/User talk:Apokryltaros Archive 1

Hello, how are you? I asked Arthur if he could please draw me a picture of Miacis, as I would like to get this animal to FA status on ca.wiki. It's amazing we still haven't got a picture of such an important extinct animal after all this time. Arthur said he's a bit busy as of late and he referred me to you. So... Would it bother you to draw a Miacis, if you have the time? Thank you in advance. Leptictidium (mt) 08:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. Leptictidium (mt) 12:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to work on it today: remind me to show you progress either 14 hours from now, or on Tuesday (after I've finished voting).--Mr Fink (talk) 12:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! As you requested, I'm reminding you to show me progress :) Leptictidium (mt) 14:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find it looks just great. BTW, are you basing your picture on some individual species or the genus as a whole? Leptictidium (mt) 15:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm basing it on the genus as a whole, though, I'm leaning toward the Early Eocene Wyoming species.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, how are you doing? Have you done any more work on Miacis? Leptictidium (mt) 11:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, exams and family always come first :) Leptictidium (mt) 16:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, just dropped in to ask if Miacis is ready. Leptictidium (mt) 18:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying. Please leave a message on my talk page when it's finished. Leptictidium (mt) 19:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've already begun it on ca:Hyopsodus, but it's still a stub. If I can find some good info, it may well be the next prehistoric mammal I focus on, and I could use the info on .ca and translate it to .en. Leptictidium (mt) 21:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: Just saw the picture, it's great! Cheers. Leptictidium (mt) 21:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, we made Category:Marsupial Lions to hold all of the marsupial lion species. That way, we don't need to add the categories of diprodonts or prehistoric marsupials, what with marsupial lion being placed with Category:Prehistoric Diprotodonts--Mr Fink (talk) 04:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info, Mr Fink. I agree that being a member of the Marsupial Lions category implies being a member of Diprotodonts, Prehistoric Marsupials, etc, etc; (and also Carnivorous Marsupials but you/Hartebeest left that). However, the use of category tags is to assist the average reader to find other articles that belong to the same grouping (see Wikipedia:Categorization for more on this). Removing the tags for Diprotodonts and Prehistoric Marsupials is not helpful as now readers are unable to simply click on the link to see what other articles are in that category. Yes, these may be linked in the body of some or, even all, of the articles affected, but the category box at the end is a nice easy convenient place to branch out from, and maybe learn something more (and, afterall, isn't that Wikipedia's main purpose?). I am ambivalent about the Marsupial Lions tag, although I do feel it is too specific to be of much use (and the Thylacoleonidae article contains the same information) but I am happy to leave it if other editors agree. However, I am going to put back the Diprotodonts and Prehistoric Marsupials tags as the lay reader should not be expected to know that (in this case) Marsupial Lions are Diprotodonts. If you disagree with this, perhaps we could have an open discussion about this on, say, Talk:Thylacoleonidae so we can involve other editors. Regards, Secret Squïrrel 04:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then, should we put the category "Prehistoric Diprotodonts" back in for the time being?--Mr Fink (talk) 04:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean Prehistoric Marsupials + Diprotodonts then yup, I've done it. I left the Marsupial Lions cat. until we see what others think. Cheers, Secret Squïrrel 05:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing Synthetic Cubist art for a videogame set around the Cambrian, and you've done what appear to be the only pieces for some fauna on the net. Excellent works! ChozoBoy (talk) 20:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need anything particular at the moment, but I mention it if I do. We're looking for any common, unique, or dynamic animals (Trilobite, Opabinia, Anomalocaris, etc.)that can be abstracted and contribute to the gameplay. I'm trying to get a good idea of what the ocean floor would have looked like, as well. ChozoBoy (talk) 20:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for displaying your new drawing of Tommotia and Friends. I'm not an expert, but your Tommotia looks elegant and favorably resembles the few other restorations I've seen. I especially like the inclusion of the other Small Shelly animals, which have been undeservedly neglected in many other depictions of Cambrian life. - Cheers, Cephal-odd (talk) 02:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your art is definitely worthy of being selected pictures at Portal:Paleontology. I've added a lot, but you've been so prolific that I've gotten exhausted. :( Everything in your userpage gallery from the "Placodonts" onward needs to be added to the list. If you would like to do that, it would be a big help (and give your art some promotion). Also, the images I've added need to have their descriptions fixed and yourself given proper credit for them. Any help would make me appreciative. Keep it up with your distinctive art work! :D Abyssal leviathin (talk) 06:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. I just wanted to note how disgusted I am at the discussion at WikiProject_Mammals. Please don't be disheartened; there are far too many people out there that take the view that anything they don't like should be removed, and I for one will be fighting them tooth and nail. All the best, Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 22:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're supposed to ignore all beaurocrats (gosh, I couldn't find a WP: page for that one!) Getting involved in silly debates like this will only embitter you towards WP, and that's a bad thing for everybody. Common sense will eventually prevail (if it kills me). If I were you, I'd unwatch the mammals page, forget about it, and let it all blow over. The good point they do raise, though, is that it is useful to reference any sources you use when making your reconstructions. As with all of WP, this allows people to decide for themselves how far to trust things. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 22:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a relief that some administrators are sensible. If there's no citations around, I guess it's best to be honest and give people an idea of how you came up with it - even if it's just as simple as "I just drew a moose but with a longer neck". Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 22:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the battle over the inclusion of your paleoart you have my strongest support. This is why I hate deletionism. I swear, are those guys trying to do major damage to Wikipedia? Crap like this throws "Assume good faith" right out the ****ing window. We can't take this sitting down. Even if we win, this sets an ugly precedent that may encourage similar radical dletionists to be emboldened in the future. This doesn't bode well, we have to squash this movement now! *steaming out the ears* I'm going to alert the association of inclusionists to these happenings. Abyssal (talk) 00:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you: I really appreciate your support.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user supports Stan. :P

User:Abyssal/userboxesicreated/supportstan

FYI. Also, I tried to suggest something of a compromise at WT:MAMMAL. If there's anyway that I could help implement that suggestion, or to help at all, please let me know. I'd be very sad to see your artwork go. --JayHenry (talk) 01:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts would be to mention both books and Web sites when they were used. For new images, the easiest thing might just be to say, "image based off description at XXX and partially informed by illustration on YYY" where XXX and YYY might be books, or good web sites, or even museum illustrations, etc. With books, just enough information to track the book down. I remember I was able to track down one of the books you'd mentioned about hippos, and it had a lot of interesting information, so another side benefit of listing such books is that other researchers (with no ability to draw like me!) can still dig up other information on the topic. Also, if the image is partially informed from reviewing the sources already listed on the Wikipedia article, there'd be nothing wrong with citing those sources again on the image page. --JayHenry (talk) 01:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I should add a personal note to state that your images are excellent contributions and that the only additions needed are a list of sources to avoid such questions from passing editors. I must say that the discussions forced me to add sources to a couple of illustrations of extinct bird that I made as well. Shyamal (talk) 08:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked out your artwork and it's clean and credible. I wish I could produce anthing one tenth as good. Illegitimis non carborundum - don't let the bureauprats grind you down - no, that wasn't a typo :-)

