Cabrochu

Welcome...

Hello, Cabrochu, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! J. Spencer (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Crocodilian evolution

Hey, I saw your edit summary to the Crocodylus checchiai page where you said: "The Lee and Yates study is not as definitive as some think, and results based on forthcoming revised data suggest different relationships." It's pretty cool seeing you contribute to these crocodilian articles (I'm a fan of your work). As a layperson, I know much less on the topic than you, but I'm trying my best to make sense of it all, which can be a bit tricky when I don't have access to all of the articles. I'm pretty much limited to the articles that provide free access.

From what I have gathered from my reading, crocodilian evolution in particular seems to be in an interesting state of flux, with the new molecular evidence (DNA sequencing) from the extant biologists conflicting with the morphological evidence from the paleontologists. The biggest area of dispute seems to focused on the gharial: morphologically, it looks so different, and so paleontologists think it diverged first, as the outgroup to Brevirostres. But then the DNA evidence seems to consistently show that it is closely related to the false gharial, and that together, they are more closely related to crocodiles than to alligators, invalidating Brevirostres and giving rise to the new clade Longirostres of crocodiles and gavialids.

That 2018 Lee & Yates article appeared to be the first study that combined the molecular and morphological evidence, as well as using tip dating, so it seemed pretty cool and comprehensive to me. And the 2021 Hekkala et al. study, (which I believe you co-authored), did seem to cite it favorably. So anyways, what issues do you have with the Lee & Yates study? Do you have any recommendations for other studies I should look at? I'd love to hear your thoughts on the subject. Thanks. Cougroyalty (talk) 20:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

The morphological data set used in the Lee and Yates data set is error-ridden to the point of being useless. They also got quite a few tip calibrations wrong. At points, their data verge on being unintentionally funny. Their paper should basically be disregarded.

It wasn't the first paper to combine morphological and molecular data; we've been doing that since the 1990's.

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

December 2021

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Javelina azhdarchid, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Having done some googling, I now infer that you are an academic paleontologist, my apologies if the automated message seems blunt. We can't analyse the ICZN like this to reach a conclusion if this specific instance hasn't yet been discussed in the academic literature, that's just not how Wikipedia works. Your assertions are also contradicted by A mixed bag: when are early online publications available for nomenclatural purposes?, a 2015 article published in The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:03, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I take issue with your assertion that I'm adding original research to this article. I'm not. This has been discussed exhaustively by a large number of people. The ICZN has clear rules - all I did was point out the ICZN rules that pertain to this situation and indicate their implications, which are as clear as a bell. I'm far from the only one who realizes this. I'm not interested in what may or may not be said on Darren Naish's blog. Blogs are not legitimate sources of information. I stand by the text I added. Not trying to be a jerk, but I'm basing my text on my 30 years of experience as a professional systematist. I didn't do "research;" I saw immediately what the situation was and pointed it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabrochu 19:09, 16 December 2021 (UTC) (Moved from my talkpage. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2021 (UTC))

It's clearly original synthesis, per Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material. No reliable sources to exist to definitively state that Wellnhopterus is the valid name. Wikipedia is not a venue for original synthesis, even by experts. Your interpretation of the ICZN in this particular case is not universal amongst taxonomists, for instance Christian Kammerer, a noted synapsid worker, has come to the opposite conclusion.:

This is not the stated viewpoint of the Commission. ICZN Commissioner Frank-Thorsten Krell has addressed this very situation (see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274372707_A_mixed_bag_when_are_early_online_publications_available_for_nomenclatural_purposes), and things like volume number and pagination are explicitly stated to not be missing content that renders a paper "preliminary"; i.e. they are not necessary to establish the Version of Record from which point a name becomes available. The Version of Record is defined as follows: A fixed version of a journal article that has been made available by any organization that acts as a publisher by formally and exclusively declaring the article ‘published’. This includes any ‘early release’ article that is formally identified as being published even before the compilation of a volume issue and assignment of associated metadata, as long as it is citable via some permanent identifier(s). This does not include any ‘early release’ article that has not yet been ‘fixed’ byprocesses that are still to be applied, such as copy-editing, proof corrections, layout, and typesetting. The Campos (2021) paper fulfills all of those criteria. I know it sucks, but Javelinadactylus is the senior name for this taxon.

Thanks for your understanding. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2021 (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) 00:45, 29 November 2022 (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) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)