User talk:J. Spencer/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, J. Spencer, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Firsfron of Ronchester 20:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ammonite Genera Names

Thanks for fixing them up! <333333333 01:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the updated links on Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs pages! :) --Firsfron of Ronchester 20:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had every intention of adding the names, just didn't have as much free tie as I had hoped. :) Abyssal leviathin 02:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on the dino grey pages

Hey Justin, congrats on the grey pages, they have been very informative. If you look at the history of the pages here vandalism gets reverted or fixed very quickly (in an matter of minutes) generally. This place has an amazing gestaltness to it Cas Liber 21:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I think the others on Wikiproject dinosaurs would be thrilled if you added your 2c worth :)Cas Liber 03:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thanks for the welcome, and thank you very much for the advice on signing :) --J. Spencer 21:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I noticed you've been editing occasionally for some time, but never got an actual welcome. As you've no doubt noticed, Wikipedia uses your site as a reference on a great number of dinosaur articles. I'll add my congrats to Cas Liber's on your Thescelosaurus! web-site. Happy editing! :) --Firsfron of Ronchester 00:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work!

Thanks for all your hard work! This article is much improved, thanks to your efforts. Good luck with the rest of the article, and happy editing! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 20:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On December 12, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sacisaurus, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Great work J. Spencer - GeeJo kindly nominated your article for DYK. Feel free to self nom in the future, as the majority of our entries are self-submitted. Keep up the great dinosaur work. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I didn't create it.J. Spencer 05:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Units of measures

Regardin' the article Sacissaurus, I've noticed that you translated the international units of measure into Imperial ones... The correct procedure is always to indicate SI units first, and the others in parenthesis, apart entries about US matters (see WP:Units of measure). Bye and good work. --Attilios 11:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thescelosaurus

Thanks for the image over at the world's greatest basal ornithopod! I've got some clearer photos of the Willo skull, if you're interested, but they wouldn't change your picture (except maybe the beak would be a little more pointy, and that falls under individual variation).J. Spencer 05:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you like it and yes I would be interested to see the close-up photos of the skull. ArthurWeasley 17:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

email should be enable now. Otherwise, it's aweasley@hotmail.com. Cheers. ArthurWeasley 21:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They should be on their way. J. Spencer 21:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Got them. They are beautiful. Thanks. Do you think a close-up drawing of the head of the animal would be a useful addition to the wiki article? ArthurWeasley 22:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a wish list for the wikipedia most wanted dino (and a few non-dino as well) illustrations at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review/To Do List that we have recently put up to help the illustrators. We also list what each one of us is working on, in order not to duplicate efforts. If you feel that a particular illustration is missing feel free to add a request in the "most wanted" section. ArthurWeasley 22:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oplosaurus

Thanks for your excellent rewrite of Oplosaurus. Looks great! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 00:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiAward!

		The E=mc² Barnstar
		For your many fixes, additions, corrections, and expansions to dozens of dinosaur articles. Thank you for improving Wikipedia's coverage on Dinosaurs. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pelorosaurus n Ornithopsis

Thanks, mate! I'm glad you're not put out. I'm not an expert on the two, but I enjoy that sort of quirky detective work. Complicated stuff though, eh? Cheers!--Gazzster 02:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources

Sweet! Is it possible for you to look up info on Laornis? Info on this genus is very difficult to come by; JSTOR has a paper, but only the first page is free to access, and my college doesn't subscribe as far as I know. Anything useful in there? I'm specifically looking for data on the discovery date of the Laornis fossil. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! Firsfron of Ronchester 04:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woops. Guess I should have checked my e-mail. Thank you for checking. It's a pity this is so obscure. Thanks anyway, Firsfron of Ronchester 05:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi J...

Do you have access to JSTOR? Nothing to do with dinosaurs, but this article would be of great use for another WikiProject I am on. Is it possible to get this article somehow? Firsfron of Ronchester 19:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not in any hurry. Thank you. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 19:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the JSTOR article. It arrived safely and was exactly what I was after. You've been a big help. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 00:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! How do you edit so many articles so quickly? Color me impressed, dude! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 17:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! 20 left! You work so quickly! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 04:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Trachodon, was selected for DYK!

On January 18, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Trachodon, 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.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid 64 15:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Dinosaurs:Shortest Articles

Showoff :) ! Good show! I'd given up on those last five. J. Spencer 15:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh! Well, it wasn't easy scraping together articles for those last five. I'd noticed you'd called them "dregs"; the word seems strangely appropriate. Sauropodus was easier to write than the others, because at least there were some quotes from a newspaper article about it. Thanks again for all your work expanding all those articles! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 16:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hartford, Connecticut

I'm sorry. It just appeared that reference information was actually showing, instead of having the little number. I thought a vandal did it, as first glance looked like nonsense. 76.211.37.32 22:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thescelosaurus

Hey J! I know you're working on a major expansion for Thescelosaurus. As it is, I think this article meets the Good Article criteria. Are you interested in submitting it when you're through? Considering your own web site, and the care with which you've shown for this article, I thought I would suggest it. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 03:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think a once-over is a good idea, but at the same time, I don't think a whole lot (or any) more is needed to reach Good Article status. When I was actively reviewing articles for GA criteria, I was surprised at how low the threshold was for most reviewers; certainly nowhere near the FA level. Articles with as few as 8 citations were passed. The reviewer may comment on additions that might be needed on the talk page, but once they are added, that's it. Gilmore's 1915 reconstruction is certainly copyright expired. As far as museum images go, we've had no problems using them, as long as the images weren't taken in a back room of the museum or something. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was happy with it, so I put it up. I'm going to ask Dinoguy2 about Amphicoelias, since that's his baby. J. Spencer 18:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Thescelosaurus article looks great, J. The image additions are a great touch. Be patient with the GA review; because there are so few GA reviewers, the review can take up to a month. I think you stand an excellent chance of getting it approved. If the reviewer comments on the talk page, just fix what s/he says needs fixing, and, in all likelyhood it will be approved. I didn't realize Dinoguy was making all of those improvements to Amphicoelias (but the history page shows hundreds of his edits). It will probably need more than the current number of citations, but it is looking very good. I think you had a great idea, as Dinoguy is knowledgeable and he clearly is interested in the dinosaur. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good job on the article, it has come a long way in two years. Keep up the good work, hopefully I can review more articles by you in the future. --Nehrams2020 04:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider expanding it if you could find more information, look to the other dinosaur FAs for other examples of information you could include. You could also attempt to take it to peer review and see if there are other editors interested in dinosaurs that could help you. The best part of the article is that it is well-sourced, so as long as you continue to focus on adding new sources, then I don't see too many problems on its way to FA. I can't really help you to much with FA, I'm still waiting for my GAC to pass, then take it to peer review, and try for FAC myself. Let me know when it goes up for FAC (if you do intend to) or if it passes. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 01:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amphicoelias