This is one of the less pleasant aspects of Wikipedia - certain people lack the industry, resourcefulness and skills to produce good content, and they see this kind of move as a way to make themselves look important. It would be a major error to give them any encouragement at all. -- Philcha (talk) 10:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Apokryltaros;

Are you sure about that extension to the fossil range? As far as I know, genuine Leidyosuchus is only from the late Campanian (all the Paleocene and Eocene species being shunted off to Borealosuchus). J. Spencer (talk) 05:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Borealosuchus and Listrognathosuchus, to be fair, although the former got four species and the latter only got one. Leidyosuchus really slimmed down. J. Spencer (talk) 05:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

L. riggsi is indeterminate; if this was my website, I'd list it as "Leidyosuchus" riggsi under Crocodylia incertae sedis, or something similar. It may be close to Borealosuchus acutidentatus. I ran into a similar issue with Coelurus, which has the indeterminate "C." gracilis attached to it. I handled it there by including the species in the taxobox, but identifying it as indeterminate, and only covering valid C. fragilis in the fossil range and categories. My reasoning there was that only C. fragilis can be reliably shown to be Coelurus, so the article's categorization should reflect that, but at the same time "C." gracilis should be included in the taxobox because it is nominally a species of Coelurus and no one is probably going to give a new genus in the foreseeable future. J. Spencer (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Apokryltaros. Someone told me that you withdrew the Orthrozanclus image because you had doubts about it. I edited the article yesterday, reading the primary source thoroughly (Conway Morris & Caron, 2007). Your pic looks very like the b/w one in the source. I'd be very grateful if you'd reinstate it.

If you have a look at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Palaeontology, you'll see that there's little tolerance for the bureacratic attitudes you've had to put up with recently. As I said earlier, don't let the bureauprats grind you down! -- Philcha (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That's a relief - these Cambrian weirdies really need pics, because they're so unlike anything since. -- Philcha (talk) 18:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re your plan to put in Wiwaxia and Odontogriphus behind Orthrozanclus, and perhaps a headshot of Hallucigenia, that would be nice for a panoramic shot for e.g. Cambrian explosion or Burgess shale type fauna. But for the Orthrozanclus article I'd prefer your previous pic as it's a nice size for the taxobox. If you let me know when it's uploaded, I'll add the relevant citation to the image description page (AFAIK there was only one relevant citation last time I looked) - your previous pic was very similar to the one in the cited article, but in color and with a credible background.

PS how do you know which is the head end of Hallucigenia? :-) -- Philcha (talk) 13:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PPS Just worked my way through to the cite for Orthrozanclus - it's

Based on description at {{ cite journal | author=Conway Morris, S., and Caron, J.-B., | url=http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/315/5816/1255 | accessdate=2008-08-07 | title=Halwaxiids and the Early Evolution of the Lophotrochozoans | journal=Science | date=March 2007 | volume=315 | issue=5816 | pages=1255-1258 | doi=10.1126/science.1137187}}

Just copy and paste the inset text into the image description page, e.g. under "source". The link is to the abstract, as the full article is not freely available; but I read the full article when editing Orthrozanclus and your image was fine. -- Philcha (talk) 15:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re your latest version of Orthrozanclus image, I like the detailing of the shell and the lowest band of sclerites. OTOH the upper 2/3 of the body looks segmented but not covered by sclerites. It's the same in the "official" pic in Conway Morris & Caron (2007) but I'm sure they said 3 bands of sclerites covering all except the shell. I'll check the text of their article a.s.a.p. and get back to you.

I know you're planning this originally as a scene with Wiwaxia and ? Odontogriphus (those "blobs on the left?), so you'll want colour-code the critters. However I suggest you make the colours only as strong as necessary to distinguish them - seawater is usually rather misty, making colours look a little washed out. Re the shell, my own choice would be a pale grey, just enough to allow you to shade to give a more 3-D look. since sea-floor was covered by a microbial mat whose top layer was cyanobacteria, I suggest its dominant colour should be the darker of the 2 shades in the taxobox at Cyanobacteria, with just a little bit of shading to prevent it from looking unnnaturally flat.

BTW Newly Identified Species Of Spiny Snail-like Creature, 505 Million Year Old, Described has a copy of the "official" pic. If you put the citation in the image's descr page, you might like to include that link. -- Philcha (talk) 07:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some technical glitch meant it took a while for me to get into the full text of Conway Morris & Caron (2007). Snippets from this article:

• "The central zone of the dorsal body is strongly convex but is flanked by flatter margins." I think you've done that well.
• "The scleritome consists of three zones or sets of sclerites and at least one shell (Fig. 1). One set extends around the entire body." You've got the set around the entire body. But the offical pic does not show the other 2 sets, and yours follows its example. The article does not give the absolute or relative sizes of the 3 sets of sclerites.
• "in Orthrozanclus, the sclerites are smaller (than in Wiwaxia) and do not seem to have any obvious segmental pattern. The most substantial difference appears to be the absence of siculate (ventro-lateral) sclerites in Orthrozanclus. The halkieriid scleritome is also comparable, in particular with marked similarities between the cultrate sclerites." There are times when it's hard to follow this article, because Science imposes very tight word limits. This snippet raises a lot of issues:
  • "absence of siculate (ventro-lateral) sclerites in Orthrozanclus" - but the earlier snippets state that there was a ventro-lateral band which ran all the way round! Perhaps "(ventro-lateral)" was a slip or a result of squeezing the text down a little too much, and they simply mean the ventro-laterals were not sickle-shaped. If so, not an issue at the scale of the drawings.
  • Cultrate sclerites are small but quite visible. They form the middle ring in Halkieria, project upwards and possibly projected outwards when the critter rolled up into a defensive posture (IIRC Conway Morris and Peel's long descr of Halkieria, 1995).
  • "do not seem to have any obvious segmental pattern" but the drawings suggest segmentation more than they suggest sclerites on the convex part of the body! OTOH earlier the article says, "more probably metamerism, traces of which are also discernible more posteriorly."
• "The precise arrangement of the anteriormost region remains somewhat conjectural."

