about the Daily Mail look like another sock? Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given "free reign" and "nobody intereferes with my edits" on paleontology, and yet you only made your first edit to Wikipedia in your mid twenties most likely. I come here for nuggets like that, tbh. No hard feelings. Is this hostile? I don't mean it to be, but sometimes people don't like it when the realities of Wikipedia are laid bare like that. And you're not some kind of child genius, that much is painfully obvious. Robin Was The Real Hero (talk) 22:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Robin Was The Real Hero: Crow, My first edit on Wikipedia was in March 2013 as an IP user diff (the IP is dynamic, and is now no where near where my address at the time was, it is obvious I am a UK based user like you from other edits I've made anyway). Your age estimation is somewhat off. I'm not sure what you're trying to say about "And you're not some kind of child genius, that much is painfully obvious." You say that "Is this hostile?" but that sentence makes you sound like you're trying to call me stupid, and it's difficult to charitably interpret it otherwise. If your referring to my spelling errors, I've been having long-term neurological issues that substantially predate me creating this account that cause them, and I apologise for the resultant lack of tidiness.

Nobody on Wikipedia is a genius, me included. We are here to write a general purpose encyclopedia, not to write novel research. What I meant by "free reign" and "nobody intereferes with my edits" is that unlike Israel-Palestine etc. where your edit is likely to get reverted, I can get on with writing what is reflected in papers. One of the things that is nice about writing on obscure topics is that you know that if you don't write it nobody else will. It's also rewarding to see the consequences of my editing reaching the wider internet, it's hard to imagine this reddit post existing unless I created the Megaceroides algericus article.

I wonder what your take on the Wired piece Wikipedia Is the Last Best Place on the Internet. You've spent much of your time for at the last few years complaining about Wikipedia on various forums. Let me ask you this, you tell me to "choose life" yet you fail to make this choice for yourself, why? Why devote your time to something you know you cannot fix and that your efforts to do so are futile? I recognise that Wikipedia as a website is deeply flawed, Its incredibly small, white, 90% male insular community is totally unrepresentative of its readers, (and so are the even smaller criticism forums) but nothing that you are doing is going to help the deep issues that Wikipedia has, I'm not sure anyone can. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do what I do because I am having an impact. One man can make a difference. That Wired piece shows it, but only to those who have a working knowledge of Wikipedia's history with critics and the media. The piece is the usual dross otherwise, repeating the same usual myths, the writer clearly never have done his own research, or even his own thinking.

Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia, period. It has a commercial value of zero cents and zero dollars for a reason. Which is not to say there aren't now huge financial incentives for certain people and corporations to keep it limping on. And it is limping. Wikipedia is not deeply flawed, it is a complete and total failure. It is not crowdsourced, your statements on Paleontology prove it. You have complete and total freedom to choose what Wikipedia presents to the world. Because nobody else cares. That is perhaps the only saving grace, Wikipedia remains the preferred resource only of the lazy and the stupid.

It is not an encyclopedia. Never forget that. The Nature study has been debunked, repeatedly. No better study exists, because nobody seriously thinks Wikipedia can or ever will be an encyclopedia in that one crucial way Brittanica still is. Because EB still exists of course, this idea that Wikipedia killed the print edition having been debunked many times too.

Wikipedia has it's own way of being like Britannica of course. Only a shaky approximation even at its best, only ever seconds away from doing serious harm. And it is failing to get even there. By your own internal metrics, so we know they would already be generous, only 0.1% of your six million articles would be good enough for Brittanica. And you are a few hundred million short of the number of articles you should have, if your current inclusion standards are applied to all human knowledge. Without even considering stuff like oral history. Nobody is paying for that on a pro rata basis as if it were remotely comparable to EB, nobody. Fantasy land stuff. Even the 01.% is far smaller than EB, and not remotely comparable in terms of topics covered. Not so great, for twenty years work. Even less, considering you had the 1911 edition as a freebie to start from.

All the best myths. Like this one about how controversial articles trend to the neutral. Well, sure. But where do they actually end up? Is it actually neutral? Not by your own measures. This is what the whole Daily Mail thing is all about. It took the community a good long while, but you finally hit upon the way to defeat Larry Sanger's orginal interpretation of how to achieve the NPOV. Eliminate the sources whose opinions you do not like. Then the balance better reflects Wikipedia's idea of neutral, which is pretty left leaning.