Sounds like a good idea. I've never participated in a really hands-on way in promoting articles for good, featured, etc. status so I'm not sure of the procedure. I imagine there's a sub-page for nominations somewhere? Should it be submitted for peer review first? Dinoguy2 19:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New one by me

So I check my watchlist, and an anon IP has been making tiny changes that don't show to numerous dinosaur articles. Why would someone want to go around and turn single spaces into no spaces from articles, when it doesn't cause a change in how articles look, and it doesn't lead to a higher individual edit count (group IP)? Is this some strange sort of vandalism or OCD? Here's the mystery tramp: 69.138.229.246. J. Spencer 05:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had noticed it, too (all dinosaur pages are on my watchlist), but it doesn't seem like vandalism, just very (very!) minor clean-up. I can't say why it's being done, but it doesn't seem to be hurting the pages, so I'm assuming good faith. *Shrug* Firsfron of Ronchester 05:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BWAHAH! I hadn't even thought of that. I don't even know what to say. Bed might be a good idea. ;) Firsfron of Ronchester 05:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Night at the Museum

Thanks for reverting this. Night at the Museum just came out a month ago, and here it's still in theaters; it's too early for it to be out on DVD already. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ceratosaurus

I have no idea what happened either. The only thing I edited consciously was the IPA. I didn't even know that such a thing as a "paleobox" existed, so I can't imagine why the history shows me putting it there; not to mention the other changes. I am going to restore my edit to the IPA, I hope this doesn't turn the article into a biography of the current president of Trinidad and Tobago! :) I promise to revert myself if it does. --91.148.159.4 02:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right. I just checked that revision and I see that I have been looking at it recently. I remember I was browsing through the edit history in order to find when the IPA had gone wrong, and to revert to an original "correct" version if there ever was one. Next, I apparently forgot to switch to the current version before editing. So this is one of the lesser mysteries on Wikipedia - although really inexplicable things do happen around here, too. :) --91.148.159.4 03:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it would be a good idea to have a pronunciation for these names, especially as I don't know how to pronounce them myself. :) I mean, iguanodons ɪˈgwænəˌdɒn are no problem, but I have never heard anybody pronounce the other two names, so I can only guess that they should be something like ˌæmfɪˈsiːlɪəs and θəˌsɛləˈsɔːɹəs - or is it θəˌsiːləˈsɔːɹəs, or could it possibly be ˌθɛsələˈsɔːɹəs ?. (the-SELL-osaurus, the-SEE-losaurus, or THESSel-osaurus). --91.148.159.4 04:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done. I think I've got it right now. --91.148.159.4 04:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. (I mean it. Typing funny little symbols that nobody understands and that definitely can't be useful for anybody makes me feel great. :)). Wikipedia is a great resource for dinosaurs. Keep up the good work! --91.148.159.4 05:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Night owl?

How can you "call it a night" on Iguanodon if you're still editing the article? Don't you ever sleep? :) BTW, congrats on getting Thescelosaurus up to GA status! Your work on Thescelo (and Dinoguy's on Amphi) has inspired me to begin work on Scelidosaurus soon, with the same goal. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hee! I'm still wondering if Mantell is the dinosaur or the giant lizard. Either way, that explains why it was so "astute" of him to notice Iguanodon's hind limbs were longer than the forelimbs, what with him having such a small brain and all. Oops! I've just maligned one of the great figures of paleontology! Is that a "dinosaur heresy"? You made me do it! On that note, now I'm off to bed. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thescelosaurus for FA....

Wow - lookin' good winthorp. This article is way out infront of others on the way to FA status. Wanna go for it? Cas Liber 12:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scelidosaurus ref

Hi, Firs;

I've got four Scelidosaurus refs on hand:

Newman, 1968 (the one that talks about redefining the genus because the type was a theropod knee)
Thulborn, 1977 (the one where he tries to show it was a cursorial ornithopod)
Padian, 1989 (Scelidosaurus in the Kayenta Fm., Arizona)
Martill, Batten, and Loydell, 2000 (soft-tissue preservation)

Email me if you're interested and I'll send them along. J. Spencer 17:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've e-mailed you; thank you! Firsfron of Ronchester 20:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. I received all four papers, complete, with no problems. I've attempted to incorporate the material into the article. I'm taking a break now; Iguanodon is looking fantastic, thanks to your efforts. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 03:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did a bit of expanding on the intro of Iguanodon so that the beginning summarizes the article itself, per WP:LEAD. Feel free to refine it. Also, I'm planning to send Scelidosaurus to GAC soon, but I don't want to jump the gun; as I trust and value your opinion, is there anything you think should be added or that I have neglected before I submit it? Firsfron of Ronchester 18:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Othnielosaurus

Thank you very much! That turned out amazingly great :). J. Spencer 05:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome! Will work on Gorgosaurus next, probably sometimes this week. ArthurWeasley 05:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iguanodon

I left my (hefty) comments at Talk:Iguanodon/Comments.Circeus 22:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iguanodontia cladogram

Hi, Firs;

Circeus had suggested we put a cladogram in the classification section, and I mocked one up with Photoshop. The question is, since I based it on Norman (2004) (simplified without a few genera and higher-level clade names), what kind of licensing should such an image have? J. Spencer 17:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi J!

