User talk:Hemiauchenia

A mostly complete archive of talkpage discussions can be found at User talk:Hemiauchenia/Archive1

Nice article

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]

thanks ~2026-81724-9 (talk) 11:03, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

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 Spirits of the Ice Forests is outdated.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]

A barnstar for you!

		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, Anupam^Talk 06:32, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

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

It's becoming nicer

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]

Deserved!

		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]

DYK for Megaceroides algericus

On 22 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Megaceroides algericus, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Megaceroides algericus is one of only two deer species known to have been native to Africa, alongside the Barbary stag? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Megaceroides algericus. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Megaceroides algericus), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

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

A horse for you!

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

A barnstar for you!

	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! MrAureliusR_Talk! 00:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Litoptern for you!

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]

Thanks

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

Anniversary

	Vicennalia
Thanks for all your work for the encyclopaedia; it's twenty years old today! GPinkerton (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thank you for your good work at Whitney Wolfe Herd! Marquardtika (talk) 03:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am so sorry

Hi, Hemiauchenia, I'm so so sorry for mistakenly indeffing you. I must've clicked on the user I reverted to, rather than the user I reverted, by mistake. That was completely my fault. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Writ Keeper: Nooo my clean block record! :P Don't worry, I found it more funny than anything else, wasn't long enough to cause any serious disruption. Thanks for being on top the vandalism. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) "Clean block log" Ha! I raise you this wrong CU block (which was obviously much more frustrating). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Proficiently understands the usage of reliable sources at Talk:Dream (YouTuber) and defends Dream (YouTuber) from unsourced claims. As one of the creators of the article, I bestow this barnstar upon you. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 16:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Love Has Won

On 11 June 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Love Has Won, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in April 2021, the body of the founder of the new religious movement Love Has Won was found mummified and wrapped in Christmas lights? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Love Has Won. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Love Has Won), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
Your hook reached 10,617.5 views (884.8 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of June 2021 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
Thanks for using your expertise to improve Amabilis uchoensis and Podocnemididae, and for your kind helpful remarks at DYK. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Article Save Award

On behalf of the FAR coordinators, thank you, Hemiauchenia! Your work on Chicxulub crater has allowed the article to retain its featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. I hereby award you this Featured Article Save Award, or FASA. You may display this FA star upon your userpage. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Million Award
For your contributions to bring Chicxulub crater (estimated annual readership: 1,276,899) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chicxulub crater TFA nom

I have nominated Chicxulub crater to be today's featured article for an unspecified date. As an editor who has worked substantially on this article, you are invited to comment on its suitability as a TFA on the nomination page. Thanks, and happy editing. Z1720 (talk) 19:05, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you!

Thanks for the edit to Paleollanosaurus! Good job! —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 18:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article 61.6 Barnstar

		The Plantae Barnstar
For helping out with the Article 61.6 renaming. awkwafaba (📥) 22:27, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barn star for you!

	The barn star of reality
I wish we could clone you a bunch of times. Great work. Thank you! Polygnotus (talk) 03:42, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate a PM re: Malkani names and ICZN compliance

Hi. I just came across an older (2021) archived discussion regarding the questionable Code-compliance of Malkani's publications, and hoping to hear from someone familiar with this to contact me via email in my capacity as an ICZN Commissioner. The Commission is looking for more examples of cases where an e-only journal is not compliant with Code regulations, but still publishing new names anyway. My contact info is on my user page. Thanks, Dyanega (talk) 16:32, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dyanega: I've sent you an email. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Atmospheric oxygen levels in the Carboniferous

