User talk:Apokryltaros

/User talk:Apokryltaros Archive 1 /User talk:Apokryltaros Archive 2

Meiolaniidae

While I don't question the need to update the image "I understood that the two turtles were separated by an ocean and the Neogene" is wrong. While Meiolania is primarily known from Pleistocene remains on Lord Howe and New Caledonia with a Miocene Australian species, It is well known in the literature that there is an undescribed Pleistocne species known from fragmentary remains found in queensland that was sympatric with Ninjemys, so you weren't wrong after all. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I thought Ninjemys was from the Oligocene. It's from the Pleistocene? So it is from the Pleistocene. I need to get back to work on it!--Mr Fink (talk) 22:39, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering you, but...

New Page Patrol needs experienced volunteers

• New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
• If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions and review our instructions page. You can apply for the user-right HERE. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 22:36, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

You are welcome.

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:03, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Illuminated manuscript

Here are my rebuts for your arguments concerning the deletion of the Illuminated manuscript image: a) aesthetics are not important in an education website; since when do we care about the cover of books? b) although the detail may be indeed rather microscopic, it still shows how much information there is on the topic. c) you cannot argue that there is no evidence of it being an authentic manuscript, as there is also no evidence going back the other way. d) I would like to see how much harm this editor has done, if on this page. If not, why does it matter? You cannot simply distrust somebody for an eligible misunderstanding, can you? Does that not seem unfair? e) if you would like to continue emphasizing the fact that the detail is too small to read, you would have to drop this argument - they do not correspond. If it is unreadable, why does it matter if the information is false?

Here are my own arguments: a) if Wikipedia is for education and knowledge, this photograph indeed encourages a reader to look further into it - although this a rather obscure topic, it shows that there is obviously more information if you don't just brush the surfaces. b) this image, if looked closely at, has signatures from the old Barons. Imagine how hard it would be to find something else on that? c) do you have any evidence that this is the only image of the manuscript? what if, perhaps, the user has a readable pdf and could send it to people once requested? d) I do not know why this is angering you while there are other illuminated manuscripts online of which people cannot read either? for they are in a different language or a unclear font?

JuliusCaesar16 (talk) 06:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)JuliusCaesar16JuliusCaesar16 (talk) 06:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)