My own preference would be to tone down the suggestions of segmentation and to hint at sclerites overlapping from front to rear on the convex part of the body (see Halkieria), but the article's apparent contradictions and the official pic mean that your present approach is quite defensible. Either way I'd insert the snippets into the image descr page to silence any objections. -- Philcha (talk) 08:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice, thanks! I think you should paste the citation (Conway Morris & Caron, 2007; above) into the image's description page to silence nit-pickers. -- Philcha (talk) 22:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or, we can simply skewer them alive on O. reburrus's sclerites.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of the critter. Google got me:

• Australian Museum Collections - The blob
• An Odontogriphid from the Upper Permian of Australia. No reconstruction. Describes it as:

The holotype and larger specimen (AM F.55115) is preserved as an almost circular, smooth imprint on a block of pink, indurated shale. Although slightly incomplete the specimen is about 130mm long and 120mm wide. The surface of the fossil is noticeably smoother than the texture of the surrounding rock and, in places, is slightly crinkled in rather random fashion. A slightly raised, sub-rectangular area some 30mm across and 40mm long extends near to what is taken to be the anterior margin. This raised area is bounded on each side by a sinuous, shallow impression that flexes inwards near its midlength. At the posteromedial end of each impression is an ovate lobe (`lobe' in Text-®g. 2) that bears a roughened ornament. Lying inside the raised area, in the midline, are two structures: a larger, transversely oriented, double-loop feature and, posterior to it, a much smaller ovate structure. The double-looped structure is situated at a wide part of the raised area, whereas the ovate organ is positioned where the raised area is constricted in width.

A prominent median ridge (Text-®g. 2), low but quite distinct and continuous, extends anteriorly from the posterior margin for about 80 mm, terminating just short of the anterior raised area. The anterolateral margins display well-developed subparallel grooves roughly following the outer margin. Some weak, rather irregularly spaced, subtransverse grooves intersect the anterior end of the median ridge at right angles. More posteriorly a set of grooves extends from the median ridge towards the posterolateral margin. All the other grooves and wrinkles were apparently caused by post-mortem crumpling of the dorsal and/or ventral integument of the organism. It is also probable that both dorsal and ventral features have been superimposed.

Not the most promising subject, I'm afraid. -- Philcha (talk) 04:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS Now I've seen how your recent troubles started, I've formed my own opinion of the person responsible - a look at his user page made a deeply unfavourable impression, too. Let me know if you get any similar aggro - the last wiki-bully who tried it on with me regretted it, twice. That doesn't mean I'm a thug, just that experience has taught me to fight fire with fire because such people will regard the slightest concession as encouragement. OTOH if someone politely disagrees with me, I respond politely, in the hope of learning something (see for example Talk:Cambrian explosion, where I did plenty of both). -- Philcha (talk) 04:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, don't let the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mammals bug you too much. There's obviously a certain degree of uncertainty in Wikipedia about what our general rules for such illustrations should be, and things are currently being worked out. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 04:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make it clear, I wasn't trying to vandalise the Dodo page when I added an image with the filename "Dodo.jpg", which you rightly reverted. The problem was that I had uploaded a new image to Commons I wanted to add which I named "Dodo.jpg", and then some lame fair use image on Wikipedia had the same name, and overrode it, without me knowing it until I pushed the save button. So I've requested that the fair use image be renamed so I can add the Commons image, and will replace it when that happens. By the way, I hope you won't leave Wikipedia due to two people disliking your illustrations, fight tha powah! FunkMonk (talk) 01:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you have my full support! FunkMonk (talk) 02:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My sense is that it's a cross-section, although I can't be sure. Are you able to access the original source, "Geology and Paleontology of the Ellsworth Mountains, West Antarctica, Geological Society of America Memoir"? I'd guess the original figure caption would be more helpful. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 22:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mr. Fink. I'm removing Image:Opabinia regalis2.jpg from Opabinia, which I've been working on and which now has quite a lot of illustrations. There also some issues in Image:Opabinia regalis2.jpg which I think need fixing:

• It shows no signs of what are generally regarded as gills on the top of each lobe.
• It shows 14 pairs of lobes, but Whittington (1975) said 15 pairs, and I've seen nothing that contradicts this.
• The prey looks like a bunch of daisies. It's quite possible that some of its prey did look like this, but perhaps something a bit more worm-like would be less distracting.
• I'm also not keen on the colour scheme, but that's a matter of taste.

If you re-work the image, I suggest you use as a model fig 7 of Budd, G.E. (1996). "The morphology of Opabinia regalis and the reconstruction of the arthropod stem-group". Lethaia. 29 (1): 1–14. doi:10.1111/j.1502-3931.1996.tb01831.x. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help) - but hide the "legs" in shown the Budd image, as they are not universally accepted. Then paste the citation into the image descr page to silence certain people who've given you trouble. If you don't have access to the journal article, give me a call and we'll find a way to get the Budd (1996) image to you.

BTW, any progress on the Orthrozanclus image? I found a copy of your previous pic in Google, and inserted it as the critter is so weird that it needs a pic, but that's just a temporary fix. -- Philcha (talk) 10:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand: it's an older picture, and I've been meaning to fix it up, especially the jaw/head of Ottoia. (Though, by "daisy," do you mean Ottoia or Dinomischus?) You don't suppose you could email me the pdf of the report? I can't access many scientific journal sites on my home computer.

As for Orthrozanclus, I'll have the next WIP ready by tomorrow.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to seeing Orthrozanclus v2.

The "daisy" is what appears to be caught in Opabinia′s claw. I dont' know whether it's Ottoia or Dinomischus as I haven't got as far as these yet, and it may be a while as there are higher priorities at WP:CEX.

Re models for a pic of Opabinia, it might be easiest to send you just the relevant pics as the journal articles are long, especially Whittington (1975) - which is also a monster file, as the so-called "PDF" is just a scanned image of the article. I'd also rather just copy and paste the pics into an email,so I don't clutter my hard drive - copy and paste would require that you can accept HTML emails. Whichever of these options you prefer, you'll need to email me so I can send the pics, and you can use your email to tell me which option you prefer.

Re Myoscolex, all I know is in Opabinia. I suspect it's a poor subject for illustration as the specimens are poorly-preserved and there's debate about whether it was closely related to Opabinia or was an annelid. -- Philcha (talk) 17:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I sent the pics about an hour ago - please let me know if there are any problems. -- Philcha (talk) 21:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mr. Fink, thanks for the recent update on Orthrozanclus.

ArthurWeasley just sent me a message that he's revising his Opabinia image, which is currently in the article's taxobox - its main problem is no gills. You may want hold off on that one for now - you artists are in such demand that I suspect you have a pretty full in-tray. But many thanks for the offer. -- Philcha (talk) 09:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm just checking to see if you have any issues with Charlie the Unicorn in being mention on the Liopleurodon page, in light of the discussion between myself and DinoGuy. See the discussion page for more details, but essentially about.com has linked Charlie with an increase in views of its liopleurodon page. Any issues, could you discuss it on the article's talkpage? Thanks. Darimoma (talk) 04:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that on your Deviant Art account you have a lot of paleoart that hasn't been uploaded to Wikipedia. Is that art under a Wiki-compatible license? 'Cause some of that would be look really nice in some articles I've been working on. Abyssal (talk) 23:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno the specific images, but alot of your placoderms and acanthodians haven't been seen on Wiki. Abyssal (talk) 00:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Your art work is appreciated! Abyssal (talk) 03:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget to let me now when/if you ever upload those pics. Those are badass! Abyssal (talk) 16:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Apokryltaros, I'm very sorry for being so slow to reply. I just Googled for "Yunnanozoon" and attempts to classify it are all over the place. Early articles suggested chordate, but hemichordate, i.e. same group as acorn worms, is also a contender (more info about hemichordates at Chordate), or cephalochordate. BTW current consensus appears to be that hemichordates are closer to echinoderms than to chordates or cephalochordates (see Chordate).

