User talk:Lythronaxargestes/Archive 2

Listing of Template:Cambrian at templates for discussion

Template:Cambrian has been listed at templates for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 15:55, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Listing of Template:Ordovician at templates for discussion

Template:Ordovician has been listed at templates for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 15:55, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Listing of Template:Silurian at templates for discussion

Template:Silurian has been listed at templates for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 15:55, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Redoing of IPs edit that I undid

Hey! I notice that you mostly redid the edit from an IP undid on allosaurus, but rephrased. I wasn't dismissing it as invalid information but I had no clue what it was supposed to mean. When you redid it, it made a lot more sense. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

OK, glad we have an understanding. Thanks. Disregard the message on your talk page. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Ящеротазоаые

Зачем была отменена правка Ящеротазовых? 3 удаленных таксона относятся к Тетрапода Ник Клаус (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Они являются дочерними таксонами Тетрапода, а не сестринскими как написано в вашей правке. Ник Клаус (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't speak Russian. I'm going to assume you're not cussing me out here. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I said that: The taxa I removed are Tetrapod's daughter taxa, not sister taxa as written in your edit. so they must be in the tetrapod taxonomy Ник Клаус (talk) 07:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

That's not certain though. They've been inside and outside Theropoda at various points and the page needs to provide a neutral representation of the literature. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

According to the latest data, they were inside. The taxonomy should present the most up-to-date data. Ник Клаус (talk) 14:03, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

No, it should present the scientific consensus. You don't see people changing Wikipedia every time a new study comes out. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:53, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Moros intrepidus

It is featured in Jurassic World Dominion in 2 or 3 scenes and it’s name is said. Check the article about the dinosaurs in the Jurassic Franchise IndoBoy Official (talk) 19:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

OK, sure (I don't plan on watching the movie), but two or three scenes does not qualify as a significant appearance! Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

But it still appears in it IndoBoy Official (talk) 00:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

That's not how this works. Wikipedia is not a laundry list of X animal appeared in Y movie. The appearance of Moros in Dominion does absolutely nothing to advance its standing in the public consciousness. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:22, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Velociraptor in popular culture

Could you please start a discussion and state your rationale? This is unlikely to go anywhere by just adding a tag and expecting others to hash it out. There was already an abortive attempt at Talk:Velociraptor#Merging_of_the_"Velociraptor_in_popular_culture"_article_into_this?, so I suggest reviving that and directing the link there (FWIW, I agree it should be merged.) Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:31, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Lythronax - Paleontologist's Interview and Blog

So I have contacted the author of the 2021 study which suggested that Teratophoneus holotype and Lythronax holotype had frontal bones similar in size, resulting in a length of 6.1 meters and body mass of 1 metric ton. He noted that this estimate also applies to the holotype specimen of Lythronax, but he mentioned that the Lythronax specimen might not represent an adult, for most specimens of early tyrannosaurids including Teratophoneus represent subadults. https://m.blog.naver.com/CommentList.naver?blogId=changyu1015&logNo=222810335239

My question is how reliable is the paleontologist's blog considered in Wikipedia? Because I have seen some articles like Giganotosaurus including Scott Hartman's blog that refutes the overestimated Giganotosaurus, but then I saw a certain article in which Darren Naish's blog was used but "better source needed" sign was right next to it. I thought blogs along with newspapers are considered as insufficient source materials (at least from what I've seen in many articles), but apparently everyone just seems to accept the Lythronax estimate just by the original describer's statement in the newspaper when he himself didn't clarify why he thought this way. (By the way, I'll just leave the Lythronax article for now, I just want to clarify some points. Sorry if I had been a bit of a nuisance yesterday and the day before.) Junsik1223 (talk) 00:25, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:Citing self-published blogs. FunkMonk (talk) 07:38, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

WtJP

If he makes a comment, just revert him and don't comment. The less attention he gets the less inclined he will be to comment. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:03, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I dunno. I've been around long enough that I think it doesn't matter either way. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:50, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Better

