User talk:Smith609/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Re: Ediacara biota

Hi, thanks for you encouragement, it was my first wikipedia contribution. It seems to me that, from the last 10 or so international meetings about the Ediacara that I have attended that the molecular clock stuff is dead, no one has really talked about it for 4 or 5 years now. Molecular clocks are entirely dependant upon the information that you put into them, if you want a long fuse then you can put data in that will give you one, if you want a cambrian explosion then you can put data in that will give you one. The role of molecular clocks really now is a historical one in that they restimulated debate in the late 1990's. As for the trace fossils, they are completely inconclusive. The whole of the ichnotaxonomy of the Ediacaran is currently under revision, with new synonomies being published every month and many forms being reinterpreted as abiological or as microbial body fossils. I thought that the Cambrian Explosion article was excellent in this regard (see particularly section 3.5 on molecular phylogenetics) and perhaps some material could be copied across or cross referenced in the Ediacara article. Bt my skills wiki are not up to this yet...

As for the Charnia article, i thought that i would have a go. One particular problem is that the main image on the Charnia article shows the 'holotype of Charnia wardi' in fact the specimen shown is the holotype of Charnia masoni, but i didn't know how to change it, i can't find an edit box for the caption... Charnia wardi is a Newfoundland taxon and was described in 2003, while Charnia masoni is the iconic form that was first described in 1958 from strata in England.

Cheers JBA2008(talk)

citation tool

Hi, I came across your pretty citation tool. I'm working on a tool which is also supposed to facilitate referencing. It is a database storing reference information about books and journal entries. See User:Jakob.scholbach/zeteo for a description and [1] for the database. I wanted to ask whether you are interested in cooperating somehow. I very much like the feature you offer with your google.scholar search which automatically (how?) transforms the google output into something usable for WP. Can you tell me how you programmed this thing? If I can do something for you, let me know. Cheers, Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:Greenhouse and Icehouse Earth

aww, thanks! i just thought i'dd try to create a template that explains the differences between what everything is, and give them easily-understood and unambiguous definitions. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 17:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Broken timeline template?

See Cambrian explosion -- the timeline is a mess on my side of the screen (Firefox and IE). This may be due to the new parser preprocessor, see here. Since you wrote the bulk of the timeline templates used here, I hope you can find the time to take a look. Mira Gambolputty (talk) 00:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. The new preprocessor has broken {{for loop}}. I'm hoping kind soul will fix it soon! Verisimilus  00:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

SmackBot and inuse

It would be great if your bot could be trained to respect "inuse" tags, and not to make edits to pages so marked. Verisimilus T 17:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Set to do this now. No guarantees I don't accidentally turn this option off. Rich Farmbrough, 15:36 30 January 2008 (GMT).

Edits to fossil plant articles

Please stop making up "facts" and inserting them into plant articles. It is clear from many of your edits that you do not understand plant classification, nomenclature, evolution, or morphology. You claimed that Kenrick and Crane classified Tortilicaulis as a stem-group lycopod, which is flatly wrong; all of their diagrams place it with Horneophyton. In the same article you made claims about the spore morphology of the genus, but provided no reference. All the sources I have looked in state that spores have never been recovered from Tortilicaulis specimens. You also claimed that one article had said the plant was considered a trimerophyte, but the article you cited said exactly the opposite; that the two groups could no longer be see as being closely related.

Likewise, in the Equisetopsida article, you changed "fused megaphylls" to "fused microphylls", but this is wrong. The ancestors of Equisetum (like Sphenophyllum) had megaphylls. A megaphyll is a leaf with a branching network of veins. Microphylls develop with a single, unbranched vascular strand and only occur in the Lycopodiophyta. On that same page, you re-wrote the introduction so as to destroy the cited information from Smith et al. You cannot rewrite information cited from an article to suit your own ideas. The information is cited because that is what the source said.

All these mistakes and incorrect information creates a lot of cleanup for other editors. Please stick to writing text for articles where you have some experience. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Look at the cladograms on p.129 & 130 (e.g.). The Horneophytopsida clade includes Caia, Horneophyton, and Tortilicaulis. See also p.134 where they discuss this clade: "The early and rather poorly understood fossils Caia langii and Tortilicaulis offaeus were always grouped with Horneophyton on the basis of branched sporangia." Elsewhere, where they discuss Tortilicaulis, they are usually reporting the opinion or conjecture published by others, or are describing the characteristics. The placement of Tortilicaulis is rather explicit in the volume, so I don't understand why you are trying to infer placement from passages that do not even mention the taxon.