Hey, I'm going to do a minor rewrite the atmospheric oxygen levels section again to better reflect the nuances in the scientific literature, but given your interest I wanted to flag this to you first so we can discuss if need be. That there is disagreement over the levels of O2 in the atmosphere during the Carboniferous is clear, but there is consensus over the increase in levels during the Period. Brand et al 2021 is being used as evidence for low levels throughout the Period. However, the measurements apply to the Visean only, the authors call for further research to expand the use of halite. Importantly, two of the authors of this paper, including Brand, are also authors on the Cannell et all 2022 paper (info from which I'm adding in), which incorporates the halite data with the pyrite data to show an increase in O2 levels through the early to mid Carboniferous with values up to 30% before decreasing again. So it is correct to say models show an increase in O2 levels during the Period, but by how much and for how long is the subject of ongoing research. I'll put this explanation on the Carboniferous talk page when to publish it too. Thanks Silica Cat (talk) 17:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Silica Cat: Sure that's fine. My main concern is that the article should make the uncertainty about the estimates in recent literature clear and shouldn't uncritically repeat the claims about Carboniferous atmospheric oxygen concentration that are often asserted as fact in sources that aren't specifically about prehistoric atmospheric oxygen concentration. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Archiving (plain and simple)

If you get tired of scrolling. Or think your guests do. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I'm not EEng, so done. Hemiauchenia (talk)

I had the same unarchived talkpage as you, when the third editor kindly asked me, I gave in. I've asked EEng too, but you can see the result. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

ARBIPA contentious topics reminder

You have recently made edits related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. This is a standard message to inform you that India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I recall that I alerted you in February regarding ARBIPA contentious topics. It didn't look that you had read it properly. Now would be a good time to do so. Kautilya3 (talk) 10:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Barnstar of Diligence
Thank you for your due diligence in attempting to stick to what the sources say, and then verifying yourself that new additions are appropriately in line with their content, at Asian News International. I personally believe that it's pretty obvious they're a mouthpiece for the current Indian government, but I applaud your efforts at sticking to verifiability and NPOV. LaughingManiac (talk) 00:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and antisemitism

In the closure of Talk:Wikipedia and antisemitism#Proposal to merge to Criticism of Wikipedia, it states: "If anyone objects I will take the article to AfD." A few questions:

Since it says not to modify that discussion, where would it be best to raise an objection to the closure?
What's the deadline for such an objection?
Would you consider letting the Merge discussion to run at least 7 days? Would you allow for 4-5 days for revisions before submitting the AfD?
I'm thinking about a potential rename (Move) of the article to name such as Antisemitic bias on Wikipedia. Is there a mechanism that would enable such a proposal to be considered before the AfD?

Please ping me with your reply. ProfGray (talk) 20:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ProfGray: I think this page is the correct place to object. Is this a formal objecton? If so I will unredirect the article and take it to AfD. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your prompt reply. If you don't mind, it'd be helpful if you respond to my other questions. For example, re: #2, I'm (supposedly) about to board an airplane and don't want to make a hasty decision about a formal objection. Btw, is there a policy page that explains this process of objections etc? Thanks, ProfGray (talk) 20:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ProfGray: I believe the guidelines are at Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#Challenging_a_closing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like guidelines are at WP:Merging. The link above is for deletions, which have more formal rules.

If nobody else comes forward, then consider this statement my objection to the Merge closure. I'd prefer to have some more time for the Merge and, ideally, to propose a Move to another article name, before the AfD. Thanks for your consideration. ProfGray (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to echo ProfGray, while it's not required, I'd also ideally prefer if the article is given 4-5 days or so before AfD, and I would also try to do some work on it. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 02:21, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, maybe it makes sense to draftify it for now, and try moving to mainspace once it's been organized and flushed out more? And I assume an AfD would follow at that point (assuming you or others still find it problematic after the work). — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 04:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
Thx for understanding a newbie's errors. Google search of that Wiki immediately changed, but Bing... Pmcc3 (talk) 17:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Tritter

You recently brought Lewis (baseball) article from Delibird afd, but what dyt about Michael? Do you think this is afd worthy also? 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 03:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I don't regularly take "fictional elements" related articles to AFD, so I'm not going to be a good judge over whether the coverage passes or not (or, what matters more, if the editors who frequent those discussions think so). However, from my judgement it looks like there is a lot of routine coverage of the TV show rather than the character itself, so I wouldn't say it's a slam-dunk "keep". Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

