User talk:Armin Reindl

Thanks for creating the article for Antaeusuchus! Hiroizmeh (talk) 22:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

November 2021

Hello, I'm Wtmitchell. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Paleoart review—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I must assume there has been a mistake given the confusing state of the review page following your edits and the fact that I merely asked for feedback for an image that may come into use in the future. I would very much appreciate having these vandalism warnings? removed accordingly Armin Reindl (talk) 13:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

GA

@Armin Reindl: Greetings! Thank you for expanding Stupendemys! Someone with just one edit on the article nominated it for GAN. If you want to get the article to GA (which is very easy at this point), just ping me and I'll start a review for you (just copy and paste this:{{subst:GAN|subtopic=Biology and medicine}} and replace it with the current GA template on the talk page). Wretchskull (talk) 18:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Stupendemys

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Stupendemys you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Stupendemys

The article Stupendemys you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Stupendemys for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

My thoughts of the paper of Sebecus ayrampu

The paper of Sebecus ayrampu last year is quite suspicious for me for the following reasons:

1: The study retains the original classification of Sebecus:

"Therefore, we consider for the moment this is an unnecessary nomenclatorial change and we regard Zulmasuchus querejazus and Langstonia huilensis as junior synonyms of S.huilensis and S.querejazus"

The new generic combination of S.huilensis and S.querejazus were made in the 21st century, but there is still some taxonomists still regard the original classification, similar to how some taxonomists still regard Tarbosaurus as Tyrannosaurus bataar. In my point of view, it's not a major consensus so we must ignore that.

2: Too much difference from S. icaeorhinus

Due to i found that S. ayrampu has too many contrasts with S. icaeorhinus, it needs a new genus name in the future.

1) I had very little input on the Sebecus page as it is in its current state. My sole contribution to Sebecus is the addition of the new species so I am not sure why you specifically come to me to voice your thoughts on the matter.

2) Generally just due weight and original research need to be brought up here. Even if you deem S. ayrampu to be too different, it's not our call to make. That's original research not supported by publications and thus, no offense, not allowed on wikipedia. And as far as Zulmasuchus and Langstonia are concerned, a single paper making an off-hand mention does not overturn prior research automatically. It takes a more in-depht publication and even then it's most likely not enough to immediately chance concensus. Nor would the authors opinion on Sebecus taxonomy render the rest of the paper invalid.

3) I see you've been on here for a while so please sign your comments with four "~" at the end of your paragraph

4) Like FunkMonk has told you multiple times it seems, please don't go to individual editors for this. Like I said in my first point, I merely made a single edit so I am not sure why you've come here Armin Reindl (talk) 14:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Euthecodon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Riversleigh.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 26 March 2022 (UTC)