Please check the Box (age of dinossaus) in paleorrota page. Thank you.Sergio Kaminski (talk) 20:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to look my English ist correct. Good to see the four videos that are on the pages. This very good special effects. Thank you.Sergio Kaminski (talk) 14:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I've noticed that you are the second major contributor of the article. I have been doing some cleanup of the article, and if don't mind, I will nominate it for wp:GAN. Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 04:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to make sure that it is ok to go ahead with teh article for a GAN and that the main contributors are ok with this. Nergaal (talk) 03:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I read the discussion and dobody specifies anything against nominating it. The only possible concern that might not be solvable during a GAN is the comprehensibility - in my opinion it looks good. Otherwise, the style issues can be solved. Again, to me it looks good. But I guess it is up to you if you want to nominate it. Nergaal (talk) 02:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually better: the worst thing that could normally happen is to fail with some clear comments, and then with those comments someone can update the article and resubmit it for GAN. Nergaal (talk) 02:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey man, thank you a lot for updating the dino portal while I was absent. It saved me a lot of hard work tonight. I'm gonna put you on the secondary maintainer slot - you really deserve it. How have you been anyway? I see two more articles made it featured! : ) Spawn Man (talk) 08:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, I totally saw that article the other day. Was that you that was quoted in the article, J. Spence? Abyssal (talk) 04:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Tis (this is a nom de wiki ;) ). J. Spencer (talk) 14:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had no idea you were involved in such awesomeness. I envy the hell out of you.Abyssal (talk) 15:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I'm a bit surprised we haven't had IPs adding stuff from the press releases or documentary yet. J. Spencer (talk) 21:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Leonardo isn't a "terrifying meat-eater related to T. rex", so don't hold your breath. I guess I could log in as an IP and randomly add some stuff in, if it makes you feel any better... ;) Firsfron of Ronchester 22:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, it's no biggie. Eventually we got the lost and found Royal Ontario Barosaurus story, so this one should creep in at some point. The exhibit opening in Houston was pushed back a week because of Hurricane Ike, too. J. Spencer (talk) 22:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please accept this notice to join the Good Article Collaboration Center, a project aimed at improving five articles to GA status every month. We hope to see you there!--LAAFansignreview 02:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, this greenness is rather nice, isn't it? Creates a nice, calm atmosphere. Now, where was I? Oh yes - your GA nomination. Due to some problems, mainly with the lead, the article is on hold - you have 7 days to edit it in accordance with my review (oh, what power I have!). I hope it passes - weebiloobil (talk) 21:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey I am new to Wiki and I am working on a project of my Evolution of Vert. class at NSU. I am trying to do my ref. but you just did something and now the page isn't showing my work. The numbers ref. my citations, I just haven't figured out how to put them in yet. this page will be under construction for the next week. I promise you that I have citations for all of my information. My teacher is going to be checking my progress of the next week and I am not sure if he will be able to see what I have done now. I have been researching Albertonykus for a while now and I finally compiled all my information to post it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AshleyNSU (talk • contribs) 03:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I saw you edited on the Irano-Page, just a quest. Should we keep the sources used can these be seen as offensive? Its the Iranian plateau ones that end up with the big noses still. And also one source have been modified so further down there is this Dienikes page which are using texts from from James a Gregor called "Nordicism revisited" which can be seen as offensive. Is this a disrespect to nords or to James Gregor? So should we keep the sources or remove them I already sent an e-mail to this Dienikisboy asking him to remove the speciik text but he didn´t so whats your opinion? Cyrus111 (talk) 15:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Cyrus111;
I'm sorry, but I'm not familiar enough with the topic to comment on sources. I just periodically disambiguate the term morphology, and Irano-Afghan came up in one of my earlier sweeps. I have fixed another wikilink for the article, though. If a source is authoritative, it should be used, although for basic information I would probably stick to the early 20th century anthropologists instead of modern websites. J. Spencer (talk) 16:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, well 2 sources are from coon the other from shool of Athens both from 20th century, so keep them??? I like how it unifies people and creates affinity and learns about history the problem is the texts that are put in the one from school of Athens where it has been modified, and also there is the text from Mr. Gregor. I should probably get more opinions on this matter so to reach a consensus Cyrus111 (talk) 16:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome job documenting its inhabitants. However, does that Dinosaur Provincial Park: A Spectacular Ancient Ecosystem Revealed book actually list all the species and you substituted "at least # species" for all the names or was it listed like that in the original publication? Abyssal (talk) 18:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Just curious. Abyssal (talk) 03:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey J. Spenser on the Abelisaurus page I put those pictures up. I am wondering if there are Dinosaurs that have had most of their body discovered can I make a size comparison? Nrg800 (talk)
Thanks that makes more sense. But is that diagram that I did for the fossil finds okay?
