User talk:ArthurWeasley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The current Wikipedia time is:
03:24, Sunday, June 15, 2008 (UTC)
To update time purge page cache!

Archive Nov 2006 Archive Mar 2007

Contents

[edit] Go for it...........

Arthur, Firs and I hereby pass you the wikibaton to nominate Compy.cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 08:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The Original Barnstar
For your tons of work on Featured Article Compsognathus, including hundreds of edits and a beautiful image. Thank you so much for your contributions. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Also: is your artwork really going to be on television?! That would be really awesome. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess you are a man of few words. Congratulations! That is very cool. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Venus

HI, re the recent anon changing orbital changes to Venus, I didn't get a response to a question placed on his/her talk page, so reversion was the right thing to do. Regards, — BillC talk 21:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] RFC/discussion of article sulla

Hello, ArthurWeasley. As a prominent contributor to sulla, you may want to be aware that a request for comments has been filed about it. The RFC can be found by the article's name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found on Talk:sulla, in case you wish to participate. Thank you for your contributions. -- Nick 15:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It is a theory

Since i do not want to break the 3 RR rule I will leave it be but know this, Evolution is just a theory, it has both evidence for it and against it which is why is not fact. So please do not do anything like this in the future. Thank you. --Peace237 22:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archaeopteryx

On your last two edits, it seems that you were trying to add a ref and then accidentally delete all edits since yesterday including two entire sections. ArthurWeasley 00:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, luckily Mgig corrected it. I'm not sure what happened, as I wasn't reverting to an earlier version, and wasn't even looking at an earlier version. Might have been some sort of database error. At any rate, thanks for catching it. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 01:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Federer Photo

This image was provided to my website by another contributing photographer. I was wrong to authorize it being added to Commons as I am not the true copyright holder. He has not authorized it's use by Wikipedia in anyway and it needs to be removed promptly from any and all usage other we shall both initiate litigation promptly.Dannyg3332 19:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


Can you please advise me on how to insert the copyright violation tag ? I will apply it to all the appropriate images.Dannyg3332 20:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFA Thanks

Thanks for your support on my Request for adminship, which was successful, with votes of 49/0/0.

Lemme know if you need help on something I might know a little something about....(check my userpage).
cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 14:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship?

Hey Arthur,

Has anyone ever asked you if you're interested in requesting Adminship? I ask because I see you often reverting vandalism, so the tools might be useful. Plus, you're a trusted user, and well-liked by the community. If you were interested, I would nominate you in a heartbeat. Just something to consider. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 20:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Firs, thanks for asking, but no, I do not wish to become an admin yet. Too much work, I think, and I do not feel knowledgeable enough about all the intricacies of wiki policy. Besides, I am still a "newbie" having started editing on August 2006 with just a bit over 3000 edits (you have 10 times more). Cheers. ArthurWeasley 20:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Understood. If you ever change your mind, let me know. I don't think the policies are truly difficult to grasp, eight months of editing has been judged as more than qualifying, and your 3000 significant edits are perhaps more helpful than my 30,000 minor spelling corrections. Still, it's obvious you don't "feel" ready, and maybe you never will. Not everyone wants to become an admin, and that's ok: as you point out, it can be a lot of work. I just didn't want the offer to never have been made, you know? Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 21:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the compliments, Arthur. I agree with you that these articles would be in bad shape without the "backbone" of editors who have put in so much work: Spawn, Cas, Dinoguy, JSpencer, yourself, and a handful of now-absent editors. It's been great working with everyone. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the kind words about the new portal. I'm glad you liked it... :) I did consider creating both the sections you mentioned, but didn't for a couple of reasons - For the "In the news section", you have to have a link to Wikinews, which unfortunately doesn't have a private section for dinosaurs, only science. Dinosaurs aren't in the science section that often anyway, so that would mean we would have to create our own news for the portal - The way I created it was that it needed almost no maintainence whatsoever - the edition of this section would only increase that. Now for the DYK section - We've created all the dinosaur articles on the List of Dinos, & most other subjects have been created also, so I doubt there would be much action in that area. The only option there would be to have a selection of DYKs created for each article, & then have a sort of low maintainence system running much like the selected picture & article sections... Thanks again, your comments are appreciated & I'll see if we can add that DYK section in the future as that would be a great addition... :) Spawn Man 06:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

Please do not put movie screenshots in taxoboxes, especially when you are replacing perfectly valid images like what you did on Mesothelae, Edaphosaurus, Gorgonops and elsewhere. According to the license fair use rationale, these images can only be used for identification and critical commentary on the film and its contents, so they belong to the popular culture section of the article where the apparition of the animal in the film is described. Thank you.

Yeah, sorry about that. I didn't know because I'm a new user, and I still have a lot to learn. But thanks for telling me anyways. Radical3 15:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thescie image

Hi, Arthur! I'm copying and pasting my comments from the talk page here. Overall, I liked it, with a couple of tweaks:

The angle looks good, proportions seem all right, and I like the color scheme. The head does look a bit small, but if you extend the beak, that might solve itself. I'd suggest two tweaks to it: first, as mentioned, give the beak more of a point; second, give the anterior chest a bit more definition (something to make the neck-chest transition more defined; maybe darken in front of the arm's socket or make it a bit "deeper" in the chest right behind the arms (it's a bit hard to explain in words) - not as extreme as I've done in my drawings at Thescelosaurus!, but something so the neck and the shoulder/chest are more demarcated). The torso looks reasonably and convincingly "round" to me, but if you wanted to push more for that, I don't think it would be detrimental. If you do decide to plump it up, make sure you've saved an earlier version! :)
Morris's scutes are about 1-1.5 cm long, and about 4/5ths the length tall, for an animal with cervical vertebrae 3.5 cm long. A row of them (he found four, associated with the first four cervicals) would probably look like a low, serrated margin. J. Spencer 01:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Oddly, the Fischer paper was free without logging on when I made that link. I can't send attachments over the Wikimail, so could you send a message to me with your regular email address? My copy of Morris '76 isn't a pdf, but I can scan in the photo of the scutes for you tomorrow. J. Spencer 03:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Size comparison diagram

Ok. Sorry If I don't answer in the image review, I'm working too much these days on spanish wikipedia. But if it now neccesary the size comparison diagram I don't have problem to do it. Wow... it's incredible how you have the time to do a lot of pictures, also good pictures as base like that of Thescelosaurus from the side. And I also interested in astronomy, that is the science that I want to study some later years, to finally be astronaut. --Dropzink 05:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thescelosaurus compared in size with a human
Thescelosaurus compared in size with a human
Everyone say me the same thing, that I can be more easily paleontologist:-D But I don't know, I prefer the science of planets and space and I really want to be astronaut. And.. about the image, I think that it looks good, but originally I will do it with 2 Thescelosauruses, one of 4 meters and one of 2.5 meters but is a bit too complicated. But equally this version, only of one of 4 meters, is accurate to me. Cheers. --Dropzink 00:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
It looks good to me, and I wouldn't fiddle with the size too much at this point. I've seen specimens that may affect this, but which are unpublished. J. Spencer 03:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Arthur;) --Dropzink 04:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Thescie pic

