User talk:Sheep81/ArchiveUno

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Grrr....

Hi. I know you're new; maybe not in this world, but new to Wikipedia, yes... So a piece of advice from myself regarding dinosaur articles: STOP MESSING THEM UP SOOOO MUCH!!!! I'm telling you this before it really gets out of hand. Please see my edits to this article; Alamosaurus, reverting & modifying your edits to see what we would expect you to do from now on. The information you're giving is excellent & I'm glad someone with a broader knowledge than myself is editing them, but your formatting is... well... a little misguided shall we say? Stick to the formatting scheme used on Alamosaurus & we'll be best buddies.... If not..... Better not say. It basically involves putting the references in the easier style, not so many title headings & not italics or bolding other than the subject's first appearance on the page. Regarding the title headings, you should consider putting entymology, name size etc etc together, only separated by spaces. This makes it easier to load & edit etc etc. But, if their's a special heading that is something like "In the movies" or "Findings of a special thingymajig", then it's fair to keep it. So, concluding, I'd like nothing more than for you to enrich our site, but for heaven's sake dude, please go around & clean up the edits or I'll have to & I get grumpy when I clean up other's messes. I'll do it, but I'm offering you this oppurtunity so that you can clean it up the way you would like it, rather than me ruin your good work. So please rewrite your edits & have a good day.... Spawn Man 01:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC).

In a word: no.
A) I will not stop italicizing genus or species names. Genus and species names are ALWAYS italicized, while the higher-level taxa are not. Read any scientific paper. Read any other encyclopedia. Read any textbook. Ask anybody who uses them on a regular basis (like myself). Italicizing genus-species is not for convenience, it is not a formatting choice, it is mandatory. Not just the first time. Every time. Period. In fact, as a scientist, seeing a generic name repeatedly un-italicized would nearly cause me to dismiss whatever I was reading. NOT italicizing them is basically intentionally introducing inaccurate information.
Point me to somewhere in Wikipedia where it says genus and species should only be italicized once, so that I can raise hell until the policy is changed. But I suspect there is no policy, just your personal (incorrect) preference.
B) Why does Wikipedia have a template for citations if not to use it? I prefer the template because it easier to just fill in the blanks rather than formatting a whole entry each time. And it comes out looking exactly the same. But if you choose not to, that is your choice, as long as the information is correct and correctly formatted. For instance, this:
  • Upchurch, P., Barrett, P.M. and Dodson, P., (2004). The Dinosauria. University of California Press. 2nd Edition:259-322.
...is unacceptable and just WRONG for many reasons. Upchurch et al. did not WRITE The Dinosauria (which is the title of a book and should be italicized, period). They wrote a chapter in an edited volume. The complete volume was edited by Weishampel, Dodson, and Osmolska. Anybody looking for this book would not be able to find it under the authors you provided. The citation was correct as I wrote it, and it was in accepted style. You made it INCORRECT and in unacceptable style. Please fact-check before making changes. This should be common knowledge to you by now. The point of a reference is not to be as brief as possible, it is to be as INFORMATIVE as possible.
C) I divide up the articles into standard sections so that the information is easier to find. Some of the articles I have helped write are quite long (look at Acrocanthosaurus). I do not want to wade through that much text if I am just looking for information on its fossil remains, for instance. However, this is a personal preference. If you seek to go back and unformat the articles I have contributed to, I am not going to get in an edit war with you. However, I am not going to stop writing them in this way as I suspect other readers may also appreciate the subheadings. If I see a general consensus (not just your opinion) forming against them, I will stop.