Nrg800 (talk) 06:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you alot for that Commons link I better get to work making a new one XD Nrg800 (talk) 07:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the Pterodactyloid cat is getting pretty sprawling. The only potential problem I see is that it would open the floodgates to other superfamily-level names getting cats as well, and at the moment there are two competing, mutually exclusive classifications in use. For example, one faction (Unwin et al.) uses Ornithocheiroidea, Dungaripteroidea, etc. in the traditional superfamily sense, while the other (Kellner et al.) uses these names for progressively more inclusive clades leading up to Azhdarchoidea. So whether Azhdarcho is a dsungaripteroid and ornithocheiroid in addition to an azhdarchoid or not would sort of be picking sides. Azhdarchoidea only doesn't suffer from this problem because it happens to be most derived, so there's no avoiding the traditional use. Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Interesting work with these. However can you please add a section to the Kyzyl Kum and mention many fossils have been discovered or something or create a category for them? The Bald OneWhite cat 17:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please give a comment on the revived revamp proposal. A table version has been constructed which looks good and has been receiving favorable attention from other members. Your opinion would be highly valued. I hope it satisfies any objections you may have previously had. :) Abyssal (talk) 02:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I excluded that info to save space and prevent the table from getting unwieldy. If you want to add the info, I'm fine with it. Abyssal (talk) 00:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On 24 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Peloroplites, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hello, J. Spencer. You have new messages at East718's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello! I made a change last night to Pachyrhinosaurus. I changed the image caption of the taxobox from lakustai to canadiensis. You undid that, and you stated that "Actually, that was correct - "unicorn" is P. lakustai, which was named after the image file was created". However, on the image file, created by ArthurWeasley, states the following: "Pachyrhinosaurus canadensis, a ceratopsian from the Late Cretaceous of North America, pencil drawing, digital coloring". Spotty11222 (talk) 14:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm zh:User:Hoseumou from zh.wikipedia. I know you are a dinosaur expert, and I have some question about the length and weight of Argentinosaurus, see Talk:Argentinosaurus. Besides, if this article have debates, may i ask you for searching more papers to improve this article, thanks. User talk:hoseumou 15:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I'm working on a revamp for the List of pterosaurs and I've been experimenting with a slightly different format for displaying the images in relation to the table because the way I had been doing it previously interfered with the tables' sorting function. If you could check out this section on the page and tell me how it looks compared to the other tables and get back to me, I'd be very grateful. Abyssal (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tweaked the Q-Z section again so that it should look better on bigger monitors and/or higher resolutions. I haven't had a chance to look at it on my home monitor (at school now), so I thought I'd try to get some extra eyes on this until I can. Does it look any different/better/worse? Abyssal (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! That's what it should look like; it's what I see too. However, on the really large monitor's at my uni it actually looks wider, whereas the previous version left a big ugly gap. It looks a smidgen worse today on my monitor (and yours apparently) but it looks a heapload better that way on the monitors at school, and since people at schools form a large block of our viewers I think the tradeoff is justifiable. :) Abyssal (talk) 04:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You edited what I said about Pterodactyls. While everything about them eating human babies was crap, Pterodactyl Awareness Month does exist. I have seen T-Shirts and calenders. Please revert the article. -Sabotage2595
Be happy to! Probably will have to wait until Monday or Tuesday though if that's cool, bit busy this weekend. Cheers, Dinoguy2 (talk) 04:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On February 14, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Akanthosuchus, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
When I saw your edit, I thought, "I know that's how it was written when I wrote the article." I didn't realize an anonymous IP had made the edit. I spent probably 20 minutes trying to figure out when it changed in the article. If I only had looked at the edit just before yours. Oh well. One shouldn't drink and edit at the same time. It's not a good day to stop sniffing glue. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions 07:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, every so often some well-intentioned type comes along and removes "non-avian" from a dinosaur article. It beats the incredible expanding theropods and the cartoon cameo edits. J. Spencer (talk) 23:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I sent you an email but actually I have the Xu and Chatterjee article so no need to send it to me. Cheers. ArthurWeasley (talk) 04:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On March 9, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Phyllodontosuchus, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On March 12, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dibothrosuchus, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
