User talk:Mark t young/Archive 1

Hello, Mark t young/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Francs2000 17:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs

Hi Mark! Saw you added your name to the list of participants. Welcome to the team! :) --Firsfron of Ronchester 20:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Mesoeucrocodylia

Hi, thanks for you contributions to the croc articles! Far too few people working on those. Anyway, one thing I'm concerned about is the use of Mesoeucrocodylia as an order. Do you have a cite for a paper that names this clade as such? I've only seen a praphyletic Mesosuchia given that rank.Dinoguy2 02:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Believe me, I have thought about it (as have others, there are numerous entries on talk pages discussing use of Linnean ranks vs pure phylogenetics). While I have no objection to having both systems discussed in the text (many pages have extensive sections presenting alternate cladograms), the use of unranked taxa in taxoboxes should be kept at a minimum. They were not designed with phylogenetic taxonomy in mind. If you wish to change this, I'd discuss it at Wikiproject Tree of Life or at the Taxobox Usage article. Anyway, I have no objection to using Mesoeucrocodylia in taxoboxes as an unranked taxon, but listing it as an Order is original research. You'll probably disagree with me here, but i have no objection to using the linnean system as a compliment to the cladistic system, and paraphyletic taxa can be useful in the former if handled properly (see Synapsida for a good example).Dinoguy2 15:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

"Mekosuchin"

As a matter of fact Mekosuchinae does give origin to the adjective "mekosuchine" not "mekosuchin" as you unwittingly changed in Mekosuchinae as that would imply the clade Mekosuchini of infrafamily rank. You may refer to the legalities of the subject here [1], specially to this bit:

• "taxon ends with -inae, vernacular ends with -ine"

Dracontes 10:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually the vernacular name of any family level taxon is not regulated by the ICZN and as such there is no official way of changing the name ending. Any vernacular name ending -IN could refer to a subfamily, tribe or subtribe though in many papers people use it as denoting a tribe, but it is also used as denoting a subfamily.

One of the interesting matters in this problem is no-one has (to my knowledge) proposed a vernacular name for a subtribe.

The website you refered to in your post has no "legal" status on this matter i'm afraid, and although it would help to harmonise the community into using a common vernacularisation, until the ICZN in the fifth addition formalises this the problem will persist. Mark t young 16:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Stegosaurus

Hi Mark,

I'm planning to send Stegosaurus to Featured Article candidacy. The article failed its first nomination, but user:Casliber and I have been hard at work fixing stuff. As you're listed as a member of Wikipedia: WikiProject Dinosaurs, I figured I'd drop you a line and see if there was anything you thought should be added/removed/cited on the article before it is sent to FAC. We definitely want it to pass! :)

(Feel free to make any edits on the article itself, comment on the talk page, or leave a note on my talk page). Thanks for your time, Firsfron of Ronchester 19:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for making these edits, Mark. I appreciate the fixes. Thanks, Firsfron of Ronchester 04:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Right. Stegosaurus has been sent to Featured Article candidacy. You are welcome to weigh in on the matter (supporting or objecting); the opinion of a PhD student of dinosaur biology and evolution might carry a lot of weight. Anyway, thanks again for all your improvements to the article. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 00:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Cavalry award

I hereby award the 'Coming of the Cavalry' Award for saving Stegosaurus after an ignominious fail...cheers, Cas Liber 20:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mark,

Just adding my two cents here. Your work on Stegosaurus was instrumental. Thanks for all your work. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 20:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Glad you like the cavalry :) - yeah, I think the only thing that would be really good in the interim is getting some appraisal of what's left of partly worked-over articles and a few more people voting on the next cab off the rank for a collaboration, even if they don't have time to work on it, so it would be great if you had a quick look at the dino collaboration page and cast a vote on what you thought was next best to go on.....cheers Cas Liber 02:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

woooonderful boxes! If u dont mind, I rapped the one about 'hate' and adapted to Portuguese! Thank u! :) --Metaforico 00:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

grammar corrections to Stegosaurus

Hi -- I did three grammar corrections, which you reverted, I think just because you were in a hurry to undo some vandalism. I've redone them. I don't think they should be particularly controversial, e.g., there was one place where I corrected "laying" to "lying." ("Lay" is transitive, "lie" intransitive.)--24.52.254.62 02:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reverts and...