That's an interesting choice - I'd always assumed that the plates were under the skin, but I don't remember if their position was explicitly stated or not. J. Spencer 13:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I think that fading them in more would probably work better at this point (barring any new finds of skin impressions). J. Spencer 21:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I like that a lot! I'll go swap out figures. J. Spencer 13:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
As I was putting it up, I had a question about the tail flexibility, but looking at Gilmore's restoration, the ossified tendons are mostly present from the middle back to the tip, and your illustration is only gently curved there, so I think it could do that. They certainly didn't seem to bother Gilmore, who bent the tail right where they started!
I moved the previous taxobox drawing down to the pop culture section, and said something about its turning radius to go with the mathematical modeling paragraph. J. Spencer 14:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Xuanhanosaurus

Firs, you've added that dinosaur on the illustration to-do list. I could not find any decent reconstruction on the web. Do you happen to have the original description by Dong or some other source that shows the known skeletal elements (forelimbs and vertebrae)? All I got is this and this, two very dissimilar representations. This discussion] provides some help but not much. Thanks. ArthurWeasley 05:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Arthur!
Sorry, it appears I've opened a can of worms regarding this genus. Someone added an image of a quadrupedal theropod to the Xuanhanosaurus page, and I was hoping to get a more recent image (Dong had proposed in 1984 that it was quadrupedal based on the length of the forelimbs, but this hasn't been followed). Unfortunately, pictures of this critter seem dificult to locate. The original publication is Dong (1984). "A new theropod dinosaur from the Middle Jurassic of Sichuan Basin". Vertebrata PalAsiatica. 22(3), 213-218, but I do not have access to the paper, and even BioOne, etc, don't appear to have a PDF. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
No problem. I'll leave the genus alone then. Should we leave the drawing in quadrupedal pose in the taxobox since this representation is not widely accepted? ArthurWeasley 21:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
John C was indicating he wanted to remove it from the taxobox. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks AW

Erm, I'm not quite sure what to do with it, but I'm sure I can find a spot for it on my trophy wall. :) He might eat my other barnstars, but it's okay... Anyway, thanks for the kind words. See you around, Spawn Man 05:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My work

Not to sound either manic or paranoid, but have you got anything against my artwork? I ask this because it was I who came up with the drawing of Macrauchenia originally, and I had read earlier today that you suggested it be speedily deleted. So what exactly can you tell me?

--KnowledgeLord 04:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd read on Wikimedia that someone had wnated my work deleted. They had your Wikipedia Username, so I'd assumed the worst. --KnowledgeLord 01:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

My humblest apologies for my groundless suspicions--KnowledgeLord 02:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too many cooks :)

Hey Arthur!

You have been working on Herrerasaurus all day! I don't know how you pull these all-day editing sessions. Hey, the article is looking great, thanks to your efforts. I started adding material while you were editing, and now it appears there's a goof: I mentioned Frenguellisaurus and Ischisaurus were junior synonymsin the taxonomy section, and a few minutes later, you added synonomy of Ischisaurus in the history section. It seems redundant to mention this fact twice, but either way, Frenguellisaurus should be mentioned. I'll step out of the kitchen for a while and let you do your thing, but I did want to alert you to the problem. Also, I changed the date on one reference to Novas (1994), as this is the date the Paleobiology database gives for that paper, though it could be wrong. Happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 05:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Good night, Arthur. Sleep well. Jesus! You know you spent 12 hours expanding and improving that article?!?! I mean... my god... Firsfron of Ronchester 06:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
12 hours? No way. I took many breaks ;) What's bothering me is that there are many red links now in the article. I was a little surprised to see that such important formations as the Ischigualasto and the Los Colorados ones do not have their own article (the description of the Ischigualasto one's is contained within the Ischigualasto article, but should really have a separate article). Is there any "geological formation guru" at the Dinosaur wikiproject who can do something about the Triassic formations? ArthurWeasley 14:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
The editing history sure doesn't show a lot of breaks! Yes, Sheep is a total geological formation guru (he's the one who compiled the Project's formation list). I actually still have a few Herrerasaurus papers I haven't checked; last night I checked Sereno (2007), which has new information on a new small fenestra discovered, and there are probably other small bits, but I can't add them this afternoon. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey Arthur,
It struck me as strange that we had 13 Featured Articles but only 4 or 5 Good Articles, as you'd expect (or, at least, I expected) to see more good-quality articles than great-quality articles. I noticed that there were quite a few articles that seemed to easily pass the GA criteria, but which had never been submitted to WP:GAC, because we were so focused on the WP:FAC process. Since we were working so much on these FAs, these other articles were just getting neglected.
The GA requirements aren't quite as stringent as FA, and even a single individual can get an article up to GA status, something I'm not sure is even possible with FA.
Deinonychus and Styracosaurus are the only two non-Featured articles which are (or were) the size of any of our Featured Articles, and thus are (or were) probably the only ones which meet the 'comprehensive' aspect that FAC requires. However, J said he felt there were still some problems with Styracosaurus, so I never nominated it for FA, as I respect his judgement. You were still adding material to Deinonychus as of yesterday, so it's possibly not yet fully comprehensive, either (or it wasn't as of yesterday). In lieu of a Featured Article, I suppose it was only natural to work on getting some articles up to GA status. If you'd like to nominate an article, either for GA or FA, please feel free. I agree that we should continue to push for FA status if an article is ready, but maybe we just weren't ready. *Shrug* In the past week, there has been a lot of expanding of many articles, and I think the situation may have changed. I nommed a few of these for GA because it seemed unlikely the WP:Dinosaurs team would have time to do a full FA-style collaboration on them (unpopular dinosaur genera), but they still met or could easily be brought to meet the GA guidelines. But if you think there is an article that is ready, go for it, man! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 08:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
(de-intenting) I agree that there are several Good Articles that may be ready for a FACing, but I don't agree that GA and FA are essentially the same process: Amphicoelias and Ankylosaurus were promoted to GAs with only 9 and 10 in-line citations each. There is no way a dinosaur article will be promoted to Featured status with only 10 citations; Tyrannosaurus and Iguanodon each have 84 sources. I feel like it's quite easy to bring an article up to GA status, but I will never (again) attempt a FA on my own.
Thank you for taking a look at Styracosaurus; if there's anything that can be added or adjusted to that article that might bring it up to FA consideration, I'm all for it! As for Spinosaurus, I'm afraid I haven't done much work on it, simply because I don't have a whole lot of source material for it that hasn't already been added to the article. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey Arthur!

You recently altered Tyrannosaurus here with the edit summary "correct maastrichtian dates", but those weren't the dates of the Maastrichtian; they were the dates of "the last three million years of the Cretaceous Period", where fossils of Tyrannosaurus have been found. Now that you have adjusted this text, it reads as though the last "three million years" spanned 5.1 million years! Firsfron of Ronchester 17:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that works! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 17:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your fixes to Styracosaurus. Based on your comments, and the fixes made by you and J, I went ahead and sent this to FAC. Thanks again for all your work (as usual!) Firsfron of Ronchester 07:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Drawing a Sphenodon skull

Hi Arthur, in addition to your important work at the ministry, you also seem adept at drawing - something that unfortunately eludes me. My problem is that I need a drawing of a tuatara skull for that article (there is a generic diapsid one on the page right now that I would rather replace). I can provide photographs and drawings of skulls of related species that you could work from. Are you interested? Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Email me for details. Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Version 1 looks good to me. Would you like me to put it past the rest of the contributors for comment? Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] tagging your approved images?

