User talk:Sheep81/ArchiveDos

Heterodontosauridae a Good Article

Hi;

I know you haven't edited in months, but in case you ever stop by again, I made a few changes to Heterodontosauridae, which you wrote, and easily got it to GA-status. I hope to do the same with a couple of your other higher-level taxon articles. Anyway, feel free to stop in again; you've done good work. J. Spencer 05:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome back! If you're interested in some low-intensity edits, may I suggest that your Abelisauridae, Ceratopsia, and Species of Psittacosaurus could all make GA pretty easily? Also, if you're interested, I have the P. sibiricus redescription. Send me an email if you'd like a PDF. J. Spencer 02:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sight fer sore eyes

Welcome back! I guess you've seen what we've done. I'm coordinating the collaboration and Spawny set up a portal but had a big dustup a few weeks ago. ATM Styracosaurus is on the verge of being nominated for FAC (I think), Deinonychus and Spinosaurus are in hte production line but need a fair bit of work. I'm going to put a petition on Spawny's page to get him to come back. I've become well and truly addicted and Wikipedia is very unpopular in our family currently cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 09:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know. I look at this and wonder where it will all end. Weird. Met Jimbo a couple of weeks ago at a wikipedia meetup in Sydney. Weird actually vocalising all this stuff rather than typing away in silence I'll tell ya. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 09:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles

I don't have access to Acta Geologica Sinica, but I have acquired the PDFs on Sinocalliopteryx, Sonidosaurus, and Yuanmousaurus, so send a message to my email and I'll pass them along. Currently, I have access to anything at the U of Minnesota, although I have to go out there to get it, so I'm usually only there once every month or two. I like your revisions and updates to Species of Psittacosaurus; feel free to rewrite anything I've added. I've been using the "cite journal"/etc. templates because they seem to be preferred now when articles go up for review, particularly for Featured status. J. Spencer 14:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back!

You pain! You said last time you were back for good! You had me worried you'd topped yourself or something... In anycase, welcome back - hopefully you can stay for longer this time. You've missed out on quite a few dino FAs, butI'm sure with you on board we'll get many more. Cheers Sheepy, :) Spawn Man 03:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sauropelta Image

Hi Sheep, just to let you know that I've put a reworking of the Sauropelta image on my to-do list. Dang dinosaurs, changing all the time, sheesh.—John.Conway 11:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ankylosaurs

Hey Sheep! Excellent work on Sauropelta and Antarctopelta. Well written, thoroughly refereneced, and accessible! The environment section on Antarcto is especially useful, being that there're only two named dinos from there and that information tends to get buried in other articles. I think with a bit more fleshing out (at least for Sauropelta, which has a lot of refs) these could be GA candidates. Dinoguy2 11:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sheep!

Thanks for your note. The Sauropelta article does look quite nice. I can certainly understand why an absence for a while could make you insecure, but do not worry: you're clearly one of the most (if not the most) talented expert writer WP:DINOS has. "Don't doubt your mad writing skillz, man". ;)

About the article itself: it does look great, but I have some suggestions and comments. Why are "sacral shield", "jugal", "postorbital", and "tomium" in italics? We generally have left anotomical parts unitalicised, though some are clearly originally Latin terms. And then other anatomy is left unitalicised. Just my opinion, but I don't think the italics are necessary on the above terms.

Is Peltosaurus a junior synonym of Sauropelta? Lambert (1993) lists it as a junior synonym. If it is, that should perhaps be mentioned somewhere in the article.

Is there, in your opinion, a good web site which has diagrams or a good deal of information on Sauropelta? If so, you could add an external link. If not, don't worry about it. Consider also adding the template-style links to Wikispecies and Wikipedia Commons, if either have material relating to Sauropelta (I haven't checked). More later (I have to get offline, but I'll try to write more as I think of it). I look forward to reading the Paleobiology section once it's written. Yours in haste, Firsfron of Ronchester 16:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions! I un-italicized the anatomical terms and added a bit about Peltosaurus, and also did a bit of housekeeping. I couldn't find anything on Wikispecies or any other website that didn't duplicate what was already there, so I didn't add any external links. Let me know if you think of anything else. Sheep81 12:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I found some external links after all! Sheep81 12:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sheep!

I did take a look at the article again, and it's really shaping up. The Peltosaurus mystery is solved, and I think the prose is understandable. One problem I have found (and could have/would have corrected it myself, but you did want me to just look at the article, and I didn't want to step on your toes), is that there are some very small Manual of Style issues when it comes to measurements. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Units_of_measurement recommends to spell out units of measurement in the text, but that units of measurement in parentheses are abbreviated: Their example is "a pipe 100 millimetres (4 in) in diameter and 16 kilometres (10 mi) long".