Classification of Vetulicolia appears to be even more confused - AFAIK there isn't even consensus about whether it was protostome or deuterostome.

However I'm not that well-informed about actual or possible Cambrian deuterostomes - I'm still trying to get a clear picture of the protostomes (well, as clear as the literature allows).

Some nice pics of Yunnanozoon fossils at Fossil Museum.

Sorry I can't be more helpful, --Philcha (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, just noticed A New Species of Yunnanozoan with Implications for Deuterostome Evolution suggests "yunnanozoans are stem-group deuterostomes, allied to the vetulicolians". All the classifications are confused, and so am I :-( Philcha (talk) 22:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you've been busy! Yuyuanozoon is a decent start, but I think there are some things you need to do, first to protect these articles from self-appointed wiki-cops (see the top right corner of my User page) and then to get these on the way to GA status:

• Work on 1 article at a time - the hyenas love lots of defenceless stubs. Include wikilinks to fossils on which there are no articles yet - FA criteria forbid red links, but GA criteria don't, and red links at this stage are evidence that you mean serious business about this group of critters.
• Inline citations using the citation templates. I recommend {{citation}} for the moment, as there some things the other citation templates just can't handle, and there's a MOS guidline about not mixing {{citation}} with other "cite xxx" templates. Add a link on your User page or a sub-page a link to Wikipedia:Citation templates as the Help system does not help to find it (typical!).
• Add refs on the image description pages to shut up certain holier-than-thous - see Image:Arthropod head problem 01.png for an example
• Set up a structure something like that of Opabinia and then start filling it in from the sources you've got - the ones you mailed to me look like they cover a decent mix of decription and phylogenetic analysis.
• When you've got one of these articles up to the level of e.g. Nectocaris, do the same for the others you've created, and don't create any more until you've done this.
• Then you have a choice:
  • Articles on other similar critters, and bring them up to a "safe" standard. The advantage of this is that you get a broader base of information and will be in a good position to judge whether an article on the group as a whole is needed.
  • Or push one to GA.
• Specifically in Yuyuanozoon, "not to be confused with "Yunnanozoon" And the converse in Yunnanozoon :-)

If you can get these articles up to near the level of Opabinia, you'll have made a big contribution to WP's coverage of Early Cambrian paleo and to our ultimate objective (WP:CEX, the Cambrian explosion.

I won't be able to contribute to these articles as I'm busy at present and Sponge is giving me a bit of trouble. But leave a message on my Talk page if there are points you want to discuss or if anyone gives you any trouble - I quite fancy a crunchy snack. --Philcha (talk) 10:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I know how absorbed you are at the moment with sponges" - ROFL! --Philcha (talk) 13:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment! I hope to eventually get the Deinosuchus article up to Featured Article status. Good sources are difficult to find, but there are some out there. I'm still trying to find Holland's original 1909 description, but it doesn't seem to be anywhere online (even though it should be in the public domain due to age). FanCollector (talk) 01:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted you revert of Category:Megafauna in article Dodo a 44# bird related to pigeons and doves is a megafauna per the article definition. "The term is also sometimes applied to animals (usually extinct) of great size relative to a more common or surviving type of the animal" Actually I was also tempted to revert the addition before you did, but decided to check the category out first and discovered that it was a valid addition. Dbiel ^(Talk) 06:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is feasible, but perhaps you could alter your Deinosuchus image so that the back teeth are blunter and sort of "pyramid-shaped". See here for an idea of what they're supposed to look like. Also, the osteoderms (scutes) should probably be a bit proportionately larger and thicker. I'm currently about 75% done with my revisions to the article text. There are still some important changes to make, but, hopefully, it's well on its way to being ready for peer review and eventual Featured Article status. FanCollector (talk) 19:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi why did you reverse the Mary Livingstone article? I found orignal scripts which proved that the Swiss Cheese flub was scripted, and provided a link.

For one thing, are you sure that it isn't a transcription of the show, rather than the original script? Jack Benny's writers have been known to alter scripts during the course of the broadcast. That, and all of Jack Benny's biographies suggest that the flub was not scripted. Also, the insertion was poorly written and you need to do more for a reference than provide a link.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, it is from a document which was submitted as evidence in a Tobacco lawsuit. Here is the link which also shows the first page of the script, as you can see it was a script, it includes the part "Approved" http://tobaccodocuments.org/atc/1432893.html?pattern=&ocr_position=&rotation=0&zoom=750&start_page=106&end_page=111