You can follow the example of the diagram made by user:Sheep81 on Tyrannosaurus: he has released the image he created into the public domain, with attribution to Erickson et al. 2004. If you don't want to release the image into the public domain, you can use the GDFL licence (the first GDFL licence on the list). Firsfron of Ronchester 17:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image looks great; you should definitely consider making more for other families. I particularly like how you even included Hypsilophodon, outside of the clade, for reference. Nice touch. If you do decide to make more, can you save them in .png or .svg format? Jpegs get pixelated when they are copied. If someone were to modify this image at some point in the future, they wouldn't have the best quality image available to them. Anyway, thanks again. This article is really shaping up! Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 18:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi J,

Did you really compare all the articles with pop-ups, as this indicates? That had to have taken hours! Yeesh! Firsfron of Ronchester 08:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this edit summary cracked me up, though that may be because of the late hour and all... Firsfron of Ronchester 08:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I hate writing refs and I hate formatting them. This may surprise anyone who's read an article I edited." I, for one, am genuinely surprised. Not that I don't agree with you: I find it slightly annoying (mainly because I never get it quite right on the first go). But you're really good at it. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "hate"'s a strong word. They do get to be a chore, especially if no one else has conveniently written them up elsewhere on the Internet. When I started editing, I used the "(Someguy, 2005)/ref at end" style, then I switched to the "footnote/ref list" style, and now I'm shifting gears to the template style. Of course, if I stay in the same general topics, I can reuse refs (which makes Iguanodon extra-useful ;) ). J. Spencer 04:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Tell me about it. For the refs supporting the fact that there's an asteroid named after Archaeopteryx, I just copied Iguanodon's ref, switching out the names and numbers. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV on Bruhathkayosaurus

Dear Spencer,

Per your request for an explanation of a POV tag on the article Bruhathkayosaurus, I would like to inform you that I was not sure about the neutrality in of the article with statements such as "Their technical description is so poor..." in the opening text. Perhaps I may have erred in my selection of the correct tag, but nevertheless my intention was to point out possible subjectivity in the article. Thank you for prompty notifying me of your concern.

Congrats - dunno if you see british comedies....this was v. funny

Father Ted says, "Dat Iguanodon's a feckin' wowrk of airt!!" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 08:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Barnstar

How ironic! Well, he definitely deserved a thank you note for everything he did for the article (and, as you rightly point out, his earlier suggestions on the other FACings). Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 17:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dermodactylus on DYK for 8 March 2007

On 8 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Article name, 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.

Thank you for your contribution! — ERcheck (talk) 05:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nae bovva

You must be a decent sort to remember that two weeks later. But, don't worry, I've got the skin of a diplodocus. We all fear naive helpers messing up our good work, and so I can identify with that. The reasons I didn't copy-edit Iguanodon in the end were that it was doing fine anyway and that I had other things to get on with. Nothing to do with you guys, who just cared about your article. Many congratulations on the FA, by the way. qp10qp 19:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you'd asked me

As per your asking me where the Callovosaurus was in in Jurassic Park, here it is.

No, the Callovosaurus was not in the movie, but rather in the novel, as was the Styracosaurus.

--KnowledgeLord 19:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 18 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Phyllodon, 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.

--howcheng {chat} 18:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sinocalliopteryx

Hey man, not sure if any of my emails got through, I've been having some problems with my connection lately. Anyway, if you still need the Sinocalliopteryx paper it's up on the Yahoo! group dinosaur_articles. And thanks for filling in Oryctodromeus! Dinoguy2 05:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archie timeline picture

Just looking over the Archaeopteryx talk page & noticed your timeline picture sitting there. Any idea on its status or if it will ever be completed? It would make a great addition, but if it's not accurate or finished, then the article will have to move on without it... And congrats on Iguanodon & your creation of a couple of dino articles (saw them on DYK suggestion page...) :) Spawn Man 00:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 26 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lophostropheus, 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.

--Carabinieri 11:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your DYK nomination for Oryctodromeus was successful

Did you know? was updated. On March 27, 2007, a fact from the article Oryctodromeus, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid 64 03:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mayr et al. (2007)

Just saw this. I have the paper, courtesy of Spawn Man. Do you want it? Firsfron of Ronchester 03:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are really annoying

Do you know how annoying you are? Not only did you bug me with the Ornitholestes, but Coelophysis and that stuff. Are you some image patroler or something? I can hardly wait until someone else says that you are annoying. Radical3 00:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFA Thanks

Thanks for your support on my Request for adminship, which was successful, with votes of 49/0/0. Lemme know if you need help on something I might know a little something about....(check my userpage).
cheers, Casliber \| talk \| contribs 14:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pantydraco as impending vandal magnet

Yeah, I was hoping somebody else would write it. It vaults over such luminaries as Erectopus and Gasosaurus to join Homo erectus at the top of the Paleontological Double-Entrende Hall of Fame. J. Spencer 04:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You just made me squirt soda all over my keyboard, man! This would make a great quote, you know... Firsfron of Ronchester 04:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the quote to the top of my talk page. I hope you don't mind. Looking at my watchlist, I'm seeing a lot of stub type changes, by one J.Spencer. Did you really go thru the entire List of dinosaurs manually changing stub types? You did the whole thing! I thought you were planning on cutting back on editing...? Not that I'm complaining, mind you... Firsfron of Ronchester 02:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw that you listed Thescelosaurus. Since this is definitely your "baby", I'll wish you luck! :) Hopefully, it will meet with community approval (although I don't see why not; it looks great). Firsfron of Ronchester 00:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Tescie pic

Hi Justin, I've just drawn a new pic for Thescelosaurus. The problem with the current taxobox pic is that it is a perspective view and some of the features that characterized Thescie do not show up very well, such as the slender snout, the long tail and the proportions of the hindlimbs. Let me know what you think about the new colored side view. Cheers. ArthurWeasley 19:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a lovely image, Arthur, but isn't it a bit narrow-chested? If you look at the photo of the skeleton we have in the article, you can see it had sort of a barrel chest; the thorax projected further out than the arms, and was approximately as thick as the body was at the pubis. Maybe you can see what I mean here. The head you've illustrated also seems small. The skull would have been roughly the same length as the neck, whereas on your picture, the neck looks about right, but the head is tiny. The base of the tail also seems too thin: It would also be cool to see the "plates" illustrated somehow. JMO, as always, and I'm sorry for making them here on J.'s talk page, but it made sense to keep everything together on the same page. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image is based on skeletal drawing here and here that both show a slender body and a small head, but they may be wrong. Will wait for the nr 1 expert's opinion ;). The thing which worries me the most is the size of the head, you are right it really looks bigger in the cast, rest seems more like a perspective effect. I planned to put some scutes on the neck then I realized I had no idea how they look like. Cheers. ArthurWeasley 20:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The angle looks good, proportions seem all right, and I like the color scheme. The head does look a bit small, but if you extend the beak, that might solve itself. I'd suggest two tweaks to it: first, as mentioned, give the beak more of a point; second, give the anterior chest a bit more definition (something to make the neck-chest transition more defined; maybe darken in front of the arm's socket or make it a bit "deeper" in the chest right behind the arms (it's a bit hard to explain in words) - not as extreme as I've done in my drawings at Thescelosaurus!, but something so the neck and the shoulder/chest are more demarcated). The torso looks reasonably and convincingly "round" to me, but if you wanted to push more for that, I don't think it would be detrimental. If you do decide to plump it up, make sure you've saved an earlier version! :)