Another, admittedly small, problem I see is that there still is no paleobiology section; I don't think it's a big deal, but Othnielosaurus just got its GA candidacy rejected due in part to a lack of a paleobiology section. I realize not a whole lot has been written about the paleobiology of every dinosaur genus, but maybe you could section off an already written section, under paleobiology, something I think we did for Stegosaurus? Sauropelta probably won't ever have a pop culture section, but potential reviewers will want to compare it to an already existing GA, and may be disturbed to see several entire sections jettisoned. A short section on Sauropelta's environment, diet, etc, would be good, even if it's very brief.

This article is currently the 33rd longest dinosaur article on Wikipedia. This sort of gives us a rough gauge of how comprehensive an article might be. Of course, more papers have been written about some genera than about others, so take it with a grain of salt. Uh... What else can I add? That's all I can think of for now. Good luck and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 05:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scelidosaurus has a "Diet" section that might be reworkable into Sauropelta, with appropriate references (and modifications, obviously). Firsfron of Ronchester 05:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya Sheep,

Sauropelta is looking terrific. In my opinion, it would make a fantastic Good Article. The Cloverly material is really fascinating; I really didn't know anything about it.

BTW, since you are the man of a thousand references... do you have any papers on Herrerasaurus that you could send me? The only references I have just accent the theropod/early saurischian/dinosauromorph/etc debate, and I think I have that covered. Actually, I'm starting to feel like much of the article is redundant... Any advice you can offer is appreciated. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Received exactly one buttload of papers. Much thanks for your attention; you must have a huge collection of PDFs! I had planned to pester J. for more papers at some point, but a)The pile you sent me will take quite some time to go through, and b)I already pestered him for papers on Scelidosaurus and Styracosaurus, and would prefer to keep my whining for primary sources to a minimum, lest I wear out my welcome. Again, thanks for your assistance. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like "Man of a thousand references" is an underestimate! Firsfron of Ronchester 08:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australodocus

Hi, Sheep; I was wondering if you'd been able to download the pdf for this new dinosaur; Cas and I are interested in it. Thanks, and have a good day! J. Spencer 02:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll let you know if I get it. J. Spencer 04:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Senter

Yes, it's a great paper. I've already updated the cladogram on Therizinosaur to follow it, since it seems to have better resolution there than on previous ones. Larger changes should wait for more confirmation (like Senter's lack of support for Oviraptoriformes, or Coeluridae within Tyrannosauroidea, which the ICZN mandades would need to be renamed Coeluroidea...). But within individual families, it might be useful. Dinoguy2 04:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paleontologia Africana

Unfortunately, I don't have access to this journal; it's one of the few I've always had trouble with. I'm sorry I couldn't help. Thanks for the Australodocus pdf! J. Spencer 00:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raven FAC

Thanks for the moral support, wanna swing by and make a comment/point out anything we need to rectify etc. on the FAC page? cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 05:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes it's gone!!! I looked at the diff. (well I think it's good news...I ain't seen no note on the Raven page yet...) cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 18:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Triassic geological formations

Hi, Sheep, I was working on the Herrerasaurus article and noticed that articles on triassic geological formations, such as the Ischigualasto formation (actually briefly described in the Ischigualasto article), the Los Colorados formation, and others (check the red links in the Herrerasaurus article) are singularly missing. Firs mentioned that you are the expert in the field and wondered if you could create some of these articles. ArthurWeasley 20:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

Thought you'd be interested, diff. WLU 21:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Albertosaurus

So I have this funny feeling you won't be able to describe Albertosaurus as our shortest featured article anymore. :) Sheep81 03:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holy cow! Yeah, looks like that honor goes to Compy, now... Hey, Sheep, you'll never get past letter A if you keep going back to old articles you worked on! We'll have these enormous articles beginning with A, with tiny, tiny stubs at B thru Z. ;) Seriously, though, the article looks great. I'd ask where you dig all this stuff up, but it's sorta obvious when you provide inline cites and all...

While we're on the subject of dinosaurs (heh), I've compiled a big long list of dinosaur species, and will post it in my userspace tonight. It is immediately apparent that many of these species redirects will have to go to different genera (example: Iguanodon exogirarum -->Ponerosteus, etc). It's suddenly a bigger task that I'd thought! That is, unless we're just redirecting to the original genus that was assigned... Firsfron of Ronchester 05:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scale diagrams

Hey Sheep, have a lot of work going on the next day or two (this is me procrastinating, heh), but after that I'll be free for a few weeks so I'll definitely take a crack at some of those scale diagrams. Dinoguy2 04:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sauropelta again

Hey Sheep!