D) You do not own Wikipedia, nor all of its dinosaur articles. If you see fit to alter a page in content or format, that is your decision and your right as a Wikipedian. You have done a wonderful job with the dinosaur page, from what I can tell. But that does not give you any kind of authority with which to make demands, ultimatums, or threats, as you have done above. I will take into consideration some of your suggestions, but I will not go back and "fix" all the text I have already written just to appease you. Does anyone else share your views? Is there any sort of consensus? If so, ask them to let me know.
Sheep81 03:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I can see we're going to have a great relationship already, (smothered in sarcasm!). I'll post a response later to your rather boring lengthy whiney posts. This is partly because I want to let your simmer for a bit. The second is because Desperate housewives is on... Spawn Man 07:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Look, this does not have to be an adversarial relationship. But when you come out firing with your bold type and flood of exclamation marks, telling me that I am "messing up" articles, most of which consisted of maybe one or two (usually incorrect) sentences before I started editing, that is bound to put me on the defensive immediately. Making threats ("If not..... Better not say.") is just uncalled for and I will never respond well to them. But who cares, maybe that is your "personal style" or whatever. The important thing here is that we both want good dinosaur articles on Wikipedia.
We can compromise on a lot here. You want me to not use the citation templates, I think that's stupid (why do they exist?), but it isn't really relevant to the general reader since it comes out looking exactly the same. So whatever, I don't care. I am flexible on the formatting of the articles, with subheadings and whatnot. I don't think it serves the reader to have all the information in one big glob, but I also don't think an edit war will serve the reader either, so perhaps we can condense the sections so there are less if that's what you want to see.
One thing I will not compromise on is the italicizing bit. If we are writing scientific encyclopedia articles, we need to present correct scientific infomation. And part of presenting science correctly is using correct terminology. A formal generic name is ALWAYS italicized, in every instance it is used. This isn't any different than capitalizing the specific name, which is also incorrect. I would hope that if someone went around typing "Alamosaurus Sanjuanensis" all over the place that you would have a problem with that. If you DON'T want to see italics everywhere, the proper thing to do might be to use the informal common name, which in the case of Alamosaurus would be "alamosaur."
Anyway I think we should kind of cool down and nip any kind of fighting in the bud, and work on improving our dinosaur articles together, as ridiculously cheesy as that sounds. Maybe talk to a few other people and see what they think, build a consensus. Then again, this is Wikipedia, so perhaps that is too ambitious.Sheep81 11:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, as a fellow dinosaur editor, I agree completely with Sheep81. Of course, genus and species names should be italicized every single time, and anyone unwilling to do so has no business writing a science article. If the italics bother you, propose a guideline at Wikipedia:WikiprojectDinosaurs saying that most uses in an article should be common name format rather than scientific name (alamosaur instead of Alamosaurus). I also vastly prefer the citation template to just slopping the info down on the page--they don't take up any extra room (just in the code) and they place everything in proper Wikipedia harvard style (not always the case when copy/pasting a ref from an online document). As Sheep already pointed out Spawn, the citation for The Dinosauria, which is a book, is in journal format, when if you'd used the cite_book template it would have been formatted correctly. As for sections, this is subjective, but in my opinion any time two or more paragraphs can be devoted to a specific topic (behavior, diet, discovery history, appearance, etc.) a new heading should be created. This makes the article easier to navigate quickly via the TOC. If there's only one paragraphs worth of info for any given sub-topic, they could be grouped as sub-heading under a general heading like Description. Is there any particular reason you're opposed to the use of headings, italics, etc. Spawn? It's not really clear from your first post. There's no reason for anybody to get angry about any of this.Dinoguy2 13:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Gosh! I'm away for half a day & you're already making deals with out me here! I said I'd reply to evrything later, which I'm doing now!

