User talk:Mlvluu
Welcome to Wikipedia!
[edit]
Welcome Mlvluu!I'm Paine Ellsworth, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.
| Some pages of helpful information to get you started: | Some common sense Dos and Don'ts:
|
| If you need further help, you can: | or you can: | or even: |
Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{Help me}} here on your talk page and someone will try to help.
There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:
|
|
To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own personal sandbox for use any time. It's perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put {{My sandbox}} on your user page. By the way, seeing as you haven't created a user page yet, simply click here to start it.
Please remember to:
- Always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the
button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes
~~~~at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to your talk page, and a timestamp. - Leave descriptive edit summaries for your edits. Doing so helps other editors understand what changes you have made and why you made them.
Your edit request
[edit]...has been granted. See Template talk:Taxonomy/Pancrustacea#Template-protected edit request on 23 April 2023. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 13:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
"the evidence for a brachiopod affinity of Hyolitha is overwhelming"
[edit]When you make claims like this, you are required to cite reliable sources. From a cursorial reading of the literature, no recent study specifically supports that hyoliths should be considered brachiopods, let alone their being a consensus that hyloiths are brachiopods. Do not insert your personal opinions into Wikipedia. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- A 'cursorial reading' is clearly not sufficient; also, do not wantonly claim that a claim is a personal opinion. Mlvluu (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
August 2024
[edit]
- Please do not gatekeep edits unless they are accompanied by excessive fluff (read: beyond adequate explanations). Thank you. Mlvluu (talk) 20:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Please do not remove content that has citation without a better reason than you have given. As you have been reverted again, I suggest you review the advice at Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and start a discussion at Talk:Vetulicola, presenting reliable sources to support the changes that you wish to make to the article. Donald Albury 22:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Do I need to present sources when they are already cited within the article (at least source 9) before the contested section?
- Also, what are your standards for good reasons? Mine, I'm quite sure, was already ironclad from the beginning. Mlvluu (talk) 02:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- It will be more polite to link to the sources you believe support your position in your comment on the talk page, rather than make other commenters search for them. Giving your own opinion or interpretation of the status of Vetulicolia really isn't enough. It is what reliable sources say that counts. It is fine, although not necessary, to include a link to a WP article or an external source in an edit summary to support the reason for change. The thing about editing anonymously on Wikipedia is that nobody can judge your level of expertise. You need to rely on reliable sources to support major alterations to the content of articles. Donald Albury 14:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Please do not remove content that has citation without a better reason than you have given. As you have been reverted again, I suggest you review the advice at Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and start a discussion at Talk:Vetulicola, presenting reliable sources to support the changes that you wish to make to the article. Donald Albury 22:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Taxonomy of Vetulicolia
[edit]The phylum Vetulicolia cannot have the subphylum Tunicata as its parent. If a source claims that the group belongs to Tunicata, then they have to assign a different rank. So I've returned Template:Taxonomy/Vetulicolia to the Paleobiology Database parent. This actually agrees with Fig. 5 in the paper you cited (doi:10.1186/s12862-014-0214-z). Peter coxhead (talk) 16:09, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- Please see Talk:Vetulicolia#Inconsistent. The reality seems to be that there's no consensus in the literature as to the rank of the taxon or its placement, although a 2024 paper suggests it is a non-monophyletic stem group within Chordata. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- That 2024 paper seems to have used outdated characters, as it places the origin of the notochord, as well as the still chord-less Pikaia, after the vetulicolians despite a notochord being found in two genera. I do not believe that paper should be considered when determining the taxonomic position of vetulicolians. Mlvluu (talk) 17:20, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia editors may not act on what they believe to be the case, but must neutrally report what reliable sources say; please review WP:RS, in particular "making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered". The reality is that there is no consensus in the literature, so (1) the article must neutrally describe the different views that have been put forward, with references (2) it's difficult to construct a taxonomy template, since there's no consensus on the rank to be used; "possible clade" seems about as neutral as we can get within the constraints of the automated taxonomy system. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- That 2024 paper seems to have used outdated characters, as it places the origin of the notochord, as well as the still chord-less Pikaia, after the vetulicolians despite a notochord being found in two genera. I do not believe that paper should be considered when determining the taxonomic position of vetulicolians. Mlvluu (talk) 17:20, 29 September 2024 (UTC)