Gosgood, the editor doing the GA review on Sauropelta, has left a crapload of comments about the S'pelta article; he was very thorough! These problems can be easily fixed, given a bit of time, and he's placed the article on hold. I'm letting you know that I'm available for help if you'd like (not that you need it), but as this is your "baby", I don't want to insert my oar where one paddler is enough. I've got the night off, so there's something I can do, please let me know. Happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 23:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure; let me know when you're done. :) Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 03:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, working on a size chart now. I'm using GSP's skeletal (modified for more spikes), which seems accurate to me, but let me know if you think it's out of date. I'll post it up on image review soon! Dinoguy2 07:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the reviewer's rationale for present tense in a section relating to what it looked like in life, either (because it obviously doesn't look like that now), and I don't think we've done that for any of our articles, so maybe this is something that can be negotiated. I did add a bit to the lead (adding the stages and dating info that we've included in the lead of pretty much every GA and FA) though it could be moved elsewhere if you think it's too cluttered in that sentence. Perhaps something about S'pelta in the Cloverly, or about its diet or lifestyle could be added to the lead, to help expand the lead and get us over that hurdle. I think there are problems with the scale diagram, and have left a note on the image page about the feet. Somehow, it doesn't resemble the feet of the skeletal reconstruction at all, and although I realize some older skeletal reconstructions are now clearly outdated, the size of the feet doesn't seem like something that would change that much. If there is a source on how tall S'pelta might have been (at the shoulder or whatever), that could be added, as we've included that sort of info on some genera. Sometimes the papers don't say, though, so if you've already looked for this information, and it's just not there, I suppose it would be OR to include a height measurement. A citation for " One skull measured 35 centimeters (13.75 in) in width at its widest point" might be good, if it can be cited. Uh... That's all I can think of... Firsfron of Ronchester 14:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it was looking cluttered to me, too, so feel free to revert (Actually, feel free to revert anything I've written), rewrite, or whatever. Your articles always look so professional. If it's better without the stages, kill 'em. I had a feeling the height wouldn't be in there, and since you just linked to Carpenter's paper, it's pretty clear it's not in there. Thanks for the links on the image review page. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 22:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just based on the amount of schoolkid vandalism on dinosaur articles, and the odd questions that pop up on talk pages ("Was Triceratops related to rhinos?", etc) I think there are a lot of schoolkids using our articles for their reports on dinosaurs, and the age of the fossils is something that should probably be mentioned in the lead, because that's pretty basic information anyone would probably want to find out, and what kid is going to dig through to the bottom of an article to find that information? I recall in sixth grade (or something) having to do a report on a dinosaur that each student picked from a hat; I don't even remember the dinosaur I had to do my report on, but it was something obscure not mentioned in the World Book, and I had difficulty finding the information... Firsfron of Ronchester 22:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daspletosaurus

First thoughts -

Very impressive, Sheep! I'm kind of skimming right now, but I'd like to make a couple of comments before I forget. First, I'd make links to the institutions where you have specimen numbers, to give them the proper context. Also, the recent article on Deinonychus pack hunting (Roach and Brinkman, 2007) also mentioned face-biting and other suggested social behaviors, so that reference could be included as well.

In the second paragraph of the Social Behavior section, does the Currie ref refer to everything before it in the paragraph? If so, I'd change the order of sentences there so the reference doesn't come after a statement that seems to change the subject.

Otherwise, it looks like tyrannosaurs are going to reclaim first place for most FAs for a family, which was tied with the ceratopsids after Styracosaurus. :) J. Spencer 03:41, 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)

I took care of the institutions, since I was in the area. I do have the Deinonychus ref, and I'll send that along; I stuck a mention of it in the "Social Behavior" section for further modification. J. Spencer 03:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sheep, thanks for the positive ID! I think they must have re-cast the skull sometime in the last 5 years, since in other photos I've found online from the libratus days the skull looks er... more like Gorgosaurus. When I was there last year it was labelled Daspletosaurus, not sure if it was identified specifically as D. torosus though. I need to remember to take pictures of the labels too... Dinoguy2 06:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holy cow, Sheep!