I still see no information about spore ornamentation in the genus in the Kenrick and Crane volume. Taylor & Taylor (p138) explicitly say of Tortilicaulis that "No spores have been isolated from the sporangia". If you have a statement about the spore ornamentation, please quote it and provide a reference. I would be very interested. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the microphyll question, it seems that the concept of a microphyll is somewhat bogus. In the sense I'd been introduced to the term, horsetails have only a single vascular trace, and are therefore mycrophylls by that definition. By your definition they are megaphylls. This reference includes a discussion which I will soon bring in to the articles to clarify points.

I don;t understand what you mean. The fossil record is quite clear that leaves evolved independently in the Lycopodiophyta lineage, and that is the definition of a microphyll. The source you've linked to says: "And while the univeined appendages of Equisetum suggest that they are microphyllous leaves, its fossil representatives, such as species of Sphenophyllum, have more elaborated leaves with dichotomous venation." Even Kaplan agrees that the fossil record shows that the evolutionary origin of the leaves in Equisetum is megaphyllous, whatever the modern morphology may be. There is no indication anywhere that the leaves originated from microphylls. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Graphical Timeline

Well, I didn't fix it completely, I managed to make it less obviously broken, but there is (or was when I stopped working) still an issue with the scalemarkers. I'm not quite sure how to fix that though. Mr.Z-man 18:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well done

Re certain fern-like fossils: You're no angry mastodon. Respect!! Mira Gambolputty (talk) 00:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Timeline

The timeline template on Ornatifilum still doesn't work, leaving a pointless empty section. Suggest repair or deletion.Plantsurfer (talk) 10:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, and many thanks for the explanation. Best wishesPlantsurfer (talk) 12:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Little context in Tumblagooda sandstone

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Tumblagooda sandstone, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Tumblagooda sandstone is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Tumblagooda sandstone, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 12:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I've removed the deletion tag and turned it into a one sentence stub - seemed a but silly to tag an "under construction" page for deletion so fast. Happy editing - Peripitus (Talk) 12:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:Underconstruction

Hi. This is just to let you know that {{Underconstruction}} is for articles that are actively being edited, not for articles that are unfinished but haven't been edited for days. Cheers. --Sturm 22:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Were you referring to a specific article? I hope I've not left one somewhere and forgotten about it. Verisimilus T 22:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

'Twas Timeline of plant evolution. --Sturm 23:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 10 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tumblagooda sandstone, 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.

—Wknight94 (talk) 18:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Link to doc

A tag has been placed on Template:Link to doc requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{tranclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Geological eons/doc

A tag has been placed on Template:Geological eons/doc requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

spermatophyte and gne-pine

Did you have a suggested text for spermatophyte or view of what due weight was for the different hypotheses? I read a number of articles before editing that page (now cited as references, at least most of them) and came to the conclusion that gne-pine (or perhaps gne-conifer) was the hypothesis which should be given the most weight, but that we shouldn't treat it as a done deal. I'm not too attached to exactly what we say here, but unless I'm missing something, the evidence is strong enough to reject some ideas, such as the view of gnetae and angiosperms as sister groups. If so, it seems worth saying so somehow. Kingdon (talk) 02:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Sawdonia ornata.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Sawdonia ornata.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:User:Verisimilus/Template:Horizontal timeline

A tag has been placed on Template:User:Verisimilus/Template:Horizontal timeline requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Permian–Triassic extinction event

Hi, when you get back can you please provide details and refs for: the 3-pulse theory; crumbling support for a fungal spike. Philcha (talk) 09:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the hot gossip about the fungal spike. It was you who mentioned 3 extinction pulses. Philcha (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you want to do the edit about the fungal spike? You did the legwork, you should get the credit. I'll do it in 2 days if not done before then. Philcha (talk) 21:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, we just had an edit conflict. As far as I can see all your changes were in "Methane hydrate gasification" and all mine were in "Dating the extinction", so I just pushed mine though. You might want to check - apologies if I got it wrong. Philcha (talk) 10:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Cite tool

I tried using your Cite tool, but I couldn't get it to generate any WikiText. How does it work? WriterHound (talk) 22:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Name used

Your name is used on my user page User: Hoboguyz

DYK

On March 10, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Supraglacial lake, 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.

Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 07:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Morphometrics

Hi, I don't like to edit this while your Work in Progress template is there, but could you categorise the stub type, as that would leave Category:Stubs blissfully empty (for the moment!). Perhaps {{biology-stub}} or is it {{bioinformatics-stub}}? Cheers, PamD (talk) 15:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

InUse tags

Hi, it doesn't look like you quite got to the bottom of the inuse issue (22nd Jan) - I've just had an edit conflict with SmackBot over at Morphometrics which was tagged with {{inuse}}. Thanks, Verisimilus T 14:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thankks, fixed. (I had escaped a metacharacter.) Rich Farmbrough, 15:10 10 March 2008 (GMT).