Morris's scutes are about 1-1.5 cm long, and about 4/5ths the length tall, for an animal with cervical vertebrae 3.5 cm long. A row of them (he found four, associated with the first four cervicals) would probably look like a low, serrated margin. J. Spencer 01:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New version uploaded. I made the head a little bigger with a more pointy end. Also took care of the neck/chest transition. I am not really sure how the scutes should look like without seeing them so I've added something tentatively but could remove them if this doesn't look OK. I haven't touch the torso for now. Cheers. ArthurWeasley 02:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hope the image won't be deleted, some guy has tagged it as unsourced with no author given on commons although it's clearly stated in the info box and has the appropriate PD-self tag. ArthurWeasley 02:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think those changes look very good; in particular, the neck-chest transition change helps make the torso look thicker. The scutes, such as they are, look a little leaf-shaped, kind of like the Stegosaurus tooth image but without as much vertical relief. J. Spencer 04:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Size comparison diagram

User:Dropzink made a size comparison diagram for Thescie and I've added it to the article (one FAC reviewer has requested it). have a look. Cheers. ArthurWeasley 01:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to follow up with these plates and scutes thingies, could you send me by email Morris' paper if you have it. And Fischer's Science as well (If not, no worries I could probably get that one tomorrow). Thanks. Cheers. ArthurWeasley 03:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you have the 2004 Novas paper on "A new basal iguanodontian (Dinosauria, Ornithischia) from the Upper Cretaceous of Patagonia". Ameghiniana 41 (1): 75-82, that would be great. thanks. ArthurWeasley 17:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archie timeline picture

Great news - I've placed it in a really good spot & shuffled the rest of the pictures around a bit. You may wish to change the caption however if you can think of better wording. Thanks, Spawn Man 04:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for an admin-type action

Hey there; I have a request that would need the use of admin abilities. I saw that Extinct animals in popular culture had been deleted, and I was wondering if you could copy the contents of that page to a J. Spencer user page so I could see if there was anything worth reintroducing to articles. Thanks! J. Spencer 16:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Content moved to user:J. Spencer/Sandbox. Let's be careful to avoid Speedy Deletion (G4): "Recreation of deleted material. A copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted via Articles for deletion or another XfD process, provided that the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any revisions made clearly do not address the reasons for which the page was deleted." Whatever material that is salvageable (if any) should be reworked to a more encyclopedic style. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Thescie pic

Here is a new pic of Thescelosaurus with scutes in the neck region and bony plates on the ribs - Talenkauen style -. Cheers. ArthurWeasley 06:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They can still be visible through the skin, can't they? But yes, I can fade them up a little more so that it is implied that they are at the surface of the skin, but be seen both ways. Thanks. ArthurWeasley 15:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New version uploaded. Cheers. ArthurWeasley 04:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, J! Thescelosaurus has reached FA status! Great job! :) It's such an interesting and enigmatic dinosaur, and I know your work has raised awareness on this unusual genus. I know you planned a (well-deserved) wikibreak, but your work is absolutely amazing, and I'd hate to lose your contributions. Anyway, congratulations. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 05:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaur Size Serial Disgruntled Editor?

Hi J,

Thanks for the heads-up on this situation. The Goodguy account was blocked by user:LunaSantin a few days ago: his original contributions were all userpage vandalism, and it seems likely, as you point out, that these IP vandals are the same user because of the disturbance to the same page and the type of userpage vandalism which is occurring. I've blocked each of the IPs for 24 hours, and we'll see what happens. The Dinosaur size page can be semi-protected for a few days if the IP vandalism continues. Thanks for the reverts. Unfortunately, we'll always have someone or other disgruntled because their edits were reverted; it seems unavoidable. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 14:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ISBN?

Hi J,

Do you have the ISBN for Dinosaurs of the Science Museum of Minnesota? user:Circeus indicates the number used on Thescelosaurus is incorrect (missing a digit), but he can't find the correct one. Since I know you did 99% of the work on this article, and since the book has Minnesota in the title, I'm assuming you added the citation. Could you look through your books and possibly correct the problem? :) Firsfron of Ronchester 16:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. Since Firsfron told me you did most of the work on that recently featured, I figured I might as well carry my content concerns directly to you. I,m having quite a few issues with the "Classification" section.