YDIH

I refer you to the talk page Younger Dryas with best wishes. ChaseKiwi (talk) 01:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Straight-tusked elephant

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Straight-tusked elephant you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Straight-tusked elephant

The article Straight-tusked elephant you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Straight-tusked elephant for comments about the article, and Talk:Straight-tusked elephant/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:01, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § RfC: Times of Israel

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § RfC: Times of Israel. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cargo

I saw your ping. That section has become so pinched I find it exhausting to try to read it. I doubt that was your doing. I'll check in tomorrow and see if I can wade through that talk page.Dan Murphy (talk) 00:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dan Murphy: I don't blame you for not replying to that gargantuan discussion, so to give you a summary:

Racingcloud (the newly created account of the IP you reverted) proposed the following new version of the lead:Cargo cults were diverse spiritual and political movements that arose among indigenous Melanesians following Western colonization of the region in the late 19th century. These practices would range from tribal rituals incorporating colonial military parades meant to secure goods, or "cargo", from ancestral spirits and misunderstood imitations of western technology and practices (the John Frum movement), to syncretic movements that blended tribal beliefs and Christianity, to even a rejection of reliance on western goods and attempts to emulate more technologically advanced cultures by creating their own writing and education systems (Turaga nation)[10]. These belief systems were characterized by charismatic strong men who would often foretell of approaching cataclysmic or apocalyptic events, Millenarianism, with promises of wealth or material abundance if followers believed in him and followed his rituals. Anthropologists have described cargo cults as rooted in pre-existing aspects of Melanesian society, as a reaction to colonial oppression and inequality disrupting traditional village life, or both.
There was disagreement about whether or not cargo cult groups "misunderstood" Western technology.
There was disagreement about whether the fact that users who had been canvassed to the talkpage months ago by the viral twitter thread was significant or not r.e. consensus for the lead content.

Truthfully, I don't think the Racingcloud's proposed lead is better than the current version, but it's really hard to write a concise introduction what a "cargo cult" is when the conception of cargo cult is so vague in the anthropological literature, as so clearly articulated by Marc Tabani in What's the Matter with Cargo Cults Today?. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also just wanted to bookmark somewhere that the entirety of Tabani's 2008 book on the John Frum movement is open access. [1]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Io Saturnalia!

		Io, Saturnalia!
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Straight-tusked elephant

On 31 December 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Straight-tusked elephant, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the straight-tusked elephant was one of the largest land mammals ever? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Straight-tusked elephant. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Straight-tusked elephant), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
Your hook reached 7,212 views (601.0 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of January 2025 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Hi Hemiauchenia, thank you for making comments like this and this. We really need more editors like you :) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:02, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree! And well spotted, Dustfreeworld! EMsmile (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Paleontology in Finland

On 27 February 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Paleontology in Finland, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that among the fossils of Finland are the remains of a woolly mammoth and a woolly rhinoceros? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Fossils of Finland. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Paleontology in Finland), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 12:03, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Proceratosaurus

On 19 May 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Proceratosaurus, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Proceratosaurus is one of the oldest tyrannosaurs? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Proceratosaurus. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Proceratosaurus), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of Proceratosaurus

Congratulations, Hemiauchenia! The article you nominated, Proceratosaurus, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, FrB.TG (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:06, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proceratosaurus scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 19 August 2025. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 2025, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/August 2025. Please keep an eye on that page, as notifications of copy edits to or queries about the draft blurb may be left there by user:JennyOz, who assists the coordinators by reviewing the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks, and congratulations on your work! Gog the Mild (talk) 12:24, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you today for your share in the article, "about the oldest known tyrannosauroid, though dramatically different from its later, more famous relatives like Tyrannosaurus in being quite small and with a crest beginning at the snout. While first named over a century ago, little was published about it until the last few decades, and we have summarised all of it here.", created in collaboration! - I have a FAC open, BWV 79, for 31 October, and another Bach cantata to offer for listening, 300 years old OTD, Lobe den Herren, den mächtigen König der Ehren, BWV 137, setting a song of praise. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Check out my talk for an Independence day, or: the pic of Oksana Lyniv was taken on 24 August. There's listening and reading in today's story, and I like both. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats - you are on the news