Issues of Ids

Your revert, leaves me puzzled about ID. I had look at the template and it seemed as though it was designed to be transcluded multiple times in a page. This would generate multiple elements using the same id name, which is a clear violation of the spec. Perhaps, you mistaken them with classes? — Dispenser 00:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Inuse

Is Snowball earth still {{inuse}}? Rich Farmbrough, 19:12 11 March 2008 (GMT).

Aspidella

Hi I have seen a bed of Aspidella with one over 270 mm. This is just one Aspidella so I am not sure if it can be used as the max limit. Most of the other Aspidella on the bed were around 170-180 mm. I have no cite for this data because it has never been published before. Although, I do have pictures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpaatutl (talk • contribs) 00:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Infobox on Neogene

Hi there again ;-) I'm having difficulties changing the ending of the Neogene in the infobox. Neither "|to=2.59" nor "|period end=2.59" have any effect and the " - 0 million years" remains. As the ending of the Neogene is still debated we should write "23.03 - 2.59 million years ago or until present" and add a small reference link explaining the whos and whys. I'll add a "Q" for Quaternary on the little time bar in the next few hours. Got to go now... Ciao --Gliese876 (talk) 14:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Mh, do not inveigle me to start our personal discussion on the status of the Quaternary :-)) According to the Internat. Stratigraphic Chart there is still a Quaternary. The question is: What will it be? When they move the beginning of the Pleistocene (and Quaternary) to the Piacenzian-Gelasian-boundary (which would be consistent with the Gauss-Matuyama reversal as well as the beginning of the 41kyr-glaciation intervals, which actually state the definition of the Pleistocene as epoch of periodical ice ages) the term "Quaternary" could either become completely erased from the charts or it could remain the period/system comprising the Pleistocene and the Holocene (and according to some homocentric freaks the "Anthropocene"). Killing the Quaternary, however, would mean an extension of the Neogene to the present, which has, nevertheless, not yet been decided! A certain period/system-vacuum currently exists, and I would personally prefer the Neogene being extended to the present day, too, but after all the Quaternary is not disposed of yet... That reminds of numerous other cases of scientific "nostalgy" like the discussion around Pluto's planethood ;-) --Gliese876 (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Mh, Ok. As long as they keep their period/system-vacuum this issue is left to personal interpretation ;-) Not regarding the infobox on Neogene, how about adding a small "Q" in italics to the "infobox time scale" (I wouldn't ask you, if I was convinced of it myself)?--Gliese876 (talk) 16:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Infobox bar

Thanks ;-) --Gliese876 (talk) 20:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

--> Besides the CO2-rounding issue, the seems to be a display error concerning the Template:Geological_period. Certain vertical graphical timelines are wider than others and thus do not fit in the template creating some displaying glitch. --Gliese876 (talk) 20:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your help. There is some last problem remaining though. The vertical graphical timeline of the Ordovician is wider than the others and thus does not fit in the template creating some displaying glitch. For now I left the handwritten table with the article. Furthermore, I think it would be best if we left out the errors and decimals of the chronological range in the new quick fact bar. In my view including them just makes them somewhat unclear, after all the new bars were intended to be quick fact bars ;-) --Gliese876 (talk) 10:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I again realized some glitches with the vertical period bars. The Devonian one for instance. Isn't "Palaeozoic" meant to be written vertically in the bar on the very left? This problem seems to occur with various periods. Moreover, I tested the bars embedded in their new tables with Internet Explorer and found them to be quite distorted. As I do not know nothing about this bar-programming I just wanted to ask if you could take a look sometime? :-) --Gliese876 (talk) 15:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Addition of DOIs to Archaea

Hi there, I've reverted this since having both PMIDs and DOIs is redundant. My personal approach is to include a direct link to the source if it is freely-accessible on line, but include only the PMID if the journal requires a subscription. If a document isn't freely-accessible there isn't much point in putting in a DOI. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does make it easier for those of us with subscriptions, but I've always seen us as 0.01% of the readership of any article. PubMed abstracts are free to access, so there is no subscription involved, eg you can access the PMID 18329362 abstract, but to get the full-text you need to click the "Cell" link and have a subscription. But what do you see as the advantage in having both a direct HTML link to the text of an article, and a DOI? Tim Vickers (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Most of the URLs are to PubMedCentral, which uses the PMID as the identifier and thus will not change. I'd be OK with the bot only adding DOIs to articles that have free full-text, since that could be useful if the main URL did ever break for some reason. However, adding DOIs to restricted-access articles won't help the general reader at all. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, you've convinced me. I think that making it easier for the few readers that do look at the refs is advantageous. I'll replace the DOIs. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

DOI bot

Hello. I was looking at some of the contributions of DOI bot and noticed a few small things. First, in this edit, the added DOI (both of them, actually) has a period at the end (which causes the link to break). Perhaps these could be trimmed?