1) I was wrong about the italicized names, as on closer inspection I found you were right. So I now have no issues with that subject.

2) On the titles & sub headings subject, I'm glad to see that you're ready to compromise on that. But as I said, get rid of needless titles, but definitely keep special headings like I mentioned above. So we're in agreement there.

3) Yes, I know, I stuff up the book thingy, but was going to fix it when I came back. I don't care what you use for refs, but take in mind that the system I used is more commonly found & takes up less space on the edit screen. Other than that it's exactly the same. For your question about why they created templates if no one used them; Templates were created for the incurably lazy & to do fancy things with the text, such as add colour & a table to the text. Since the template you use does neither; since I don't think you're lazy, & since the template doesn't do anything special to the text, my thinking was why use it? That's also the reason they're less commonly used.

So overall, the only thing I would like you to revise is your use of headings. I was wrong about the italics & we're both right about template & refs. I hope we can work together, since I'm the only active member of the Dinosaur project & since you seem to know your stuff. Spawn Man 02:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC). BTW, Yes, being gruff & confrontational is my "style". The longer you know me on here the more you know that. Give me a buzz if you want to do a collaboration etc...

Further more, on the Alamosaurus talk page, you state that you are not the only one reading the article. Now, this brought to my attention another subject on your edits. Although I don't really care, you have to remember, you aren't the only one reading the article. So reading through the pages you've edited, I've found the information you give very technical. Most of the people who come on here are doing research. Most of those are school kids researching for a project. Although I, & obviously you, can read it, most probably would have no idea what the heck is on there, thus making them search out a better site, or the'd get bored & leave for another article. Now, think back all those years ago, (assuming you're older than 20), to the school days. You may remember the teacher telling you in English class about how to captivate the audience with your writing. You may remember her telling you about sentence lengths etc etc. Think back to those days & compare your article writing with a good story. You don't want a boring article do you? No, you want an exciting one, easy to understand for all. Now think about merging a descriptive, exciting story with an interesting, fact filled article. You'll come up with a very good article indeed. So that's all I have to say: Just be mindful of the difference between a good story, a boring article & a Featured Article, (Just incase you didn't get it, the Featured article was a mixture of the two). Spawn Man 02:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC).
All right, good job not posting right away, allowing a little cooling off time. I am glad to see you have come around on the italics, maybe I should have just provided a link instead going on and on about it. As far as the citation templates, I didn't even use them at first, but someone showed them to me, so I started. They aren't even that great, you have to play with them a little to get them to display right, and the only reason I still used them was because I had already spent time doing the playing and I was basically just cutting and pasting them to save time. But if anyone else came around later and tried to edit the article, they might not know how to do that without experimenting. So I'll cut out the templates, at least until there are better ones.
As far as the subheadings, I like Dinoguy's suggestion above. If there is more than one paragraph on a subject, it should get its own heading. I can go back through and delete lots of my subheadings if I follow that rule, and still keep some of the bigger sections. And I think we both agree that taxonomy ("relationships") should have its own section, since you left it in the Alamosaurus article.
As you suggested, I will also go back and review the technical content of the articles I have edited... if I can find a better, maybe more accessible way to present the info, I'll fix it. I don't see any reason to delete the technical stuff, since it is encyclopedic and Wikipedia is not specifically designed for small children. But perhaps I can "dumb down" the language a bit without sacrificing content. I'll go back and start editing the text I've already written now, and then maybe get in a new article tonight. Sheep81 02:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
So this brings me to my final post today hopefully; Since I'm an excellent writer & know my stuff about dinosaurs etc etc, & since you're not an excellent writer (no offense matey potatey) but know all the stuff one would want to know about dinos, we could both be exceptionally benificial for each other. For example, imagine us suddenly joined together, in a cosmic ray of light from the heavens themselves, we could be the ultimate dinosaur writer! My way with words & your excellent knowledge, we could get every dinosaur to the main page! Muahahaaaaa..... Sleep on it at least. No, don't sleep on the cosmic ray of light, sleep on the bed.... Spawn Man 02:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC). BTW, How did you get here dinoguy?

I posted the above comment before I read your latest post & I couldn't be bothered deleting it. So anyway, I'm glad we can come into agreement with each other. On second thought, maybe you're right & that if a subject say, taxonomy, has a substancial amount of information, it should have a heading. Also, take in the idea of joining some sections together & placing them under one heading. EG: Sites of fossils, taxonomy & other stuff to do with naming, exhibits, etc etc, could all be included under a title such as "History of discovery" or just "discovery". stuff like the size & when it lived from should be kept in the opening section, which as we know, has no title. This way, all the important facts like stats etc, can be kept together & in the same place. Mysteries & oddities should be placed under their own heading, as they are unique to the article & that article alone. I think its both unprofessional & wierd putting the same titles through every dino article: Taxonomy, fossils, history, naming etc etc. They are not unique to the article alone. Where as a title such as "Suspect bone fragments found in Sahara" is unique to that article alone. Get my point? It's sort of like putting "introduction" "Statistics" "past history" & "the future" in every single article on here. So if you went on say a car article, you'd find the "introduction" "Statistics" "past history" & "the future" headings. Then you went to say the white house artcile & you found the titles "introduction" "Statistics" "past history" & "the future". It would get very boring wouldn't it? So that's my point with the same titles in the dinosaur articles. Basically I'm saying spice it up, keep one or two headings & defintely keep unique headings. Sorry bout taking sooo long... Bye, hope we can have a great friend ship on here.... Spawn Man 02:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