One editor with the username “Hemiauchenia” called Wales’s statement “patronising” and accused Wales of seeking to unfairly equate the opinion of impartial organisations with those of partial or political ones.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/11/4/why-did-wikipedia-cofounder-block-edits-to-the-gaza-genocide-page Cinaroot (talk) 20:53, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw that earlier. I was also namedropped in the Daily Telegraph by longtime Wikipedia critic Andrew Orlowski earlier this week. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:57, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary account IP viewer granted

Hello, Hemiauchenia. Per your request, your account has been granted temporary-account-viewer rights. You are now able to reveal the IP addresses of individuals using temporary accounts that are not visible to the general public. This is very sensitive information that is only to be used to aid in anti-abuse workflows. Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer for more information on this user right. It is important to remember:

You must not share IP address data with someone who does not have the same access permissions unless disclosure is permissible as per guidelines listed at Foundation:Policy:Wikimedia Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy.
Access must not be used for political control, to apply pressure on editors, or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to investigate a temporary user. Note that using multiple temporary accounts is not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of policies (for example, block or ban evasion).

It is also important to note that the following actions are logged for others to see:

When a user accepts the preference that enables or disables IP reveal for their account.
Revealing an IP address of a temporary account.
Listing the temporary accounts that are associated with one or more IP addresses (using the CIDR notation format).

Remember, even if a user is violating policy, avoid revealing personal information if possible. Use temporary account usernames rather than disclosing IP addresses directly, or give information such as same network/not same network or similar. If you do not want the user right anymore then please ask me or another administrator and it will be removed for you. You may also voluntarily give up access at any time by visiting Special:Preferences. Happy editing! Sohom (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

WP:UNRESPONSIVE - reason for removals of B. priscus gigas descriptions from Steppe bison and Bison latifrons ? The latter encompasses size comparisons with giraffe and Syncerus antiquus, and I find it odd to exclude only B. p. gigas. Also, C. C. Flerow (1977) mentions neither giraffe nor S. antiquus (or Pelorovis), which makes comparisons with giraffe and S. antiquus remain unsourced. Ideazend (talk) 02:50, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paleoart

If I recall correctly, you were the one who once made a big post about paleoart. If this is true, then check out this drawing I found: https://www.tumblr.com/opilka/795020794628571136/favorite-chair

If not, it is kind of a cool drawing anyway. jp×g 🗯️ 19:14, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Needs Help with AFD at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology

Hi, another editor is having trouble with creating an AFD proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology. I have been looking what he did to create the proposal and I am hopelessly confused about how to fix it. Could you, please, either help or find someone else who could help? The AFD is for Jura hole stone and the conversation is at Proposed deletion of Jura hole stone. Any help that you can either provide orf find someone else will be greatly appreciated. Paul H. (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul H.: I am confused as to what you are asking for here. The Jura hole stone article has been subject to a Wikipedia:Proposed deletion with the correct formatting. If anyone objects to the proposed deletion they can just delete the template from the top of the Jura hole stone article. Proposed deletion is a different process from an WP:Articles for Deletion. The post at the Wikiproject Geology talkpage was a simple correctly formatted automated notification of the proposed deletion notice, rather than an invitation for discussion. Hope this helps. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:32, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you. I was just confused between "Proposed deletion" and AFD. Also, the extra raw mark up text at the bottom of the "It is proposed that this article be deleted because of the following concern:" section at Jura hole stone led me to think something has gone wrong. Thanks for your time. Paul H. (talk) 21:46, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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 2025 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) 00:41, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Reiner

If Nick Reiner is low bar per WP:BLP, why does someone like Brian Peck get their own page? Far less famous than Nick Reiner, both in terms of celebrity and infamy. Thanks. ~2025-41066-60 (talk) 21:58, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#People_accused_of_crime. I wouldn't necessarily oppose an article on him when if he is convicted. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:00, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Clovis culture