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I hearby award you the Tireless Contributor Barnstar for your work on Daspletosaurus, Sauropelta, Antarctopelta and Dinosaurs in popular culture. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are all commons images, and the ones you've pointed out do look like copyvios. Do you have a commons account, Sheep? You can list them for deletion on Commons:Deletion_requests. I have no powers to delete commons images. Sorry. :/ Firsfron of Ronchester 07:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am a worthless peon over there. But then, I am a worthless peon over here, too, but I have a mop! I do very little over at Commons, so it never made sense for me to request adminship over there, and while they had planned at one time to make global accounts, it never happened, and the projects remain seperate, so the extra tools don't transfer over. The deletion listing is pretty self explanatory, but if you have problems, let me know. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you get the images listed, Sheep? Isn't it really late there? What are you still doing up? Firsfron of Ronchester 08:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for single handedly reverting every single bliming edit I made to Daspletosaurus. Very nice of you. >( Spawn Man 05:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to keep all the talking on the Daspi talk page - Spawn Man 08:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction - I'm talking about changes to the Daspi article whilst you are bitching at me about how unclear I am & how unreasonable I am. For someone who has back the project so much, I thought I might have gotten a little more courtesy than that. I guess I'll just discuss all the things I'm going to delete from the article on my own there then eh? ;) Spawn Man 08:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ohew! Isn't someone in a sulky mood then? Are you ready to rejoin the discussion at Dsepi or not? It wouldn't feel right changing that one sentence without discussing it through with you first... :) Spawn Man 08:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, come on. You have to admit, that whole reading it backwards thing was pretty hilarious. I mean, it took like foreeever to do that . ;) Spawn Man 08:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er... wha? If I was a dog, one of my ears would be up and my head would be tilted sideways. Sheep81 08:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You funny.... Spawn Man 08:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh... I hadn't even seen what you wrote on Talk:Daspi until just now. I thought that comment was meant for someone else's talk page, haha. Now I get it. Sheep81 08:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually, the consensus was that there wasn't too much Gorgi stuff. Nobody, not even you, have explained why that one sentence can't be removed or replaced. And considering there's only been like 3-4 people in the discussion, I'd hardly say I'm the minority consensus here considering you're impartial... Spawn Man 08:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sheep, I think you're acting childishly. I've asked you a new question & you don't even give me the blatant courtesy of answering it. Grow up & stop acting like a spoilt child. I've been nice & this will be the 2nd time I'll be asking you the same thing, with nothing other than discussing the article. If you're not on this site to discuss article growth what the hell are you actually here for? Now, the consensus was that there wasn't too much Gorgi stuff. Nobody, not even you, have explained why that one sentence can't be removed or replaced (The sentence included about the orbit). When you stop sulking around, you might want to engage in some adult-like conversation. There's nothing here for you to complain about now; it's a new question, its perfectly reasonable & its nothing to do with our somewhat strained relationship. Now can you please join the grown up world & discuss the article. Regards, Spawn Man 11:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say keep the sentence as the other two serve as references - T rex cos it is well known and gorgi cos it occurs in the same place.cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 11:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reply

how does this caption relate to the image other than the fact that there are teeth in it?

It also has a face which might get bitten. Not a tight relationship, but not super tenuous. Debivort 05:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

Sorry for being short with you up there, but you were being difficult. Now, I think it would be in everyone's interests if we could return & continue discussing the article? If you answered my question above too, that would be great also. Cheers, Spawn Man 03:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get paid?! I get a cheque every month signed from Jimbo! ;) Honestly though, do you feel that one sentence is right? It says the orbit was a cross between Gorgi & T rex - what's up with that? Why not say a cross between some other random dinos? Or better yet, say that the orbit was nothing like, shall we say, Anchisaurus? Do you get what I mean? It's just plain wierd to compare the orbit to Gorgi's. Sure the other stuff is fine about them living together, but this is about comparing body parts. It would be like saying my name had a "n" in it, the same as Firsfron. Why compare my name to Firsfron? Dinoguy2 has a "n", so why not say Dinoguy instead of Firs? Get my drift? It's just weird... Spawn Man 06:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well why not any of the other tyrannosaurids? Let's list them all. And on Trex's description page we can have how different its teeth are to Gorgi's & Daspi's & so on & so on. The only reason I'm brining this up is because I've written 5 dino FAs now & not one of them has this much material on a relationship between the dinosaur & another one. Not even Trex & that lived with numerous other dinosaurs. And even if we did tell the reader that Daspi's orbits were different to Gorgi's, what is that adding to the article? We'd have to know the specifications of both Gorgi's & Trex's before actually being able to visualise Daspi's orbits then... It's just insane! Spawn Man 06:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mistake me for someone else who gives up easily Sheep. ;) Well why isn't there a Gorgi or Daspi mention in Trex's article? For us to visualize the orbit, we'd have to know the specifications of both Gorgi's & Trex's before actually being able to visualise Daspi's orbit. Can you tell me the specifications of both Gorgi's & Trex's orbits? Probably no for the average reader - therefore if we can't imagine nor know what Rex's & Gorgi's orbits are then why are Daspi's compared to them? And if you think we're going aorund in circles, it's because you're not giving a defined answer. Spawn Man 07:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you actually say "The orbit (eye socket) was a tall oval, somewhere in between the circular shape seen in Gorgosaurus and the 'keyhole' shape of Tyrannosaurus" - that gives me no clues as to what Gorgi's orbits are other than circular. Plus, what the hecks a keyhole shape? Between keyhole & circular I could imagine a dozen or so shapes. Why not just say that Daspi had oval orbits & be done with it? There's simply no reason outside of extra, trivial information to link that sentence to Gorgi or Trex. Spawn Man 07:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well thanks for getting personal at the end there by comparing me to less than a first grader, a tar pit & that no one ever agrees with me. If you want to resort to name calling & insults I'm not going to stoop to your level because you'll just beat me with experience. If you want to keep the sentence, be my guest. My attempt to help you has been washed away by your onslaught of ungratefulness & I hope we never cross paths in the future as you've probably destroyed any chance of friendship we might have had because you couldn't be bothered explaining nor taking the time to be patient with me. Thanks a lot Sheep. And I don't require the last word on everything, but it just so happens that I'm the last one speaking now. Goodnight and try to not let this argument spill over into the project, but I'm sure someone will notice my absence on your projects & vice versa. Mind you, you're the valued one & I'm just the ignorant first grader. Spawn Man 08:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eocursor??