I hate to bother you again about this, but I just now noticed one additional concern with the Deinosuchus image. It shows Deinosuchus pursuing Hyposaurus, a dyrosaurid crocodyliform. Unfortunately, upon re-reading some of David R. Schwimmer's book (which was my #1 source for the article), it appears that these two genera probably did not live at the same time. Page 154-55 specifically says that they have not been found in the same strata; Deinosuchus was a Campanian form while Hyposaurus is from the later Maastrichtian stage. If you are going to be re-drawing the image, as you suggested above, then it might be best to remove Hyposaurus entirely and simply show Deinosuchus emerging from the water. Thanks for your help and for all the great images you've contributed to Wikipedia! FanCollector (talk) 11:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, according to pg. 121-125 of Schwimmer's book, Leidyosuchus is known from Campanian strata in the eastern United States from fragmentary remains. It may have inhabited different types of environments, though. Another possibility would be to portray the smaller croc as another Deinosuchus, since modern croc species are often cannibalistic and such a trait would thus probably fall within the expected range of behavior for early eusuchians. I think a hadrosaur would probably be the best prey item to depict, though, since there actually is some fossil evidence of this type of predation (Schwimmer, pg, 189-192). FanCollector (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks really nice so far! I like it. FanCollector (talk) 13:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you happen to get a chance to ink the new drawing yet? FanCollector (talk) 07:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The current line drawing looks great. It is probably a good idea to upload it now, since it's more accurate than the older image. When you get a chance to ink it, then you can always upload a newer version. No hurry. FanCollector (talk) 04:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've made a merge suggestion at talk:Arachnomorpha#Merger proposal, as you've edited one of the articles in question your opinion would be most welcome. WereSpielChequers 19:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Evolution of the horse and some other articles (Equidae, Equus (genus), etc.) are getting some much needed attention. Care to join us? --Una Smith (talk) 05:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to add any references you used in the creation of your Deinosuchus image to the image summary? There's at least the one that FanCollector suggested up above regarding the teeth. This is in regards to a suggestion at the Deinosuchus FAC. Thanks! J. Spencer (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! J. Spencer (talk) 00:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You wouldn't happen to know where you got the reference of that Deinosuchus eating that turtle picture you loaned me for the teeth-reference?--Mr Fink (talk) 00:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Schwimmer, David R. (2002). King of the Crocodylians: The Paleobiology of Deinosuchus. Indiana University Press. p. 177. ISBN 0-253-34087-X. You may also wish to reference p. 13, which gives a good overall physical description and notes that Deinosuchus was, in general, "a fairly conventional eusuchian crocodylian." FanCollector (talk) 07:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't call vandals stupid. It may have been a typo, or a foreign language. It's easier on all of en.wiki to see more gentile edit comments. --KP Botany (talk) 21:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This little form letter is just a courtesy notice to let you know that a proposal to merge the projects Wikipedia:WikiProject Free images, Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use, Wikipedia:WikiProject Moving free images to Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia:WikiProject Illustration into the newly formed Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media has met with general support at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Files. Since you're on the rosters of membership in at least one of those projects, I thought you might be interested. Conversation about redirecting those projects is located here. Please participate in that discussion if you have any interest, and if you still have interest in achieving the goals of the original project, we'd love to have you join in. If you aren't interested in either the conversation or the project, please pardon the interruption. :) Thanks. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move complete! I just assumed that the common name would be preferred. Most people (who even know what Iniopterigians are :p) refer to them by that name. I guess I was thinking along the lines of the page Dinosauria v. Dinosaur. --Spotty ¹¹²²² 10:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ailuravus macrurus.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Ailuravus macrurus.JPG. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Ailuravus macrurus.JPG]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jamoytius kerwoodi.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Jamoytius kerwoodi.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 12:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eotitanops borealis.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Eotitanops borealis.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 12:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dickinsonia costata A.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Dickinsonia costata A.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 12:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Placodonts.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Placodonts.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 12:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Deiphon forbesi.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Deiphon forbesi.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 12:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hyrachus minimus.JPG is now available as Commons:File:Hyrachus minimus.JPG. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 14:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Embolotherium grangeri reconstruction.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Embolotherium grangeri reconstruction.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Embolotherium andrewsi reconstruction.JPG is now available as Commons:File:Embolotherium andrewsi reconstruction.JPG. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering why you removed the brief statements about the pop culture stuff. Abyssal (talk) 12:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What was irrelevant about it? Abyssal (talk) 16:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Abyssal (talk) 17:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the deviant user Avancna? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kubick (talk • contribs) 10:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mr Fink. I have looked out some notosuchian papers. I have some pdfs I can email them to you, if you let me know your email address. Cheers Venatico (talk) 20:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should find an email with links to the pdfs. The links will last 7 days. Cheers Venatico (talk) 23:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delayed response. The reconstruction looks reasonably consistent with the image in the article and with the Lethaia article. I'd go ahead and use it.

I'm popping in what info springs to hand now.

Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 00:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eoentelodon was synonymized with Brachyhyops by Lucas and Emry (2004). I inserted a delete request. Noles1984 (talk) 14:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Not all authorities agree with the synonymy of Eoentelodon with Brachyhyops. Furthermore, you should not request that a synonymized taxon page: redirect it, instead.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)"

Yes, a redirect does sound better... what about merge? Noles1984 (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there's been a recent discussion at WikiProject Palaeontology's new Paleoart review regarding images of crocodylomorphs on Wikipedia that show an incorrect number of claws on the forelimbs. In most crocodylomorphs such as mesoeucrocodylians, the ungual bones are absent on digits IV and V, and thus there are only three claws on the forefeet. I've noticed that several of your restorations incorrectly depict more than three claws on the forefeet, such as your Deinosuchus, Rhamphosuchus, and Mekosuchus. Is it possible that you could correct these? Smokeybjb (talk) 16:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like there are four claws on the visible forefoot your Deinosuchus; there is a claw on digit IV that should not be there. Smokeybjb (talk) 18:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having just stumbled across yours of ancient critters, I just wanted to say: wow. Very nice work. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 12:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. Beautifully done. Gruntler (talk) 09:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you click on the link, it takes you to someone's "private research". And another point - the page doesn't lead to the page it's supposed to. Why should it stay? --Maurice45 (talk) 18:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I suppose it might be. But as it stands, the link can provide no useful information on this subject at the moment --Maurice45 (talk) 19:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just quick note to let you know that I have restored the question that you removed from Talk:Big Bang and have provided a reponse. I think at the outset we should assume good faith here, so let's assume that the questioner has a genuine question about the article, which they have just expressed in somewhat belligerent terms. Of course, if they choose to start soapbxing, then the thread can be removed again. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may already know the rules for brackets versus authority/year but if not please see this. Also following ICZN, "æ" used in old scientific names is now always modified. Article 51 and 27 of the code, respectively. Regards, 62.107.237.72 (talk) 04:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reading it again, It really looks like a religious rant. Removed from talk page-My apologies. --Christopher Kraus (talk) 22:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly explain how can a plain list of citations with no argument for or against the citations qualify as a soapbox and lead to the conclusion that it is an anti-evolution creationist argument? Any neutral person would rather conclude that the ‘Evolution of the horse’ itself may be lacking scientific integrity in view of the information and would attempt to objectively review the matter and article to remedy any potential mistakes. It should be noted that the applicable citations does not promote ‘creationism’ and neither does it question the ‘validity of evolution’, however it questions the validity of the ‘Evolution of the horse’ which was initially published by Othniel C March during 1874. Furthermore the age of the citations should not pose any obstacle as the original theory is much older. It will be appreciated if the rational behind your deletion [[1]] can be explained.UseYourGreymatter 11:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by UseYourGreymatter (talk • contribs)

Re: your message on my take page, I absolutely agree. I hadn't noticed the Castoroides page. I'm fixing it now. — Epastore (talk) 02:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...except you beat me to it. :) — Epastore (talk) 02:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I'm not sure which articles you're referring to. Cheers, mgiganteus1 (talk) 21:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or do you mean generally? In which case the answer is.. let me check. mgiganteus1 (talk) 21:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should be able to access articles on SpringerLink, but unlike some other websites it doesn't let me login using my university username and password. So at the moment I can't access them unfortunately. mgiganteus1 (talk) 21:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Introduction to evolution. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Introduction to evolution (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you undid my addition of the Lake Worth monster in the Monster article, saying it belongs under Lake Monster. I understand why you might initially think that, but the Lake Worth Monster in no way fits the description of a standard lake monster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Worth_monster). It's description puts it in a unique class. grifterlake (talk) 07:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, would you maybe consider uploading your new images to Commons instead of directly to Wikipedia? Then all language Wikipedias will be able to use the images, and I won't have to reupload every single image there... Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 23:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, alrighty, I had looked at your recent file contributions, and it seemed that some of them had been uploaded here. But keep up the good work then! FunkMonk (talk) 02:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I just saw your image of Shansitherium while uploading it, seeing as you must have some references for it, do you know if this unidentified skeleton in Beijing is Shansitherium or something related? FunkMonk (talk) 00:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! And it's my pleasure to make your images available worldwide, still a few left to upload... FunkMonk (talk) 02:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, and I'll add it to the article then. FunkMonk (talk) 03:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my re-addition of the category to Cephalaspis‎. With it being an unexplained deletion - by an IP that has vandalized in the past no less - I automatically took it to be vandalism, something which I am always alert for. I suppose this is a case of my using my teeth? -RadicalOne•^{Contact Me}•_{Chase My Tail} 03:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay:It's not that he is a vandal-vandal, he helps but makes unhelpful edits.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Apokryltaros. You have new messages at RadicalOne's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-RadicalOne•^{Contact Me}•_{Chase My Tail} 04:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And again. -RadicalOne•^{Contact Me}•_{Chase My Tail} 04:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Apokryltaros;

