User talk:Albertonykus

Welcome!

Hello, Albertonykus, and

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• Article Wizard
  if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

Pterosaurus (talk) 21:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it not proper convention to explain the reason when you undo?

Pterosaurus (talk) 16:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, when removing inaccurate dinosaur images, be sure to put them in this category on Commons, so we can find them again if we want to adjust them: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Inaccurate_dinosaur_restorations FunkMonk (talk) 12:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could ceratopsians really not pronate their hands? Abyssal (talk) 14:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. mgiganteus1 (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dinosaurs/Image_review#proscribing_problematic_pronation.3F FunkMonk (talk) 10:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcopterygian
Thank you for your silent quality contributions to articles on dinosaurs, from featured articles such as Psittacosaurus to gnomish work, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were the 362nd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seven years ago, you were recipient no. 362 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Albertonykus. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Albertonykus. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The list puts both them as 100% synonymous, but those studies are new so we just have to wait until more Phylogenetic trees and studies to disagree or not. so I wonder why the list put them as 100%, just because these studies were new? i'm curious.

Hi there. It's almost never possible for us to be "100%" sure that fossil taxa are synonymous, so it wouldn't be very practical for me to use that as a standard to decide when to list taxa as synonyms. You're right that the studies are very new, and it would be wise for a neutral description of scientific consensus (as Wikipedia, for example, intends to be) to wait for responses from subsequent studies. My list, however, is more of a summary of scientific literature filtered through my own interpretation of it. I chose to list Latenivenatrix and Nomingia as junior synonyms of Stenonychosaurus and Elmisaurus because I personally found the arguments in favor of their synonymy convincing, and the studies that suggested synonymizing them were done by leading experts on Mesozoic theropods. If a future study does make a strong case against one or both of those synonymizations, I will consider splitting them back up again; it certainly wouldn't be the first time I've done that. Albertonykus (talk) 16:04, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The synonymy of Nomingia is pretty sure that I can say that it's a definite synonym, American troodontid taxonomy is always in a flux so it's not definite for Latenivenatrix.

The study of the new Buteogallus made Amplibuteo a synonym based on morphology,not DNA sequences. may I just merge the page or wait until another study mentions Amplibuteo as a distinct genus or not?

You don't need my permission to make changes to Wikipedia! But if you're asking for my perspective on what should be done: I can see the argument for keeping the article separate until further research comes out; however, there are very few researchers working on the systematics of these Pleistocene raptors, so there most likely won't be much commentary in the scientific literature for some time (and though ancient DNA studies would be nice, they haven't been applied much to Caribbean fossil birds so far). Synonymizing Amplibuteo and Buteogallus is (in my view) not particularly radical, and in fact had already been implied by some of Suárez's earlier papers. I won't swear by it, but I expect that this synonymy will last for at least a while. Albertonykus (talk) 01:39, 14 September 2021 (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

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

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:12, 11 January 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

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

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]