User talk:Yixpoleg

Hello, Yixpoleg, and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm Mathglot and I've volunteered to be your Wikipedia mentor. I'm here for you whenever you need help with Wikipedia. It's great to have you on board to help create this online encyclopedia.

See your homepage for a brief tutorial. Here are a few links you might find helpful:

Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try the "Suggested edits" module top left on your homepage, or the Task Center.

Help is available: as your Mentor, you can always find me listed in the "Get editing help" module bottom right on your homepage; there are also additional help links there. You can also ask me questions directly on my talk page, or try the Wikipedia:Teahouse to get help designed especially for new users from a team of experienced volunteers. So go ahead and ask questions — we're here to help!

Once again, welcome to Wikipedia! Mathglot (talk) 01:07, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello! Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. At least one of your edits on the page Gerhard Zimmer, while it may have been in good faith, was difficult to distinguish from vandalism. To help other editors understand the reason for the changes, you can use an edit summary for your contributions. You can also take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. BelowFlames (talk) 00:31, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your recent edits to Moylisha Wedge Tomb when you modified the page, you introduced unknown parameters. Just because you specify |some_param=some_variable does not always mean that variable will display. The |some_param= must be defined in the template. You can look at the documentation for the template you are using but it is also helpful to use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and ensure that the values you have added are displaying correctly. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it. It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. Note I have likely fixed the error by now so check the history of the page to see how it was fixed. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:47, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

A discoverer is someone who detects something new, or something formerly unrecognized as meaningful for the public. A looter, on the other hand, has no interest in publishing his discovery; he wants to enrich himself from it. Therefore I have reverted these edits in the article Nebra sky disc. -- Tri@l (talk) 05:14, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Yixpoleg: I reviewed this (WP:NPP) and had to revert. It was too damaged for article space. Take a look at the WP:DRAFT. Good place to learn to write an article and WP:TEAHOUSE. Good place to talk. scope_creep^Talk 21:35, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

hello! i've noticed that you have recently been editing (and, in some cases, moving) pages on specific impact features in order to include "Crater" in their names. unlike most other types of features, crater names are "standalone". Burney for example is that feature's official name, per its entry on GPN (). for this reason, i've undone the page moves and most of your edits to the page subjects' names in prose. ArkHyena_woop! (she/they/it) 04:31, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

You can change them if you want to, as long as it doesent remove the other contributions that were made. Also, see Chicxulub Crater, Meteor Crater, and Gale Crater. Yixpoleg (talk) 17:49, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

re: Chicxulub and others, those are titled/named as such because the majority of sources append "crater" to their names--that is not the case for all craters. additionally, the first two are not IAU/GPN names as impact features on Earth do not fall under their purview. ArkHyena

re: other changes, I agree some of the changes you've made are helpful, but others are not. removing size ranges from the infobox is misleading, since those ranges are usually the result of disagreement amongst reliable sources. presenting only the average in the infobox may give the impression that it is representative of academic consensus when it isn't. de-italicizing the names of spacecraft should also not be done as they are conventionally italicized (see the main page for Cassini–Huygens, for example). finally, changing "Earth's Moon" to "The Moon" is unnecessary and may introduce ambiguity--there are many moons, and capitalization of "The" can be easy to miss; "Earth's Moon" is unambiguous to all readers._woop! (she/they/it) 17:59, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Your recent changes to paleontology-related articles have caused significant frustration to Wikipedia editors on the project, resulting in many of them being reverted, including by myself. You are making many changes that are completely unsourced. You are always expected to cite sources when you make changes to Wikipedia articles, we're not mind readers nor are our readers. Also using "~" is widely accepted for approximate dates. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and you cannot just dictate the stylings used in articles unilaterally without consensus. Also, it is perfectly fine per WP:DISAMBIGUATION for a monotypic genus to be titled by the full binomial, so your recent move of Ikaria was entirely unnecessary. If you continue to make mass changes without trying to gain consensus or engaging in discussion, I will be forced to report you to WP:ANI. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:43, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

The stylings used were the ones most widely used on Wikipedia. For example, Tyrannosaurus and Tiktaalik use don't have ~ next to the dates in the infobox. It means around, but not in the infobox. I wasnt dictating the stylings. Same reasoning for the genus changes. Not sure how either of those were "completely unsourced". Yixpoleg (talk) 02:13, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

@Monster Iestyn do you have anything to add? Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:33, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: Sorry for the delay, just didn't have the energy to take part in this earlier, but I think I'm alright now.