I saw your edit summary on Hylonomus. Thanks for the vote of confidence! J. Spencer (talk) 03:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed Crustacean for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since you are a main contributor of the article (determined based on this tool), I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Cynodictis lived in the early Eocene. Which animal you can suggest if this is wrong? See also: Cynodictis.--Fehér Zoltán (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure man, I don't mind, you seem more then enough competent in that field. I just happened to google for "suzumebachi wikipedia" (without quotes) query and came up (beside some user page) with http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%95%E3%82%A1%E3%82%A4%E3%83%AB:Suzumebachi.jpg picture which is linked in these 2 articles I linked up later after i finally found english article. Quite a mess with these hornets IMO... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.201.206.49 (talk) 21:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't believe that there was an Earth Day Special? Watch [2] --67.250.89.3 (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then. Check out this;[3]. --67.250.89.3 (talk) 22:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm seeing that you wrote the page of Hapalodectes and that you cite this article as font. Did you find all information in the full article (because it's an abstract)? Do all information you wrote in that page come from that article?? I need this information because I'd like to write that page on it.wiki and I must be sure that it isn't lacking in fonts. Please, answer me.--Supremo (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you haven't been able to read that article beyond the abstract, where did you find all information that you wrote on Wikipedia page exactly? Did you find them on the articles which you sent me only, or you also have used other articles?--Supremo (talk) 15:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it doesn't matter, however thanks.--Supremo (talk) 23:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Apokryltaros, I see you've made the acquaintance of Megafauna Man (125.164.25.251 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)). He's been a thorn in the side of Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds for quite awhile, and creates quite a lot of mayhem with prehistoric animals. He's been discussed at length at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds#Megafauna?, and a couple editors have kept some history of him at User:First Light/Fauna vandalism. I don't know that there is much more that can be done about him, since he edits every day from a new IP in the 125.164/16 range, but it might help if more editors were aware of his pattern, which is why I'm letting you know about his history. Cheers, First Light (talk) 03:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see we have a mutual friend, then. There was a filter active, and working, for awhile. I think that's the best way to go, and just left a message for User:Shirik to see if he can reactivate it. If you can add to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds#Megafauna?, that might make it seem more needed. First Light (talk) 04:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And it looks like Shirik has got the filter going again. If you ever have new suggestions for that filter, please put a note there. Megafauna man seems to go from one thing to another, after he's been stopped in one area. First Light (talk) 04:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly don't think this species belongs to the genus Nautilus, both due to its markedly different shell morphology and its great age. However, I have likewise been unable to find any information about its current taxonomic status. Actually, I've been wondering what to do with this article for a while. Any ideas? mgiganteus1 (talk) 13:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The full paper is available here, but it doesn't mention N. clarkanus. mgiganteus1 (talk) 01:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the time being I've removed Nautilus clarkanus from the only two articles that linked to it. mgiganteus1 (talk) 06:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apokryltaros,

I sure hope I have followed all the rules for this "talk" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines My apology for not following them on edit changes i made to the Eucalyptus Wiki. Maybe you will take the time to make the corrections to present this information in a way that is more neutral (NPOV) intent and tone.

The paragraph under North America, Californian. "Eucalyptus forests in California have been criticized because they compete with native plants and do not support native animals. Fire is also a problem. The 1991 Oakland Hills firestorm which destroyed almost 3,000 homes and killed 25 people was partly fueled by large numbers of eucalyptus close to the houses." Is an opinion unsupported by fact and one that is perpetuated by noted eucalyptus haters like Ted Willimas as amplified in his article "America's Largest Weed". Audubon Magazine. http://magazine.audubon.org/incite/incite0201.html

Fire: In the 1991 Oakland-Berkeley Hills firestorm everything burned, however, to single out only the eucalyptus as a supporting source for the fire is to support those that incorrectly claim that eucalyptus trees are a fire hazard.

FEMA did a complete investigation of the fire. They did not find that eucalyptus trees caused the fire. Quote from the FEMA report; http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/tr-060.pdf ref. PDF page Sec2:2

"CAUSE: Strong winds caused rekindle of grass fire from previous day, accelerated by wind. Crews were on scene overhauling when fire erupted. Cause of original fire was undetermined."

"RISK FACTOR": Extreme fire risk created by five year drought, low humidity, and Diablo winds; highly combustible natural fuels, inadequate separation between natural fuels and structures; unregulated use of wood shingles as roof and siding material; steep terrain, homes overhanging hillsides, narrow roads, limited access, limited water supply."

This was the same findings by the Oakland Grand Jury Report of the 1991 Fire. (I am waiting for confirmation on the web link for this report, once I get it I will send it to you)

In Oakland Mayor Elihue Harris' Task Force on Emergency Preparedness & Community Restoration. http://www.hillsconservationnetwork.org/HillsConservation3/Additional_Resources_files/sc001635e6.pdf Under Vegetative Management Planning "Do not target particular species such as Blue Gum Eucalyptus or Monterey Pine for eradication or exemption from tree regulation policies, but require regular maintenance to reduce fire hazard."

