User talk:Apokryltaros

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome!

Hello, Apokryltaros, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Alai 04:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Random Praise

I just slipped into your pages by random search for a missing flag, and saw that you make marvelous art! (And also accurate for the purpose as far as I can tell). Keep on painting and creating. User:Rursus 08:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you--Mr Fink 13:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opabinia

I suppose "enigmatic" is not more encyclopedic than "curious". Perhaps we can agree on "extraordinary"? Subversive 21:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It's one of my favorite Burgess Shale beasties.--Mr Fink 22:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I was trying a humorous approach. Maybe you can point out in the article, how the Opabinia is extraordinary. Inserting adjectives based on personal opinion is generally not a good idea on Wikipedia. Subversive 22:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I understand now.--Mr Fink 01:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
"Highly ununsual" is definitely better, in my opinion. Not kidding this time. Subversive 00:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
So it has been written, so shall it stay. (for now)--Mr Fink 02:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trachipterus trachypterus

Hello Apokryltaros, Noticed you added Category:Lampriformes when the species was already in its Family Category:Trachipteridae. This is not necessary, & leads to over categorisation - if a species is in its Family category it is automatically included in the Order category. Keep up the great artwork! Cheers GrahamBould 09:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I did not know that...--Mr Fink 17:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good work!

I've just seen some of the drawings of extinct animals you've made. They're very good en beautiful and I've put some of them on Wiki-Commons ([1]) so I can use them on the Dutch Wikipedia as well. Is it possible to upload your new drawings in the future on Commons so other Wikipedia's can use them as well? Rique [2]

I'd be honored to have my stuff on Dutch Wikipedia, too.--Mr Fink 20:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Posting drawings/pictures on Commons is the same as posting on En-Wiki: first login (OK, you have to have an account, but creating one is easy: just as you create an account on Wiki, you can use the same name as on En-Wiki) and then choose "upload", upload your file and add a category (for your pictures Category:Extinct animals or one of its subcategories). Rique [3]
I'll get on it when I get home (where the copies are) tonight, and thanks muchly!--Mr Fink 18:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Thylacosmilus atrox.jpg and other pics

Good stuff! =) Your art is a valuable contribution to the wiki. I'm going to link some of it upwards in the taxonomic tree. For instance, Image:Thylacosmilus atrox.jpg is going to represent Sparassodonta, which currently has no picture. Thanks for your work! — coelacan talk — 05:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Drawings

I really love your drawings, and I admire your dedication to Wikipedia. Jack Cain 11:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!--Mr Fink 16:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mamo

That is a very specific fact that is not included in the reference I gave. Can you add your reference please? -- House of Scandal 14:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It was from the book "A Gap In Nature": I'll look at it again when I get home.--Mr Fink 16:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Well done! Thanks. House of Scandal 06:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a magnificent, but depressing book.--Mr Fink 13:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strigogyps sapea

Hi, I saw the new image. That's more like it, thanks for updating! I am presently gather some literature on the sophiornithids and will expand the article in due time (early next year I'd say) Dysmorodrepanis 06:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Good, then.--Mr Fink 06:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I like the background; I have checked out some Messel data and the date is (very) roughly 40 million years ago, the site is some brackish subtropical swampland, not unlike Fossil Lake.
As regards color pattern, it seems most likely that S. sapea was brownish/greyish with some hawk-like patterning (or owl-like, or Callocephalon-like even...), it's fairly generalized and primitive in these critters. The owl part was possibly not unlike Ninox hawk-owls morphologically... primitive owls came in 2 types, one more similar to Ninox and the other to Strix among modern owls. These two are of course derived tree-birds, while our guy here was more like a (mangrove?) swamp secretary-bird; in any case, a generally Ninox-like morphology seems plesiomorph in the early owls. Dysmorodrepanis 20:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Concerning Gobiatherium

Yes you can upload a new image and mix the profile of the beast with Uintatherium. That image is old. I can draw better now. Giant Blue Anteater 05:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any ideas. What do you mean by that? Giant Blue Anteater 05:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good work!

Thank you for sharing your artistic talent with the 'pedia! Your prehistorics are lovely. jengod 06:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!--Mr Fink 06:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Raspor

Hi! Just for the record, I think that you're spending too much effort on Raspor. Whether he knows it or not, the objections that he is raising is only intellectual flailing in the face of immense evidence to the contrary. He (apparently) is advocating finding "God in the Gaps", and as the gaps shrink and shrink, the advocates grow louder and louder, and less and less logical in their objections. His objections are almost exclusively without merit or substance, and spending time refuting each of his points is (in my opinion) letting him dictate your actions. Not saying you should act otherwise, just food for thought. See you around! --HassourZain 20:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmmm....--Mr Fink 20:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Like I said, I'm not trying to dictate what you should do, but Raspor does appear to be an inexperienced editor who is unwilling to listen to advice or comments from the community, as evidenced by the Request for Comment currently open against him, so your time may be wasted trying to bring him to reason. --HassourZain 20:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I think you're right. I'll let you handle him, you're more experienced in handling that bubblehead.--Mr Fink 20:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
As you can tell from his talk page, I've been putting a lot of work into helping him understand the right way to engage other users civilly and to make neutral edits. If there's anything else that you feel I could add to help him understand either some of the tenets of the scientific method, evolutionary biology, or Wikipedia policy, just let me know. Thank you! --HassourZain 17:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll let you know when I think of something helpful.--Mr Fink 19:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] his image of the Pterygotus buffaloensis