The entire article needs its prose reviewed; I merely listed items from the lead for starters. Regarding the use of animal: it's good to state the obvious, it's an easy-to-grasp non-jargon-y word, and it saves you from having to say the animal's name or "it" a lot. 05:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Not a bad idea, though it is kind of a dubious distinction... considering there are both smaller avialan dinosaurs and smaller non-avialan insectivorous dinosaurs from NA. But maybe I'll give it a shot. Dinoguy2 (talk) 03:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I search for help about Argentinosaurus again. It seems that there are three papers about Argentinosaurus in 90s, such as:
Appenzeller, T. 1994. Argentine dinos vie for heavyweight titles. Science 266, 1805.
Paul, G.S. 1994. Is Garden Park home to the world’s largest known land animal? Garden Park Paleontology Society 4, 5.
Paul, G.S. 1997. Dinosaur models: the good, the bad, and using them to estimate the mass of dinosaurs. In Wolberg, D.L., Stump, E. and Rosenberg, G.D. (eds), DinoFest International Proceedings, pp
But i can't find these papers in internet. Can you search these papers, and find out the length and weight of Argentinosaurus in these papers?
I'll be very thankful if you can help me, thanks. hoseumou 08:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks you for your answer. But i have a question, it seems that [Early reconstructions estimated...] directly comes from Dinosaur Mailing List. Is that techniquely enough to be a reference? Finally, I have to say I very admired your dinosaur article, such as Edmontosaurus. :) hoseumou 07:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I liked the way you linked the authors so their articles appear in the reference section of the article,[1] second to your writing up a nice little article. I took the time to do the same to another article[2] and it was a bit of work. It would be nice to encourage wikipedia editors in general to link authors of papers and, especially, books, in their citations. I will try to add some bios of the major redlinked authors when I find time. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 02:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Spencer,
The following are quoated from Rjanag's talk page.
May I request you to please revisit the above article to review the tag, since another expert on the subject has edited it?--Nvvchar (talk) 09:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey Nvvchar, sorry it's taken me so long to get back. Anyway, it would probably be better to ask J. Spencer about this, since he's the one who did the rewriting and he's more familiar with the content. I'm sure that if he went through it it's probably all fine now, but I'd feel more comfortable letting him remove the tag (since he knows what the state of the article is, whereas all I can do right now is assume—and I'd rather not go through one sentence at a time, as JSpencer probably already has). rʨanaɢtalk/contribs 21:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Since, as a well known expert in the field, you have edited the version of Rajasaurus after Rjanag,s tag, which was earlier also edited by a group of users of the Dinosaurs Portal with extensive experience in this field, would you kindly consider removing the tag on the article? I am in the process of getting some pictures of Rajasuarus model erected in Lucknow India posted on the article. Thanks--Nvvchar (talk) 02:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. I hope I will have opportunities in the near future on the Dinosaurs Portal on subjects related to India. --Nvvchar (talk) 15:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you nominate this article for GA status since it is already assessed as "B" class and many of
Dinosaurs portal members like yourself and others have put in a lot of effort to improve it?--Nvvchar (talk) 15:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just reviewed this article for GA Sweeps, and believe it still meets the GA criteria. However, I was wondering if you could find a source for "In addition, it is known that heterodontosaurs, due to their convergent foot morphology, must have left very bird-like tracks which, depending on the circumstances and substrate, sometimes had a small hallux impression and sometimes did not." I just want to avoid OR here, and hopefully a source(s) isn't too hard to find. The rest of the article is well-sourced and as a result it will remain a Good Article. Let me know if you have any questions. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I highly doubt that somebody would consider it OR, but it's better to be safe than sorry. Thanks for contacting the other editor, and hopefully a source can be found for it. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Piveteau's brain probably was bigger than a walnut[edit]
Good edits. I'm not keen on the sketch, either, or the bad picture of the skull, but it's all there is for now. The skull itself is enigmatic enough that a hypothesized dinosaur to go with it is okay, is my feeling for this particular article, and the image is used elsewhere for the same dinosaur. I'm going to try to get a good copy of Piveteau's sketches and images, which should be in public domain by now, and I can either sketch after him or scan. It would be nice to catch the next wikipedian through the MNHN for a good image of the skull on display, though. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 05:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's great. I think he was a scientific illustrator also; although many scientists at the time did their own illustrations, he was known for his. I tried to confirm this information to include in the article but found nothing specific. The illustrations can be included in both the dinosaur and bio articles, if you can get decent copies. If you don't get decent copies, and I have time, I can resketch at least the most important one of them if they're out of copyright. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 22:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just undid a half dozen bad edits of his...again. He just got the temporary ban lifted and is right back at it..