But perhaps I can "dumb down" the language a bit without sacrificing content.
I agree with this. IMHO these articles should be written at about a highschool level. Professionals shouldn't really need Wikipedia anyway.
if a subject say, taxonomy, has a substancial amount of information, it should have a heading.
Especially if it includes one of my clado/hirarchy hybrid tihngs, which tend to take up a lot of room on the page and are not especially attractive (we need a good template for those too).
Taxonomy, fossils, history, naming etc etc. They are not unique to the article alone.
True, but that's where my suggestion comes in. If history takes up three pages of text, it's better from a logistics standpoint to break that up and make it accessible from the contents. The problem with unique headings is that they tend to reflect new studies that turn up on google news and may or may not be terribly significant, and may or may not fit right in with all the boring old "taxonomy" or "fossil history" stuff once the publicity dies down in a week. Example: everybody and their mother was trying to add two-line subsections on Guanlong to every tyrannosaur article the day that hit the AP. Now nobody cares and Guanlong sits happily on its own page like every other tyrannosauroid, with just a mention and a link in the taxonomy on the superfamily page. Whereas something like tyrannosaur soft tissue is of obvious general importance and certainly deserves a subsection both on Tyrannosaurus and on Dinosaur.
Signed, Dinoguy2, one of apparently two active members of the Dinosaur project ;) (actually Dracontes is fairly active too when he has time to edit).Dinoguy2 04:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Well I'm glad someone finally agrees with me. I hope we're now all on the same page. Maybe we can have a three-way collaboration?! Me, Dino & Sheepy! YAY! Spawn Man 04:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC). BTW, What the heck does IMHO mean? I've never understood it or used it!?
Something like "in my humble opinion" but looking back it probably should just read IMO...Dinoguy2 13:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
internet slang ... Wikipedia strikes again! Sheep81 16:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dinosaurs:

For excellent growth from critism & managing to further improve his awesome raw talent -- Spawn Man.
For excellent growth from critism & managing to further improve his awesome raw talent -- Spawn Man.

I'd just like to say one thing: Well done! When I first encountered you, I thought I'd be dealing with some anal, self assuring crap artist who thought he was better than everyone else. But, I totally misjudged you. You have show that you can change & adapt to other's standards & after seeing how you changed your edits in Abelisaurus I see that you'll be a great editor in no tme. You perfectly "dumbed down" the article enough to make it flow excellently & the way you kept the unique heading "Disputed age" is superb & adds the special touch to the article. I disputed with myself on whether to give you a normal barnstar or not. I eventually chose the above one because you did improve from my critism & complaints & managed to improve greatly from them. Spawn Man 01:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC). P.S. I hope we can be friends sometime down the line. P.P.S. Don't forget to polish the star every week after you hang it on your user page!

[edit] My Attempt:

Since Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs is becoming a bit dormant of late, I've decided to get it reactivated. I've started putting the following templates all over the show, & I'd appreciate if someone would try putting them on too. Remember, they only go on Dinosaur orientated artcle's TALK pages. Not the articles themselves.

WikiProject Dinosaurs This article, image or category is supported by WikiProject Dinosaurs, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more information.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

So, finally, while I work on the project with a designer, in order to get more people, thus more pages, I would appreciate if you didn't move or shift (or stuff up for that matter) any of the work I'll be doing, like adding templates, protocols to the project page, etc etc. I'm hoping to get it up to the standard of The military history project. So, tell your friends to join up, or spam unknowing people & continue to do great articles. I no time, we'll have an awesome, professional project page! Spawn Man 03:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New improvement

As per step three (on the dinosaur project talk page), I promised to ask a general consensus about any new improvements made. So, I'd like everyone to give comments on the new talk page banner:

WikiProject Dinosaurs This article, image or category is supported by WikiProject Dinosaurs, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more information.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

What does everyone think of it? It's meant to be placed on the talk page of dinosaur related articles, so everytime you edit an article, placing this there would make our job easier. So a few questions I'd like everyone to answer:

1)Does everyone like the picture? 2)Is the wording adequate? 3)Any other queries/problems?

I'll let you know when a new improvement arises... Spawn Man 00:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New improvement 2

As per step three (on the dinosaur project talk page), I promised to ask a general consensus about any new improvements made. So, I'd like everyone to give comments on the new talk page banner:

This user is a part of WikiProject Dinosaurs, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of dinosaurs. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

What does everyone think of it? It's meant to be placed on the user talk page or user page of members of the Dinosaur wikiproject, so placing this there would make our job easier. So a few questions I'd like everyone to answer:

1)Does everyone like the picture? 2)Is the wording adequate? 3)Any other queries/problems?