Good lord you are quick, this hasn't even hit the DML yet. I'm really excited to read about this actually, but I can't find it on the Royal Society site anywhere, not even an abstract. Sheep81 07:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it on the BBC news site, but someone already "scooped" me and started the article. Unfortunately, they wrote an article under the binomial name, so I moved it over and did a bit of expanding. We won't be able to do a lot more expanding until we at least have the abstract. I had done a bit of searching on the DML, but as you say, they don't even know about it yet. So we'll have to wait for an anouncement, abstract, and hopefully the whole paper. Until then, this article's a bit brief... Firsfron of Ronchester 07:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention: I'm really excited, too! An early ornithschian which isn't based solely on teeth! I really want to know what the sacrals and pubis look like (BBC has a SH skeletal up, but that looks too complete to be real). Firsfron of Ronchester 08:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PDF here! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 00:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woohoo I'm first!

Yeah baby, Archive 10 will be MINE!

Aaanyway... I just went through our pride and joy Velociraptor. Didn't really add anything new, just copyediting and formatting, general cleanup and so forth. Would you mind copyediting my copyedits if you have the time? Thanks! Sheep81 07:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bwah! Yes, I saw the copyedits. Will take a look. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you made a lot of changes. This may take me a while, sorry. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, cleaning up Origin of birds is a great idea, I'll look through my stuff and see if there's anything I can expand on or add later tonight, do some further cleanup if needed, etc. I agree with you on the Velociraptor taxonomy stuff. I'll see if I can summarize the important points and merge the rest into Dromaeosauridae. Dinoguy2 08:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I haven't had much time to work on this, but I agree with your points on my talk page. Bone similarities are the key feature we should focus a lot of the article on. There's quite a bit of this on Deinonychus and Archaeopteryx that could probably just be lifted and modified into something more general... Dinoguy2 09:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you're taking a keen interest in my articles, Sheepy. In any case, hopefully we can more beyond your shortcomings (kidding, seriously...) ;) Anyway, hope you liked the article. I've enlisted Arthur Weasley as an image creator for my non-dinosaurian articles. He really is brilliant. Anyway, Spawn Man 06:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, Sheep. I finally finished a review of Daspletosaurus. I didn't make any changes myself, though of course I could have, because I didn't want to make unfounded changes. The text is clear and easy to read. After peer review, I would definitely support this for FA!

user:Orangemarlin has asked me for assistance on Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event. We've been working on this article quite a bit, fixing the prose and adding bits and references. Could you perhaps take a look at the article and give a little input on areas you think could use work in terms of lack of depth or breadth (such as important topics you think the article should cover which are not currently presented in the article, or poorly represented)? Firsfron of Ronchester 09:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to supporting on Wednesday. Hopefully, someone else will give some input on the article before then, but you can't force people to give an opinion... until it's there on FAC, and they realize it will become a FA unless they stick their oars in right then. Sleep well; those do sound like long hours. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commas or parentheses for scientific name in opening sentence and elsewhere

(Now that was a long header wasn't it?) There's a debate here about commas versus parentheses for scientific names for organisms (well in this case birds). I'm not sure whether this has been raised elsewhere but would be good to establish once and for all here and could apply as MOS across all biology articles. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!!!

Well folks, thanks to your reviews and comments, the Fightin' Texas Aggie Band is now a featured article on Wikipedia. It should take a day or so to update, but it's a done deal. Thanks for the help, Sheep81. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cranky?

Having a bad day? I'm not attacking a featured article (and, please be aware that even featured articles change over time), just thinking that T-rex's last section reads awkwardly and contains an odd selection of examples. It looks like a random example or two was selected in several categories. A list format would focus on the distinct categories in popular culture rather than on the selected examples. And I thought the movie section carried too much weight in the paragraph, and so added Garcia's work (a modest effort but recently made into a cable film) to expand the written material section. That same flaw is obvious on the associated popular culture article as well. Books are seriously ignored, I always think books are more important than movies, anyway. So, you can revert -- you've hardly offended me -- but being defensive of minor changes to any article is hardly the Wiki way. Best wishes...........WBardwin 08:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sheep,

