User talk:Ta-tea-two-te-to

Hello, Ta-tea-two-te-to! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started Contributing to Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Directories and indexes Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

--Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Excellent New Editor's Barnstar A new editor on the right path
		Fantastic job bringing that inaccurate Anthropornis diagram to our attention, keep it up!   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:03, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know I had to get my art reviewed before posting it. I tried my hardest to make the art accurate by looking at pictures of the fossils and art of related species, but it's still very hard to accurately depict the animal when I'm drawing with a mouse and in the case of Brazilosaurus, have a really unclear fossil to reference off of. I'm sorry for not knowing that I had to get my art reviewed beforehand, but saying that inaccurate art is vandalism is incorrect, as the help page for vandalism specifically states that if an edit is meant to be constructive, it's not vandalism. Firewing The Wyvern (talk) 13:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thank you for understanding! I thought it was a vandalism because I misunderstood that your edits were once sent back by the bot. I'm sorry about that. Anyway, I hope you will do your best from now on! Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 14:17, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, the bot did send my edit back but that's because it thought I was vandalising. I'm rather new to editing on wikipedia, thank you for being polite Firewing The Wyvern (talk) 13:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that the preprint of the new paper https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.22.427827v1.full is under CC-BY 4.0, which means that the images can be uploaded to Commons, if you're interested in doing that. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:45, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh nice, it is a bit strange that actually published one is NC though. If I can I'd like to upload that later. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 23:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The CC-BY license is the valid one as it was published first before the paper, so it's fine to upload the images. We had the same situation with Stegouros where the preprint was CC-BY but the paper was not, and that's not caused any issues. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now I uploaded two images and added these in the page. I did typo in the file names, as "Chuandinella" though... Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 05:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Awesome work on the Weygoldtina article!! Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 04:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of "Evolution of", pages, there are a bunch of other that also deserve scrutiny

• Evolution of mammals
• Evolution of spiders
• Evolution of the horse
• Evolution of insects
• Evolution of tetrapods

I agree with you about the Evolution of fish being a mess. I've not had good experiences with Epipelagic. His recent habit has been to wholesale copy text from CC-BY papers into articles, like this edit, which often require cleanup. While possibly legally OK, it to me intellectually and morally murky at best. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:53, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like, yeah these articles not updated for a long time, like using old version of Nobu Tamura's reconstructions, and I see genus name Geratonephila that is already synonymized into Nephila in 2015. Recently I fixed some outdated information in Evolution of insects. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 23:06, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(P.S. this message is from trolling user who I dealt with)
Your source which you had sent to me is about maximum size of Megalodon, not average size of Megalodon.DinosaursKing (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. And that source is formally released paper of your source of "16 m averaging Megalodon" poster. Seeing that the actual paper does not have 16 m average size, I think there was probably a problem with the assumption. And one of the most recent formally published papers discussing the average total length shows that Megalodon averaging 10.5 m. Well, that's nothing you should care about, anyway. What you should care about is whether you get indefinite block or not. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 08:07, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've been seeing your edits on the subdivisions of the arthropod taxobox. It would be preferable if your additions were accompanied by citations, especially for those groups that have no article of their own. Sources would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! ☽ Snoteleks ☾ 01:14, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see, thank you for advice. (should be told to fossiladder as well) Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 06:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right, I was planning on doing so ☽ Snoteleks ☾ 10:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the scansoriopteryx skeleton on the main plate had a full hole in the hip socket, and on the counterslab plate, the was distorted during decomposition. What do you think ? Dinomarek (talk) 13:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well to be honest I am not especially good at that, probably Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palaeontology is good place to ask that. I just reverted your edits because of bad reference or not good placement of sentence. Since whole article of Scansoriopteryx refers Alan's paper, probably page itself needs revision. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 02:12, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the edits I was just trying to help :( sorry for it appearing to look like vandalism, maybe could you give me some advice to do better? 2607:FEA8:FDF:2400:4F3:FF79:DEE8:7B47 (talk) 17:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Wikipedia is not the place to post your own interpretations. Do not arbitrarily judge Lagosuchus as a dinosaur, or create fictitious clades like "Palaeoniscorolepiformes". Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry about classing lagosuchus as a dinosaur and making a fictitious clades like paleoniscorolepiformes I classed lagosuchus as a dinosaur because this channel had put Lagosuchus as a dinosaur I'm so sorry il do better next time 2607:FEA8:FDF:2400:4F3:FF79:DEE8:7B47 (talk) 17:18, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question maybe could you please make a wiki article about tujiaaspis please :D 2607:FEA8:FDF:2400:4F3:FF79:DEE8:7B47 (talk) 17:21, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you make an article about tujiaaspis pretty please 🥺 2607:FEA8:FDF:2400:4F3:FF79:DEE8:7B47 (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly but I am waiting for PlacodermReconstructions to create reconstruction for it after their pc get back, as it is hard to describe without image. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 02:14, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://cdn.sci.news/images/enlarge10/image_11240_1e-Tujiaaspis-vividus.jpg here is the image! Your welcome! 2607:FEA8:FDF:2400:A978:7D4C:D94:586E (talk) 16:43, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know image is not usable without valid licence such as Creative Commons? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 01:31, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh :( 2607:FEA8:FDF:2400:A978:7D4C:D94:586E (talk) 16:00, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean many different articles used the photo made by different people and companies but none of them got copyrigted 2607:FEA8:FDF:2400:A978:7D4C:D94:586E (talk) 16:02, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the image is creative commons? 2607:FEA8:FDF:2400:A978:7D4C:D94:586E (talk) 16:03, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For credit to the original https://www.globaltimes.cn/index.html 2607:FEA8:FDF:2400:A978:7D4C:D94:586E (talk) 16:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