Hi Arthur - hope you'll tag up all your approved images! I'm looking forward to seeing the gallery chockablock full of hundreds of approved dino images! Debivort 03:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I've just started. There are hundreds of images that need tagging and I will do a bit at a time (Any help with this will be much appreciated ;). Thank you so much for tagging all your images!. There are also images that did not formally go through the review process but that are generally accepted as fine. Cheers. ArthurWeasley 04:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Happy to help. Can you direct me to a list I can work on? Debivort 04:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

re: tagging non-dinos. I hesistated when I came across them, but then reading the description at the category page: "images that have been reviewed and approved by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review..." it seemed that even the non-dinos had been vetted there, and should get the tag. I think the best way to go is to include them all, then add a note at the top of the category page saying some of the animals are non-dinos, but they have been vetted by the project. Debivort 05:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nice Work

Nice work on creating those image review catagories - it's great to see all the dino images in one place. Great job AW! Spawn Man 07:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Well actually, I was thinking of putting most of them on the actual dinosaur portal rather than linking them. I never really knew nor had the time to see all the great pictures we have, but now that they're all in one place it should make it easier to add them to the picture section on the portal. :) Spawn Man 03:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, yeah, that's what I meant. It would be madness placing all the pictures on there. However, I think Portal:War has uypwards of 50-100 pictures... Spawn Man 04:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] approved

Hi AW - what's your thinking about Image:Camptosaurus.jpg? It seems pretty darn muddy and non-illustrative? Would it pass WP Dino image review? Debivort 05:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

... As for the Camptosaurus pic, it's accurate as far as I can tell and it is actually artistically well done. ArthurWeasley 06:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, a blank white image is a 100% accurate rendering of a Camptosaurus in a blizzard, and a 2-d gaussian is an accurate view of a Camptosaurus that's brutally out of focus. That's what I make of that image. Debivort 06:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I love impressionism, but as an encyclopedic illustration of sunrise or fishing or whatever your example is a bit lacking. And encyclopedicity (sorry for the potential neologism - it's in common usage over at WP:FPC) needs to be our ultimate standard right? Debivort 06:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Your statement that the Camptosaurus is identifiable from that image is very reassuring to me, and if I had known that initially, I probably wouldn't have brought that case up. And I certainly acknowledge that in your examples, less is included in the image without justification than in the typical reconstructions that you or I do. However, I think there is value in portraying plausible details, to demonstrate the categorical types into which an animal belongs. For example, the campto image has no visible eye. Drawing in an eye, even if the color or shape or exact placement is wrong, serves to place the animal in the category of animals with eyes. While the new illustration of an Allosaurus in the jungle (at right - please forgive the demonstration if it doesn't actually look like an allosaurus - made it in 30s just now) may show no fake details about an allosaurus, it does very little to place the animal into categorical types for the reader - types like "wrinkly skinned, sharp toothed, n-toed. I feel the value in artistic reconstructions comes not from portraying only the information we are confident in (leave that to photos of skeletons and rigorous "black-in-gaps" skeletal reconstructions), but in generating vivid portrait of what they might reasonably have looked like. Debivort 07:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I forgot to answer your question about the second blurry example. Yeah I have the same issue with it. It is more atmospheric, with the warm breath and all, but maybe less encyclopedic. I can't tell the shape of the animal, or even which way it is going. And no need to apologize for insisting. Conversation is interesting. Debivort 07:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archaeothyris

Hi Arthur,

How to get copyright of your illustration (Archaeothyris) , for a book ? Sorry it is my first contribution, I don't know how to do. Thanks Catherine88

[edit] Eocursor

Just came across the Eocursor paper and start editing the article while reading the paper (you have the paper right?), but then realized you, as the creator of the article, might want to do the editing. Sorry for that. Please feel free to continue, I have to leave anyway. Just thinking of drawing a pic for it. Cheers. ArthurWeasley 00:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey Arthur!
Yes, I got the paper about an hour ago. This is so cool; a good early ornithischian. Please do not apologise for expanding the article, man! There was just nothing I could add to the article last night, as Google didn't show much, and the paper wasn't on the Royal Society's page (that I could find). Also: technically, I didn't start the article; someone else beat me to the punch. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images needed request:

I know you stick more to creating dinosaur pictures, but would you consider drawing some non-dinosaurian pictures for some articles I have created? The articles are: Chamitataxus, Edaphodon, Kaganaias, Mauisaurus & Osbornoceros. I don't know what you will need to be able to draw these images for me, but there is some skeletals & images already made on Google and I have a few PDFs with skeletals on them that I could send to you. Would you be able to create these images for me? It would mean a lot, & if you want I can give you a barnstar or be your slave for a while or something... ;) If you can, great, if you can't, it doesn't matter. Whatever you need, just ask. Cheers, Spawn Man 04:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC) :)

Okay, send me an email & I'll reply to it & attach the PDFs with the skeletals in them - I don't know it they'll be very good, but I'm sure there'll be resources on the internet as well. The email might be a bit big, so I might send the PDFs in two emails instead of one. Thanks for this AW! Cheers, Spawn Man 04:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
2 emails sent. May take a while to come in. Tell when you've done an image & place it on my talk page. I'll put it in any corresponding articles. Cheers, Spawn Man 04:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Umm... You could do a tooth drawing? ;) Nah, just delete it if there's nothing useful on it - I forgot it was known only from teeth. The rest are fine though aye? Spawn Man 05:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Wow!!!!! You did all that in this time?! Amazing! I was expecting like a week or two lol! Yes, you're right in regard to the national plesiosaur. Kaganaias' PDF has an artist's recreation, could that be of any use? Osbornoceros - I am unsure about that one, I don't remember seeing an skeletals... Thanks for the great work man! You're awesome!!! :) Spawn Man 07:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Wow again! Would you consider doing one facing inwards next time though? It makes the animal seem a bit cold-shoulder like lol. ;) You truly are brilliant. Would you consider being my image maker??? I find myself making more & more articles on non-dinosaurs (as well as dinosaurs too though...) & it would be great to have someone like you sprucing them up with images. We could be like a team or something? Whattya say?It wouldn't be like full on, but if I created a new article, would you be interested? Spawn Man 06:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Again: awesome! It really looks great. You should pursue a proffessional job in art... Spawn Man 08:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tuatara skull drawing

I'm a great believer in positive feedback and so i must say that this drawing of yours is a great piece of work. You must get a lot of satisfaction from your art being used on wikipedia, it's a very valuable sort of contribution ( after all, "a picture is worth a thousand words") and one most people aren't able to make. Cheers, Kotare 10:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Did you know?

Updated DYK query On 18 June 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Eocursor, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 08:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

You deserve this!

The Dinosaur Star - for your amazing artwork and patience dealing with my nitpicky critiques of your Psittacosaurus series... you must have terrifying jugal horn-related nightmares! Bravo! Sheep81 10:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The Dinosaur Star - for your amazing artwork and patience dealing with my nitpicky critiques of your Psittacosaurus series... you must have terrifying jugal horn-related nightmares! Bravo! Sheep81 10:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar for your efforts!