I'll let you know when a new improvement arises... Spawn Man 00:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Request for edit summary

Hi. I am a bot, and I am writing to you with a request. I would like to ask you, if possible, to use edit summaries a bit more often when you contribute. The reason an edit summary is important is because it allows your fellow contributors to understand what you changed; you can think of it as the "Subject:" line in an email. For your information, your current edit summary usage is 10% for major edits and 16% for minor edits. (Based on the last 146 major and 56 minor edits in the article namespace.)

This is just a suggestion, and I hope that I did not appear impolite. You do not need to reply to this message, but if you would like to give me feedback, you can do so at the feedback page. Thank you, and happy edits, Mathbot 10:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Oooohhhh....... Sheepy, you've been served!!! Usually, if you don't keep your summaries up after this notice, they block your account for a day! Then a week! You're in big trouble!!!! They got a "bot" after you! :) Spawn Man 19:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)....

[edit] New photos proposed for templates?

Image:Alamosaurus.jpg
200px

Well, above are a few photos that could replace the exsisting template photo. Please feel free to suggest more photos on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs talk page. Spawn Man 19:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New improvement 3

As per step three, I'm informing you that... A new userbox has been created!! Please give comments and feedback (not including the picture, which may be due to change).

This user is a member of WikiProject Dinosaurs.


I will inform on arrival of more improvements. Spawn Man 19:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kazvorpal's Edits

Sheep81, as an editor I respect, I wanted to bring to your attention the recent edits by user Kazvorpal. While I admire his desire to improve the dinosaur artciles, most, if not all, of his edits bely a fundamental lack of understanding and current knowledge of many aspects of current dinosaur science. I feel that the recent widespread changes to the dinosaur articles, particularly the paleoboxes, do more harm than good to Wikiproject:Dinosaurs, by spreading unsourced, outdated, or simply inaccurate inforamtion, and implying consensus on ideas which exist only in the minds of those whose knowledge of dinosaurs stems solely from the popular media. Each paleobox I've seen contains gross inaccuracies which even amature observers of paleontology would know to be false (such as "era" mistaken for "period", though that's the least of it), contain redundancy with the existing taxoboxes, and contain redundancy with information normally contained in the text of an article. Kaz's recent deletion of a piece of art from one of my personal favorite professional paleoartists, John Conway, complete with flat-out derisive comments based on an obviously out of date understanding of dromaeosaurids, has been the last straw for me. I hope you will help me to correct these mistakes, as my faith in the entire philosophy of Wikipedia is waning quickly. I look forward to your reply.Dinoguy2 06:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll help you correct the paleobox information. I agree with you about the redundant nature of such boxes, and I am inclined to just delete all of them, but they are more tolerable if they at least have correct information in them.
About the picture, I like it too, but you might consider moving it out of the taxobox and into the article with a caption like "A picture of Deinonychus by paleoartist John Conway, emphasizing its birdlike characteristics" or something like that. It is accurate, more or less, but perhaps a bit too over the top to be the "type" picture for the genus in Wikipedia (I hope you know what I mean by that). Maybe even put that picture of the skull into the taxobox? Just a suggestion.
And about Wikipedia, the philosophy of the site is admirable, but in my opinion it is implemented poorly in some ways, not to mention vastly overhyped as a resource. Especially for scientific topics... I actually came here because so many of the dinosaur articles were in such abysmal shape and being passed off as legitimate information. Wikipedia works best if there are a few honest editors who know the subject matter well enough to act as caretakers for articles, parse the edits made by others, and determine what is accurate enough to be in the article or not. It can be a big job, but you are one of those few caretaker editors, so please stick around! Sheep81 06:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Gosh Dinoguy, stop being such a whiner, (in good jest of course my friend). Plus, how does he get the title of "an editor I respect" when he has under 500 edits? No one appreciates me... Honestly...... Spawn Man 02:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC). P.S. You say his information is outdated? Didn't Sheepy say his primary source was a book from the 1920's? I don't care how many papers it's had based off it, that's out dated by my count....
Aw don't be jeaolous Spawn, you're the guy who got Dinosaur featured, that you're highly respected goes without saying :)Dinoguy2 14:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Primary source for what? Sheep81 15:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Collaboration?