I'm looking at the cladogram right now and... Well, I'm probably dense, but it does look to me as if it's conflicting with the classification under Hypsilophodontidae. Either that, or I can't read these cladogram to save my life, eh. Hypsilophodontidae DOES mention 2 "updates," are those the "recent studies" mentioned in Thescelosaurus. It seems the cladogram is specifically presenting the paraphyletic hypothesis; if that's the case, it should be clearly stated in the article. Also, the article says "its unusual skull," but does not say how or why it's unusual. 19:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The timeline looks really cool. Is there a way to add Tr/J/K boundaries? Firsfron of Ronchester 04:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, nevermind, you've already answered my question. Sorry, I've been coding all day, too, and it's taken its toll on my already meagre resources... The timeline looks terrific, J. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a full timeline mocked up at User:J. Spencer/timeline#Mesozoic timeline, although including links for the stages means I have to make the figure quite large for the links to correspond to the proper sections. We could probably get along without the names of the stages, if need be, which would allow us to shrink the width quite a bit. The colors are dummies at this point. I can get EasyTimeline to do just about everything needed for a strato-geographic cladogram, except genera that are sisters; the line-generating function doesn't appear to do verticals between just two rows, although I could certainly be missing something. The main drawback is all the coding, and it helps to draw your cladogram first to see how you want the genera to be placed. J. Spencer 05:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I just figured out a good way to fake that vertical line. J. Spencer 05:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is obvious just looking at the code that you spent a great deal of time working on these, J. I have many questions, some of which may seem obvious to a person who has spent hours working on these images, but aren't immediately apparent to me. Please bear with me. What are the numbers next to Isisaurus and Alamosaurus for? What do the black and grey lines represent? They look like the normal cladistic lines, but then why are most of the others connected to nothing? What is the difference between a black line and a grey one? Since it doesn't appear families can be shown, would it be better to code the colors by family and show natural groupings, rather than by continent? The first image, with the line of English kings, shows a progression, and, although the fossil record is spotty in places, would it be possible to show a sort of general progression while still maintaining the cladistic relationships? I'm used to seeing cladograms where everything is connected to something else, and this makes it seem like most everything is disconnected. What do the blue, green, orange, and dashed lines represent? Does the format shown under the Mesozoic timeline (with the window) work the same in all browsers? Sorry for the confusion. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 19:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure the numbers are simply references in the code. BTW, what's the status on that ISBN?Circeus 19:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's not complete; Erik Zachte and I are trying out a variety of different ways to make it do what we need. The numbers are something he inserted, which could be used with a caption to tell someone where a clade is, for example. The colors correspond to different landmasses, and would have a legend explaining them in a finished version. The different line colors come from different experiments, trying to figure out what we can and can't do. J. Spencer 22:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, then ignore my blathering, for now at least. Hey, I've got a question: during the expanding of Styracosaurus, I knicked a bit from Centrosaurinae which I felt was very well-written and explained the Centrosaurines in a way that was easily accessible to amateurs without sounding amateurish. During peer review, I happened to notice that (sadly), this was actually your work, copied directly from Thescelosaurus: [1]. The user who had copied the original material into Wikipedia, Somedude101, should be warned against copyvio, but I wanted to make sure first that it really is a copyright violation, and that there wasn't some prior agreement. I ask because it is clear you also contributed to this article at a later date. This is the first time I've ever seen a potential copyvio of a work which was originally written by a regular Wikipedia editor. Since I had copied that bit from Centrosaurinae to Styracosaurus, that article will have to be adjusted accordingly, too, depending on what the status of the text is. Many apologies, Firsfron of Ronchester 04:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off: the new diagram is truly lovely. Kudos. I'm pretty sure this issue deserves more eyes than just mine, so you may want to make a proposal on WP:Dinosaurs or on the image review page (yes, I'm aware that it is just a mock-up for now), so that any issues that should be addressed are addressed as quickly as possible. The only thing that comes to my mind is that my monitor at home uses a relatively low (600x488) screen resolution, so the diagram is larger on the page. Probably, most people don't use such low screen resolutions anymore, and I certainly don't use it at work, so this may be a non-issue. I absolutely love that you've included each stage, and agree that it's unlikely we would need to divide it up into smaller divisions. The fact that every word can be wikilinked is a big bonus. I also like your idea (if I've understood you correctly) of including less classifiable genera below a divider, so they can still be included without messing up the cladogram.

On another note, I've deleted the copyvio on Centrosaurinae (deleted the article and restored the material that was not a copy-and-paste from your site). I've now warned the user, who is still active, about copying and pasting material from other web sites, and will be watching his future contributions. His past history does not seem to show additional copyvios. Removing the material from Centrosaurinae left that article considerably shorter. Rather than repeat this process on Styracosaurus, I've quoted the material on your site, with attribution to you. Circeus suggested this route, and I think it may be the best solution, at least for now. I thought your presentation of the material was clear. There may be problems down the road when (or if) this article is ever nominated for FAC, but I suppose that may not even happen, as I'm having some difficulty "pulling a Spencer" (getting a FA up to snuff on my own). Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 17:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhh That's a nifty chart! I like how it (sort of) outlines the temporal differences too. Circeus 17:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, those look great to me. I think the polychotomies are more clear in the new version. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prosaurolophus

On 18 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Prosaurolophus, 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.

--howcheng {chat} 23:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Styracosaurus again

Hi J!

Thanks for your additions and fixes to this article. Much appreciated. During peer review, Circeus suggested the paragraph concerning Darren Tanke and the Drumheller museum needed citations. I believe you added this info to the article. I've been planning to cite it, but the only sources I could find for the information were a DML entry from last year where Tanke asks for information, and a post on paleoblog that confirms some (but not all) of the information. The Mailing List and the blog might not be considered reliable sources if this article is sent to FAC, which Cas seems to be indicating he'd like to do. I'd love to see this article Featured, but I worry without proper referencing, it will never make it. Do you have a better reference for the paragraph, or should I go ahead and cite the DML and paleoblog? And what is your opinion on FA possibilities? I've just sent the article to GA, after your fixes, BTW. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. It turns out, that information was added by an IP in Calgary late last year. Sorry about the mix-up; I had remembered you adding some material; obviously, that wasn't it. The Palaeoblog is Michael J. Ryan's blog site, where he's posted several interesting photos of ceratopsian bits, but most of those are from before the trip back up to Alberta. The DML has an entry from Tanke inquiring about the 1915 site, but nothing about finding it. Regarding the article's prose, Circeus had many suggestions during peer review, which I incorporated into the text, but if it's not ready, it's not ready, and I appreciate your candor. Regarding the Mono/Styraco/Centrosaurus debate, and current consensus, these are the sorts of things I'm glad you're aware of, as I have limited resources. Thanks for your attention and corrections, as always. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no hurry; I mean, the GA review could take up to a month, so it's nothing that is time sensitive. I saw all the work you did on Saurolophus, and it's looking really good: definitely past stub status, although I don't think the Project ever really defined what a stub was. As for "Unicerosaurus", I took the stub tag off that one, too: I don't think anything more can be said about it that wouldn't be Original Research (and I might have come close to crossing the line anyway), but I got the 1987 article in the mail and got really excited... Firsfron of Ronchester 07:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

question about a 1915 e-book

While scanning for Saurolophus images, I ran across a 1915 e-book on Project Gutenberg, by William Diller Matthew, that has a number of early skeletal photos and restorations presented as separate files. These would fall under our purview, right? I was thinking of the Saurolophus panel mount right now, just to get something up there, but there may be other figures of interest. J. Spencer 14:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's right. Images and other works from before 1923 are in the public domain in the United States. I'm on slow dial-up here at home, but when I get to work, I'll unzip the files and take a gander. Cheers! Firsfron of Ronchester 16:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Hypacrosaurus, was selected for DYK!