For creating so many great images in such a short time, I present you this thingy (A barnstar riight?) -- Spawn Man 11:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
For creating so many great images in such a short time, I present you this thingy (A barnstar riight?) -- Spawn Man 11:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic is a little bit of an understatement in regard to your work. You truly have exceeded my expectations & have done a wonderful job in bringing those poor forgotten creatures to life based on a few bones & a little info. Hoepfully we can do this again - I'm sure I'll find some critter you can draw for me. :) In the mean time, enjoy this here barnstar & keep doing what you're doing. Sincerly, Spawn Man 11:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC).

I'm not confident I'll be able to do a good job, but if you could provide me with a PDF & a couple of internet sites, I'm sure I'll be able to type something up. :) Spawn Man 03:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I've recieved the PDFs - they look alright, I'm sure I will be able to write at least a short stub... Thanks, Spawn Man 10:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] images for deletion

Image:Dimetrodon BW.jpg and Image:Champsosaurus BW.jpg‎ were tagged for deletion, and the bot put the notice on my talk page for some reason. Debivort 05:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah - this could create a problem. Is there anyway to tag something on commons as part of an en:wiki category (fantasizing about something like: en:Category:Approved dinsaur images? Most of your images are hosted on commons right? I wonder why the bot only got those two pages. Debivort 17:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Image:Dimetrodon_BW.jpg and Image:Chasmatosaurus_BW.jpg

The images exist on Commons and they appear licensed okay. Where do they not showup here? If I remember correctly, they didn't exist here but had a page here which is in violation of our policy. MECU≈talk 00:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Asking

First off, I want to I really love your drawings and so keep up the good work! But I was also wondering with I could use your drawings on a website that I working on? Write your answer on my disscution page. From User:4444hhhh

[edit] Yanoconodon

I've just created the article Yanoconodon & would love to have a picture to go with it if it gets put in the DYK section of the main page. I'm sending you the PDF now, so if you have the time to draw it, that would be great. If you can't get it done by then, don't worry about it. I believe I've linked to a website with another artist's representation on it in the article's external links section - this may be of some help. In any case, I'll have a look at creating those PDFs you sent me this week eh? Cheers man. Spawn Man 05:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Lol, the name is a bit wierd at first, but once you write it a few times it gets easier. ;) Thanks AW, I look forward to seeing if you can do a better job than that other artist out there who's done Yanoconodon - personally I think you could. Regards, Spawn Man 06:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
KK, it always amazes me the time difference between countries. Cheers, Spawn Man 06:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Eeeexcelleeent... It looks just like I imagined! I've added it to the article & if we're lucky, it might accompany the DYK fact if we get one! Cheers AW, until next time. :) Spawn Man 06:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Yay! The picture was featured on the main page's DYK section! Spawn Man 07:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lambeosaurus

I just sent the scans and a PDF. Let me know if you have any problems with the attachments (there should be 6). J. Spencer 01:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 6 July 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Excalibosaurus, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 00:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My requests (72.50.103.164)

I'm not sure if it is enough, but I found a physical description of Ianthasaurus at this website: http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/Units/Unit390/390.300.html. I couldn't find anything about Bolosaurus, but I did find information & a sketch of it's relative, Eudibamus, at this related website: http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/Units/Unit200/100.html. Maybe you could do a substitution. I hope that this is enough. If it's not, I understand. Keep up the good work. - 72.50.103.164 01:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I noticed you put Proterochampsa in the Phytosauria section. Technically speaking, the Proterochampsidae are a separate family. They aren't even archosaurs, let alone phytosaurs. They lie just outside Archosauria proper, in the Archosauromorpha. By the way, could you create the pages for Proterochampsa & Proterochampsidae?. - 64.237.246.80 16:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dromomeron

Hi, Arthur;

A quick note on your Dromomeron restoration: I like it quite a bit, particularly the head, but I think the thighs are too broad. Going by this rough illustration (Dromie's in the bottom lefthand section), which is probably based a lot on other dinosauromorphs and so is more of a generalized lagerpetonid/basal dinosauromorph, the ilia are rather short, with correspondingly thin thighs. What do you think? J. Spencer 03:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey Arthur! I really like your Dromomeron drawing, very cool and appropriately 'lizard-like', I think. Just wanted to be "that guy" and point out another likely error--as a close relative of Lagerpeton, Dromomeron probably had a similarly odd 2-toed foot, with digits 1 and 2 both reduced.[1] Minor thing really, but since this doesn't fall under image review I figured I'd bring it to your attention :) Dinoguy2 07:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archive Paleoart 1

Why aren't the creatures in the archive organized in the other categories?. - 64.237.240.19 18:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

These are my oldest drawings and there weren't organized in categories at that time. They probably will be eventually. ArthurWeasley 18:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Emontosaurus speed isn't cited in the first place so i should be allowed to change it and because your good at dino art could you post and dmontosaurus picture on your page. BamboozlingBert

[edit] Hi I'm Dinosaur525!

I saw alot of your dinosaur pictures. They were fantastic! Didn't you draw some pictures in pencil? I am still trying to put my drawings in.I already drew a Dilophosaurus,Coelophysis,Leptoceratops,Velociraptor,and Oviraptor but I still don't have them uploaded.--Dinosaur525 01:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speed

I've noticed that you shell out these pictures pretty quickly. How long does it take, from the moment you start drawing to the moment you put it on the net, for your easiest & your hardest pictures?. - 72.50.100.62 16:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

an hour or two depending on the illustration. ArthurWeasley 16:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Wonderful User

You are my favorite user.You make images so everyone can see them.You are nice and trustful.If you didn't see my request I will write you it here.I was looking threw the dinosaur pages and noticed that there was no picture of a Ornithocheirus and there was only a model of a Utahraptor on its page so if you can create those two I will be thankful.Thanks for being a wonderful user.--Dinosaur525 19:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dinosaur Requests

Thank you for trying to find Ornithocheirus and Utahraptor for me! Keep up the good work!--Dinosaur525 19:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edmontosaurus, Utahraptor

Thanks for the Edmontosaurus it was great but are you sure Utahraptor should have that much feathers as it was 6.5 metres bear in mind and also i asked dinoguy about edmontosaurus speed quite a while ago but he hasn't answered yet do you know if he is away?

Hi Bert (I assume that's you), phylogenetic bracketing indicates that Utahraptor was probably feathered with a quite complex feather structure that includes primary feathers on the forelimbs. The question on how much feather it actually had or if it might have secondarily lost some of them is anybody guess until the eventual discovery of feather impressions associated with that animal or of a related animal with that size. ArthurWeasley 01:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sent you an email

Best,

Separa 10:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, got your email. Will do. ArthurWeasley 07:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you so much. Deeply appreciated. Separa 08:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Woah!

I need to look through your gallery more often... not only are there a bunch of dinosaur illustrations I haven't seen on image review (nor do they need to be there, all look phenomenal in terms of accuracy), but the sheer volume of prehistoric life illustrations you're churning out is unreal! So many under represented, obscure, or otherwise cool creatures brought to life needs a barnstar, I think...