The member Firsfron, has been creating some dinosaur stubs lately (to be precise, a lot-a lot of them!). So I was wondering whether you'd like to get in touch with him & maybe spruce up the stubs he's creating so as people don't get them deleted (as usually happens to stubs!). You know his name, he knows yours, so it's all good...... Thanks, Spawn Man 02:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do... have been working a lot lately and haven't had time to write much (and I wasted a bunch of time arguing with Kaz too).

[edit] New Task bar

I've successfully created an open list of tasks on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs main page for those who would actually like to know what to do with their time on the project. Add tasks as you wish, no too long though! Add your name to tasks you wish to be part of & that's as complicated as it gets... Thanks, Spawn Man 23:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please help!!!!

I know I haven't spoken to you in a while, but I really need your help. One of my subpages (User:Spawn Man/Reviews) has been picked out by a big time editor & is now up for deletion here, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Spawn Man/Reviews. I know it may sound like I only come around when I need something, but this is really important to me. I only did this as a last resort. Please vote to keep the page & I'll do anything, eat your shoes, clean your toilets for a year, even wear one of those t shirts that say I'm stupid! I just want my page which I've spent so much time on to be left alone. Thanks, Spawn Man 01:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC). Hopefully the fact that I help out with wikiproject dinos will have some sway with you?

[edit] WikiProject Dinosaurs

Hi Sheep!

There's currently less than 100 dinosaurs left on the Missing dinosaur page. We've come a long way! I was thinking that since there's just under 100 dinosaurs left, and since there are 25 of us signed on for the project, if we each wrote about four articles, we'd be done! Well, not "done", obviously, as many of the articles are in need of expansion. But then we could focus on expansion and other things.

You could take, say, Shuangmiaosaurus, Sigilmassasaurus, Silesaurus, and Sphenosaurus.

It's just an idea, of course, and you're of course not obligated and can do whatever you like; I just figured I'd mention the idea, and see if you were interested. No harm, right?

Take care, --Firsfron 07:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC) :)

[edit] Thanks Sheep!

Hi Sheep! Since the first stage of the project, creating all these dinosaurs, is at last winding down, I'd like to take a moment and award you this barnstar

The E=MC² Barnstar For your dedicated scientific work on WP:Dinosaurs. --Firsfron 02:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
The E=MC² Barnstar For your dedicated scientific work on WP:Dinosaurs. --Firsfron 02:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

No doubt we still have a lot of work ahead of us (categorizing, taxoboxing, revising, tagging, reverting vandalism, etc), but you've brought a lot to the project, and I wanted to take a moment to honor your tireless efforts on our project. --Firsfron 02:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Ditto to you. Check your talk page. Sheep81 02:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I really mean it: you've been a huge part of this project. And as far as giving me one: wow. You really haven't seen most of my articles yet, have you? Well, no doubt you will, as you work your way down from A to Z. By the time you get to the letter B, I'm sure, you'll regret giving me a barnstar, and by D, you'll be knashing your teeth in irritation. "Pubis? He meant illium, that fool!" you'll say. By the time you get to letter F, you'll me to return the barnstar... but no takebacks! ;)
Thanks again, --Firsfron 02:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HQITW is back!

Hi! I'm just reminding everyone about my quiz section, the Hardest Questions In The World Section. Although many players are already taking part, the more people playing, the more exciting it becomes. Drop by the following link to play... See this link to take part in the competition! Questions are updated every so often, so come back later if there are none left to answer. Thanks, Spawn Man 01:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Psittacosaurus

Supported. The references' placement is the only thing to take care of (see the FAC page). Great job (although I'm by no means an expert in dinosaurs)! -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 08:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

IT'S FEATURED! Congratulations. Your hard work has paid off, Sheep. :) --Firsfron 04:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What's up with all the funk aye?