Thanks for your note. I agree the material added probably doesn't rank up there with the other pop culture references. Thank you for retaining the prose, and thank you for not reverting more than 3 times in 24 hours. The last thing Wikipedia needs is a blocked Sheep81. :/ I've left a note on WB's talk page, explaining the delicate position we're in here regarding bulleted lists. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... The problem has died down now, but I doubt I'd be much help as I'm not an admin. In any case, you were right. However, what worries me more is not the fact someone was adding unnotable links to the main T rex article when there's a perfectly suitable place just down the road, but rather the fact that no one has picked up on the fair use picture in the T rex article in that section which has no fair use rationale & wasn't there when the article got featured. It would have most certainly been removed during any FAC & it should be replaced on the T rex in Pop culture article or removed from the article sicne there's a representative picture there already. Anyway, thanks for the heads up, but I always have faith in Firsfron to do the right thing. Regards, Spawn Man 10:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a nice thing to say! Thank you, Spawn. :) (And now I'm guaranteed to slip up...) Firsfron of Ronchester 10:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right, get a room you two. This is my talk page! Hehe... j/k Sheep81 10:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol! Can't you tell we're both typing form the same hotel room already? ;) It's funny because I just removed the picture, but you're welcome to comment on the removal on the section I created on the article's talk page. I thought it was for the best & have given my rationale there. Anyway, I've got to go & thank AW for his great pictures & possibly give him some more work in the near future. See ya, Spawn Man 10:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen (I assume), you are both being defensive and I think unnecessarily so. No one has ever called me a problem before! I'll have to add that to my award list. I'm no newby and I have worked on (gasp) Dinosaurs before, even on the (much earlier) T-rex article. I even created a dinosaur article on a new find in Utah. But your pop section reads like a list because it came from a list and so I formatted it as a list to see what was really in there. As written, it is not worthy of a featured article. It needs to be rewritten in a historical context, i.e. the initial popular imagery arising from the representations/models of early finds and how that image has changed (slowly, since about the 1960's if I remember it right). I have a book by Horner (I think), that talks about the popular image of T-rex, its origins, and errors. That would be a good start. Then, I would eliminate all "pop" examples, except those that represent examples of how T-rex's image changed over time, i.e. King Kong vs Jurassic Park. The list article needs a great deal of work, and is way out of balance, but "popular culture" is one of Wikipedia's biggest weaknesses. As for Garcia, he came to the top of my head as I was thinking about what else could be added, so he can stay or go. Sawyer is a much better scifi example. If you think your "army" of reverters would stand for it, I'll add the section to my to-do list. Best.......WBardwin 23:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sheep,

I understand your frustration (even share it) but was "two shits" necessary? That seems like strong wording for a user who is clearly trying to contribute; he probably shouldn't have posted his response in three different places, and he doesn't understand the delicate situation we're in with these articles, but he is trying to help, even if the original contribution wasn't formatted very well. Just food for thought, and the last thing I want to do is upset you further. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I regret it. I wasn't even that mad until I found out he went out and posted the discussion on an article talk page... there was no reason for that. Anyway, sorry. Sheep81 07:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sheep!

Were you able to find a picture of Styracosaurus ovatus for LadyofHats? Firsfron of Ronchester 03:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ironic coming from me, but you should calm down about the whole trex in pop culture debarcle. I just read your comments on the trex talk page & thought, whilst amusing, could be taken to heart by the editor. I do think he has good intentions and would probably respond better to a calm word from someone else. I'd suggest taking a break from the whole situation. Anyway, just thought I'd state the obvious. Cheers, Spawn Man 07:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Hey, I haven't finished yet! Still have 3-4 Psittacosaurus headshots to do, but thanks for the barnstar. Cheers. ArthurWeasley 15:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Benosaurus

No, I have not seen any "physical" emails (bit of an oxymoron there, but you know what I mean). I was concerned, and still am, that Todd may indeed have said yes (which Benosaurus interpreted as carte blanche and then went through licensing tags until he got one that doesn't put you up for speedy deletion), but either was unfamiliar with the intricacies of copyright law here, or did not know the extent of what Benosaurus wanted to upload, so it may not be a bad idea to check with Todd again to make sure he's aware and cool with it. J. Spencer 14:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just e-mail Todd Marshall for verification. Be sure to mention the number of images being uploaded. If he's cool with it, so much the better. If not, I can delete 'em quickly enough. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Good to get everything cleared up! J. Spencer 15:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know. Glad he was ok with it. Thanks for checking. Any luck with S. ovatus? Firsfron of Ronchester 15:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry to intrude, but I saw your note on J. Spencer's talk page that you had email confirmation from the artist that his photos could be used. This really needs to be documented on the image pages / talk pages so others know it's on the level.

If it's not too much trouble, would you please forward the permission email to the OTRS system so they can mark the images accordingly. Address is at this link. Thanks very much!! -- But|seriously|folks 04:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny...

Whilst editing my new article, Yanoconodon, I stumbled across this old link about this group of mammals being able to eat small dinosaurs. I think I remember reading also that some of these were Pssitacosaurus...? So yeah, thought you might like it as it's kinda wierd how small little furry things started eating dinos. Cheers, ;) Spawn Man 06:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daspletosaurus reply

Hi Sandy! Welcome back from your break! I hate to bother you so soon, but I saw you edited the talk page for Daspletosaurus (thanks btw) and I was wondering if you wouldn't mind running through the article real quick? It's up at FAC right now and I'd love to have the advice of one of Wikipedia's best-known copyeditors. I had a very productive exchange with Tony on an FAC last year and since then I've tried to take his advice to heart. I'd be thrilled to see if I've pulled it off this time. Thanks either way! Sheep81 08:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had a peek, and it looks solid. At first, I was troubled by http://dml.cmnh.org/ as a source, but it seems to be used appropriately (mentioning unpublished), although I'd prefer to see the publisher identified (as a mailing list) in the sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cope

I wonder where that originally came from; I remember first seeing that term in The Dinosaur Heresies. J. Spencer 22:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar alert!