On May 6, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hypacrosaurus, 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.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 (talk) 18:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P. sibiricus

Yeah I was about to start work on the species article to update it, didn't have time the other day. Thanks for the PDF offer but I've got it already so no worries. I live about 10 minutes from the Scripps Institute of Oceanography so papers are usually not hard to come across. Thanks though!! Sheep81 01:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I updated the Species of Psittacosaurus article to the best of my ability. I used some of your edits and rewrote others to fit better with the stuff that I wrote. Added a bunch of new refs and info... also I changed the P. sibiricus ref you added so it would be in the same format as all the other refs. I don't really care how it looks, as long as all the refs on the same page look the same, you know? Hope you don't mind. Anyway, thought you might want to take a look at it, I think it is beautiful myself. :) Sheep81 07:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acta Geologica Sinica

Actually, there is one journal I frustratingly don't have access to. Scripps only has it through the end of 2005. I don't suppose you have any of the articles written in 2006 or 2007 do you? Specifically: Ji et al. 2007 AGS 81(1) - (Sincalliopteryx)
Liu et al. 2006 AGS 80(5) - (Daohugou Beds)
Lu et al. 2006 AGS 80(5) - (Eosipterus)
Zhao et al. 2006 AGS 80(4) - (Xuanhuaceratops)
Mo et al. 2006 AGS 80(4) - (Fusuisaurus)
Xu et al. 2006 AGS 80(1) - (Sonidosaurus)
Lu et al. 2006 AGS 80(1) - (Yuanmousaurus)

Oh, and do you have access to Oryctos?

Thanks a bunch man! If you need anything in return, I think I have about 300-400 articles here and a whole library at my disposal so just ask. Thanks again! Sheep81 08:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the papers, received them just fine. Sheep81 06:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction to Dinosaur Park Formation

no offense, but the picture you used on the Dinosaur Park Formation page is not correct. The topography looks more like Dinosaur National Monument or similar. The DPF does not erode into deep canyons. The resistant appearance of your image suggests a Lower or Mid-Jurassic aelian sandstone, such as the Wingate. A correct image has been posted shot in Dinosaur Provincial Park. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anky-man (talk • contribs) 02:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Monophyly of the Protoceratopsidae

Hi Justin,

I've been working to expand Protoceratops a bit, but I have hit a big snag with the classification section, which I had a feeling would be a bit messy, and it turns out it is. We've sort of gone full circle with this clade: originally consisting (1923)of Leptoceratops and Protoceratops, gradually other genera were added until the mid-1990s, when several researchers (Weishampel, Chinnery, others) found the clade polyphyletic, and Baga-, Lepto-, Montano-, Micro-, and others were moved to Neoceratopsia. Now we seem to be coming back to a monophyletic Protoceratopsidae. I've got The Horned Dinosaurs and some other references, but I can't really tell where current paleontological consensus stands on which genera are a part of a monophyletic Protoceratopsidae. Any ideas on where to start? Firsfron of Ronchester 05:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; this is the sort of information I was looking for. It seems like you're well-informed on the subject. I am surprised you haven't written more in the article(s), though I know you want to devote most of your time to working on the ornithopods. The AMNH site (or the PDF section) was down when I went to download the Yamaceratops paper, but I'll check back later. Thanks again, Firsfron of Ronchester 22:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA reviews

Yeah I know. I had a bit of time and made a note to start clearing backlogs when I saw it. It was an easy 'do' in the time that I had. I began looking at Species of Psittacosaurus and may get a chance to do it later today, or do you think we should leave it to someone outside the wikiproject? Happy either way cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 02:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree - I was musing on the format and what others think. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 04:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi fellows,

Just for the sake of making sure to avoid the appearance of Conflict of Interest, I think it would be best if non-WP:DINO members did the GA reviewing of dinosaur articles. I know it is not a real conflict of interest to review something you didn't really even work on, but I'm wondering if we wouldn't have received slightly different feedback from someone outside the project.

Part of this is my responsibility, as I nominated the article before J may even have thought the article was ready. But there is no question in my mind that an article with that many in-line citations could have passed GA easily; additionally, I didn't make a fuss over the GA review of Scelidosaurus, and that one was also reviewed within the Project. I'm going to leave a comment on the GA talk page and see if we can't get a second opinion on both articles, as that only seems fair to me. Comments welcome, as always. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you wanna do that...you could just drop a note on an unrelated person's talk page. The process is supposed to be unbureaucratic so I could imagine dropping notes or unraveling passed GA candidates being a bit confusing for those watching the page. Personally I wouldn't worry about it but prospectively I'll promise not to review any more dino articles :) cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 13:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many Thanks:

Thanks for signing the petition for me to return from my Wikibreak/Retirement. It was unexpected & I appreciate your kind words. I'm planning to stay away from conflict for a bit, so don't expect to see me around any talk pages etc. I don't hold it against you either that you like the inferior herbivore dinos. ;) Anyway, thanks again for being there. :) Spawn Man 23:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, & BTW, just checked the Dino Portal & realised you've done a bit of work on it. Thanks for that - if you know of any more featured pictures, great DYKs etc, (You could be like my assistant or something lol. :)), just dump them on my talk page & I'll add them in. Cheers, Spawn Man 23:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Othnielosaurus

I've just fixed those two points myself. Apologies for my laziness! Verisimilus T 19:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey J!