I know you are better than this maddening revert war and over tagging of the article. These things always work out. You guys have owned this article, and posted it on three discussion boards. But the merge was carried out with a limited audience. And now the constant reductions and templates to diminish the article. I know we both are spending our time to improve the encyclopedia. Let's work together. The whole world owns the article. Bruxton (talk) 04:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

You insisted that the post-AfD version of the article be kept up for discussion. Clear issues with this version of the article were pointed out on the talk page by IJReid, and I specifically pointed you to those issues in a reply. Instead of responding to his comments, you and other editors have chosen to directly remove his tags. I fail to see how that is constructive. Please go on the Titus talk page and respond instead of perpetuating the revert war. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you Bruxton. All they're trying to do is make reductions and templates diminish the article. But however, editwarring is not tolerated on Wikipedia. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 04:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, I can't tell whether or not you support the improvement of Titus as an article. Clear quality issues were pointed out with the article. Hiding them is not the solution. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I do support the improvement of Titus as an article, however, other users keep deliberately removing substantial content, without any improvement so that it can be merged. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 05:04, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

@Lythronaxargestes: I know you can be a voice of reason. I think we need this to simmer instead of boil. It is a shock to many participants as you can see by the heat on the talk page. FYI - I wrote an article called temporary art and it took nearly a year to merge - and the ivote was unanimous. Regarding IJReid, one guy does not get to decide. we have many competent editors like you and I. and thanks @Magnatyrannus: Bruxton (talk) 05:04, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately text does not convey tone well, but I do not hold ill intent. The discussion is ongoing and I am trying to reason with you. In case you have not noticed, by the way, I did not revert your removal of the primary source template because I do not dispute your removal (I will let IJReid handle that). I reverted the removal of the advertisement template because there are significant portions of the article written like an advertisement, and no one has responded to IJ's clear statement of why this is the case. FWIW, consider this comment my endorsement of his explanation; it is now two people, not one. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

There are no secondary sources in the article, therefore the PRIMARY SOURCE tag is completely justified. The Wollaton Hall report is a self-published, in-house article on the contents of the museum written by the museum. It is the least subjective of the references, but also directly states claims contrary to the various press releases.

The report on the conservation and preservation of the Titus fossils is also published in-house by the authors of a small group of commercial preparators, making it also a primary source. The information in it is also only accessory to Titus, and better deserves to be on an article discussing photogrammetry and physical conservation.

The multiple press releases and news reports are all tertiary sources that draw their content, without analysis, from the material released by the Wollaton Hall PR team. Their inclusion for details now found in either report above has been seen to directly misattribute quotes, contradict the report, and overall add minimal content to the article beyond how incorrectly "novel" the mount is.

A "stub" with good, readable, neutral content is far better and more educational than a "ranked" article with subsections where half the content is controversial, poorly-referenced, or promotional. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 13:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Llukalkan

Hello @Lythronaxagestes

I couldn’t help but notice that the only picture of Llukalkan on Wikimedia, is considered inaccurate. I started my own take on it, but soon figured out that I needed guidance. Would you please give me some idea on how to create the restoration.

Sincerely, Aaa232355/Atharv Kaul अथर्व कॉल (talk) 00:48, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

This is one of the cases where drawing a bust might actually make sense, because the animal is only known from a skull. You should start from the official skull reconstruction [1] (but put it in a different pose), then put musculature and skin over it. For musculature you should look at [2] to see where major muscles go. For skin you should read [3] and then reference subfigure B in [4]. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:56, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. अथर्व कॉल (talk) 15:04, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Greetings

I don't mean to seem as if I'm coming out of nowhere, but I'd like to apologize if my edits regarding birds and dinosaurs seemed counterproductive. I was simply attempting to phrase the opening sentences to better state that birds are directly dinosaurs.

I was attempting to change it since the sentence would be confusing for Wikipedia readers who aren't users who may not understand the statement (such myself before I joined wikipedia). Firekong1 (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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) 01:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

		Happy Holidays
		Hello, I wish you the very best during the holidays. And I hope you have a very happy 2023! Bruxton (talk) 01:53, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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) 00:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)