Please, load his image of the Pterygotus buffaloensis in the wikimedia commons. I was blockaded there because of ignoring notices, when it loads the image there, warn about me

Greetings Maurício Knevitz 18:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Koolasuchus

Would you be able to draw a koolasuchus???? It is found what it gets, draw one and load the image in the wikicommons. I liked his drawing of the Pterygotus

Tanks Maurício Knevitz 16:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yessir.--Mr Fink 17:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Praecambridium etc

Nothing on the other two, I'm afraid, but have been 'studying' Praecambridium recently! Alas, my study was limited to a cursorary glance at a couple of new specimens, which were whisked away before I could have a detailed look. Was there anything in particular you were wanting to know? I'm not sure there's too much to be said for them at the moment, but could easily find out more if you wished!

Verisimilus 17:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I see; I'll find out what I can, but most of these creatures have very little factual written about them! Opinions seem to abound but as there are, surprisingly, only six 'expert' scientists working on this field it may be a long wait before anything more concrete emerges!

Verisimilus 17:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prehistoric Animal Pictures

Like everyone on your talk page, I'm a huge fan of the prehistoric animal pictures that you've drawn! I'm particularly interested in prehistoric and Holocene hippos and would like to improve a number of their articles. I wondered if you had a secret stash of sources that you used to help learn the visual details. If you know of any good sources that could help me improve Wikipedia's coverage of the hippopotamus fossil record, I would greatly appreciate the guidance. Thanks! --JayHenry 05:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the recommendations. I'm in the process of acquiring those books. Wanted to ask your thoughts on a categorization issue. I think we should have a category for extinct hippos and that it should be a subcategory of category:hippos. But I'm wondering if the category should be "Category:extinct hippos" or "Category:prehistoric hippos"? Some of the hippos became extinct in recent times, so I'm not sure if "prehistoric" is accurate. But I've looked at some other animal categories and noticed that they use the term "prehistoric" even for more recent extinctions -- like the European Lion which became extinct during the early centuries AD. There's also the category, Category:Prehistoric artiodactyls so maybe we should reflect that usage? I don't know if you even care, but figured I'd ask for your thoughts. --JayHenry 19:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Let's go with "Category:Extinct hippos" and have it as a subcategory of Prehistoric artiodactyls and Hippos. You think we should shuffle the Anthracotheres into it, too?--Mr Fink 19:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, it's created, voila! Category:Extinct hippos. I don't know enough about Anthracotheres to know whether or not they can be called hippos. Has anyone else called them "prehistoric hippos" or "extinct hippos"? If not, I don't really think we should be the first. But. if we have sources that consider them ancient hippos I think it's fine as long as we clearly state at the top of the category that it includes members of both Hippopotamidae and Anthracotheriidae. --JayHenry 21:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
The anthracotheres aren't hippos per se, but they are regarded as the immediate ancestors of the hippos. Maybe we should ask around for more opinions about that, then?--Mr Fink 22:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Immediate ancestors or closest historical relatives or both? I guess we should ask around, although I don't know where to ask. Is there an extinct animal wikiproject? --JayHenry 22:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kurtis Levenham (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)

I noticed that you just reverted a link from this user. I also reverted linked by this user, and theres now a discussion going on his talk page and User talk:Nwwaew about this, if you're interested. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 23:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recommendation Concerning the Uintatheres

My opinion is that we should not merge those two articles (yet). That's because the Gobiatheriidae are sometimes treated as a seperate family instead of a subfamily, and the general opinion on that matter could easily change any moment. What's your opinion on this matter? DaMatriX 15:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm yes you're right, Gobiatherium is indeed the sole genus in the Gobiatherrinae......I didn't realise that. In that case, merging Uintatheriidae with Dinocerata is fine to me. DaMatriX 16:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
The honors are yours! Off-topic: I see you're an artist, specialised in extinct animals. I know palaeos.com, it's a great site. But do you also draw on request? I know quite some articles on extinct animals that could use some pics! DaMatriX 17:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture request

Well, actualy I would like some pictures for two little known genera of primitive Carnivora: the proto-bear Hemicyon and the early pinniped Enaliarctos. I know they're not Paleozoic animals, but if you manage to draw them and share your work on wikipedia, you will receive my eternal appreciation in return! ;) DaMatriX 20:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll put them on my list, then.--Mr Fink 20:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! I'm looking forward to the result! DaMatriX 20:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Random Smiley Award

For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award
originated by Pedia-I
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 21:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/p/o/User_talk%7EApokryltaros_9443.html"