Mentioning the White Sands footprints in the lead seems premature. I still think we need to wait a few years just so we can get more reactions to make sure that they are widely accepted among Paleoindian archaeologists

It's been almost five years since the paper was published. And this info doesn't seem controversial to me at all. We've seen this kind of rewriting and revising of dates occurring regularly for the last fifty years. What gives you the impression that it isn't widely accepted? Viriditas (talk) 01:31, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that new papers keep coming out disputing it? [2] [3] Where's the papers not affiliated with the people studying the footprints who say that there's widespread acceptance of them? The field of Paleoindian archaeology is prone to hyped-up claims of an early arrival, so any claim of an earlier arrival than 16,000 years ago must be subject to rigorous scrutiny. Remember that cave in Mexico that was claimed to represent evidence of humans in the Americas 30,000 years ago back in 2020? [4]. Does that have widespread acceptance now? No. Wikipedia must not be taken in with press release hype. Without good evidence that the White Sands footprints have been widely accepted I don't see why it should be included in the lead of the Clovis culture article, though I don't have any objection to mentioning it in the chronology section. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:40, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like one dispute by Dave Rachal and Robert Dello-Russo, who authored both papers. I'm curious just how controversial this really is. Seems like two people who won't accept new evidence, which we see come up whenever science advances. I'm currently reading about how this happened in regards to the Canyon Diablo meteorite, which holdouts refused to accept for half a century because volcanism was the only explanation the older generation could accept. Looks like the same thing happening again. Viriditas (talk) 01:49, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I meant this paper [5], my bad. I'm not saying the claim is widely rejected or anything like that, I'm just saying that I've not seen any evidence for an affirmative consensus on the topic in the literature. Science journalism is terrible for treating the claims of the most recent studies that come out as fact, so you can't rely on those for the opinions of actual archaeologists. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:59, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've got too much going on at the moment, but I will come back to this. Feel free to contact me if you have any info to share. Viriditas (talk) 02:24, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Io, Saturnalia!

		Io, Saturnalia!
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:47, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

About the edit war you started

I saw you retracted a lot of people's edits Chanchu0518 (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it is reasonable or unreasonable Chanchu0518 (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know that it is the result of the efforts of many people? Chanchu0518 (talk) 18:34, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chanchu0518 Please see the talkpage discussion Talk:Parareptilia#Taxobox_subgroups. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:05, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:10, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaur hoaxer

Thanks for the AIV report. Please consider ANI next time for something this complex, though. It gives more of an opportunity for people to review the activity and gets more eyes on this type of LTA going forward. After issuing blocks, I reverted most of their edits that weren't already reverted since it was all unsourced, unexplained, and similar to previous edits of theirs, but I think there are some missed edits on these articles:

I also didn't revert this edit (which was subsequently sourced by Huinculsaurus) and this edit (which is just an image). @Abyssal: @Grutness: @Volcanoguy: @Yewtharaptor: I noticed you've contributed significantly to the affected articles. You may want to look them over and keep an eye out for this editor who is likely to return. Thanks. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 06:35, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

All I did to the articles was stub sorting, although in two cases I also put a more precise location for the formations rather than leaving them shown simply as being on a continent. I used this source for the Csehbánya Formation and this source for the Chota Formation (although that lists it in Ecuador, and it appears that the WP article has references which show it being in Peru, close to the Ecuadorian border). I'm not an expert at palaeontology, so didn't do any further editing, so I'd hardly call it "significant editing". Grutness...wha? 09:32, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

All I did was add categories and remove flags from those articles; I wouldn't call these significant contributions. Volcanoguy 17:15, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I should have looked more closely to identify the most relevant editors to notify. I was pretty fried after reviewing those edits. Appreciate you both checking in. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 17:27, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help! I´ve been notifiying several of those unidentified accounts doing unusual edits here and there, like add Almadasuchus several times into Paleobiota of the Cañadón Asfalto Formation, when is from Cañadón Calcáreo Formation. I will have to monitorize it better. Yewtharaptor (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lovelock Cave

I appreciate your dedication to the truth here, to many conspiracy theories around that place. Any chance you are a fellow Milo Rossi viewer? If not, you would likely enjoy the watch. Have a good day!

