Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Could you possibly help out at Dearcmhara with the addition of a taxobox? Unfortunately I'm not sufficiently expert enough to be able to generate one myself. Prioryman (talk) 22:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, currently we are checking a new reconstruction for Ichthyornis here [1], particulary about the extension of the beak. Could you help us?--Rextron (talk) 01:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I saw your request on Dinogoss for information about the Sophie specimen. Sophie is the same as Sarah, previously exhibited at Aathal. The museum published a short brochure "The Stegosaurs of the Sauriermuseum Aathal" in 2009. It is available as a free pdf from their site (though presently, I can't access the link for some reason). Anyway, from this booklet it is clear that the plates were found in a pretty good articulation. Their sequence seems to be authentic. Only two plates were overlapping a bit, so a Czerkas-style mount was chosen. I like the new restorations you're working on. As regards the "thick skin" hypothesis: a fat layer of skin embedding the plate would not have improved plate mobility. To improve mobility soft tissue below the plate base would be necessary. Perhaps the narrow "neck" of the plate was covered in skin forming a sort of pedestal which would have allowed for a high mobility and yet assured a good attachment.--MWAK (talk) 10:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi there,

I just wanted to clear up why I posted that photo on the T. rex talk page. Basically, there's a user on the Italian T. rex page who simply refuses to remove it from the article, despite the anatomical inaccuracies you mentioned. His argument is that the model was displayed in the grounds of the Natural History Museum of Milan (where they'd presumably want to reconstruct the animal as accurately as possible), that the wikimendia commons criteria for saurian anatomical accuracy are BS, and that your own feathered reconstruction was baseless fanboy amateur artwork... He adamantly refuses to accept any criticism of the model, ignores phylogenetic bracketing, and cites an old 1990s Kazuhiko Sano poster ([see here http://www.kazusano.com/portfolio-images/430-7445.jpg]) as "proof" that his reconstruction is valid, simply because it was shown on a 2014 Scientific American article.

His argument for keeping the image, aside from his belief that it is perfectly accurate, is that it is needed to illustrate the size difference between rex and humans... I proposed showing a photo of the Stan or Sue skeletons surrounded by crowds of people, but he refused to contemplate it.

Basically, considering the user's profile indicates he can speak English, I was wondering if you could contribute to this discussion, as I know you're much more well informed on the topic than I am. The discussion is here at the bottom. I'd love it if the Italian article could reflect the scientific rigor of the English one.

If you don't feel like it, would it be possible to send me the emails of relevant authorities who could comment on the model?

Thanks in advance! Mariomassone (talk) 18:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I have this page on my watchlist, and as I said before, the image is "illegal" under Italian copyright law, so you can just have it deleted. That would be easier than a long discussion, anyhow. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi FunkMonk! The image is not on commons, but on the Italian wiki itself. Would that still be illegal? Cheers! Mariomassone (talk) 18:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, because the uploader has released it under a CC license, but according to Italian law, the sculptor owns the copyright to the photo. That means that if it was to be used on the Italian Wikipedia, it would be under fair use, in small resolution, and therefore it would be useless compared to all the free images we have available. FunkMonk (talk) 19:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

See T. rex talk page. Mariomassone (talk) 19:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

In case it may be helpful, here's a blog post about why paleontologists often make awful advisers for dinosaur life appearance.[2] Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

You may also want to try contacting Andrea Cau, a prominent Italian paleontologist who knows what he's talking about and would know instantly that the model is laughably bad. I don't have his email but he is on Twitter and Facebook. Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I sent him a message, as well as some to Gregory S. Paul, Thomas Holtz jr, Philip Curie and Luis Rey. So far, only Holtz has responded, confirming excatly what you said. Mariomassone (talk) 21:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I've been looking at wp categories (checking for consistency etc) and I've come across categories like Category:Immediate step-children/Tawa. These categories don't follow some of the normal rules/conventions for categories (e.g. that categories for templates have a name that includes "templates", "navboxes" etc). Also, these categories haven't been tagged (on the talk page) by a project which is unusual. As you created Template:Taxonomy/Tawa hallae and placed it in one of these categories (actually a redlink category for many months) I was wondering if you could explain a bit about what these categories are (e.g. a link to a project page). DexDor (talk) 18:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Theropoda, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tawa. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Dinoguy2. Great to be working with you on Brontosaurus again, seven years later! Are you able to copy-paste the references cited in the Classification section from Apatosaurus? I could help, but I suspect we'll end up tangled in edit conflicts. If you'd rather work on other stuff for now let me know and I'd be happy to do it! — JEREMY 16:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure, just have to figure out why they didn't come over, must be in a different section! Dinoguy2 (talk) 16:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Usually a bot carries them over after some time, but let's see... FunkMonk (talk) 16:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Brontosaurus