Congratulations on Hypacrosaurus! I knew this article was GA material. You spent a lot of time on it, but you always make it look so easy. Same with Lambeosaurus, naturally. Pity about Othnielosaurus. I thought it would make the cut, but I guess it will have to be reworked. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No big deal on Othy; I hadn't looked at it since the end of January, and I'd written it before I'd gotten a format down (back in early December), so it sticks out like a sore thumb against more recent work. Besides, I'd been leery about promoting it, since it may be that the article gets merged back to Othnielia before long. However, I'll look at reformatting it soon. J. Spencer 03:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the deal? You think it's going to become a nomina vana (or whatever the name is for an unneeded name?)? Has the replacement name not caught on? I haven't seen the new name get a lot of usage: only about 400 hits on Google, including Wikipedia mirrors. What will Drinker do without his (I must assume) archrival, Othnielosaurus? Firsfron of Ronchester 04:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parasaurolophus

Hi, Firs;

There's been a persistent creationist appending "(in theroy)" to Parasaurolophus, and, while it's not a pure 3RR because the user is too inexperienced to know about reverting, it's certainly an edit war between me and s/he. Cas suggested putting it up in 3RR, but after reading it I wasn't certain if that was the best way to go about things (also, Cas is going off-line now). I haven't been using vandal warnings because it's not technically vandalism, but POV-pushing. I definitely agree with Cas that a non-dino admin should be involved. Any suggestions? J. Spencer 00:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checking right now. Please do not revert further. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh! User cannot even spell "theory" correctly. And this is pretty close to vandalism. We have 3RR template, Template:Uw-3rr, for these sorts of things. He's been reverted a bunch of times by various users, under both his IP account and under his new username. We all agree that a non-interested admin should look. If he continues, he can be warned with the above template (subst'ed), but do not revert him yourself, as we definitely do not want to see you blocked by an admin who misreads the situation. Reporting to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR sounds like the best option. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Righty-ho, back on my lunch break :)cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 03:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism button

I wasn't issued one of these when I joined - do only admins get them? J. Spencer 02:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, man, I was hoping no one would spot that mistake. Of course, you had to spot it... No, there is absolutely, positively no such thing as a Vandalism Button. Really. I promise. And I definitely did not take a secret admin oath to never reveal the Truth about the Vandalism Button. Become an admin if you don't believe me. Cause that would prove it, beyond a doubt... Yes. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australodocus

Should be pretty easy to buff this one up for a DYK...are you able to get a .pdf of the paper? fasciniating stuff how many big sauropods are coming out of there...cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 00:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kewl. I'll keep me fingres crossedcheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 02:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet. I don't subscribe to that one (it's usually boring invert paleo) so I have to go to the library. I can make it in the next day or two I think. If you manage to grab it earlier shoot me a copy though! Sheep81 03:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paleontologia Africana

Do you have access to Paleontologia Africana? Sheep81 05:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Tell Overture

It seems unusual to move an article to fixate it with the status in popular culture, since that is what sections are for. I have proposed that it be moved back. Celtic Emperor 21:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiBreak

Hey J!

Enjoy your WikiBreak! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 00:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Welcome back! For some reason, I read this as "June 30". Obviously your wikibreak wasn't as long as I thought it would be. Sowwy. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Palaeoscincus

Well done on this article. Many of these historically significant nomina dubia do deserve their own articles. Cheers!--Gazzster 03:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC) Didn't notice! I'm honoured that you would go to the trouble. --Gazzster 07:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dino Portal:

I've noticed you've been keeping up the portal whilst I've been semi active - wow, another Dino FA! And I completely missed it! I've added it to our growing list of featured dinosaurs on the portal now. Anyway, I just wanted to say thanks & that I've placed an update counter on the Portal_talk:Dinosaurs page. Just type in ~~~~~ to show the last time you made a major update to the portal (If ever) & replace the one that's already there so we can keep track of when things have been updated. Anyway, I'm going to add those DYKs. Cheers, Spawn Man 04:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daspletosaurus

My most recent project. Would you mind reading over it? I even mentioned a hypsilophodont just for you! Sheep81 03:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean I should wikilink the specimen numbers to the institution, mention where the fossils are housed in the text, or provide external links at the bottom?

I can add the Deinonychus ref, but I don't have the article. You don't happen to have a PDF or something do you?

I'll edit the Currie ref so it makes more sense... actually I'll add a new one so I don't have to cite the same article twice in the same paragraph.

Thanks for going through it, if anything else pops out at you, let me know (or edit it yourself of course). Sheep81 03:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gryposaurus

Hey J!

Just saw you nommed Gryposaurus for GA! Good luck. One question, though: the lead seems a little short (only goes halfway down the taxobox). Is it possible to expand this lead so that it summarizes everything in this article? Gryposaurus is roughly the same length as most of our other GAs, but the lead seems considerably shorter. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did some work on it (it has a long taxobox :) ). J. Spencer 02:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I did notice its taxobox is longer. Anyway, looks better, IMO. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey J!

I caught a dinosaur special on Animal Planet (When Dinosaurs Roamed America) they re-ran from 2001, and noticed they interviewed one Dr. Karen Chin. I thought of you and your studies; she had an interesting discussion about fossils preserving evidence of fires. It was really interesting! Firsfron of Ronchester 06:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GAC- Gryposaurus

Suggestion- there are no images in the following article. Else there is no problem with the content. If possible kindly upload some images also. Sushant gupta (talk · contribs) 06:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

okay its fine. the image wasn't downloaded at my computer. i checked it once again, but now also i am not able to view it and secondaly i had a quick look at the page. fine i am sorry. sushant gupta (talk · contribs) 04:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geological history of Earth

I have nominated the page for GAC. Can you kindly review the page. it is under earth science section. please its a request. Sushant gupta (talk · contribs) 14:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ummhhh... i am a school student (15 yrs. old) you can't expect much from me. what all i can use as a reference part are encyclopedias and some edu website. thanks, sushant gupta (talk · contribs) 08:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

as a part of reference i have used an encyclopedia and that to very famous. within today i will cite the statements. if you have any free time then can you please review it for GAC. Sushant gupta (talk · contribs) 04:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know?

Did you know? was updated. On 18 June, 2007, a fact from the article Eocursor, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 08:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Marshall images

I noticed you had a conversation with User:Benosaurus on his talk page about the Todd Marshall images he's been uploading everywhere. He said that he talked to Todd and got permission for use on Wikipedia? I'm skeptical to say the least. Did he show you the emails? I really don't want to piss Todd off or get in any kind of copyright argument. Sheep81 13:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I emailed Todd Marshall and apparently he is okay with it! So there we go. He was happy that we asked though. Sheep81 08:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cladograms

Cor. They must have taken you forever! I'm very impressed - I don't think I could have worked out how to do anything that complex on easytimeline!

