User talk:NatureA16/Archive 1

Welcome

Hello, Synapsid, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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! DS 14:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! M&NCenarius 19:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reptile articles

Hi Synapsid, I was working on Galesaurus the other day, and noticed your edits to the article, which are quite welcome. Your edit history also shows a pattern of editing many prehistoric reptile articles. With that in mind, I thought I'd invite you to join Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dinosaurs, a project that develops the Wikipedia articles on dinosaurs and their relatives. You're not on our modest list of members, but would be, I can see from your edits, a welcome addition. I hope you'll consider it, because you would be a big boon to our group. Take care,--Firsfron 02:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know... the project seems to be almost complete. M&NCenarius 19:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rodent first appearance

Moon&Nature,

I'm curious for what your rationale is for your recent edit to rodent. To my knowledge the first appearance of modern rodents is in Clarkforkian deposits (~56 Ma). You have changed it from "late Paleocene" to "early late Paleocene". Are you considering eurymylids to be rodents (instead of non-rodent simplicidentates), are you referring to Heomys from the Nongshanian or is there another fossil that has led to this change? --Aranae 05:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it just said so in an internet website about rodents, but I changed it to Late Paleocene, instead of early Late Paleocene. Thank you for asking. (M&N)Cenarius 07:05, June 2006 (UTC)

Cryptoclidus stub tag

Hi. I noticed that you changed the stub template on the Cryptoclidus article from {{dinosaur-stub}} to {{reptile-stub}} I was just wondering why? I mean, it is a reptile, but it is also a dinosaur. What makes the reptile template a better choice for this article than the dinosaur template? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ONUnicorn (talk • contribs) 07:02, June 19, 2006 ONUnicorn

Cryptoclidus was a plesiosaur (not a true dinosaur), and it is only distantly related to dinosaurs, which were archosauromorphs, and cryptoclidus which is a lepidosauromorph, even though they are both part of the reptile group. Thank you for asking. (M&N)Cenarius 07:03, June 2006 (UTC)

sprot

Hi, as probably have figured out by now, just putting that sprot tag on an artilce doesn't protect it. Protection requires admin rights. There is a page where you can request protection WP:RFP, but it has to be for a concerted attack. I am aware that the evolution article gets its share (and maybe more) of vandalism, but most of the time there are enough of us watching it to keep ahead of 'em. It only gets protected if there is a particularly persistent bunch of vandals teaming up agin us - thanks for your good intentions though. Cheers, Vsmith 00:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editing userbox & directory pages, plus edit summaries

Hi Moon&Nature,

I've noticed you have problems editing userbox pages and directories, causing errors in the pages, e.g., [1] and [2]. If you continue to have difficulties, please contact me and I will do my best to help you out with any questions. Also...

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. Regards, Rfrisbie^talk 04:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know?

I could show you how to upload an image, free of charge, of course -- Lego@lost 05:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do you upload an image? Moon&Nature 13:00 16 Agust 2006 (UTC)

RE: Uploading an Image

Sorry It took I a long time to get back to you, I've had and having troubles with my format (If you know anything about this please tell me!).

Ok lets get down to business, on the left toolbar there is a link that says Upload File, click on that or this, it will display an upload page with various boxes and links, scroll down an it says:

Source Filename:

to the right of that box click on:

browse...

That will open a window, find my pictures and select a picture from the list (oh yeah, if your not using Windows, that may be a little tricky) click open, the window will dissapear and where is says Source File name there will be some code in the box. Ok then go down to:

Destination filename:

type in a name that you want your photo to be called (add .jpg to the end of that name you've chosen. Now go down to:

Summary:

Here you can add an explanation about the photo. Also, you must add a tag to this bit by typing {{tag_example}}, there is a wide range of tag you can choose from, if you created it and it is not of an album cover or game you would usually add the tag {{freescreenshot}} to it.

Then choose the licensing from the list, once you've done that click upload file, this bit may take a while if you are on dail-up (like I am, damn New Zealand, think they can get away with...). After all that you should have an image. This is quite a detailed instruction list, open another window and follow my instructions on that window, then open another window to test it out. Hope that explains it. Cheers M&N -- Lego@lost EVIL, EVIL! 06:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image violations

Copyright problems with Image:Archaeothyris.jpg

An image that you uploaded, Image:Archaeothyris.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

All your paleoart images appear to be in violation of copyright. You have falsly listed them all as No rights reserved, though in all cases the web sites you linked to do not state this. Several of you source pages appear to have plagiarized these images themselves. The image by Alain, in particular, on its source page expressly states that the image is copyrighted, used with permission of the author, and All rights reserved.

Please make sure you have permission, either in written form from the artist, or in the form of explicit copyright information on the page, before uploading images. Note that, 99% of the time, images found on the internet through Google and other search engines are not free to use. Note also that any image for which the author and copyright information are not listed are probably illegal reproductions themselves (for instance, your Cynognathus was scanned directly from a book, which was even stated on the page you cited for it, while one of your Archaeothyris was scanned from the very same book and lacked any kind of attribution).Dinoguy2 18:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:250future.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:250future.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 15:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Image licenses

It's all explained here: Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. Basically, the tags indicate under what license an image can be used. for example {{GFDL}} on an image page means that the copyright holder (the person who created the image; not neccessarily the person who uploaded it) released it under the GNU Free Documentation License. Let me know if you have any other questions.--Fritz S. (Talk) 19:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

userbox templates

Hi You created a userbox at Template:User:Ashley/Userboxes/bigbang, I assume you ment to put this at User:Ashley Y/Userboxes/bigbang. Two things, userfied userboxes don't need 'template' in front of them - if they have that, they're in template space and not userspace. YOu simply put such things onto a userspubpage - to transpose them all you need to do is put {{User:John Smith/userboxes/userboxwhatever}} - and the contents of the page will appear like a template. Hope that helps. --Doc 22:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taxoboxes