complete fossils of these earliest known jawed vertebrates, including bones and teeth from fish estimated to have lived between 436 million and 439 million years ago. source: national geographic tujiaaspis article 2607:FEA8:FDF:2400:A978:7D4C:D94:586E (talk) 16:13, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia basically cannot use images other than Creative Commons (excluding non-commercial) and Free license. I'm not obligated to make an article at the request of someone who doesn't understand that, stop posting. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 16:24, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How does creative commons even work? 2607:FEA8:FDF:2400:21B2:DDCB:4D42:4DD4 (talk) 16:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

oh sorry il stop posting 2607:FEA8:FDF:2400:21B2:DDCB:4D42:4DD4 (talk) 20:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it is regarding this change by the IP. This article is routinely targeted by IPs. Could you verify whether the changes are correct? Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:47, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since unsourced it is not acceptable probably. Looks like similar edit by IP user is done in Epicyon article as well. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 12:07, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asifcroco
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bolanicyon
3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buzdartherium
4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kahamachli
5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karkhimachli
6. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kilgai
7. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moolatrilo
8. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakitherium
9. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakiwheel
10. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sulaimanitherium
11. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zahrisaurus

Those might interest you. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:24, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Ta-tea-two-te-to, I hope you're doing well.

Did you base your redirecting of Strigilodus tollesonae to Strigilodus off of WP:OVERLAP, or is there a specific guideline pertaining to species/genus? Thanks! Mooonswimmer 05:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only one species in the genus, so the article should be titled as the genus per WP:PALEO guidelines. Strogilodus includes single species, S. tollesonae, so it is not needed to separate articles for technically same things. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 09:47, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping out at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 February 14. I note you copied part of the closure text from the 8 February DRV. If closing in future, please use {{subst:drt|Closure summary here}} at the top and {{subst:drb}} at the bottom instead. This helps ensure the behind-the-scenes code all goes in correctly and that other DRV listings from that day don't get mingled. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 09:07, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Sorry for mistaking that. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 09:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

あなたは日本人大学生のようですので日本語でコメントさせていただきます。悪しからずご容赦ください。 なぜ私の記事を攻撃するのですか？薩摩翼竜のページの削除理由以外にも宇都宮聡氏の個人ページの英語版についても削除申請されましたね？なぜですか？山登 太郎 (talk) 09:03, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