As it happens, I was just working on my timeline as you messaged. I'd designed it to be as simple to use as possible, and to require the minimum of variables to be specified. At the moment, its main limitation is that it can only produce graduations in an up-down fashion; it would be easy but time-consuming to create a left-right axis. However, if you were content with a vertical scale, it shouldn't be too difficult to replicate the work you've done so far on the timeline, probably a little more tidily and a lot more quickly. I imagine that the main problem with that orientation would be attaching text to the bars. But I got very frustrated trying to wrestle with easytimeline (hence creating this template!). My template is entirely scalable so you'd not have problems there.

As there's only been myself and one other use this template yet (that I know of), I'd be very interested to hear how you get on with it, if you do have a dabble (which I'd encourage you to!)

Having a think, essentially the timeline template is a specialised template that draws boxes. I wonder whether a glorified version, with the additional capacity to draw straight and diagonal lines (shouldn't be difficult to add, unless wiki syntax is prohibitive), would be of enough general use to make it worth my while coding up.

Best of luck,

Verisimilus T 19:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you thought Pantydraco sounded dirty...

From page 412 of this paper by Carpenter...

"...while C. supremus occurs high in the upper member in the vicinity of Cope's Nipple."

!!!! Sheep81 09:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lambeosaurus

Hi Justin, After the Psittacosaurus head series for Sheep, I am planning to do the Lambeosaurus growth series. Could you email me the relevant pdfs. Thanks. ArthurWeasley 23:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, got them all. Thanks. ArthurWeasley 03:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prosaurolophus Maximus

Hi J. Spencer, i was wondering if you could please help me with this reconstrution i started a week ago, as you seem to know alot about these animals. This is it so far, [2] there are some more images on the image review page. I was wondering, you could possibly use these images to so show me were and how big the eye ball should be, [3] [4] and were the external ear should be? Also do you know if this animal would have those squre skin structures running down the back? Thanks for your time. Steveoc 86 16:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got the email, thanks alot. :) I think i'll leave the skin structures out for now. I'll make a note in the image description about the possibility of them. Steveoc 86 18:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gastralia

Hey! Thanks! Yes, yours is better! Happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 04:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was writing mine while you were writing yours; it took me longer because I had to dig out an anatomy textbook. :) J. Spencer 04:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I think about it, would it make more sense as the singular gastralium? I almost never see it as singular in print, though. J. Spencer 04:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, good point. Damn Latin. ;) Ribs redirects to Rib, and there's something in the manual of style about just this sort of thing. Don't ask me to dig it up, though. I've moved the rewritten article over your redirect and fixed the double redirects that resulted in that move. We can always move it back if you change your mind. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Prefer_singular_nouns, for the record. Circeus 05:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It's just odd to see it singular; I guess you don't find just one gastralium that often. J. Spencer 14:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event and Undue Weight

Hi J!

Hey, User:Orangemarlin and I have been working a lot of this article, and he's done a good job building it up. However, I'm worried that some theories (such as the detritus-feeding-survivors theory) have been given undue weight, while other theories (such as gradual extinction of the dinosaurs) aren't really presented in the article. Can you take a look and possibly help us out with the problems in the text? Any help you can provide is greatly appreciated. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look at it, but I'm not too worried; the main undue weight to avoid in a K-T article is just focusing on dinosaurs (one could make a list of all the various ways dinosaurs are proposed to have met their fates. Just about all of them are related in that they don't do squat to plankton or North American marsupials). I'll have to check and see if it's OR, or if someone else has picked up on this, but I think gradualism versus catastrophism is a false dichotomy in this case, anyway. There's no reason why dinosaurs couldn't have been declining in diversity because of X Y and Z, and then gone extinct with a lot of other groups due to an impact. There's also no reason to think that they wouldn't have recovered from their diversity dip in the absence of an impact. J. Spencer 03:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parasaurolophus Thanks

Thanks for adding my parasaurolophus head pic, ive just altered it so the ear is in the correct place.Steveoc 86 18:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks agian, on a similar note, ive uploded a parksosaurus pic which went through the image review but eventually got forgotten,(due the the volume of images going through at that time), do you think its ready for the artical? It can be seen on my user page. Steveoc 86 22:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks,Steveoc 86 10:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dromomeron

Yeah, I can thin the thigh up a bit. Thanks for the comment. Cheers. ArthurWeasley 04:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Have a look. ArthurWeasley 05:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Teresa Maryańska

Np, happens to me too :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 14:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edmontosaurus Size

If you know so much about dinosaurs you should know that Edmontosaurus was up to 13 metres almost everyone knows that! Sorry to be a bother its just that im not sure how citation things so the best thing i can due is change it but im am also sick and tired of people changing dinosaurs sized like saying t-rex was 14 metres and giganotosaurus was 12 when its the other way round and stuff like that.

DYK

On 25 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dromomeron, 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.

--Yomangani ^talk 14:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Sorry

I'm sorry for changing the colors of the boxes.Thank you for telling me that I should not do that!--Dinosaur525 01:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger: T-Rex

Your reasoning is valid and well thought out and makes sense to me. The only reason I opposed is because this seemed like such a blanket merger and I thought that some consideration had to be given to those specimens which deserve their own article. As was said during the discussion, this, of course, can be largely arbitrary as notability is based on what secondary sources are out there (of which topic selection is arbitrary and often pointless--look at some of the media out there). I really don't have a problem with eliminating stubs and short articles through a merger but if something is notable enough it is logical to conclude that it will eventually have its own page whether its merged or not. Just my opinion, I just think this needs to be weighed on a case by case basis for some articles. IvoShandor 14:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would. IvoShandor 15:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Majungasaurus

Mind looking this over before someone up and sends it to FAC? I know it isn't an ornithischian and probably never even ate any ornithischians, but I would appreciate it! Thanks! Sheep81 09:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I may have removed some of the unnecessary terminology in the sections you brought to my attention and done a better job of explaining the terms that weren't very well explained before. Let me know if there is anything else that jumps out at you which needs better explanation or seems unnecessary in those sections. Sheep81 21:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks a lot. I really appreciate you looking the article over. And of course if you ever want another pair of eyes on one of your articles from whatever that other order of dinosaurs is called, feel free to ask! :) Sheep81 01:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural dinos

This edit cracjks me up totally, because I had started adding the exact same ref before realizingI needed to source the "dinosaur groups" stuff. I left a note to WikiProject Music. Maybe they can help. Circeus 23:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]