Why have you suddenly commandeered the wikiproject dino's ship? I was never aware there was a mutiny, but suddenly your name is posted everywhere. This includes a new collaboration (which I already f***ing proposed, but everyone rejected!), a new design for the project page, a featured article, 99% of the talk sections on the project talk & a lot more. I worked hard to get the project up & running again, & although I don't like the sound of it, deem myself as one of the project leaders. I think I should at least be consulted before so many major actions are taken. I proposed a collaboration many months ago & everyone rejected it. Now you say you want one & it is so. I'm sick of my hard work not being appreciated at any place I go. I was actually one of the first to sign up to the project, & numerous other projects, but nobody cares. So if you just wanna take over the reigns & delete all of my hard work & proclaim yourself leader, ask me before you do it. Spawn Man 02:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I did consult you. I consulted everybody in the Project and all of Wikipedia when I posted it the on the Project talk page. None of that stuff is set in stone as it's all still in my userspace. I posted it there so that other people could look at it and give me their opinions, like you did. If I was proclaiming myself leader, I would have just changed it outright. I don't make large-scale decisions, Spawn. WE make them. You know, as opposed to YOU making them, like it was before.
I'm sorry we wrote a featured article in your absence. We would have asked for your permission, but you were nowhere to be found. Sorry, we should have known and we won't get another one featured until you give us the okay. We'll just write bad ones. Cool?
By the way, it's all well and good that you started the Project back on its feet or whatever. We know, we've heard it from you a million times. But guess what, you left, and while you were gone, we got organized. We divided labor, went through almost 150KB of talk page organizing specific aspects of the Project from categories to pronunciation, finished the entire friggin' list of dinosaurs, and got an article featured. Without your "help". So you'll excuse us if we don't feel we need to ask your permission any longer. If people like my collaboration idea better, maybe it's because instead of telling everyone they should spend every single waking hour writing the articles that the almighty SPAWN MAN wants them to write, I suggest that they decide what articles they want to work on and vote on which articles they want to be featured. I don't decide a single effing thing, not even if the collaboration happens in the first place. Sheep81 03:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Sheep, he's 15.--Firsfron 07:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
For the last bloody time I'm not 15!!!!...
I'm sorry for my absense Sheep. I guess I should have put off my mother dying in hosptial to make sure I was involved in everything. As I've said I wasn't talking about the big 20 collaboration, which I actually did ask everyone about, I was talking about a normal collaboration which everyone voted on to replaced the big 20. I proposed this new collaboration under 1.5 months ago. The reason noone knows about it is becasue no one supported it or commented on it. Check the archives if you don't believe me. For a matter of fact, I was actually here when we were writing articles off the list of dinos, so don't preach to me that you did that on your own. You got an article featured, I got an article featured, so don't even go there. If you don't want me on the team, then just say so. Everyone seems to be listening to your exploded egotistical brain, so I'm sure they support your decision to ban me from the project. I only made decisions on behalf of everyone at the start when nobody was even active! That was for stuff like changing the wording on the project page. Then I sent everyone copies of the templates I had made to see if they could be improved. Then when we were more active with dinoguy & you bounding around, I put everything on the project talk page.
So I'm sorry if I caused you to swing into a tyraid of mean & spiteful sentences, but right now I have articles to edit & a hospitalised mother to worry about. Everyone saw the "My comp has a virus" section of my note, nobody saw the "Oh & by the way my mother might be dying" part. Spawn Man 22:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Spawn Man. There are over a half-dozen pages on Wikipedia which listed your age as 14 in mid-December here, here, and here, among others. I had incorrectly assumed you'd be 15 by now. I'm sorry your age, which is much older, has been misrepresented on WP.--Firsfron 23:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Well I'm sorry about your mother but that isn't an excuse to treat people the way you have treated them around here. I don't think of myself as a leader and I certainly don't see myself in some sort of power struggle with you. If there is a power struggle it is between you (who sees yourself as the self-proclaimed leader) and the rest of the Project (who doesn't). I am just an active member among several other active members, I have ideas and I am throwing them out there, but in no way am I enforcing them. I think you are mistaking activity for leadership, that's all I am going to say about that. Feel free to continue your temper tantrum, but please stay off of my talk page with it, you'll get no more responses from me. Sheep81 03:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
The self proclaimed leader thing was a joke you inhuman pile of turnips! God.... Spawn Man 04:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good edit on Albertosaurus

Thanks for your polite response to my interference, your version is better! - Ballista 18:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Public Apology:

You've done a nice job with the collaboration. You've incorporated everyone's idea's (including mine) & it looks great. Maybe a bit better formatting, but still a much better improvement on your original concept.

I humbly propose an apology from myself as I have quite frankly been an arse. My anger towards yourself for doing your work was uncalled for & I apologise. Although it's no excuse, the stress from my mother being in hospital, backed by a huge virus, probably started my tyraid of anger. I hope you'll understand & accept my apology so we can move on & work to a better future for articles on wikipedia. I guess we forget we're writing encyclopedia articles (which most will be seldomly seen) sometimes.