The September 17, 1923 Berkeley Hills fire storm occurred under the same conditions and started as a grass fire http://www.sfmuseum.org/oakfire/berkeley.html

Please review the photos in the link below from the Scripps Ranch/Cedar 25 Oct 2003 Fire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cedar_Fire

http://www.scrippsranch.org/special/old_fire_gallery.asp http://www.scrippsranch.org/special/fire_gallery.asp http://interwork.sdsu.edu/fire/photo_gallery/FireFightingPhotos.htm

Specifically

http://www.scrippsranch.org/special/old_fire_gallery.asp

http://www.scrippsranch.org/special/Fire2003/Narvaez/small-Dsc00327.jpg

http://www.scrippsranch.org/special/Fire2003/Narvaez/small-Dsc00318.jpg

http://www.scrippsranch.org/special/Fire2003/Narvaez/small-Dsc00322.jpg

http://www.scrippsranch.org/special/Fire2003/Narvaez/small-Dsc00321.jpg

http://www.scrippsranch.org/special/Fire2003/Ward/MVC-002F.jpg

http://www.scrippsranch.org/special/Fire2003/Ward/MVC-004F.jpg

http://www.scrippsranch.org/special/Fire2003/Caughey/9-FurtherEastLaColina_TotalDestruction2.JPG

http://www.scrippsranch.org/special/Fire2003/Rudden/handrich_11825.jpg

http://www.scrippsranch.org/special/Fire2003/Rudden/n_side_handrich2.jpg

And the most telling. Homes burned. No evidence of "EXPLODING" eucalyptus trees.

http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2003/10/27/national/28fire.l.jpg

Ecological Poison? Incorrect. The San Leandro Creek in San Leandro, CA. has many native birds that use and live in these trees. To name a few that have been seen by the local community, Red Tailed Haws, Owls, Ravens, Humming birds, Turkey vultures, Oregon Junco. Insects: honey bees and Monarch butterflies. http://sutroforest.com/eucalyptus-myths/

The claim that nothing will grow under the eucalyptus trees is again incorrect. The San Leandro Creek in many places has small groves of eucalyptus trees. As seen inn the photos at http://www.sanleandrocreek.org/ there are many native an non native trees and plants coexisting and have done so along the creek for over a hundred years.

Other resources you might want you review for a fuller understanding of the issues surrounding eucalyptus trees.

http://ucsdmag.ucsd.edu/magazine/vol2no1/features/wars.htm http://git-forestry-blog.blogspot.com/2008/10/6-myths-about-eucalyptus.html http://sutroforest.com/2010/04/12/another-eucalyptus-myth-bird-death/

Thank you for your consideration. 1artworkz (talk) 18:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Request for mediation concerning Genesis Creation Narrative, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 22:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)

Hi! I don't understand why Category:Prehistoric odd-toed ungulates has been deleted. I think this name is more reasonable than Category:Prehistoric perissodactyls, because it's analogous with Category:Prehistoric even-toed ungulates. - Kontos (talk) 11:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge your opinion as a possible solution, but I think it's not the best solution. I proposed a discussion here: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_September_2#Category:Prehistoric_perissodactyls. - Kontos (talk) 16:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you putting cryptid templates in (talk) pages about mythological animals? As far as I know, "cryptid" is not synonymous with "mythological animal"--Mr Fink (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then it would be a good question why the project covers article such as genie and werewolf. Dimadick (talk) 14:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

indeed bizzare behavior, but I have seen wierder! Thanks for the update. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 16:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and this guys Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dr.Mukesh111/Archive fanatal obsession with Playback singer . Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 16:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gniniv has filed another mediation request (this time through MedCab) nearly identical to the last one he filed in which you took part. The Medcab report has resulted in an ANI report being filed. If you wish to take part in the ANI thread, please feel free to do so. All the best, Jess_talk|_edits 03:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that a user being reported to AIV must generally have been warned first and continued despite the warning. This guy's talk page was still a redlink. Daniel Case (talk) 14:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear mister Apokryltaros, I have made a huge article on the dutch Wikipedia, see here: [4]. The article, though, lacks an image that shows the creature like when it was alive; with flesh and skin. Because you are regarded as one of the best illustrators of extinct animals I ask you if you could do this, please. So, if you want to create another extinct animal and you lack inspiration, please create a Tchoiria. I would really apreciate that. Thank you very much! You can contact me at:

• [5]
• [6]

Kind regards, Joerim or on this Wikipedia known as 82.169.6.135 (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you contact me if you've finished making the illustration, please? Thank you very much! Kind regards, Joerim or on this Wikipedia known as 82.169.6.135 (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear mr. Apokryltaros, you might still know me from the Tchoiria. I saw that there was a Turfanosuchus at your 'to do list' for pictures. Now, at the Dutch Wikipedia we're creating a huge article again, this time about the Turfanosuchus, see here. Unfortunately the article lacks a picture of a Turfanosuchus as it would have looked like in real life. Because of this coincidence and because of your great illustration of the Tchoiria I decided to ask you again if you would feel like illustrating a Turfanosuchus(^_^). I don't like to be a neusance, so if you don't feel like doing so, I will ask someone else. I'd really like to hear from you. Kind regards, Joerim --82.169.6.135 (talk) 15:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's no bother at all. I would be honored to get to work on it, but I think I will need to get a few more references of it, first.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a pity that reliable references about Turfanosuchus are not quite abundant, though I think this one can be quite useful. Kind regards, Joerim/82.169.6.135 (talk) 11:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm a new user user-named Raptor Red. And just to let you know Apokryltaros, that edit to Scutosaurus and Gorgonops I did before creating an account was a fact, not something made up.! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raptor Red (talk • contribs) 21:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then why are there similar species all over the world? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raptor Red (talk • contribs) 04:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on your reversion of my redirect here: Talk:Mammuthus_armeniacus. Thank you, ErikHaugen (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please take a look at Talk:Mammuthus_armeniacus again? I am confused about the article you linked to. Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't, it combines the naming conventions of the Gedoshu (Japanese names) and Goseigers villains ("name" of "something"). Therefore, no screwing up names.72.184.129.252 (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Apokryltaros,

I have a message saying that I vandalized the Smilodon page on December 6, 2010. I have never visited such a page. Could you please clarify? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.139.135 (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible someone else was using your ip address? Your ip address does appear to have vandalized Smilodon. One reason to register an account is to avoid such warnings, although no pressure of course. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 01:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess anything is possible, so I'll keep an eye out for friends using my computer. What exactly was the "vandalization"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.139.135 (talk) 02:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for addressing my concern about the status of the term "Brontosaurus." Did I act appropriately in deleting two words? I do get exasperated when taxonomists presume to dictate popular word usage, but I would certainly be open to discussing the matter prior to making edits. Since no one has responded to Talk:Apatosaurus#Common_name_Brontosaurus in fifteen months, though, it doesn't appear that Talk pages serve that purpose. By editing the article, on the other hand, I got you to fix things the same day.