Hi Mark!

Thanks for your note; sorry if it seemed presumptuous of me to mention your userpage, but it just worried me. Anyway, let us bask in the glow of our Featured Article appearing on the Main Page. Do you think you might stick around for the next one? :) Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 18:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's the goal: to get Diplodocus up to FA status. I really haven't done much work on it, but I saw your name pop up on it more than once. So now I'm headed over there... Thanks for all your work on WP:Dinos. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Currently, the latest version of the article is the same as Arthur Weasley's edit at 20:07. [2]. To revert to an earlier version, go into the history, compare the version you want with the vandalized version, hit 'edit' on the "good" version, then hit 'save'. All the vandalized versions after the "good" version will be reverted. Also, don't worry too much about the vandalism; there are enough eyes patrolling the page that it's getting fixed very quickly. So don't sweat it. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 19:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Dakosaurus

Hey Mark, thanks for your comments on Dakosaurus. I've put an osteoderm-free version with more paddle-like forelimbs (wasn't apparently obvious enough in the drawing)on my todo list and this should be available shortly for your review. How sure are we that Metriorhynchids were lacking osteoderms. Somehow, the few web available full body representations of Dakosaurus seem to show osteoderms (see [3] and [4])? The answer to your other question is no, I haven't attempted to draw animals in their natural setting: I am of the lazy type ;) ArthurWeasley 15:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, so "lazy" he's done over 40 extinct fauna illustrations in the past month. ;) Firsfron of Ronchester 21:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Mark, I am quite interested in illustrating more crocs (if possible with a degree of accuracy that withstands scientific scrutiny), problem is there is so much info on dinos on the web and so few on the other prehistoric animals (a pity!). Can I contact you by email? I have a few questions to ask you. May be you could just send a message to aweasley@hotmail.com and I'll reply to you. ArthurWeasley 05:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Images for you to review

Mark, here is the new version of Dakosaurus andiniensis without osteoderms and a slender built based on the skeletal of D. maximus. Also, Suchodus casamiquelai. Let me know what you think.ArthurWeasley 20:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Dakosaurus andiniensis

Suchodus casamiquelai

Yep, dorsal views will be much helpful. Thanks! ArthurWeasley 21:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Three more

Thanks very much for your dorsal views of the skulls. ArthurWeasley 02:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Dakosaurus maximus

Geosaurus suevicus

Sarcosuchus imperator

Teleidosaurus

Concerning Teleidosaurus if there is no postcrania, how do we know that it had osteoderms as you mentioned earlier? Is it only a guess in view of its phylogenetical position closer to the basal metriorhynchids? Also, do you have something on Enaliosuchus? Thanks. ArthurWeasley 17:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Teleidosaurus and Enaliosuchus

Here are the sketches for Teleidosaurus and Enaliosuchus. Teleido based on the skull figures you sent me and body somewhat of a metriorhynchus with a bit of pelagosaurus in it. Enalio based on the skull fragments described in the french paper. Body was made more profiled than the basal metriorhynchids more in-line with a sustained swimmer. Question: Suchodus is said to be a synonym of metriorhynchus in the wiki article. However, the skull of M. (S.) casamiquelai seem quite different from the other species of metriorhynchus. Could Suchodus not be a synonym after all? ArthurWeasley 08:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Teleidosaurus

Enaliosuchus

Metriorhynchus and Pelagosaurus

Two more metriorhynchids. ArthurWeasley 07:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Metriorhynchus superciliosus

Pelagosaurus

Mark, Happy 23rd birthday! For M. brachyrhynchus, there is no hurry, I could work on hundreds of different things in the meantime. Good luck with your PhD trips. ArthurWeasley 04:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

NHM article

Hi Mark

It would be great if you could have a look at the new stuff I've added for the NHM article, and review/comment/edit. As I've said on the talk page, I think it could really do with a section on current and past research endeavours, and you maybe just the man to take it on. Might be also good to have a brief subsection on the Wandsworth site? I know nothing about it (my main source on the NHM's history only goes up to 1980 and doesn't mention it).

Ta,

Loxlie 03:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit summary

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing.