確かにあなたの行動について私自身の気に障るところはあったものの、私としては英語版Wikipediaのポリシーに従って改善しようとしていただけのつもりです。宇都宮氏のページの削除依頼に関しては、英語圏で特筆性がないものと思い依頼を行いましたが、のちに特筆性に言語は関係ないとコメントを頂いたので取り消しました。それに関しては僕の勉強不足であり申し訳ないと思います。しかし、他の編集に関しては、あなたの翻訳ミスや雑多な内容��整理するために行ったものであって、攻撃を行ったつもりはありません。薩摩翼竜に関する意見も、他の未記載恐竜や翼竜が英語Wikipediaでどのように扱われているかに従っただけです。ただ、私個人的に中島保寿さんとこれらの記事について相談したところ、「このような記事の立て方は少し目に余る」「Wikipediaの記事に関してはもう少し慎重になってほしい」「広報はあくまで古生物学のためであって、特定個人のためではない」というコメントを頂きました。あなたの宇都宮さんに対する尊敬の意は素晴らしいですが、機械翻訳を通しただけのような記事を作ることは却って宇都宮さんの迷惑になるものと思います。そのあたりは気に留めて頂ければありがたいです。とにかくこの件で気分を害されたのであれば申し訳ないと思います。 Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 09:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ご返信ありがとうございます。Wikipediaの編集に関しては私のほうも不慣れで上記のようなお考えの方（中島教授）がいたことに申し訳ないと思います。ただし、貴殿がSNSで発言されている「日本語版で少しやらかしている」発言は、個人攻撃としか思えません。日本語版では履歴にある通り、何度も議論を重ねて記事に特筆性があるということが認められた結果であります。（不慣れな部分で迷惑をかけたことはあったと反省もしております。）また、著作権の件に関してもご返信をいただく前に削除となってしまいましたが、川崎氏に確認されましたか？お忙しい方なのでこの議論に巻き込むことは望みませんし、貴殿を含め疑義を持たれた方がおられたので私個人としても削除で致し方なかったと思っております。長々と記載しましたが、今回のやり取りも今後の編集につなげたいと思います。 山登 太郎 (talk) 10:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

当該のツイートは削除させていただきました。申し訳ありません。あなたが編集をこれから改善していただくことを願っています。 Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 10:47, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

また、日本語Wikiの薩摩翼竜の記事にはアンハングエラのサイズ比較図を参考のため載せておこうと思います。知られている近縁種などの既存の画像を使う方が比較的安全だと思いますし、もし種としての画像が必要なのであれば、Wikipedia:WikiProject_Palaeontology/Paleoart_reviewで依頼もできると思います。（ただ、部分化石からの発見なので復元は難しいかもしれないですが・・・）サツマウツノミヤリュウがペレットを吐くイラストを投稿していた方でWikipediaアカウントを持っている人を知っていますので相談してみますね。 Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 11:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ta-tea-two-te-to様、ご返信ありがとうございます。私は英語が苦手ですので日本語にて失礼します。いろいろなやり取りがあったにも関わらずご配慮いただきありがとうございます。こちらのほうでもイラストやフィギュア画像についてはガイドラインをしっかり遵守し、著作権者様と相談して掲載するように進めていきます。引き続きよろしくお願い申し上げます。 山登 太郎 (talk) 10:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