added links pointing to Albany County and Truncated

Diplodocus

added a link pointing to ICZN

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello Dinoguy2, explanation: I added this reference to the brontosaurus and Diplodocus‎ articles thinking the reference would provide a reader more information to explore (it did for me as non-expert), which you reverted since there was a non-blog reference already [blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/2015/04/24/that-brontosaurus-thing] Sorry If I used the reference incorrectly. Jcardazzi (talk) 15:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yi qi (dinosaur), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Qinglong County. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

ThaddeusB (talk) 17:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

I'm very interested in dinosaurs. I look at Wikipedia page about Argentinosaurus with many pictures and I see that pictures. But I'm asking you because I'm confused with its long neck. What is the difference between Argentinosaurus and Apatosaurus? The other question, are you an archeology or just working at the museum?

Thank you.

IreneTandry (talk) 13:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Mosasaur page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Istiodactylus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Britain. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Can you tell me your opinion about my edit? It is good or bad? Here it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dreadnoughtus&type=revision&diff=670849677&oldid=670848045 One user named Tarlneustaedter reverted it because he thinks that "You're still adding meaningless and misleading precision", but if I'm not wrong, the difference between 22–38 tonnes and 22.1–38.2 tonnes is neither meaningless nor misleading precision. I'm also corrected the source about the downsizing of Dreadnoughtus. As you can, the doi of the "two" source is exactly the same. Please anwser as soon as possible. If you think my edit is bad, you can revert it, but if you think it's good, please tell to Tarlneustaedter and WolfmanSF not to revert it. Thank you! Christina1969 (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Greetings!

I am happy to introduce you to the new WikiProject Evolutionary biology! The newly designed WikiProject features automatically updated work lists, article quality class predictions, and a feed that tracks discussions on the 663 talk pages tagged by the WikiProject. Our hope is that these new tools will help you as a Wikipedia editor interested in evolutionary biology.

• Browse the new WikiProject page
• Become a member today! – members have access to an opt-in notification system

Hope to see you join! Harej (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Ankylosauridae page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, could you make a new size comparison image for Kentrosaurus; a green one? Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 20:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Having seen your Euoplocephalus size diagram, I think you'd do a better Kentrosaurus diagram. LittleJerry (talk) 03:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lissamphibia, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Apoda and Anura. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, an IP has pointed out that your Smilodon size comparison[3] seems to show the size of the largest species populator, but is labeled as the "middle size" species fatalis. Could the label either be changed, or the other species added? The article will soon be nominated for FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! By the way, a reviewer asks what the three metre arrow is for, is it a mistake? And would you be able to add S. gracilis if I found a measurement for it? No measurements are given for its shoulder height in the source (Antón 2013), but it says it was the size of a jaguar, which according to our jaguar article, would be 63 to 76 cm. FunkMonk (talk) 05:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

This paper[4] has illustrations with measurements of various elements, and also make comparisons with jaguars. Apart from that, here are some measurements[5] from this[6] paper. The species is known from scrappy remains, so it seems definitive measurements are hard to come by. FunkMonk (talk) 13:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Dear Dinoguy2 my edits are only to place aves in a monophyletic classification, aves does not branch from tetrapoda, but from dinosauria wich is inside class Sauropsida, i try to keep myself up to date with the newest cladistics and is a scientific consensus that birds are indeed dinosaurs so why it does not apper on the taxobox? Some uneducated folks say "birds are not dinosaurs they are tetrapods, i read on wikipedia" so i try to fix the ehole misconception about birds being sauropsids. sorry if i offebnded you, but can you understand my viewpoint? i am just a guy that loves biology and cladistics and i try to remove any artificial/paraphyletic/polyphyletic.. groups and replace with monophyletic ones. Sorry my grasmmar i am portuguese — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinnodal (talk • contribs) 00:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

So can just display class sauropsida in birds? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinnodal (talk • contribs) 17:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)