In particular, I would be interested in this diff [5], was the information incorrect? --Berland 21:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Just write 'rm unsourced statement' or something like that in the edit summary in these cases, thanks! --Berland 06:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Scleromochlus / Ornithodira

Hi Mark, re your edit to Scleromochlus -- in Scleromochlus we say, "a gracile cursorial animal that in the past was hypothesised to be an ancestor of the pterosaurs". In Ornithodira we say that the Ornithodira include Scleromochlus as a "basal member" and that the Pterosauromorpha are a sub-clade of the Ornithodira (citing a 2006 work). Now this sounds pretty much like the same Pterosaur ancestry theory to me. If the jury is still out on this, then perhaps both views should be represented. Hoping you know more about this topic than me and can put it right. Cheers, Jayen466 21:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mark, thanks for your response. If I understand you correctly, Scleromochlus belongs to the basal ornithodira, and some member of the ornithodira, at some time depth (not Scleromochlus, but something reasonably closely related, as with us and the bonobos or, rather, the australopithecines) is believed today to have been the ancestor of the pterosauromorphs, including the pterosaurs in particular. If that is so, then I think the current wording in the Scleromochlus article It was a gracile cursorial animal that in the past was hypothesised to be an ancestor of the pterosaurs. is a little too strong. To the layperson, as you rightly observe, these are nice distinctions, and they may well get the impression from the sentence, as it is, that Scleromochlus is now thought to be nowhere near the ancestors of the pterosaurs in the tree. And from what you say, it is thought to be quite close. Cheers, Jayen466 18:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Input requested

Hi Mark,

Some of the folks at WP:DINO were discussing the relative lack of improved content (GA or FA) on sauropodomorph articles (either sauropods or prosauropods). Diplodocus is the only Featured article on a sauropod; you've indicated on your userpage that you're interested in Massospondylus and a few sauropods, so you are probably the right person to ask for assistance and feedback on this issue. I'd love to get a prosauropod article up to GA status, but I'm always afraid to touch the morass that is prosauropod classification (because I don't know where to start in that mess, or what the current consensus amongst paleontologists is concerning the valid members of the group; it seems to differ with each new publication). Can you give me any input on where to get started, or possibly even work a little bit on improving articles in this area? Firsfron of Ronchester 19:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Well of course 'prosauropod' is a paraphyletic group (sensu stricto) so I'm assuming you mean any non-sauropod sauropodomorph (very complex...). Well I should have some down-time in the next few days when I'm settling into Cincinnati, so tell me which articles that you think could do with an over-haul and I'll try and have a look at them. Any further queries don't hesitate to ask. Mark t young 08:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note on my talk page and on WT:DINO, Mark. I've responded there, but did want to underscore the fact that I didn't know that you are travelling right now, and I sure don't mind waiting a while for input on any article. I know you must be incredibly busy right now while on the road, and this isn't time sensitive, so it can wait until you have spare time. I would just like to see some of these sauropodomorph articles improved: we have a lot of knowledgeable folks willing to work on ornithopods, theropods, ceratopsians, etc, but all of sauropodomorpha has languished on Wikipedia. Specifically the prosauropods, which are almost all short stubs: even the better-known genera like Massospondylus, which would be an excellent candidate for improvement.

Above you state that prosauropoda is paraphyletic, but Galton and Upchurch (2004) found enough monophyly for several family-level groupings (Plateosauridae, Anchisauridae, and Melanorosauridae). Even with the Anchisauridae now removed (as of 2007), aren't the Plateosauridae in Prosauropoda still valid? This is the sort of question only an expert can answer... Firsfron of Ronchester 09:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mark,

I've been chipping away at Wikipedia's article on Massospondylus, and I feel at this point that it's a reasonably sourced article. However, I'd like an expert to weigh in and rework any problematic areas. A paleontology PhD student who is actively working on the biomechanics of sauropodomorph dinosaur feeding behaviour and its evolution throughout the clade, with special focus upon Diplodocus, Apatosaurus, Camarasaurus and Massospondylus would be an ideal expert reviewer.