it's gotten to where someone needs to get a perma ban put on that IP address. It's vandalism at this point. I don't know if you have that ability or can get in contact with someone who does, but it's really time. Forescore68 (talk) 16:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and thanks for cleaning up my Chuandongocoelurus mess...I did it in a huffy. Glad I don't lose points in this forum for being hasty and dumb...Forescore68 (talk) 02:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just found out something useful about the italictitle template: I already knew that if it is put at the top, it prevents the uppermost [edit] bracket from showing. However, if it's put below the taxobox, as Bob did at Pteranodon and I just did with Allosaurus, it doesn't interfere. I don't know if this has editing drawbacks, but it's very good to know we can get back the edit bracket for the lede section, especially for ginormous articles. J. Spencer (talk) 01:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey!
I didn't realize it prevents the uppermost edit link from showing. We might want to bring this up at tree of life. Either this should be fixed through the template itself, or I could possibly AWB it; I think there is a pretty easy way to delete the template name while substituting the same template name immediately below the taxobox. If this is acceptable to you (and everyone else who works in these areas), I could work on this tomorrow. Thanks for catching this. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for helping to expand Gallardosaurus, J. Spencer! Now, I'm trying to get the article large enough for DYK, but even with the information I've included from the reference cited, I've only managed to get the article's main text up to about 1277 bytes. I think it's the only reliable source currently available on the genus, based on a brief Google search, and the only other information in the source that is worthy of inclusion is the description of the animal's bone structure, but I am not good with translating the scientific terms into more commonly used words, as I don't understand all of them. I presume you're very knowledgeable about paleontology, as you're well noted for building large articles on subjects involved with it, so I was hoping that you could maybe help me to expand the article by those last few hundred bytes? That would be greatly appreciated! Mess around with the guy in shades all you like - don't mess around with the girl in gloves! (talk) 08:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I reveiewed the DYK hook for this, and everything looks fine except that I had some minor wording changes to the hook. If you are okay with those changes, please indicate so in its DYK submission at Template talk:Did You Know#Gallardosaurus and I can approve the hook. Rlendog (talk) 02:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a new one to nail, if it's still here by the time you read this: Rorasaurus. J. Spencer (talk) 13:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
(I'd watch Roarasaurus too, as they may try to recreate it.) J. Spencer (talk) 13:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm going to start re-inquiring about the possibility of fixing WP:DABS. As you say, if some random IP hadn't added the name to the List, you wouldn't have noticed it. That's not good. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's true: DABS was just one way of catching potential hoaxes (or very short new articles that editors sometimes create), but it was nice to have that option. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had no idea it would be that easy. Request, and within an hour, voila! Firsfron of Ronchester 03:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
... for your efforts in maintaining the various lists of dinosaurs by continent. I've just observed that the List of dinosaurs dropped off my watchlist, so I dropped the ball!—S MarshallTalk/Cont 23:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ITN for Australovenator, Diamantinasaurus and Wintonotitan[edit]
Hi, my name's Hunter. I recently made the article 2009 hadrosaur chewing study. Although I'm interested in dinosaurs, I'm not an expert in any way, shape or form, and this is my first time contributing to anything dinosaur-related on Wikipedia. I see that you're extremely involved in this area of Wikipedia, and I was wondering if you wouldn't mind taking a look at my article and giving any feedback. I also thought you could perhaps help me determine how best to implement the study into brief mentions in other dinosaur-related articles, if you think that's worthwhile. Specifically, I see that you did the (awesome) featured article on Edmontosaurus. Since the Edmontosaurus jaw was used in this study, and since its findings pertain to that species, I figure it would be worth mentioning somewhere in there, but since you did the FA on it fairly recently I thought it would be best to ask you your thoughts. Let me know! — HunterKahn(c) 21:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think with any article (media or not) there is a possibility of inaccuracies; that's why we check it with other sources, which is what I did in this Leonardo case. But I respect your opinion. I guess we'll just see where the AFD goes. — HunterKahn(c) 17:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On July 10, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gallardosaurus, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