Related question: if I have a solid reference contradicting the fossil range in a taxobox, do I just go ahead and change it, providing the reference on the talk page? Or is there some other procedure?
Peter M. Brown (talk) 22:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to inform you that when the Levithian was vandalised it was just an accident, I just edited something and I wanted to erase my edit, so I used a method I like to use (go to earlier version of the page, click edit, dont change anything, save page), I'm sorry, I didn't mean to, (PS, send your reply to that place you sent the last message, NOT as an E-mail please).216.230.147.224 (talk)

Hi Apokryltaros, I think the last warning you are refering to at AIV might be stale. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Okay.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright pal, it seems you can't prove that Baryonyx was originally going to be in Walking with Dinosaurs and the book on Walking with Dinosaurs said that Europe and North America were close together at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raptor Red (talk • contribs) 21:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my responsibility to prove that: it is actually your responsibility to provide actual evidence to your claims, which you have not been doing, and is why your edits keep getting reverted.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:The Lord of the Allosaurs added Golfodulcean Poison Frog in the category:Pet amphibians, the problem is that he didn'd added references. --Noder4 (talk) 22:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be best if there was some information about it being a pet amphibian in the article before it is categorized as one.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy, it looks like you've reverted User:Raptor Red a few times re the article Walking with Dinosaurs. I agree there are some issues with his/her additions, and have started a discussion on the talk page. I'd invite you to contribute. Thanks, --TeaDrinker (talk) 21:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, instead of just reverting everything, you might consider keeping the good sections (the majority, and fully referenced) with a minor tweak as I just did. If there really are extinct species currently assigned to the genus, they should be listed (in the taxobox the genus isn't linked, which usually only is used for monotypic species). On a personal level I'd be interested in them too, as I was completely unaware of them. Regardless, notice that if Père David's Deer belongs in Cervus as it now appears based on genetics, any arguments for placing other extinct species in the genus must be questioned, as in all likelihood based on comparison with Père David's Deer. Not to forget that the type species of Elaphurus is Père David's Deer, meaining that if it is moved, the genus automatically becomes a junior synonym of Cervus, and can't be used for others. 212.10.94.175 (talk) 02:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss any revisions before once an edit has already been undone, so one may avoid an edit war. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 21:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It really isn't necessary to have a big discussion before every edit. Edit summaries are nice when reverting someone, but that little gem about laying eggs in the brain has several things wrong with it (it's unsourced, weasel words, etc), so it's probably ok to be bold and remove it. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well the point is that it was already reverted, and at the least give a reason in the edit summary. And it was stated later on in the article and it was there referenced. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 22:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even the part about earwigs eating brains?--Mr Fink (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was once actually believed that earwigs burrowed into ones ear and layed eggs or fed upon it. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 22:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm well aware of the ear-burrowing+egg-laying legends, but it's the part about eating brains that I'm incredulous about.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I put the reply on my page.Dave (talk) 17:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS I seem to be on a Rhinocerotid roll. Would you prefer me to do a couple more of them before I depart for the stone age, so that you can confirm some of your art?Dave (talk) 14:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply available.Dave (talk) 23:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. "Fink"! Your real initials wouldn't be S.C., would they? Because if they are not, S.C. is taking credit for your work on the Internet. If they are, there is something of a licensing problem here, which I do not care to get into myself but perhaps you can untangle. As far as I know, "no original contribution" does not apply to art. At least I have never seen an issue made. You originally put a picture of an Elasmotherium pair on WP thus bypassing the licensing requirement. Then you modified it (which you should. Purple sky? yuk. This is not a greeting card). Funkmonk, whom I believe is an administrator (I don't even care to check), moved your pic to commons. There seems to be a verification process required. If you are S.C. I got no idea how you are going to avoid using your real name. If you are not, I got no idea how you are going to reconcile your claims to originality with his. The Internet has the modified picture. The picture is in a copyrighted work on the Internet. In case you are interested I think (at this point) the picture falls within the reconstructive parameters. We can't get into personal details here. Fix the problem, will you?Dave (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My real initials are "SFF," and purple sky,you said? That was an old, old version of mine; yuk indeed. one, right?At the time, I envisioned them grazing at twilight, we're both lucky I refrained from sticking in the aurora borealis. Also, I don't think it's too much of a problem. I've had cases where other wikipedians have, in addition to Funkmonk's immense help in transferring my pictures from (English) Wikipedia to the Wikipedia Commons, taken art from my Deviantart account to upload onto Wikipedia, while attributing it to me. It's not wiki-kosher, but, they mean well, so I don't raise a stink about that.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you say. I'm not a graphic artist primarily, my skills are in writing. Although I sometimes help organize pics and have taken some local photos with a relatively cheap camera my tendency is to leave well enough alone graphically speaking. But, I foresee a possible problem. I'm shooting for recognized excellence, which means a good article review. The license on that pic is not clear so someone might complain or insist the pic be removed. As to your identity in the huge world of outside, not my concern. This is the world of words and pictures abstracted for the most part from people. If it is clear with WP it is clear with me. Often WP does not follow its rules depending on who is out to get whom and for what. If someone were to steal my copyrighted work that would bother me. Flickr is a good example. Some people copyright flikr pics they do not own. Then flikr gives WP "permission." This is something like selling the Brookline Bridge. At one time the situation was so bad on the Internet I used to see big chunks of text from published books copyrighted under some non-authorial name. I can't imagine what they were thinking. Maybe they were following the example of a certain university chancellor of mysterious ethics with a Texas accent and intelligence connections and his unintelligent slavish assistants. Or, maybe some juvenile who didn't know any better. If he tried to sell it he wouldn't be selling long before he got a visit from the feds, unless he is a fed. Two weeks ago I coun't even spell fid and now I are one. So anyway I'm handing this off to you and if something goes wrong it is all your fault. On the article, it seems the most difficult items are being put off until last.Dave (talk) 03:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to Main Study. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates about 20 minutes. I chose you as a English Wikipedia user who made edits recently through the RecentChange page. Refer to the first page in the online survey form for more information on the study and me.cooldenny (talk) 01:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done and done. Thank you for letting me participate.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for participating in the study cooldenny (talk) 01:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Apokryltaros. I appreciate for completing the survey two weeks ago and trusting me. I would like to return your favor with a reward of an online gift card with no condition. Please leave your email address in the final version of survey of my project. In addition, you can get chance to win $50 worth of gift card. It takes only 10 minutes to complete the final version because it contains only 35 questions. If you have another Wikipedia friends, please introduce this survey to them. Thank you so much. cooldenny (talk) 13:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I have been rather pre-occupied with life for the past few weeks. It looks like the editor was blocked indefinitely, which seems entirely appropriate. Again, my apologies for not getting to this sooner. --TeaDrinker (talk) 20:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I envy you for that, even.

Hi Apokryltaros. Do you know of any sources for this content? It would be a shame to lose it. mgiganteus1 (talk) 18:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm from an alien species site on Wikia. Could you draw a few creatures from there? We would be much obliged. Pinguinus (talk) 14:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you draw a picture of this alien wearing full body armor? If you're willing to help, we'll bring more requests to you. Thank you for your cooperation! Pinguinus (talk) 04:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try and see what I can do.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't give out barnstars, cuz, well, cuz I have no idea how.... However, thanks for your contributions to the objections to evolution talk page. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to express strong protest against the way you avoid discussion of your "undo edit" by erasing the additional questions I have, pls. note I will be forced to report your edit as vandalism should you continue avoiding the reply on my questions, pls. advise how you want to proceed. Thanx in advance.--Stephfo (talk) 16:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]