I understand you were (or are) very busy with real life, but if you get a chance, could you look the article over, make edits where needed, and correct material that may be problematic? You've fixed my mistakes before (on Stegosaurus), and I really apprecuated it. Anything you could do for Massospondylus is appreciated. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 23:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Supersaurus and Dystylosaurus

I'm sorry, but I don't have that as a pdf. Also, I see I made a typo; it should be 2001, not 2002. J. Spencer (talk) 00:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess you win

I was going off the Geosaurus article when I thought it was Kimmeridgian. Apparently, you've removed those statements from those articles and a quick search couldn't find anything supporting my mistaken view. Oops. Sorry 'bout that.

I think you did actually remove a wrong species during your first removal, as I found support online for it being there, but I don't remember what specific one it was. So... I guess the whole thalattosuchian dating thing is over with, but if you could double check yourself just to be sure, it would be much apreciated. Cheers. Abyssal leviathin (talk) 22:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Dinosaur Barnstar
		Noticed all your work today cleaning up basal dinosauromorph and basal archosauromorph articles. Thanks for all your fixes, Mark. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 22:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Lystrosaurus is not a reptile?

Please explain. Abyssal leviathin (talk) 01:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks <3. How should it and other synapsids be categorized then? Oh, and what did PN stand for? Abyssal leviathin (talk) 01:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Insert non-formatted text here

Ceresiosaurus

Provided the note from Rieppel's work. I hope now it's ok. --Fljll Flòi (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Protection

Hi Mark t young, I noticed that you asked for protection on Liopleurodon and Reptile. You placed the requests at the bottom of the page in the Fulfilled/denied requests section. They were then accidentally deleted becasue a user thought they had already been reviewed. Requests go at the top of Current requests for protection section. I have re-added them back in for you. Happy editing! Steveoc 86 (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem, all too often there are editors like that. Cheers! Steveoc 86 (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

For Polmont: I'm not sure it is here I can reply but I try. If not, I'd delete. I told you where you could see it, check the history of the page. You're right for the IP, it changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.143.51 (talk) 17:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

I noticed your great work reverting vandalism and thought you might benefit from this quick revert tool. Remember not to use it on good faith edits or in edit disputes. If you'd like to test it out, go to this link. bibliomaniac15 Do I have your trust? 22:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Montealtosuchus arrudacamposi

I noticed you made some major changes to the species article Montealtosuchus arrudacamposi, including a strange move to Montealtosuchus. First of all, this article is on the species, not the genus. Secondly, the species was discovered in 2004, not 2007; other information seems to have been altered or changed as well. Thirdly, before making such a drastic change to the article, please discuss these changes.

I am reverting to the original page, as well as moving the page back to its original location. Please discuss any changes you feel need made on Talk: Montealtosuchus arrudacamposi. Bob the Wikipedian, the Tree of Life WikiDragon (talk) 04:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

How does referencing information in a news article constitute original research? Also, I am not claiming ownership of articles, simply trying to learn why such drastic changes were made and prevent vandalism (I am learning that your edits are generally good edits, though!). Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Ha, looks like we're both vandal-fighters keeping a close eye on the articles we've edited. Right now I have a good 994 pages on my watchlist, and your name comes up quite a bit, since my main interest is zoology, and more specifically paleontology. No hard feelings. Can you recommend any free sources for finding species papers? I get all my information from the Yahoo! news feeds that get delivered to my inbox, and the articles seem to get published before the species papers more often than not. When I do find a species that is official, the paper isn't open to the public. Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 21:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

RE:Dakosaurus

• DiBgd. :).--Nicolás10 (talk) 22:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Removing DAB links

Hey Mark, why are you removing the disambiguation links (re-ambiguating?) the taxobox Sauropsida tags? The article redirects to Reptile, it's simpler if the links point directly there. Dinoguy2 (talk) 08:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes! Finally, a helpful Atheist!:)

I just recently converted to Atheism, after reading a Freethought website. Which Pages on Wikipedia can give me the links to other Atthiests sites? EWC Champion (talk) 08:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Kryptops

Hi, Mark;