After tomorrow, I am going on a 10-day wikibreak out of state, and may not have a ton of internet access. With the assistance of a lot of folks (including you... thanks, BTW) Herrerasaurus made it to FA, but there are still grammar adjustments that an editor wants to make. Can you take a look? I'm worried I won't be able to devote (much/any) time to genuine concerns over clarity. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good day, J. Spencer!!! Now, I'm here because I'm interested in getting Carniadactylus to be used in DYK, like Gallardosaurus was in early July. I thought that the sentence describing how the specimens of Carniadactylus were named in honour of a geologist (when it was thought that the specimens were those of a species of Eudimorphodon), would make for a good fact to use, but I'm not sure if I got the source used in the citation right, because I have not viewed either of those documents (in case you're wondering, I got the other source from the Dutch WP page for the genus). I basically used about 15% deduction and 85% guess when deciding which of the two sources probably mentioned it, which isn't really a good method to use, of course. What I'm here to ask, though, is if you would know anything about which of the two papers mentions the species etymology? Thanks in advance! Mess around with the guy in shades all you like - don't mess around with the girl in gloves! (talk) 18:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think s/he’s almost figured out what was needed. Now, if only s/he could figure out how to enter citations fully … — SpikeToronto (talk) 17:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it looks like it's taken care of, which goes on the positive side in my book. Thank you for the help! J. Spencer (talk) 03:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I nominated the article Fruitadens, which you expanded, at WP:ITN/C. You are welcome to join the discussion. --BorgQueen (talk) 03:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On 22 October 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Fruitadens, which you substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.
Thanks for the message regarding Rajasaurus GA status. The above titled article Eld's Deer was posted by me on DYK quite some months back and accepted. Since you are an expert in Fauna, will you please advice me if I should post it for GA upgrade. Thanks.--Nvvchar (talk) 02:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're very welcome; and I'm glad to have had the opportunity to work with you.-- Rcej (talk) 08:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
New find of Dinosaurs nestling ground in India[edit]
Hi! Spencer,
A few days back I had read the above news item in several news papers in India. I have prepared a short write up on the same for any suitable insertion in the Portal or News item. Please see hereUser:Nvvchar/sandbox/Ashokan Edicts (Delhi). You may kndly edit it suitably and if it has not appeared on the News page of WP you may consider posting it as a joint news item. Thanks.--Nvvchar (talk) 05:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - thanks for your help with the ceratonykus article. It IS for a class at NSU (Evolution of Vertebrates) and the assignment is to improve on a fossil stub. The professor grades mostly on "did we try?" so anything you change will not have any effect on my grade. BSturmanNSU (talk) 02:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Bryan[reply]
Do you have access to ScienceDirect? I don't want to pay $31.50 for a paper which discusses "Teleocrater", especially when I don't know how detailed the portion on "Teleocrater" is. The cladogram from their analysis is viewable here, but that doesn't give me much to work with. I figured you being you, you might subscribe to their (rather expensive) service. If not, I'll just leave "Teleo" as he is for now. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks J. As it turns out, a reference librarian I work with has access to the paper, so I now have it. Thanks again for offering. Take care, Firsfron of Ronchester 00:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know the scientific name should type in Name. But i see lots of scientific name in wikipedia were type in "Name". Why?