山登 太郎, Please see WP:OWN. Ta-tea-two-te-to has been trying to fix your articles, not attack them. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Hemiauchenia, for your feedback. Sure. 山登 太郎 (talk) 10:20, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good job on this! Just note that you should ensure you have the correct taxonbar ID. If one doesn't exist, you can create a new one at Wikidata. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see, I haven't noticed that Mazoscolopendra article I based on got taxonbar, apparently it is not shown in that article. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right. The taxoboar only shows if the Wikidata has valid taxon IDs on it. Mazoscolopendra now has the taxonbar because I added ID to the Wikidata. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw that you posted the files I created on thylacocephalans in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Paleoart review. Of course you have as much right to do this as anyone, but a notice on the discussion page (mine or the article) would have been appreciated, not least because this implies a revision and (potentially) an indication of inaccuracy in the reconstruction. I reported my sources on Commons and explained why I put the various elements as they are reconstructed. However, since I do a lot of infographics work on paleontology and paleoenvironmental topics (mainly in tne italian Wikipedia), if you still happen to see any that can be submitted for judging I encourage you to let me know. Antonov (talk) 07:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see, sorry not notifying you. I will try to notify in the next time. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 08:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ta-tea-two-te-to, thank you for your many edits on fossil species and amphibians. As regards the scientific name of the subject species, there are two main supporting references used in the taxonomy of amphibian species in Wikipedia articles (see WP:AAR) and both of these (primary:Amphibian Species of the World and the secondary:AmphibiaWeb) agree to classify the Japanese common toad as Bufo praetextatus based on the 2023 paper by Fukutani, Matsui, and Nishikawa. Given this is the most up to date and referenced position, I would suggest reverting your change to the scientific binomial used in the article. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 18:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"the 2023 paper by Fukutani, Matsui, and Nishikawa" - Is that this paper? Nothing of this paper shows name of B. praetextatus.[1] I found about this when sending comment to the Japanese Biology YouTube channel,[2] and a comment by amphibian professional Takahiro Sakono,[3] said that this scientific name is incorrect. See Google Scholar search result after 2020 of B. praetextatus[4] and B. japonicus.[5] In any case, what is needed is a paper that clearly shows that B. praetexatus is more valid than B. japonicus and agreed by other authors. Information on general websites is not always up-to-date. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 23:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like paper used for Amphibian Species of the World is this one,[6] although some Japanese paper referring it but still call it B. japonicus. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 03:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello dear Ta-tea-two-te-to , hope you're doing well. I created Waeringoscorpio article. But there's a problem, the scientific classification doesn't show up in Taxobox. MontanaM55 (talk) 17:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

fixed MontanaM55 (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine! I will try to add information if possible. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 00:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck! MontanaM55 (talk) 05:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you reverted my edit on Brontoscorpio, saying that you "Will have to read the paper, I am obtaining that one via resource request now." If you're not sure, and you have access to the paper but have not read it yet, then you wait till you have. You don't reverted it "just in case". Silbad (talk) 02:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see, sorry for that, although the way you added the news as reference is wrong way, I will rewrite as more specific information. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 07:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if an edit is not good enough, but otherwise correct, one edit it in instead of reverting it. The "reverted" note on the contribution history stands out like a sore thumb. Silbad (talk) 09:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see, I will keep in mind. Having said that, it is difficult to say whether your editing is "correct" or not. Words like "new research" are meaningless because they become obsolete after 10 years, and since Brontoscorpio is known from a single finger, "it" would be appropriate instead of "they." I think more specific content was needed. Although, once again, I think it was a mistake to revert the edit in a short-sighted manner, so I apologize. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 09:21, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A single new study does not mean that this represents the new scientific consensus on the issue, as your phrasing seems to imply. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted the note about Clementechiton in the article Evolution of the eye I undeleted it Zhenghecaris (talk) 20:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should it really be on Wikipedia? Searching in Google Scholar mostly only results Mcmenanin's studies, if it is truly chiton, it should have been used for multiple studies about mollusk phylogeny, but seems not. Do you aware that Mcmenamin is fringe researcher famous by Triassic Kraken? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 22:45, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t know that. Zhenghecaris (talk) 20:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although McMenamin described taxa that are not supported by other researchers the other taxa reported from the formation by McMenamin are valid right (Aspidella is an example)? Zhenghecaris (talk) 15:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, because identification to that taxon from Clement Fm is just confirmed by McMenamin and nothing others. Is like, someone claim Alamosaurus from Hell Creek but no other ones supported that. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 07:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]