The Fauna Barnstar
For bringing to life a huge range of prehistoric animals through your illustrations. Keep up the good work! Dinoguy2 07:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks For The Pic

Thank you for creating the utahraptor picture. I makes the page look completed. Thank you so much!--Dinosaur525 13:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ornithocheirus Pic Thank You

Thanks for the ornithocheirus picture. Finally the page has something in it! Thanks alot! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinosaur525 (talk • contribs) 13:48, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Don't Erase!

Don't erase the Chimera picture. I've decided to make an account. - 72.50.111.129 22:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC), Wyvern J. Wynderunner 22:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hatzegopteryx

Hey Arthur! Just starting to dip my toes in WP:Pterosaurs and work on a few of the azhdarch articles, when I noticed you're Hatz illustration. Great technique as usual, but I removed it from the page for anatomical reasons. Overall it resembled a pteranodontid more than an azhdarchid, and had a very large torso in proportion to everything else, which was pretty uncommon among pterosaurs as a whole. Azhdarchs especially had very large heads and very small bodies, usually smaller than the head. You drawing also had a fairly short, pteranodont-like neck--the defining feature of azhdarchs was their almost ludicrously long necks (for a flying animal at least). Their wings also tended to be proportionally shorter as well, with either a really high or really low aspect ratio depending on where you believe the membrane attached to the legs. It would be really cool if you found time to re-do this one, since accurate-looking azhdarch restorations are a real rarity. Maybe all but 5% of the Quetz drawings I've seen look absolutely nothing like the real animal, which was so aweomely bizarre...[2] [3] (Can't find any good in-flight azhdarch skeletals save Conway's Zheijiangopterus, which was quite small and probably had different proportions, but here it is:[4]. The Mark Witton illustration linked above would be a good guide for the larger species, and a more traditional wing attatchment style). Dinoguy2 00:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Alain's looks ok, but I'd still say the neck is a bit too short and the head too small (or body too large, however you want to look at it). One thing also to note in his is the short wing finger, so that the part of the wing beyong the hand is shorter than the arm segment. This is true of all azhdarchs. Dinoguy2 05:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commons Category:Approved dinosaur scale diagrams ?

Hi, what does this mean? approved for what and by whom? I just started work on vectorising some of the dinosaur images, but didn't know if i should put the vector versions in this category or not? first one is Image:Human-brachiosaurus size comparison.svg if you want to have a look. regards, Marmelad 11:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

ok. i noticed on one of the images that the scales were completely wrong (i trust the numbers written on the pics) and so i rescaled the images to be more accurate. compare e.g. Image:Human-styracosaurus size comparison.svg and Image:Human-styracosaurus size comparison.png. /Marmelad 16:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Me Again

Hi! It's me again and just need to ask you something. I'm trying to make a dinosaur called the Smarters but I don't know how you put drawings on Wikipedia so you can please draw me a smarter? Just read the description about them on my user page so you get an idea what they may look like? From User:4444hhhh —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 01:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank You but one more thing. How do you do it you just follow the page? From User:4444hhhh —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 19:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

OKAY, so i got the picture but i don't have a scanner so is there another way? From User:4444hhhh —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 20:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tetrapod Zoology

Hi, Arthur;
I don't know if you follow Darren Naish's Tetrapod Zoology blog, but your scaled group-head image of Psittacosaurus got some exposure in today's installment. J. Spencer 03:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pterosaur stuff

Hey AW! Your wing diagram looks good. The position of the hand seems really stange and non-aerodynamic to me... but that is what was presented at the Wellnhoffer conference... though I haven't actually seen any reconstructions of how a 'palm-forward" hand would look in flight. My gut instinct it that the fingers would needs to be scrunched together more almostt on the same plane as the wing finger, sort of like the scrunched-up 'crossed over' fingers seen in fossils of early birds and microraptorians. But then again maybe they have an aerodynamic function like a spoiler or something... anyway. The patagia are so controversial I feel bad about even pointing out possible inaccuracies, but some models proposed by Jim Cunningham and John conway have a more rounded wing tip, rather than a pointy one (basically due to just slightly more flex so the distal wing finger is pointed almost straight backwards, as in this pic). But yeah, that's the correct anatomy ;)

The new Hatzehopteryx looks much better proportionally, and the leg position looks standard for that wing model. I like the Conway-style wings on the Brakonydraco, good to have depictions of the various theories (apparently a new unpublished azhdarch fossil actually shows the wing attatching to the ankle, so I think when all is said and done that might win out for this family). A few minor nitpicks: The arms on all these pterosaurs look a little scrawny. The upper arms especially would have been very robustly muscled--they were flapping flyers after all. Some of conways skeletals even have shaded gradations around the arm indicating the possibility of the muscles/soft tissue 'streamlining' the arm into the wing, rather than it just jutting up like a bony bump (though I haven't seen this used eslewhere, yet, but the newly reported presence of some kind of... substance... between the skin and muscles of the wing membrane might bear it out).

Generally, the heads still look a bit small to me. The heads were garganutan on azhdarchs, though maybe not to the ridiculously disproportionate degree Dave Peters restores them, they were still by far larger proportionally than any other pterosaurs. The head in total should be almost twice as long as the body (which, granted, were pretty damn small.) A big factor in azhdarch head size is their most distinctive characteristic, the huge antorbital fenestra, which also means the rear part of the heads should be a bit taller. Overall, the heads very strongly resembled Marabou Storks in general shape, tapering to a pointy, spear-like tip. The Hatz bill strikes be as a bit broad and too uniform in width. Don't know much about Brackonydraco, but its bill looks good, though the head may be too small.

One other distinguishing character of azhdarchs is the fact that their eyes are very tiny and low on the head. They always are positioned next to the lower third of the AOF, very close to the mouth. Azhdarch heads are very tricky because they're very bizarre-looking, almost counterintuitively so... think marabou stork meets baleen whale and you should be all set ;) Oh, and the longer necks are spot on, but if you're drawing them that think, it should be clear this is due to fur. I don't think they would have been that robust without them, the necks are overall very skinny. There's some 'ribbed' shading towards the front on both that looks a bit like wrinkled skin. Some azhdarchs also have a weird 'keel' on the bottom of the front part of the bill that has been interpreted as evidence of a large throat pouch, which might be cool to illustrate on species where this is present (I know Qsp, probably Qn, and Zheijiangopterus have it, not sure about other genera). Dinoguy2 01:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey AW, the new Hatz (v.3) looks great! Only have one last minor nit to pick before it's perfect--the toe proportions. Going by this skeletal [5], digits 1 and 4 should be about the same length, a bit shorter than 2 and 3, which arel ongest. Digit 5 is reduced to a stubby little spur, which by the looks of it would have had to point laterally (no joints in there). Otherwise, great work on the updates! (Conway seems to have updated all his skeletals, with forward-facing palms etc., and they match up pretty well with the way you restored them). Dinoguy2 04:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prionosuchus

Updated DYK query On 20 October 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Prionosuchus, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 09:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pelagosaurus:

Hi there - remember the PDFs you sent me a while back? Well I finally created an article for one; I give you Pelagosaurus! I hope you like it. Man the systematic paleobiology was tough! Someone reassigned the suborder and taxon so many times it wasn't funny - I'm still not sure I got it right. But anyway, I saw a link that said the tail had a fin (See the external link in the article, it shows a picture of it). Althoguh I trust your picture, I was wondering if there actually was a fin on the tail or not. Anyway, I'm going to nominate the article for DYK and hopefully your picture will be on the main apge. :) Cheers (P.S. If you have any more PDFs to send, I'd be very grateful!). Thanks, Spawn Man (talk) 03:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thunder stealer.... ;) I've removed the text etc and I had to change the DYK entry as well. The internet site was misleading as it said "Thalattosuchia" and then had next to it in italics "Pelagosaurus", which I took as being the subject of the section. Obviously not, but no harm done and it's all fixed. Thansk for the catch AW and remember, if you need any other articles done, I'd love the PDFs (I've still got a couple, but it takes about 3 hours for me to properly make an article - the systematic paleobiology is a pain to do if it's not straight forward and just that alone takes me an hour or so...) Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 07:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Book

WOW! I like the illustarations, maybe you should make a prehistoric animal enclycopedia (bokk or website) with your art! --4444hhhh 02:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)4444hhhh

[edit] Herrerasaurus

Hi Arthur!

user:Unimaginative Username from the league of copyeditors has been working on Herrerasaurus, but had some questions about the text that I couldn't readily answer. I figured I'd ask you, as you wrote much of the content of the article. When you have a chance, could you help clarify portions that may still need clarification to someone unfamiliar with the material? The questions are on talk:Herrerasaurus. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Arthur; that was quick. I agree the article really looks great. I've removed the image completely from the article. However, that only leaves the two images in the article, now. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
It turns out the skull image was removed because it was Fair Use only. Someone had mistakenly uploaded it to Commons. I agree a good skeletal would be nice, but I live a long way from the Field Museum. Darn. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Heh, yeah, I bet! :) I added Dinoguy's Field Museum photo, and it works well at 250px, but it's a bit blurry at full size. It may need photoshopping at a larger scale. There was another image on commons, but the photography was so terrible that it was difficult to ven tell what it was. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Allosaurus

Hey Arthur,

Allosaurus, an article you worked on, is currently up for Featured Article Candidacy here. I'm not asking for you to support the candidacy, but because you've already worked on the article, you may have more ideas on how to improve the article, or concerns that should be addressed (we're a tiny project, and so the number of ideas for improvement are limited to what a few people think of).

I'm also sending out requests to other users who have worked on the article a bit, and to the Tree of Life WikiProject, for more feedback. Feel free to ignore this request if you've better things to do, or if it annoys you to get a sort of impersonal message. I'm just trying to get more of the community involved in making input on the dinosaur FACs, and this is my (admittedly semi-lame) attempt. Anyone else who reads this message on your talk page would also be welcome to make suggestions or comments. :) Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 02:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mahakala

Hey AW! In recent discussions on the Dromaeosauridae article the issue of Mahakala's (non)gliding ability came up. Sure enough, the supp. material checks out, and it appears the proportions in your (gorgeous, still one of my faves) drawing are a bit off. Looks like Mahakala was built more like Mei than Microraptor, with short arms and long lengs. Link to bone measurements:[6] So, would it be possible to adjust the drawing accordingly? If not, maybe it can be repurposed as a different genus with more standard dromie proportions? Dinoguy2 (talk) 04:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Petition

Please, do some work of the Graciliceratops.--Nicolás10 (talk) 05:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allosaurus

Sorry, I missed that. But it is now a FA I see. That was bloody quick! Cheers. ArthurWeasley (talk) 07:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey Arthur!
Well, you missed the FAC, but you may still have ideas for how to improve the article. If you have suggestions or other thoughts, maybe we could work them into the article anyway. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 07:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Compsognathus size

I see you corrected the size at the top but removed the notes I added about the "chicken-sized" misconception. I think it's important to point out that it is a common misconception (try Google and the result pages are full of "Compsognathus, a chicken-sized dinosaur") and explain why it arose. Please contact me via my Talk page and we can discuss how to do this. I'd be particularly interested: the size of the 2nd specimen (France); more "academic" refs than Lessem's article. Philcha (talk) 17:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Refs 11 and 12 were good - thanks! Philcha (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opabinia image

Thanks for providing this. I've used it in Cambrian explosion to replace the previous one, which was so lurid it looked like something out of the Simpsons. Philcha (talk) 17:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image showing T rex binocular vision, please

I'd be very grateful if you could produce an image 200px wide based on Fig 4A of BINOCULAR VISION IN THEROPOD DINOSAURS, which could be used to illustrate the good binocular vision of Tyrannosaurus rex. Philcha (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You can take this off your "to do" list as I found a skull image which makes the point. But thanks for being willing to help. Philcha (talk) 13:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the gig coulor picture, sorry it isn't on the gig article yet i'm not to sure how to upload pictures onto articles but thanks for the great pictures.

[edit] Petition 2.0

Wikipedia need your amazing images :). Especially:

--Nicolás10 (talk) 03:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archaeoceratops

Just curious why you gave it a "mini-sail" over its tail. Is there evidence for it in the fossils? I've never seen anything like that on a ceratopsian. Not criticizing, just curious. Your art is amazing. :D Abyssal leviathin (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Really? They never put a sail on Psittacosaurus in the dinosaur picture books of my childhood, I'm surprised to hear that the sail thing was on such a familiar genus. :P Thanks for the quick reply. :D Abyssal leviathin (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You are?...

You are HP-fan? Just following the name... Well, can you show me some directions to a Harry P. project of some kind (if there is one...) Thanks in advanche, Ramtashaniku (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FP nom

Hi AW - so the poster is nominate, and is getting support, but mostly from WP:Dino members. There are comments suggesting that a higher resolution version be procured, as well as the animals put into some kind of order, ideally phylogenetically. I don't think those should be mandatory revisions, but comments have a tendency to snowball in the analysis. Can you address them? If so, I think the nomination will be a shoe-in. de Bivort 18:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Ceratopsian poster
An image uploaded by you has been promoted to featured picture status
Your image, Image:CeratopsiaI BW.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! MER-C 11:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations! :) Steveoc 86 (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Procoptodon

Hi ArthurWeasley. Your image of Procoptodon is being discussed alongside another user's image of the same creature. Talk:Procoptodon. Both images appear to have some drawbacks, and I'm suggesting that one of them is edited to fit the known facts. You might wish to contribute to the discussion. Regards SilkTork *What's YOUR point? 09:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The Zen Garden Award Zen Garden Award
For doing the Right Thing, and demonstrating to others that consideration and courtesy advance Wikipedia. SilkTork *What's YOUR point? 08:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Psittacosaurus picture

Hi ArthurWeasley. I am looking for a Psittacosaurus picture and found one in your Ceratopsian gallery. But I could not find the Psittacosaurus picture alone. Have you uploaded it already? If not, would you mind if I upload a detailed part of your picture in the Commons? Regards --80.108.59.151 (talk) 09:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC) (de:Benutzer:Bradypus)

I've uploaded the images in Commons under the name of image:Psittacosaurus_sibiricus_whole_BW.jpg and image:Psittacosaurus_mongoliensis_whole_BW.jpg. Cheers.ArthurWeasley (talk) 05:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, they are already in use (de:Psittacosaurus). Regards --80.108.59.151 (talk) 20:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)(de:Benutzer:Bradypus)