Tbh what annoyed me most about your (Yixpoleg's) changes personally were:

• italicizing scientific names that weren't genera or species (per MOS:ITALSCINAMES, no names of taxa higher than genus should be italicized)
• redlinking species on fossil genera articles such as at Kimberella (per WP:PALEO guidelines, species for extinct genera are typically redirected to the genus, unless there is enough text written about them to justify separate articles)
• redlinking species even in monotypic genera, such as at Paracharnia (per WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA the article of a monotypic genus covers both the species and genus, so the species should be redirected to the genus)
• adding fossil taxa into phylogenies such as at Nephrozoa that are not supported by the sources, without a source giving the full tree this is WP:SYNTH or straight up WP:OR and frankly also makes the phylogeny more complex than it needs to be anyway

I think I've already informed you of most these issues through edit summaries (except the last since Hemi reverted your Nephrozoa changes highlighting instead the dates of divergence), so maybe you already understood these points at least.

Other changes that kinda bothered me but I don't have any real justification for having feelings about if I'm being honest (I could honestly be just being silly here and maybe they're not a problem):

• your various tweaks to ages and precision of ages without justification or explanation in edit summaries or sources or anything
• introducing Mya and/or Bya in various articles that didn't have them before, or replacing Gya with Bya
• removal of Template:Ma
• generally your changes to Timeline of human evolution, which in part exemplifies the bullets just above and more that I don't understand; why for instance change a table with "millions of years" in a header to giving all dates individually in Mya or Bya?

If I'm being honest I reverted your removal of ~ because others had disagreed with its removal, though I do see your point about articles such have Tyrannosaurus and Tiktaalik now you point it out. But perhaps that means this needs a proper discussion at WP:PALEO whether ~ is necessary or not in fossil ranges in taxoboxes. At least, that would be better than getting into edit wars over this.

I would agree with Hemiauchenia about the move of Ikaria being unecessary, since WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA allows disambiguation as an exception to the rule that an article for monotypic genus must be at the genus not the species... except that I have seen other WP:PALEO editors disagree with this specifically for fossil genera, because they argue that the species name is obscure and thus not natural disambiguation per WP:NATURAL? Make of that what you will, I don't know what stance to take on this tbh.

I think overall my issues with your editing were mainly 1) you weren't following guidelines with regards taxa 2) you didn't explain your changes in edit summaries for the most part and 3) some of your more contentious changes could have been discussed in spaces such as WT:PALEO first. Monster Iestyn (talk) 23:24, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

I kooked at the sources on the Ikaria page and couldnt find where the claim that Ikaria was in Nephrozoa. For example, source 1 says it is part of Bilateria, but doesent mention it being part of Nephrozoa. On its taxonomy page, it isn't listed as being part of Nephrozoa either. On the Bilateria page in an image caption, it says it is "one of the oldest bilaterians identified." Nothing about Nephrozoa. Yixpoleg (talk) 22:05, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Yixpoleg, I tried making this clear earlier re:Nephrozoa but I think you didn't understand before: cladograms need to have proper sourcing, otherwise they are considered WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. For instance there is no source for the cladogram you added to Craspedida, so it looks like OR and may have to be reverted. The edits you made the cladograms at Protostome and Deuterostome recently also aren't supported by the sources already provided in the text just above them, so they also appear to be WP:SYNTH or OR.

I also have to ask at this point, are you just simply adding fossil taxa to cladograms based on their taxonomic classifications? If so, you should absolutely not do this. Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:33, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

If the original form of the impact crater is mostly preserved then impact crater is the way to go, if the crater is heavily eroded such that little or none of the original crater is preserved, then impact structure is the preferred alternative. Many of the articles on impact features on Earth were moved from crater to structure a few years ago, but this was based on the usage in reliable sources. The Siljan ring is not a crater in any reasonable use of the term, it is the result of glacial erosion of downfolded sedimentary rocks at the periphery of the impact structure. Mikenorton (talk) 10:22, 25 May 2026 (UTC)