Hi M&N,

Thanks for your contributions. Unfortunately, animals which are not yet formally described do not get taxoboxes. If you see a dinosaur article here that says the animal is "not yet described" or "hasn't been formally described", it means it's a nomen nudum, and doesn't receive a taxobox. Happy editing! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 06:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I didn't know, thank you for the adivise though. (M&N)Cenarius 06:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. :) Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 06:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for correcting my userboxen on my userpage! I was thinking of just deleting them because I couldn't be bothered fixing them, but then you fixed it so I said wow they're fixed by a fixer who fixed them fixingly & I thought, well now I don't have to fix them cause he fixed them so now I eat chicken... ;) If you didn't understnad that, join the club... In other words, thanks a bunch!!! Spawn Man 23:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

You're welcome, I'm glad to help out. M&NCenarius 02:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great white shark as COTW

Hi! you voted for/suggested GW as COTW, it have now been selected, please help getting it to GA status ... or better!! Thanks! Stefan 02:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cetacea as COTM

File:Sperm Whale fluke.jpg

Thank you for your support of the WikiProject Cetaceans Collaboration.
This month Cetacea was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help.

--Gray Porpoise^{What have I done‽} 17:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drizzle

Hi. You modified the drizzle article to include two pieces of information that are incorrect. First, drizzle is not, as you said "usually" accompanied by fog or mist. It sometimes is, but usually is not. You also indicated that drizzle can follow a storm. This is never the case. Drizzle is produced only by stratiform clouds, where there is insufficient updrafting to allow for the formation of larger droplets. While there may be sporadic rain following a storm, the droplets are in fact much larger than those of drizzle. D e nni 20:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see, sorry. Thank you. M&NCenarius 20:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dalbury's RfA

My RfA passed with a tally of 71/1/0. Thank you very much for your support. I hope that my performance as an admin will not disappoint you. Please let me know if you see me doing anything inappropriate. -- Donald Albury 02:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verdugo Mountains

I noticed you've been working on the Verdugo Mountains article. You might be interested in an abortive draft version of the article that I was working on with User:Fpo at User:Fpo/Sandbox. It hasn't been touched in a year or so, but it may have some worthwhile content that can be salvaged. There is also a little bit of discussion on the talk page. Mike Dillon 05:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just read it over again and I guess it is pretty complete (perhaps a little over-verbose for the subject). I'm not sure who the anonymous editor in the 165.121.x.x range was, but it may have been User:fpo. I think the reason I never moved the contents into Verdugo Mountains itself was that I found out about WP's sourcing requirements right around when I stopped editing. Having written most of the Geography section, I felt that it was a little bit of original research since I didn't have sources for most of it. I think it is verifiable, but I burned out looking for decent sources for that section. I had also wanted to add to the "Geology" and "Flora and fauna" sections, but I couldn't find a good source for either of those.

After I stopped editing it, the problem then became that after the anonymous editor added all of those references, I had no idea how to properly footnote and attribute the various statements in the article. I was also not too happy with the hazy pictures I was able to take, although this is the time of year to get a nice clear picture if any.

All that being said, I think some of the content could be moved into the real article at this point, but we probably shouldn't move it all at once. If you start moving it, be sure to include the full URL of the source article (including oldid) in the edit summary so that the GFDL requirements for can be easily fulfilled for the edit history. Some of the editorializing ("leaves of three", "ankle sprainers") should probably be left out. Let me know if you have any other questions. Mike Dillon 16:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mt. Pinos

You changed the mountain range to San Emigdio Mountains. Mt. Pinos is not part of the San Emigdio Mountains, it actually doesn't have a name for it's visible range, but is part of the larger Transverse Ranges. Same goes with Frazier Mountain. The San Emigdio Mountains are the next range to the north of Mt. Pinos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Platinum Cygnus (talk • contribs) 14:44, 19 December 2006 Platinum Cygnus

You are right of course, mountains Pinos and Frazier are part of Transverse ranges, but the two mountains are part of the San Emigdio Mountains, which itself is part of the Transverse Ranges. Please see this where I got the information. M&NCenarius 05:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I believe this information is wrong, though. The San Emigdio Mountains are just the little range north of Pine Mountain Club. The site you pointed me to also lists Tecuya Mountain as part of the San Emigdio Mountains, but in fact it resides on Tecuya Ridge. Of course you could say that Tecuya Ridge is a part of the San Emigdio Mountain complex, but I don't believe it is. That site is the only source that I've ever seen that puts all the local mountains around here in a group called the "San Emigdio Mountains".

After doing a little more research, I found some more sources that site these mountains as the San Emigdio Mountains. I'm not entirely convinced, but I'm not so sure now. I guess it might just be a local thing. Cygnus 00:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it looks like you're right. I'm going to go fix a lot of articles to incorporate my newfound knowledge. Funny I didn't know better after living up here for so long. Cygnus 02:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prominence of Mount Wilson?

You added it as "61" (no units). I looked at the topo map, and it seemed that the nearest higher peak was Occidental Peak, about 1.5 miles to the NW, and the key col was just below 5560 feet, so the clean prominence would be 150 ft = 45 m, so I couldn't reconstruct where the 61 came from.. hike395 00:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got the information right here. M&NCenarius 01:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, that's not the right Mount Wilson --- it's in Vermont. They need to dab better over there. hike395 06:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it looks like you're right, my apologies. Funny, wrong external link... M&NCenarius 06:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You helped choose Jupiter as this week's WP:AID winner

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Jupiter was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help.

AzaBot 14:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]