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 00:10, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsmasher678:. Hi. I did indeed watch the video. I mentioned this in the fringe theories noticeboard thread I made about the topic Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Lovelock_Cave_and_the_Si-Te-Cah. If you're looking to improve the article in relation to the claims surrounding giants, I recommend using this source that Rossi cited in the video s description [6]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The whole comment was clearly regrettable

Disambiguation link notification for February 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Grooming gangs scandal, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jess Philips was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:57, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A quick note

Thank you for your notice on my talk page (I am, of course, well aware) and I appreciate you bringing up WP:CITOGENESIS. We should talk about that because that seems to be to indeed be a possibility. But I would only note that in that particular article it is worth pointing out that WP:ONUS would apply to your case, since you are disputing the version of the article in place before the edits, while I am preserving the original. So since you wish to remove content from the article, you should follow through the WP:BRD process and of course I would be happy to agree depending on your sources. Only that we discuss first, and remove later. Best, Jay-GH 00:05, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is not how ONUS works, it only mentions "disputed content", not how long it has been in the article for. There is no implicit consensus for content that is actively disputed, no matter what wikilawyers might like to argue. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:12, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar for you!

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thank you for helping me out at ANI. It made me feel a lot better. :) jolielover♥talk 17:04, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your Lanzarote edits

I noticed that you recently added some text about sediments and fossils to the Lanzarote section of the Geology of the Canary Islands article. Thank you for these additions. I hope to add more about sediments and fossils of the islands in the coming months. GeoWriter (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifications

@RoySmith: I would like to make some clarifications to your recent post in the ANI thread [7] Could you please copy these over to the ANI thread.

1. The ANI thread opened by Deeuu resulted in no sanctions against me, and indeed the filer ended up getting page blocked as a result [8]. Nobody in that thread criticised my conduct. I had not engaged in wrongdoing in that situation, merely probing questions against a disruptive user (who notably has a history of anti transgender slurs [9]) I thought had COI. It's unfortunate that the thread wasn't closed properly despite it having a clear resolution. I do not think that ANI filings that ended up as WP:BOOMERANGs should be counted against me.
2. My indef block for "outing" was solely for adding the connected contributor template for Tenebrae (talk · contribs) to the talkpage of Frank Lovece a single time in good faith [10]. Really. I did literally nothing else beside that. I was talkpage blocked because I in good faith in my appeal said that I had never suggested that Tenebrae was Frank Lovece, which was true, which I did not understand could also be considered outing. ArbCom later confirmed that Tenebrae had a COI with Lovece, and Tenebrae was later community banned for COI editing w.r.t Lovece. [11]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:21, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done. RoySmith (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith Could you also copy over: "I should add the whole comment was obviously completely regrettable and unproductive and I shouldn't have posted it, perhaps my initial comment came off as too dismissive, apologizing for errors in the comment did not mean that the comment would have been justified if there had been no errors. I've felt in an off kilter mood today, and the disinhibition due to my ADHD means that I not infrequently say things that I almost immediately regret. I think the 24 hour block is reasonable and have no plans to appeal it." Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:37, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done. RoySmith (talk) 23:42, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? I do have a question

Why do you think that version of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptile is the better version? Cantthinkofanyusername (talk) 20:56, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Allosaurus and Barinasuchus pages

The Allosaurus page has long been vandalized by a certain Cameron Pahl, who is trying to push their own fringe hypothesis (of almost all large theropods being obligate scavengers who were effectively incapable of hunting) on said page, even copying the exact wording they used in said fringe hypothesis and citing their own papers (which rely entirely on computer models that fail to reflect current paleontological consensus on any of the relevant topics) as a source (WP:ECREE). By reverting my edit you restored said vandalism.