I also saw a trailing period, but to the Ant article: [2]. « D. Trebbien (talk) 23:48 2008 March 22 (UTC)

Also, in this edit I noticed the URL is the same link created as the DOI link. It might be nice if you could detect URLs of that type and remove them when you are adding the DOI (as now there are two links in the reference to the same place). Just a thought. Keep up the good work. - AWeenieMan (talk) 21:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Both these issues are now resolved. Verisimilus T 10:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I'd think removing the URL when it already points to a DOI is a bad idea. The URL creates a link from the title, the DOI does not. From a user interface point of view, everyone knows what a linked title does, but only a small fraction of readers know about DOIs, and a lot of people are (rightly) hesitant to click on links they do not understand. So if the URL is already a DOI, I think you should leave it. Adding the extra DOI field is fine. I know that this results in a duplicate link, but we are trying first to make a good experience for readers. LouScheffer (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

DOI additions

Hi. First my compliments. This bot is GREAT! I have a question/suggestion though. You now add a note to the DOI (<!--Retrieved from Yahoo! by DOI bot-->). I think it would be convenient to have either a log or a reference to where it actually found the DOI. Could you either give a link to where it actually found the DOI, or e.g. add a reference number for the DOI-search, which corresponds to a number on a sub-page of the bots userpage, where the bot makes a more extensive log? I presume when someone removes a wrong DOI, it will re-insert it when it hits the page again. But keep up the good work, the bot is great as it is! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Geology

Don't know if you are aware, your recent edit has left a redlink to a non-existent list of participants. Pterre (talk) 15:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 9 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Megabalanus, 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.

--Cirt (talk) 06:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Cosmic inflation

Hi Verisimilus. Just a quick note about your DOI bot. It made a change to cosmic inflation that I rectified in this edit. Basically, it changed a wikilink that pointed to Mixmaster universe such that it appeared to point to doi = 10.1088/1751-8113/41/15/155201 . It made some other DOI related changes at the same time, but they look OK to me. Anyway, thought you might like to know. Cheers, --Plumbago (talk) 14:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Winter of Terror (1951)

I added the Winter of Terror (1951) to WP:GEOL as avalanches are geological hazards. I'm not sure I agree with the removal. If an article such as Cave diving is included I can't really see why Winter of Terror (1951) shouldn't be!? Thanks! Nk.sheridan   Talk 23:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, fair enough then. It was a rather tenuous association with geology. I won't put it back in the project. Nk.sheridan   Talk 20:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Category links

Just in case you didn't notice my edit, I figured I should mention that when you generated Wikipedia:WikiProject Geology/List of pages by number of page views (March 2008) you neglected to add a colon at the beginning of the category links. If you're going to generate these lists monthly you might want to add a step to whatever process you're using to insert those. Bryan Derksen (talk) 23:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Video games page viewcount

Hi, I was wondering when we can expect your bot to start reporting on the WikiProject Video games template. Since the template is linked to over 20,000 pages, I wanted to monitor it when the stats do start appearing to make sure everything looked ok. Cheers, JACOPLANE • 2008-04-11 06:18

Ok, please inform me when you've managed to find a server to host your bot. Cheers, JACOPLANE • 2008-04-11 16:45

I see the bot has started the process, it's being discussed here, btw: WT:VG#Viewcount on talk page banner. Cheers, JACOPLANE • 2008-04-23 15:12

There were some more comments on this discussion, and you asked to be pinged if more feedback was required, so here you go :) JACOPLANE • 2008-04-23 19:40

Thanks!

Thanks so much for your citation tool, based on Google scholar. It is very useful! Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 18:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

No content in Category:Mid-importance B-class Geology articles

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Mid-importance B-class Geology articles, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Mid-importance B-class Geology articles has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Mid-importance B-class Geology articles, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 19:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

your comments on Evolutionary history of life

well i think three domain system section should be there, since it gives a good coverage regarding how the domains of life evolved. i will try to address other issues soon. thanks for advice. Sushant gupta (talk) 12:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Pageview bot

This bot has been blocked for high-speed subpage creation. Stifle (talk) 19:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Block of User:Pagecount bot