If you had just set out to do what you actually claimed you were doing, an objective assesment of the Mail's reliability when set against other newspapers, and you'll find people will leave you alone. Well not everybody, but the smart people. You try and do what you did over the CJR however take the smart people for fools, and the smart people will get annoyed. They'll push back, and it won't, as you wrongly believe, be about correcting the mistake at all. I mean, you could surprise everyone and willingly correct it yourselves, but that would be kind of a miracle. So the smart thing is not to even have that as the goal.

You would not even expect Wired to repeat such dross as this idea Wikipedia represents the original ideas of the internet. It is the complete opposite. Wikipedia, thanks to Google, is a monopoly. At least where the target consumers are the lazy and the stupid. A sick accident. The original vision for the internet, was one where hyperlinks actually connected sites, just as much as they provided internal navigation.

In an alternate universe, you could have been at this very moment, presenting your own idea of what an encyclopedia of Paleontology might look like. Your own work, or as a collective. If it's better than what money can provide, and better than any other hobbyists were doing, then yes, you'd be rewarded with Google juice, and links within whatever system or scheme serves that universe's need for instant free knowledge. This universe however, as Wired do get right, thanks to that sick accident, the market is saturated. So your problems, are free knowledge's problems. And yet you never ever seem to carry the required level of guilt or shame that implies.

Wikipedia became a walled garden, believing it's own hype and marking its own homework, precisely because it cannot really sustain the fiction, against external criticism, that it is somehow different, and yet still the same, as any other web page whose nominal purpose is knowledge provision. Not even those who do it on a non-profit basis. It has to treat criticism, even one hundred percent truthful criticism, as if it were acid itself. Because it is. I've said enough here that, if it were common knowledge, would mean your chosen hobby would end tomorrow. Tomorrow. Could you handle that? Scary stuff.

Wikimedia has had to create an entire separate ecosystem of projects, precisely because Wikipedia editors are hostile to even basic cooperative web concepts. The movement is a myth, a total fairytale. It serves only to pretend to Wired's gullible readers that Wikipedia's problems of the 2010s are fixed, it's time to move on to global issues. Strategy! Well, no. You're still the chosen project of Fram. Own it. He is a part of all of you. All your very worst actors are. One person can achieve a lot on Wikipedia, just by playing the game. And it's never usually good stuff. This is the price you will always pay, for telling the world you regulate your own. Bradv is your problem, not mine. I didn't elect him. I didn't authorise Newslinger to be a gaslighter. He does it because you let him. You. Actions, consequences.

The biggest lie of all. That Wikipedia is built on love. Look at you. You had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, spitting and clawing, to the point you were finally prepared to be civil, decent, open to new ideas. Perhaps only because you knew there's no stopping me getting in your face if I want to. Which I never do to anyone here, unless they show a willingness to get in my way. A thoroughly decent attitude, no?

Don't give me a reason to keep knocking your house of straw down, and I will stop. I am goal oriented, the fact it is fun is only added incentive. No goal, no interest, simple as that. I didn't fix my gaze on Wikipedia because it had small issues, or even moderately large but fixable issues. I do what I do because this is one giant scam, a total con-job. Prove me wrong. The statistical likelihood of a Mail story being a deliberate fabrication is.....what? You don't know? Sorry, unacceptable. Not when even The Guardian has been caught printing lies to suit their political agenda. It'a not one in five, certainly. Not that you let even a basic fact like that be uttered here. Arrrgghhh, acid, acid! It's hilarious.

But you have opened your door. Huzzah. Note that you still had to defy an Administrator to do it, though. Just to have this little exchange of ours here. This is not your talk page, remember. You just lease it. You might be punished for even encouraging this interaction with the enemy. I'm the Big Bad Wolf, come to blow your house down. You have no idea how brainwashed you are. You have been taught to blindly accept that sock-puppetry is Evil. The ultimate crime. The foolish concept of foolish minds.

As for your real age, it doesn't really matter. There's nothing personal here. Nothing you did to me here is unique to you, not to an experienced critic like me. Except of course, this interaction. It's nice, being able to talk to a Wikipedian. To have your views heard. It won't make a difference. Even if you have a personal epiphany, it will quickly pass, and you will course correct back to your assigned role around here. Footsoldier. That's addiction for you. Powerful stuff.