For Barinasuchus; If the technical literature ignores other technical literature and the latter shows the claims made in the former to be false, why should the former take precedent? Formerlyanonymouseditor (talk) 00:44, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Formerlyanonymouseditor: You've spent literally months edit warring about the contents of the Barinasuchus article as an anonymous user, and not once have you thought, "maybe I should take this to the talkpage?" If you constantly edit war against established users as if you're in the right all the time, then you have not demonstrated a collaborative attitude. Can you provide evidence in the edit history of edits that you think were made by Pahl specifically, rather than just unrelated people citing him? For better or worse Pahl's papers are published in legitimate scientific journals. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:54, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I believed that it was common sense that claims in technical literature that have been falsified by other technical literature (or ignored other, pre-existing technical literature or known fossil data and were thus invalid from the start) should be edited out and, if possible, replaced with more accurate technical literature.

It's clear that the edits were made by Pahl specifically to present his studies as being valid, because his edits deliberately reworded the sections he've edited to argue other research is invalid unless he can twist them to make it seem they're supporting his claims, and because Pahl has used the exact same wordings both in his papers AND elsewhere online (such as on Reddit - his username there is Stenops and you can see him using the exact same wordings) Formerlyanonymouseditor (talk) 01:13, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Merryweather

I'm not going to try and establish Merryweather's notability right now as that would probably require making a whole page for him, and I'm not up to making pages at the moment. However, your argument that he "has expressed reticence on X/Twitter about being included in this article" is absolutely untrue and I'm not sure how you read into his tweets that way. His initial tweet only expressed confusion about being American, which is what directed several people here in the first place. "Not that I'm not happy to be included in notable people named "Lucius" on Wikipedia, but why did they make me American?!!" https://x.com/Merrydawg/status/2031939673384501711 He made a follow up tweet expressing sadness that he was no longer listed as American that was quite clearly a joke and doesn't clearly convey "reticence to be included" anyway (which itself is not usually an Encyclopedic consideration unless someone clearly states that they no longer wish to not be a public figure, but that's beyond splitting hairs now). I will assum that you were acting in good faith and simply misread something. The reason I am bothering to write all this is because if a Wikipedia VTuber Project gets off the ground, Merryweather has enough legitimate media interviews that I strongly suspect that notability will not be an issue, and an article for him will probably be made, if it isn't made before then based on his work as a web comic author with published works also in print. Beansy (talk) 04:49, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, User:Hemiauchenia/sandboxGnathobase

Hello, Hemiauchenia. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "sandboxGnathobase".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:59, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Removed your comment

I removed your comment on Talk:Ariel Fernandez when I removed the sock message. I assumed you wouldn't mind, but feel free to restore if you'd like. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:26, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, it was a trivial comment. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:28, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I figured, but I like to let people know if I remove one of their comments. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:46, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Siri Dahl

On 25 April 2026, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Siri Dahl, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the cisgender actress Siri Dahl (pictured) once won a Trans Erotica Award? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Siri Dahl. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Siri Dahl), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.

— Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:02, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
Your hook reached 49,098 views (2,045.8 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of April 2026 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:28, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you?

What is the purpose of the message on my talk page Aradicus (talk) 22:13, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Did my investigation on the Melolontha beetle genus articles and found some inconsistencies

I was doing a routine check for LLM usage articles and spotted this rabbit hole of pages tagged as AI generated. Upon a closer look, I found that the student editors at Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Washington University/Behavioral Ecology 2024 (Spring) made the edits on these pages.

One of the pages, Melolontha hippocastani doesn't follow the layout for beetle articles and skipped vital sections such as etymology and predators, parasites. diff hippocastani. Cockchafer had been expanded with new information added but doubt that may have LLM usage too. diff cockchafer.

As the edits have been kept for over 2 years now, they can be put up for discussion in RfC or can be PROD which is a very risky move given the coverage of the article. I need your thoughts on this before proceeding further as you seem to have understood this problem. Sddarealone (talk) 12:58, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

For removing that stupid Truman Dumbo claim. It was about to spread on reddit... (ThatTrainGuy1945) Cheers, and have a good day! ~2026-30028-83 (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]