Please explain your block of this bot, which was operating well within its agreed limit of 10 edits per minute. It is frightfully inconvenient as it takes a great deal of manual editing of code (or time) to start it off where it was blocked. Verisimilus T 19:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't me, try User:MZMcBride. Stifle (talk) 20:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Do us all a favour, delete the bloody code and find something more useful to do with your time. Nick (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, come on. That's a bit uncalled for, isn't it? henrik•talk 21:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry for such a remark, Verisimilus. Nick (talk) 22:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you know, it's been blocked for creating way too many pages. Please see WP:VPT and the BRFA. Stifle (talk) 20:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Happy to unblock if the bot will only be doing data analysis for WikiProjects. Will that work? Also, I assume the subpages can be deleted then? --MZMcBride (talk) 20:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Bot unblocked. Subpages are being deleted. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well that sucks, it was a great initiative, and the comment made by Nick here is wholly uncalled for. I was thinking we could post the page stats on a server off-wiki, which could then be included in the talk page templates. If you're still up for moving this forward (I can imagine you're pissed off) let me know, I'd be happy to help you set up a server so we can do this without needing lots of bot-actions on-wiki. Cheers, JACOPLANE • 2008-04-23 21:45

Someone on the BRFA suggested some kind of switch template. That'd work for WP:VG, I hope.. User:Krator (t c) 12:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The bot has been blocked again, for restarting the same task that it was blocked for previously. Mr.Z-man 00:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

That's odd. Someone else must have run it.... It's now completely incapacitated, so can safely be unblocked. Verisimilus T 07:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I've unblocked it. henrik•talk 10:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry for the inconvenience! Verisimilus T 10:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ocean acidification

Hi Verisimilus. Just to say that I've edited the ocean acidification article a bit since you were there yesterday. I've tried to put the recent Science paper in context by adding more references and discussion. It's not the first paper to have questioned the notion that acidification is bad news for calcifiers, but I'd certainly never made this clear in earlier drafts of the article. Anyway, I'd be very grateful if you could check over what I've done to ensure that it's not just introduced a new bias. Cheers, --Plumbago (talk) 10:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I removed the portion about the potential artifacts introduced by acid vs. CO₂ protocols for simulating acidification. While the Science paper does mention this, it's not a strong point in the paper, so adding it might be confusing (e.g. people might get the idea that all prior work was wrong).

Categorisation

It's all part of my mania for categorising uncategorised categories. For my part, I'm extremely grateful to know that there are folks like you who go around thanking people for doing thankless tasks. Thanks for noticing!  :) Stepheng3 (talk) 14:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Lycopodites.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Hi Verisimilus!
We thank you for uploading Image:Lycopodites.JPG, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 17:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Lepido root top.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Hi Verisimilus!
We thank you for uploading Image:Lepido root top.jpg, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 17:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

{{Inline}}

Hi, you are replacing the template {{inline}} with {{Citations missing}} - for example at Trace fossil. The templates are not the same; indeed the wording is very different. Could you keep the original template in place, please?

All the best

Verisimilus T 16:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed. Up to 10 April they were the same template. Rich Farmbrough 17:41 25 April 2008 (UTC).

4/29 2008

On 29 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article cool tropics paradox, 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.

--Bedford 19:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

List of thelodont genera

Shouldn't those genera be included in the List of prehistoric jawless fish? Good job finding those genera, though! :D Abyssal leviathin (talk) 17:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Well...

Better? ;-) --Gliese876 (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

cite journal template

The fix you suggested for the cite journal template was implemented but had a bug; can you tell what happened? See Template_talk:cite journal#Solution. (I have no experience editing templates, so I don't want to mess with it—it's so much easier to point out bugs than fix them.) ;) ASHill (talk | contribs) 19:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Evolutionary history of plants

We have a problem with reference 58: Osborne2006 which has one of those horrible red messages. Can you help, please? Thanks for all your work on this article. Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 17:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Graptolites

Hi,

I added a bit more to graptolites from Fortey, thanks for integrating my text from last night and my apologies for my initial shoddy work. I was editing in a hurry and didn't read the page through to see where to best place my edit. Thanks! WLU (talk) 22:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I'm limited to what dribblings of understanding I can milk from popular sources like Fortey. My best work in this area is inevitably going to look like what I did on Anomalocaris. But I appreciate that I didn't muck it up completely and thanks again for making it a bit more seamless. WLU (talk) 10:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Milk's Favorite Bot

Just a heads up that I've replied here. Thanks, « Milk's Favorite Cookie ^{( talk / contribs)} 13:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Ma problems at Pygmy Hippopotamus

Hey. One of the recent changes to Template:Ma has caused an issue at Pygmy Hippopotamus. Can you take a look at it? --- RockMFR 19:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)