This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hemiauchenia (talk | contribs) at 19:53, 31 July 2022 (→"Evolution of" pages: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 19:53, 31 July 2022 by Hemiauchenia (talk | contribs) (→"Evolution of" pages: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Welcome!
|
--Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Barnstar
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) |
about my paleoart...
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)
- 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)
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)
Re: Chuandianella
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
A barnstar for you!
The Original Barnstar | |
Awesome work on the Weygoldtina article!! Vermont (🐿️—🏳️🌈) 04:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC) |
"Evolution of" pages
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)