Is that official rules that Nomen nudum, Nomen oblitum, Nomen dubium should type in "Name"? or it is just a wikipedia rules? User:Devilfish1962 01:43, 26 Nov. 2009 (UTC)
I noticed you reverted 96.239.237.62 (talk·contribs) on "Bayosaurus". Having fixed a string of their edits this morning, I am 99% certain that this is the latest version of an editor who was recently blocked at 96.242.198.33 (talk·contribs) for inserting false dates, locations, and other information to paleo articles, and false episodes and voice actors to television shows. Something to keep an eye on, I suppose. J. Spencer (talk) 16:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi J. Thanks. I wasn't aware of that. Something else to watch out for is this. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a really weird discovery. I have the 2008 archosauriform histology study at work (I left it on my desk and I'm at home now), and they still treated "Teleocrater" as if it wasn't described. Despite being undescribed, the 2008 study, too, did give a lot of detail (about half a page, as I recall), as well as some illustrations. How does something remain "undescribed" when there's that much detail? I'll take another look tomorrow, but I'm pretty sure the '08 study didn't mention a specific epithet (or I would definitely have mentioned it in the article), and it certainly didn't mention "Thecodontosaurus" alophos or alphos. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have an idea for a new Wikimedia project. It would be a collection of data, references, and images useful for a professional researcher. Similar to Wikispecies, but with all of science (and maybe history etc) in mind instead of just biological taxonomy. Articles would be on things like taxa, specimens, researchers, studies and papers, institutions, etc. I picture a page on say, T. rex as having a brief intro (like a Wikipedia lead) and info box like on wikipedia, but then going on to technical information like diagnoses for taxa, cladograms, character matrices, specimen measurements, and a comprehensive bibliography of the relevant technical literature. The project could work along the lines of, or inspire endeavors similar to the Open Dinosaur project. Do you think this idea has any merit or potential? I have a very rough draft of the T. rex page if I didn't describe it very clearly. You've been involved in research so your opinion would be greatly respected. Abyssal (talk) 19:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you like the idea. I doubt Naish and the gang would get too involved, but where the two projects overlap, they may be willing to help. I'm gonna do some more brain storming, maybe a rough draft or two and then send the Dinolist a message. Abyssal (talk) 00:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On December 3, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Stegomosuchus, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
However, Cretaceous is around 80 million years long, almost equaled to Late Triassic adding Jurassic. Besides, the Lower Cretaceous Dinosaurs group and Upper Cretaceous Dinosaurs group have obvious differences. My advise is that 「Category:Cretaceous dinosaurs」 can be divided into 「Category:Lower Cretaceous dinosaurs」 and 「Category:Upper Cretaceous dinosaurs」.
Also, I have a question about Dinosaurs in Pakistan. There seveal Dinosaurs found in Pakistan, such as: Pakisaurus, Sulaimanisaurus, Khetranisaurus, Marisaurus, Balochisaurus. My question is that whether Pakistan was a part of Indian-Madagascar in Cretaceous, or just a part of Asia continent. If Pakistan was a part of Indian-Madagascar, maybe the above articles should be moved into Category:Dinosaurs of India and Madagascar
A very questionable topic: lots of tracks have been mis-assigned in the past. Biomechanical studies - well, let me jsut say that there is a very good reason not to take it for granted that stuff cited in The Dinosauria is really correct. I, for one, despite having seen a LOT of tracks, am NOT sure that purported bipedal trackways are what they seem. because hadrosaurs carried over 70% of the body weight (probably close to 80%) on the hind limbs, if they used gaits where the feet overprinted the hands you would not see any trace of the hands in the ichnofossil. Thus, we should be very cautious claiming an entire clade that turns grapsing hands into hoofed hands did so despite being able to walk easily without using the hands.HMallison (talk) 00:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, although I still think it shouldn't be included in the Jurassic Park article for two reasons: the work is unpublished; and perhaps more importantly, it's a bit unfair to call the JP people on it when it was perfectly legitimate to have bipedal running hadrosaurs in the 1990s. I think the page should stick to things that were known to be inaccurate or questionable at the time of production, like sizes and creative embellishments (intelligence, pretty much anything to do with Dilophosaurus, etc.). J. Spencer (talk) 04:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are indeed correct that nothing definitive should be written on wikipedia. However, if JP followed wrong science, that can be noted here, as long as one points out that JP went along with the consensus as it was back then. HMallison (talk) 09:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you have any opinions on the proposal, please participate in the discussion. Thanks! — the Man in Question(in question) 04:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, J. Spencer! I'm trying to get Kinkonychelys large enough for DYK, but I want to make sure all the