FAC

Sheepy, sorry I didn't get to it, but I see that it passed anyway. Had a quick look at the top, and it appears to be very good. Congrats. Tony 04:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you're back

How's this then - get Tarbosaurus, Alioramus and Gorgosaurus - and Tyrannosauridae to GA for a Featured Topic.....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kewl - I've cut-and-pasted a whole bunch on Gorgy so if you could have a look that would be great and the single best thing at the moment. I just realised as I thought i wasn't sure on the status of Nanotyrannus and what we should do about it. I'll play a bit with Tarbosaurus and give you a hoy later (a few weeks at least) as well.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Marshall dinosaur images

Great! Thanks for helping improve the content here! -- But|seriously|folks 04:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bird origins history

Hey Sheep! The history section is really, really good. Well researched too. I do think it could benefit from a few subheadings, though how exactly to divide it up, I'm not sure. One other addition that could benefit the article as a whole would be more coverage of the 'thecodont' period, i.e., what scientists supported the thecodont hypothesis post-Heilmann, what (if any) bird ancestors they proposed, whether anyone still adhered to the dinosaur theory during that time, etc. I'm not sure how easy this stuff would be to research especially now that the theory is supported by virtually nobody, but it would be pretty interesting. Anyway, good job! Dinoguy2 03:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Majungasaurus

Hi, Sheep;

I'll try to get to it today. J. Spencer 14:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those were the terms I'd figure the jargon police would ticket, except for the ligaments, which I tried to clarify. Looks good. J. Spencer 21:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FACs

Kewl -I'm trying to get this one ready with some last minute tidying and bits of hard to find info (like how much the friggin' things cost in the pet trade which seems to be absent online (!?))...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Majungasaurus

I've read through the article and found nothing wrong with the prose or formatting. As a high-school student, I'm not an expert in any field, much less paleontology. HansHermans 00:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Jurassic Park logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Jurassic Park logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3 special dinos

		The Featured Article Medal
		To Sheepy for his trois featured dinos...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:JPvelociraptor.png

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:JPvelociraptor.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 12:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jackaranga 12:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

pronunciation link

Hi,

I've noticed that you've added some nice IPA to many of the dino articles. We've got a more succinct IPA chart for English words now, accessible through the {{IPAEng}} template, as part of an attempt to standardize Wikipedia. I thought you might like to help switch over. (I've already converted a thousand or so articles, and the thought of doing all the dinos too is a bit much right now.) One point, it's common to use <r> in a broad transcription of English, rather than <ɹ>, and that's what we're going with. kwami 09:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We want Acro!

We want Acro! We want Acro! We want Acro! (when you can get around to it) J. Spencer 22:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hee! It is a great article. Where are you, dude? That field excursion was weeks ago. 'Course, maybe you found something really interesting... ? Firsfron of Ronchester 01:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acro

Sorry I have been away... got kinda busy at work after I got back, and then it got even more busy what with the absolutely ridiculous amounts of fire just freaking everywhere a couple weeks ago. Since then I have been drinking a lot (it was Halloween!) and being lazy (my natural state). But I just de-redlinked the article and I'm okay with sending it to FAC if you think it's ready (hint: yes). Sheep81 06:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bwah! It's a great article, and I don't have any objections. I was getting worried, because I knew you were in southern California. Glad to know the evacuations and whatnot didn't affect you. Oh... forgot to mention: your Majungasaurus was featured on the main page of Veropedia for a week! Also: there's a Veropedia now. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to know you're well; also: what is wrong with that state? Mudslides, earthquakes, fires... Seems more like The Apocalypse State than The Golden State. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - we even seen all the bushfires on the telly here in Oz...Sheepy wanna do the honours? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, just remembered I was gonna put some stuff from Raptor Red in it but never got round to it...no biggie really...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I wanted to do a tyrannosaurid featured topic at somestage and cut and pasted and put some stuff into Gorgosaurus - it's probably missing some stuff still but what else? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm ready - go Acro! (My talk page is red because on someone once screwed up their formatting and made the following font a different color, and I liked the effect and decided to implement it. I should change it to something else now that it's been red for a while). J. Spencer 14:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Man of a thousand references

Hi Sheep,

I have over a hundred pdfs on dinosaurs, but I'm running low on fresh references for Massospondylus. I'm specifically looking for:

Attridge, J., A.W. Crompton, and F.A. Jenkins, Jr. (1985). The Southern African Liassic prosauropod Massospondylus discovered in discovered in North America. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 5:128–132.
Hinic, S. (2002). The cranial anatomy of Massospondylus carinatus Owen, 1854 and its implications for prosauropod phylogeny. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 22(3, suppl.):65A.
Martinez, R.N. (1999). The first South American record of Massospondylus (Dinosauria: Sauropodomorpha). Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 19(3, suppl.):61A.
Yates, Adam M. and Vasconcelos, Cecilio C. (2005) Furcula-like clavicles in the prosauropod dinosaur Massospondylus. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology DOI: 10.1671/0272-4634(2005)025[0466:FCITPD]2.0.CO;2

Any ideas on how to obtain these without a subscription to BioOne, etc? The American Museum of Natural History Digital Library has tons of free pdfs, but apparently not a single one on a prosauropod. I'd like to expand the article further, but it's not possible without more sources. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :) Can the non-pdfs be scanned, or...? Firsfron of Ronchester 04:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet! I really appreciate it. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have refs 1 (Seebacher, 2001, which I got from you, and it's great), 2 (Bonnan and Senter, 2007), 3 (The Dinosauria 2nd ed), 7 is the paleobiology database, 13 (Dinosauria 1st ed), 14 (same), 19 (Sander et al, 2005), 21 (Reisz et al, 2005), 22 (Wedel, 2007), 23 (Erickson et al, 2007), 24 (O'Connor & Claessens 2005), and some I didn't add yet: Bonnan and Yates (2007), Langer and Benton (2006, from you); Hutchinson (2001), Irmis (2004), Nesbit et al (2007), Wilson (2005), a few others. Let me know if you need the full titles (I'm being lazy). You probably have all of these, but you're welcome to them if you don't. I also have some other curiosities, if you're interested. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I sent three papers from Special Papers in Palaeontology 77, all on basal sauropodomorphs. Enjoy! I was surprised I had anything you didn't already have. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention: no, I haven't seen the Gow papers. Is there something really important in them? Firsfron of Ronchester 07:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paleontological Institute of Russian Academy of Sciencies

The title of this article is spelled wrong. Can we move the content and history over to a new article with the correct spelling? Thanks! Sheep81 (talk) 03:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better? :) If there's no article with the correct title, you can just move it yourself (using the "move" tab), and it will preserve the article history. Hope this helps! Firsfron of Ronchester 03:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I knew it! You're User:Willy on Wheels! The editing is so similar, you know. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only time an admin has to move a page is when there's already an existing page with a history of editing to it. Then the two articles have their histories merged, to preserve the GDFL. You can request admin tools if you'd like; with your record of contributions, you'd be a shoo-in. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I had a feeling that would be your answer (it is, after all, just a glorified janitorial position). If you ever change your mind, let me know, and we'll make a bitchin' nomination page for you. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy T-Day, yourself. :) I hope you have a great meal. I'm stuffed with pumpkin pie and had to take a nap for a few hours. Too much food! Firsfron of Ronchester 04:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://gl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaxe:Tarbosaurus080eue.jpg

(Pardon. My english is too bad) The photo was taken in a exhibition in Galicia. It was taken a long time ago. Nonmemory the name of the exhibition --Lmbuga ^{to speak} 14:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution

Fair enough. I just noticed that other editor tagging the article with the word theory. He was probably an ID fan? His only contributions to date were to add "theory" to that article. I figured by linking the word back to Theory#Science it would shut him/her and his buddies continually trying to hit the article up. I mean how many times a day does the evolution page get hit? I guess no matter what happens people are still going to attack the page. My edit in my opinion would have at least slowed some of the attackers down because they see the word theory after the word they hate "evolution" and this comforts them somewhat? If we are continually reverting edits just to be rid of the word theory when in fact Evolution is regarded as a scientific theory seems a waste of our time in my opinion. Sting_au Talk 14:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrant cladogram

Check out what I did with the cladogram on Tyrannosauroidea and tell me what you think, good/bad/whatever. Sheep81 (talk) 07:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that sort of... OR? The Dinosauria 2nd puts Alectrosaurus, Alioramus, Bagaraatan, Dryptosaurus, Eotyrannus, Itemirus, Labocania, and Santanaraptor at the base of Tyrannosauroidea, with Stokesosaurus. Is mixing cladograms really a good idea? It seems like unpublished research. Wouldn't it be better to just include two (even three) different cladograms, showing three different recent proposals? If space is a factor, you can do what I've done on Massospondylus and use the <small></small> and type "clade|style=font-size:75%" to make the cladogram fit better onto the page. If it was just the same author (like Holtz) revising his own work in subsequent publications, that would be one thing, but...Firsfron of Ronchester 08:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think that's better. Where are Itemirus and Santanaraptor in the Holtz cladogram? Firsfron of Ronchester 19:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alioramus Diagrams

Hi sheep, shouldn't be a problem, I'll do the skull diagram first, do you have any images of the metatarsals with a scale bar (it be nice if they actually looked like they should) thanks :) Steveoc 86 (talk) 11:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]