If not, if you break free of your chains and want to choose life, well, you know where we are. Bring snacks. Robin Was The Real Hero (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"this idea that Wikipedia killed the print edition having been debunked many times too" everybody knows that it was actually Encarta that killed Brittanica back in the 90's, I'm not sure why you place Britannica on some kind of pedestal, Harvey Einbinder showed that Britannica is also full of errosrs in the 1960's with The Myth of the Britannica. I like to read Britannica sometimes, but the articles are usually shorter and lacking depth compared to their Wikipedia equivalents, you could call that "brevity" or "focus" but its down to personal preference. For example Britannica's article on the Irish Elk is incredibly brief, to the point of being lacking, compared to the Wikipedia article (which I completely rewrote this year).

As you can see looking through my editing history, the Daily Mail is not something I regularly edit or discuss, nor really a hill I wish to die on. I did not open the thread about the Mail on Sunday, I merely opened the RfC because it thought that it warranted creating so that the issue could be settled. I did not participate in the previous "was the Daily Mail reliable historically" discussion. I do find Guy Macons endless going on about the Mail tiring, but I agree that its deprecation was ultimately a good thing.

"This is not your talk page, remember. You just lease it" I actually have the power to remove any discussion from my talk page at any time, but I choose not excercise it so that people can judge me from the interactions I have had with other users on the talk page. "The biggest lie of all. That Wikipedia is built on love. Look at you. You had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, spitting and clawing, to the point you were finally prepared to be civil, decent, open to new ideas" I have curteous interactions with most users on Wikipedia, and your patronising and condescending commentary has little to do with my tolerance of your attitude for the purposes of this discussion. Given your constant reference to "smartness" and "smart people" its obvious you have a very high (some would say delusional) opinion of yourself, and believe yourself to be on some kind of Hero's journey to expose Wikipedia, even though nobody actually cares. "I am goal oriented, the fact it is fun is only added incentive" it's fairly obvious that the latter clearly takes precedent over the former, even though you are probably among the most obvious and least disruptive sockmasters I've ever seen. Wikininger's joe jobs of you were actually more interesting that your socks by a country mile. Do you really think that many of Wikipedia's 250 million daily viewers care about who Bradv and Fram are? This is the problem with the Wikipedia criticism communities, which are largely filled with banned ex-users, they are mostly focused on internal drama like individual admins, RfA's, Arbcom, etc, rather than the structural issues relevant to Wikipedia's average users. The truth is that nobody writing about Wikipedia's flaws in the news looks to Wikipediocracy, or Sucks! or any other off wiki forums for criticism, because they aren't relevant.

If Wikipedia didn't exist another similar, perhaps commerical site would replace it, rather than the smaller communities that you imagine, the collaborative Wiki model is too successful for anything else to succeed, regardless of its flaws. The only really successful Wiki that I can think of that isn't fancrufty is the expert only AntWiki. In China, where Wikipedia is banned, Baidu Baike, a commercial website run by Baidu, the dominant search engine in China, essentially holds an analagous position to Wikipedia, it has even more articles, around 16.3 million in fact. Baidu Baike essentially functions the same as Wikipedia, except that administrators apparently do minimal vetting on all contributions before they are accepted. On Baidu though, all of the text is copyright to Baidu, rather than the contributors. (For further background information on Baidu, see these pieces in ThePointMag and SCMP, from what I've seen, Baidu Baike's content quality standards are even lower than Wikipedia's, with some articles directly machine translated from both the English and Chinese language Wikipedias, see Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Baidu_Baike. Ultimately your efforts are futile and will ultimately change little, just like mine. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just a note on your creation of Template:Taxonomy/Erdtmanithecales. There are two distinct classification hierarchies for the parent spermatophytes/Spermatophyta. Setting |parent=Spermatophyta produces a hierarchy in which "Plantae" doesn't appear (see Template:Taxonomy/Spermatophyta). Setting |parent=Spermatophytes/Plantae produces a hierarchy in which it does. The latter is preferred by WP:PLANTS, and seems to me more appropriate for an article whose opening sentence is "Erdtmanithecales is an extinct order of gymnosperm plants". However, if you don't agree, feel free to set the parent back to "Spermatophyta". Peter coxhead (talk) 10:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Karabastau Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Middle.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 4 December 2020 (UTC)