information in the article is accurate. It also needs to be larger, still, but I'm having trouble gathering enough info for this. If you have time, could you please help? Thanks!!! Oh no! It's not here!!! (talk) 04:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again! Following your suggestions, I've gotten the page's main content up to 1227 characters, but of course, it still falls short of the DYK requirement by nearly 300 characters. The only information I can see in the paper about the genus that can still be included is the physical descriptions of the different specimens, and personal experience tells me I'm not too handy when it comes to understanding all of the scientific words used in these descriptions. I really want this article to become a DYK article, though, and I've already seen a few facts in what's been included that might "impress the judges" substantially for inclusion in a DYK update. If it's no trouble, and if any of that information is notable for inclusion in the article, could you please help with adding it in? That would be very much appreciated! Oh no! It's not here!!! (talk) 09:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello- You're very welcome, I hope I wasn't overstepping any project managers in the process, but the page was over 131kB and it was very slow to load into my browser, so I thought I would just help out by setting up the archive bot. Wishing you a Happy New Year! --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I'm not actually very familiar with IPA, but people who are set up the templates on the dinosaur articles, and since this one's been stable for a long time, I figured it was probably a gag or a test edit. J. Spencer (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Casliber recommended you since you're an active member of WikiProject Dinosaurs. Would you be willing to be interviewed for an article in the Signpost featuring WikiProject Dinosaurs? You'll contribute to some great publicity for the project and any articles you've been working on. If you'd like to be in the article, I wrote some interview questions. Answer as many as you feel comfortable with. Also, feel free to add anything else you'd like mentioned in the article in the section at the end of the questions. Thanks for helping with this article and I hope it brings your project some great publicity and a few new contributors. -Mabeenot (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You recently moved the category Category:Animals described in 2009 from the redirect Gallardosaurus iturraldei to the article Gallardosaurus, which I have reverted. WP:RCAT states that "Alternate names should not look out of place on a category page", and that some categories are therefore best placed on a redirect, rather than on the main article. This is one such example and was done very deliberately. There are quite a number of articles on monotypic genera, or genera where the consitutent species are dealt with as sections. In all of these cases, it's better to classify the redirect than the main article, despite the potential problems with that. I don't mean to lecture you — I just thought you deserved a fuller explanation than I could fit into an edit summary. --Stemonitis (talk) 11:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it doesn't really bother me either way; it just looked funny having it on a redirect. J. Spencer (talk) 00:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For starters, the Psittacosaurus protiguanodonensis section needs expanding. I'll give more suggestions tomarrow since its almost time for me to sleep. GamerPro64 (talk) 03:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added comments o how to improve the article. GamerPro64 (talk) 01:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I sorry to bother you but did you have me give suggestions to improve the article so you can improve the it or for someone else who would want to? GamerPro64 (talk) 23:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, J. Spencer! This time I'm trying to get the article on the shrimp, Yongjiacaris, up to snuff for DYK. I've added in as much information as I can squeeze from the reference provided, but again, I'm not very good at handling the physical/biographical descriptions, and that seems to be all that's left. If you could spare a moment, would you mind helping me out? Thanks in advance! Oh no! It's not here!!! (talk) 01:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, seriously. The day you start vandalizing is the day after elephant populations triple overnight.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, J. Spencer! This time I'm trying to get Rhabdognathus able to qualify for DYK, but so far I've only gotten the main content of the page up to about 820 bytes. Once again, I've gotten it as far as I can, but I think I've used all the information available, other than the more complicated physical or geological descriptions. If you could find the time, I'd appreciate your help! Thanks in advance!!! Oh no! It's not here!!! (talk) 10:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, J. Spencer! Sorry to bug you about another page, but I'd like to get the article on the new dromaeosaurid Linheraptor ready for DYK, and also if possible, ITN. Once again, I've gotten about to the point where I usually have trouble with the information available, but I'm also going to ask a few others to help collaborate on the page. If you could jon in, that would be much appreciated!!! Oh no! It's not here!!! (talk) 19:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
I've uploaded some images yesterday and put them with some articles.