[edit] Thrinaxodon image

Hi, ArthurWeasley. Thanks for all the artwork. Unfortunately I think your pic of Thrinaxodon has 2 inaccurate features: the ears are shown high on the skull as in modern mammals, but Thrinaxodon probably had external eardrums behind its jaw joints, as Thrinaxodon retained the old quadrate-articular jaw-joint (see Evolution of mammalian auditory ossicles for details); and I suspect that at least its forelimbs were at least semi-sprawling, as modern monotremes have semi-sprawling limbs and some scientists think that the parasagittal (non-sprawling) limb posture is a synapomorphy (distinguishing characteristic) of the Boreosphenida, a group which contains the Theria and therefore includes the last common ancestor of modern marsupials and placentals but excludes monotremes and non-mammalian therapsids (see Evolution of mammals for details). Philcha (talk) 08:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your message. Unfortunately I can't point you to a more accurate reconstruction - I've just googled for images and the most reasonable one I saw shows the critter with short fur, which is very speculative (see Evolution of mammals for details). Re the limb posture:
  • Cowen ("History of Life") says "Cynodonts still had wheel-barrow locomotion; the hindlimbs provided propulsion while the forelimbs gave only passive support. Cynodont hindlimbs evolved to become semi-erect, where as the forelimbs remained sprawling. ... The spine shows adaptations towards greater stiffness, ... power was transmitted more efficiently from the hindlimbs." That fits with what Evolution of mammals#Limb_posture says about the rigidity of the ribcage.
  • One pic I found looks about right for posture, but it only shows a skeleton.
So all the evidence I'm aware of favours semi-sprawling limbs, leathery skin and shallow ear openings just behind the jaw joint (the eardrum was in contact with the quadrate bone, the upper part of the jaw hinge) rather like a lizard's. Philcha (talk) 08:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Re Thrinaxodon (or other cynodonts) and fur, the old theory was that some small passages in the bones round the snout were very like those which conduct sensory nerves connected to the whiskers in modern mammals. But that was always speculative, and some lizards have very similar passages (see Evolution_of_mammals#Hair_and_fur). Philcha (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Re Dr. Baskin's course notes, they're a curious mixture of acute and muddled; I suspect they're actually a student's notes, and the URL is student-like. The main arugument in these notes is that the therapsids or their early mammaliform descendants were forced to become small and nocturnal, and that this pushed them into advances in thermoregulation, including fur. It's a good argument, but the timing is wrong for the early Triassic Thrinaxodon - most paleontologists now accept Benton's argument (see e.g. "Vertebrate palaeontology") that the Triassic's 2 turnovers were later than used to be thought: so the first 1/3 was mixed archosaurs and therapsids (notably the great survivor Lystrosaurus and its larger successors such as Kannemeyeria ); the middle third was dominated by non-dino archosaurs; and the dinos exploded in the final 1/3, possibly after an extinction eliminated a lot of their archosaurian competitors. So there were quite large diurnal therapsids in the mid-Triassic, and the really small, nocturnal mammaliforms appear in the very late Triassic and a lot of the Jurassic. Philcha (talk) 19:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
PS I just checked Palaeos] and there were really large herbivorous therapsids in the late Triassic, right up to the time and rock formation (Ischgualasto) in which some of the earliest dino fossils are found. Philcha (talk) 19:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Thrinaxodon was cat-sized, Lystrosaurus pig-sized, Kannemeyeria ox-sized and Ischigualastia probably weighed over a ton (Palaeos). If you're not convinced by the arguments so far (and theyr're not as clear-cut as 2+2=4), you could check with the people who've edited Thrinaxodon, as they've probably read some fairly recent papers. That might even stir up some action - my impression is that Thrinaxodon is not up to the standard of many dino articles. Philcha (talk) 20:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Any progress on Thrinaxodon yet? How far down your queue is it? Philcha (talk) 19:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the message. Unfortunately I can't find the pic on either your user page or commons.wikipedia's catalogue of your work. Can you give me a clue please? Philcha (talk) 08:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Philcha (talk) 09:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rollback

Hello ArthurWeasley, I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. Acalamari 18:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Using your Beelzebufo image

Hello ArthurWeasley, unfortunately, I was not able to find out your e-mail address so I hope I can contact you in this way. I'm working for a German TV station and in the next emission of our science magazine, we'd like to do give a short notice about the research concerning the Beelzebufo "devil frog". For that purpose, we're looking for a picture of Beelzebufo we could use for a screen which is shown in the studio while our presentator is talking (so the picture would not be part of a film, just on the screen!). As I'm not sure how this purpose is covered by the license you provided, I would be glad if you could contact me - best way would be via e-mail: (deleted). Of course we would put a (c) YourName on the picture if you wish. Thanks and regards, Britta Wagner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.108.72.125 (talk) 10:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I've just sent you an email. ArthurWeasley (talk) 15:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Help in sorting out ill-advised merge

Hi, ArthurWeasley. I know this isn't really your concern, but I also know that you're widely regarded as competent and trustworthy, so I'm hoping you you can at least point me in the right direction.

Someone has done a merge that I think was a bad idea, did it without starting a discussion first, and I can't undo it (I tried but the source article remained "non-existent", so I undid my undo). For details see the Talk page.

Is there any way to sort this out. Philcha (talk) 09:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks! Can you please ask them to put a note with link to the restored article on Talk:bipedalism, as another editor had a promising suggestion. Philcha (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you ArthurWeasley for your illustration in Onychodus article! Liopleurodon93 (talk) 23:40 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image background

Hi! I just want to know if you can change the follow images background:

PD:Sorry for my english :).--Nicolás10 (talk) 18:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking in white to not create you problems with this, but, if there is not really complication, with the recently backgrounds will be amazing :).--Nicolás10 (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The last one is simply amazing. Thanks a lot for taking your time to do this :).--Nicolás10 (talk) 14:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship? (again)

Hey Arthur, I have been an admin for over a year and have found the best use in moving and protecting pages. I'd be happy to nominate you - I reckon like me you'd have umpteen gazillion pages on your watchlist (well, I've just about hit 4000) so could easily argue reverting there and moving pages as per consensus. You haven't had any big disputes or anything (have you?) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I think it wouldn't take too much longer in a period of sustained activity...but then I don't know how busy you are of-keyboard. This thing has a habit of taking up far too much time already :) OK, just see how it pans out. If your enthusiasm keeps up for another few weeks or so I'd say go for it. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Here you go!

The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
Your dinosaur illustrations are nothing but professional! I find it very useful to illustrate Wikispecies articles. You truly deserve this barnstar. OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


P.S. If you are running for admin, I will co-nom you. Btw, how do you make up the colour for these dinosaurs? Do you randomly pick a colour from pallet and use it as the base colour? OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Too bad I don't know how to use photoshop :\ OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Permission for use of illustrations?

Hi Arthur, I am working on creating an interactive dinosaur exhibit at Yale University's Peabody Museum of Natural History in New Haven, CT.

It is about the famous dinoasuar mural painted by Rudy Zallinger ("The Age of Reptiles"), and I am looking to include some more modern representations.

