Talk:Triisodon

Mammals Low‑importance

	Mammals portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology Low‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Remove "inadequate citations" tag?

Hello,

I expanded this stub and provided citations. However, I'm not a very experienced Wikiperson: 1. The added citations are visible on rollover, but do not appear at the bottom of the page as usual. I'm not sure how to do a section edit to add this feature, or whether it's necessary. 2. I am unsure about removing the "lack of citations" header--the explanatory page for this kind of header suggested posting on the talk page first. If a more experienced editor finds the work adequate, please remove the header? Thanks, Panoramagram (talk) 01:53, 9 June 2019 (UTC)Panoramagram[reply]

Thank you very much for your work at expanding. I rewrote some of your edits and removed the better citations needed tag.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war and copyvio

As there is seemingly an edit war in which two IP addresses based in Scotland and user @Paleoaficionado are systematically reverting all edits concerning the removal of a potentially copyright infringing illustration (see Paleoart review), engaging by that mean in edit wars. As such, I've requested a temporal protection on the page to avoid further disruptions. I encourage all parts involved to stop edit warring and to remove the afforementionned contentious image until the issue is resolved in the means deemed necessary. I also highly recommend the IP adresses to stop trying to cover their tracks by removing Talk pages posts discussing this situation. Also pinging other people involved in this situation : @Ta-tea-two-te-to, @Mirror 2 sky, @Arjayay. Larrayal (talk) 13:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed for protection. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 13:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have applied pending changes for a month, which should discourage the ip socking, at least. Blocked the discussion-blanking ip as well. BusterD (talk) 13:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ! Larrayal (talk) 13:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The best solution to settle this: How about we just include neither my or Bogdanov's reconstruction, but only that by Apokryltaros? And stop investing such enormous amounts of time, energy and attention into this one single insignificant article? Have you also seen my extensive comment in the Triisodon discussion you started in the "WikiProject Palaeontology/Paleoart review"?

Cordially yours, Paleoaficionado (talk) 16:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no pending issues with Bogdanov's reconstruction, so it can be added to the page. According to the skeletal included in the paper you authored, Apokryltaros' reconstruction, tho otherwise without copyright issues, seems to not portray the genus in a modern manner like Bogdanov's does. I have seen the discussion on Paleoart review, and still take it into account in my opinion. Larrayal (talk) 17:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you still don't believe me? Then just please let it go and focus on other Wikipedia articles. Paleoaficionado (talk) 17:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My own Wikipedia articles are doing fine, please refrain from discussing them here. The subject of this discussion is not about what I'm doing, but the issue at core with the use of reconstructions here. I'm arguing about the keeping of Bogdanov's reconstruction, which checks all boxes with both your article and previous published litterature, and the removing from the page of Apokryltaros's, which is clearly outdated in consideration of present published litterature, to which you contributed, and yours, which is a blatant copyvio of both Bogdanov (which is bad) and Yevseyev (which is worse, since it can't be licensed from the current copyright the image was originally posted upon, and can be used in a lawsuit against both you and the Wikimedia Foundation). I obviously advise you personnally to, in the future, no longer trace your artwork on other people work, which is criminally reprehensible and can see you banned from academia, but the point here is not that. It is merely the image to use here in this particular page, and the image to use is obviously Bogdanov's. You wouldn't have traced it in the first place if it was inacurate anyway. There is no reasons to not use Bogdanov's image, which is so far both accurate and devoid of all issues, than the inacurate one (by your own standards) by Apokryltaros or the copyvio you made. Larrayal (talk) 01:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion was blanked by User:Paleoaficionado. I've restored it. BusterD (talk) 13:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Paleoaficionado blanked this discussion again, and after it was reverted blanked my above notice at 13:43, 16 Nov. I've blocked the editor. BusterD (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]