You said that my images weren't the kind that you're looking for.
Is this one a bit better?
Guanlong wucaii
Kind regards from 82.169.6.135 (talk) 13:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC) or better known as Joerim on the Dutch Wikipedia.[reply]
Thank you! Great idea on hiding the categories - makes me realize again how new i am to wikipedia. And the double ref list is indded a great idea; it shows me if my edit works correctly but keeps the list at the bottom from which I can now easily grab refs. :) HMallison (talk) 11:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am torn between keeping a tidy list at the bottom and placing them at first use. I guess the latter is simply more common, and also easier to work with once the text doesn't change much anymore. However, writing the Plateosaurus article showed me that for a total re-write a list at the end would have been better - I spent lots of time searching through the editor. So I guess I'll keep the alphabetical list, and once the text is ready for the main page I'll place the citation at the first use. HMallison (talk) 06:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite right to prod me - however, I must point to the sauropoda re-write, which is devloping into a physiology of dinosaurs update.... I had some rough weeks, work and kids' health wise, but hope to contribute the missing data within the next few days. Then the text will need a thorough massage - was that you vounteering??? ;) HMallison (talk) 06:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Give me a day or two more, and I'll have a rough structure ready. Then we should talk about it - may or may not be best to use your structure. HMallison (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
With another visit from the "Aachenoraptor" partisan, is there something more effective that can be done to dissuade this? The user has the ability to hop IPs. Visits are every few days, so the disruption is sporadic. The persistence is interesting; I don't see any indication that this is an internet meme, and it's obvious that people aren't going for it, as four different editors have reverted. Is this a case for semiprotection or pending changes? J. Spencer (talk) 23:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno. I've gone ahead and semi-protected for a month. We'll see if it deters this fellow or fellows. Only the pages listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Testing are to be flagged for pending changes. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm from the Dutch Wikipedia. Because I want an article to be finished tommorow (I'm going on holliday) I needed help from someone quikly, so I come to you. Maybe you still know me from the illustration of the Guanlong. Here's the problem:
I've got two family trees. The upper one is good, but in front of it there has to be "familie Simoedosauridae", like with the second one. Can you help me, please? Kind regards from 82.169.6.135 (talk) 19:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC) or Joerim, as I'm known at the Dutch Wikipedia.[reply]
Thank you very much! Only one thing, what mistake did I make when making one of these family trees? Kind regards from 82.169.6.135 (talk) 07:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC) or Joerim[reply]
Hello, J. Spencer. You have new messages at Shirik's talk page. Message added 15:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
Hi, J. Spencer. I noticed that back in February you added a bunch of quotation marks around paragraphs in the Capitol Reef National Park article ([3], [4]). I understand why you did so—these paragraphs are copied directly from the National Park Service source. However, I don't think that adding the quotation marks was an appropriate action to take. For one thing, anything produced by the National Park Service is in the public domain under United States copyright law, as a work of the U.S. federal government, so we are legally free to take that text and use it in our article. Of course, there is also the moral issue of plagiarism. We have cited sources for that text (thank you for putting those in, by the way), so we are not claiming that text as our own original work, so I think we are okay on that count too. In any case, a problem of copyright violation or plagiarism cannot be solved simply by wrapping entire paragraphs in quotation marks; if you felt that there was a problem, it would have been better to rewrite the text. I've removed the quotation marks you inserted. Let me know what you think. —Bkell (talk) 03:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi J.S., thanks for catching that (probably the same time I did!). I had copied the wrong reference to my clipboard. D'oh! MMartyniuk (talk) 01:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