Your artwork looks great, and I would love to include some of your illustrations. Would you be willing to grant permission for their use? Please contact me as soon as possible at: (deleted) to discuss.

Thank you in advance,

Kent —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldenmultimedia (talk • contribs) 15:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just sent you an email. ArthurWeasley (talk) 20:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Use rollback for genuine vandalism only

This was not a legitimate use of rollback. Please restrict your use of rollback to genuine vandalism. Thank you. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image request

I keep a thread with newly discovered species at my forum, with illustrations. Today I cracked down on a bunch of illegal images, and replaced many of them with your illustrations, since they appear to be free. (Let me know if this is not okay with you!)

I was wondering if you take requests, because I have one: Nichollsia borealis. Here's is a photo search of the fossils: [7]

Thanks, Bob the Wikipedian, the Tree of Life WikiDragon (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I would also be using the illustration for the Nichollsia (plesiosaur) article. Bob the Wikipedian, the Tree of Life WikiDragon (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you; it looks pretty spiffy. Are you self-taught? Bob the Wikipedian, the Tree of Life WikiDragon (talk) 13:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Teratornis merriami reconstruction

Hey there! I just read an article about this species in a book called "Rancho La Brea: Death trap and Treasure trove" which I bought when I visited the Page museum of La Brea discoveries in early 2007.. I like your drawing of it but did you base your reconstruction on research/ prior reconstructions that are pre-1980's? According to this article ( I've summarised what was written)..

Scientists placed the Teratorns in their own genus when they found their skulls ( because they were so unique). Shortly afterwards some unusual, very large leg bones turned up - they were very similar to those of condors and it was thought that they were a new species of condor, only later did scientists realize they were from the same bird. So for 70 years reconstructions depicted merriami as scavengers like Condors, right down to having naked heads and necks.

However new studies in the 1980's revealed that the bone structure of merriami 's skull meant that they could not possibly have fed like condors - " Birds with jaws structured like teratons are active predators which capture, small, live prey". Newer reconstructions depict them still as having very similar hind limb and wing morphology to condors but they now show them as having feathered heads ( they could still have feathers on their heads because they wouldn't go sticking them inside carcasses like condors) which were lightly coloured - all groundstalking birds have light coloured heads because it makes them blend in more with the sky so that they are less obvious to prey.

I can track down the research behind what I've said here if you want.. If you are interested in what the new reconstructions look like I would be happy to take some photos of them and e-mail them to you.

All the best, Kotare (talk) 08:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response.. Sweet i'll photograph the pictures i have here and then e-mail them to you.. there are 2 different reconstructions in my book, one sounds more accurate but I'll fire both through anyway. It kinda looks like an osprey but I would say more the wings and legs look like that of a vulture/condor while the head looks more like that of an eagle. As regards further information on Aiolornis, I will contact the author of the article who is a professor and curator of ornithology at the LA natural history museum.. I've found his e-mail address so i'll get back to you with what he says.

Cheers, Kotare (talk) 05:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Just a suggestion

Hey Arthur, maybe on your requests page you could delete the request when you have drawn it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamboozlingbert21 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you again

Thank you very much for Grossius! Liopleurodon93 (talk) 19:05 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Styracosaurus image

Hi, I wanted to add your image of Styracosaurus which is used in the picture here[8] to the Styracosaurus article, but I was unable to find the image alone on Commons, so I'd just ask if it is uploaded anywhere? If not, would you mind if I uploaded it, and other species on your compilations that aren't uploaded on their own, as separate files? I'll of course use the same file summary as on your other images. Funkynusayri (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I think that if there are more than one good image of a species, both should be used! It's good with different angles and stuff to show how they looked (I'll add your Coelurus). I don't want to give you extra work, and would be happy to cut them out and upload them myself, but you're the creator of course, so I'll let you decide. Funkynusayri (talk) 19:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks again for uploading all those images, I noticed that there was also a cool drawing of Udanoceratops, could you upload that too? I think it would be a great addition. And by the way, a drawing you made was removed from the Diplodocus article because it had too many claws on its front feet.[9] Funkynusayri (talk) 16:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Coelurus image

I listed a drawing by you at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review since it differed markedly from another drawing in the Coelurus article. Narayanese (talk) 15:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Acrocanthosaurus.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Acrocanthosaurus.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Galápagos Islands task force

In view of your significant edits to Galápagos tortoise, I thought that you might be interested in checking out the new task force, Galápagos Islands task force. GregManninLB (talk) 01:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thylacoleo carnifex

Hi Arthur, I don't know quite what to say. I've been impressed by a number of your pics of dead animals ;-) around Wiki but hadn't realised the size of your contribution until coming here - staggering really. You've quite rightly had lots of praise but I'd like to add a little more - I think your Ceratopsian drawings are fantastic.

I've just spent a bit of time bringing Marsupial Lion up to scratch and I'd like to tweak your [10] a bit. I'm not sure whether you have either the time or the inclination to do it yourself so I thought I'd ask first. Cheers, Secret Squïrrel 03:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mystriosuchus

Hi, I am trying to get article Mystriosuchus ready for Good Article status, but I think there are multiple issues with the article. If you are interested in extinction-related articles, I'd appreciate it if you could lend a hand. I am asking all the users I can find who are prominently involved in the extinction-related wikiprojects. Thanks! The ''Gorgeous Girl''!!! (talk) 04:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Miacis

Hello Arthur. I always used to wonder who was the author of all those prehistoric pics on Wikipedia, now I know :) I would like to request if you please could do a drawing of any species of Miacis. I'd like to make an FA out of it, and I've been looking for a free image up and down the Internet, but I've found nothing. I think it needs special attention because, it being the ancestor of most or all carnivorans, it played a key role in the evolution of mammals. Thank you a lot! Leptictidium (mt) 10:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello again. Actually, it's not for use on en.wiki, but on ca.wiki, where I do most of my edits. I am planning to start working hard on Miacis as soon as I've got Pangolin to FA status over there. Actually, I'd already started working on it if I'd had some images to work with. There's no hurry; I'll ask Aprokyltaros and, if neither of you have been able to draw a picture by the time I'm ready to start working on Miacis, I'll just find some other ancient critter to keep me busy with, maybe Palaeotherium. Anyway, have a very nice day! Leptictidium (mt) 08:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POTD notification

POTD
POTD

Hi Arthur Weasley,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:CeratopsiaI BW.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on June 16, 2008. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2008-06-16. howcheng {chat} 05:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Permission Using Illustrations for a good cause

Hello Arthur, I'm kind of new in this wiki things and have been navigating some around it looking for intresting stuff and ended up in your page, full of incredible illustrations, I'm a graphic designer and the thing is I need to use four of your dinosaur illustrations for an Educating System consisted of Paper toys for children. I tried to read the license agreements, but my english is pretty basic and I'm not quite familiar with law related words, so I decided to ask directly to you, if there is any problem that I use them, of course glad to share my work with you for your opinion and calm. In fact I'm not really sure of how I should approach to you so I did it the simple way, hoping it works.

Well that's my thing, hope you comprehend me and reply at my email andres@barelydesign.com ---> [11]

Salutations from Chile, South America.

Andrés Barelydesign (talk) 23:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I've sent you an email. ArthurWeasley (talk) 01:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)