I'm kind of wondering why you re-added extinct to Kryptops. It is certainly extinct, but a phrase like "an extinct genus of abelisaur" implies that there are some abelisaurs that are not extinct. That's why I never include it for members of extinct groups, and always have the temporal range very high in the lead. J. Spencer (talk) 21:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it makes perfect sense if the article is about an extinct member of an extant lineage, because not all the members are extinct. When they're all extinct, I don't think it's necessary, and may be misleading. That's how I've been working it, at least. For what it's worth, the dinosaur and pterosaur articles usually don't have extinct in the lead, judging by the admittedly wonky search function. J. Spencer (talk) 16:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I suppose we should find out. :) J. Spencer (talk) 23:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		Keep up the good work! Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Corsochelys

Why do you keep removing the written sources on Corsochelys? They are the sources the article was made with; they ought to stay in the article. The ''Gorgeous Girl''!!! (talk) 22:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Unblocked

Well now that I am unblocked I can actually leave messages on your talkpage. I would just like to thankyou for becoming involved in this and fixing Thylacoleonidae a great deal. You have really improved that article alot and you deserve recognition for it. So yeh, thanks Cazique (talk) 17:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I have been trying for a while now, hopefully I can try and make Uther understand what I am saying, and hopefully he is willing to aknowledge and take into account what I say and not brush me off. Well all I can do is hope for the best I guess and continue discussions in a hope for a concensous. Cazique (talk) 17:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Conservation status 'fossil'

Hi Firsfron, I was wondering if there is any policy regarding having 'fossil' in the conservation status? On the article Redlichiina I removed it, but have met stiff opposition from two editors (see Talk:Redlichiina). Any recommendations? Should I just leave them to it, as its only one word. Cheers, Mark t young (talk) 21:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey Mark!

Thanks for your note. The guideline is at Wikipedia:Taxobox_usage#Conservation_status ("Conservation status may optionally be included; you can search the IUCN's database of threatened species to find the conservation status of many organisms. It is included via the status argument, which takes a code or template. It is not appropriate for prehistoric organisms - the fossil_range parameter may be a more sensible option.") and at Wikipedia:Taxobox_usage#Fossil_range ("The stratigraphic range for groups known as fossils may also be included, using the fossil_range argument. For instance, for a group known from the Cambrian to the Permian.") I have added the fossil range and removed the incorrect IUCN fossil "status", which, as you probably know, doesn't exist (the IUCN only deals with living and recently-extinct organisms). Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 09:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Megalania

Hi Mark, thanks for correcting (and explaining) the italicis'n of its name. As for linking to ICBN, I obviously copied and pasted the wrong link off the ICZN page - D'oh! Cheers, Secret Squïrrel, approx 10:25, 7 June 2008 (Earth Standard Time)

Barosaurus

Thanks for fixing this, Mark! I was just about to correct it myself. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

False pretense

Consensus has not been reached and I suggest you read Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion and WP:Consensus for a better understanding. I already stated repeated times I have nothing against the hatnotes, I only have a problem with the context in which they are used. Both me and Lonelymarble provided hatnotes on the two redirects and this hatnotes are to be included once a concensous has been reached. Concensous is false pretense and you should read the policy and guideline as you seem to have been taken in by Majority. No one as of yet has given a logical, correct argument apart from myself and everything has been done wrong in this matter. Cazique (talk) 16:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

You did not even read the links, please go re-read them as you do not understand. I do not need to convince any one of what I am saying, they need to convince me because as of yet they have failed to give a locial reason. And the poll which should not have been started and is thanks to your suggestion, pretty much has resulted in everything on Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. This guidline has been written perfectly because everything it said has happened. It was only Uther and LonelyMarble(I still have no idea how she became to be involved in these discussions) at first who were debating with me and from the history it was quite clear that Uther had been edit warring with everyone. And over the time since then he has managed to convince people with lies. He always uses his WP:MaM as a defence calling it a policy. It is neither a policy nor guideline and is simply a project. The captilization BS he uses for a defence is also false and if people took the time to actually read the redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds, they would see that in fact it further strengthens my side instead of his. They also continually defend it by sayings marsupial lions or marsupial lion family, which already redirect to Thylacoleonidae and neither of which are the uncaps "marsupial lion". Please go and actually read the two links I provided because I noticed you have agreed that there was a concensous when there was none. So please read them and see what has happened here. Cazique (talk) 16:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)