Sincerly & apologetically,

Spawn Man 04:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC).

No prob, Bob. The more I looked at it, the more I saw that an actual collaboration would more than sufficient for our needs. Go ahead and reformat the page if you think it would look better. I just threw something out there to get the ball rolling. Apologies if I let my sarcastic nature get the better of me in any way. Sheep81 05:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fixed:

Fixed voting on the collaboration & also the Albertosaurus FAC link on the lower half of the page. It was still linking back to the peer review... Spawn Man 21:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Oops. Yeah it was pretty late last night when I did that, methinks. Thanks man. Sheep81 21:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Velociraptor

The articleis looking pretty good, other than a few easy-to-fix things. 1, the article needs more pictures. Of the 2 pics we have, 1 is highly stylized & the other is an unclear drawing. The later is the opening picture! 2, the section under the heading Velociraptor#Description, is messy. From experience, in FAC, people will most likely ask for the few paragraphs there to be renovated into a larger couple. However, the inline references at the end of the paragraphs inhibit this. Therefore, all inline refs should be created into footnotes, much like in Dinosaur or Pssittacosaurus, or however you spell it. I'd do it myself, but I just know you'll find something wrong with how I've laid it out. At the risk of sounding rude (& I don't want to) but ever since you've come along, nobody can write anything but you. So unless you're a schooled paleontologist, we have to wait for Sheepy to rewrite everything. I'd quite happily write many dinosaur articles, but all the books I get them from are apparently wrong, unlike your books. Even if I did write it, you'd come along & rewrite it (regardless of if it was correct or not). Because of this, we are moving very very slowly. A group only moves as fast as its slowest member. Unfortunately in this case, the slowest is the one we need. As I said, I didn't want to sound rude, but since I'm not a published university graduate or anything, I feel I can't argue with you. I can't write what I love writing about because it is always rewritten. I don't want every single FA on a dino to be your work. It's not just for my sake, but for yours too, as people will soon get tired of you writing everything. I'm not angry, or wanting to change anything, just noting that you're hurting someone's feelings & stalling a group (in my eyes if you will). I don't want some angry response, as I just felt something should be said.... Thanks, Spawn Man 04:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Happy Birthday btw. Now... Look at it from my perspective. You enjoy writing dinosaur articles. Then, a much more dino hardened editor arrives. He aims to rewrite every single dino article top to bottom (Quote from your user page: I have currently updated 42 dinosaur articles, rewriting most of them from top to bottom.). Basically, at one point or another, the article is basically going to be 99-100% Sheepy. And by him rewriting all the articles, he is basically saying his resources are more correct than yours. Not being a dino hardened editor, who am I to argue. Thus, since all the articles are going to eventually be yours, we wait around & don't express ourselves as much in the edits we make. I certainly don't. And since we wait around for you to rewrite all the articles, which to be honest will take a long time, it will be a very long time before we get everything done. Eventually when we see, Dinosaur (before Sheepy came), then Albertosaurus, (Sheepy's), Pssittasaurus, (Sheepy), Velociraptor, (Mostly Sheepy, you can't deny it...), etc etc... Everyone's gonna wonder if they're really important or not & wonder if they're edits ever mattered. They'll uprise & resent you. But hey, that's just my heart broken reflections.... I feel that if maybe you eased up on editor's edits, & maybe took a step back from nominating everything on dinosaurs, maybe this wouldn't be so... Thanks, Spawn Man 05:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no intention of forcing you to leave. I have no quarry with you editing my, or anyone else's, work. Everyone thinks that that is what this is about, but it's not at all what I was trying to say. My problem is that your edits are very correct, so correct that to touch them would be wrong. So if your edits are so correct, how can anyone else touch them? The answer, they shouldn't. That's what I'm trying to say. The reason why I'm annoyed is because I know your edits are correct, well written & everything else, but that means me, or hardly anyone else who doesn't want to destroy good correct edits, can't touch what you've written. In my eyes anyway. And I didn't know you thought of this as an arguement, because I didn't. I was just merely pointing out my thoughts & wanted to have a discussion with you. Obviously you think any constructive critism is a strong person attack on you, with the other person clearly wanting you deposed of any power you hold. This is strange, because I never viewed you as being "Top dog" as you put it. If you can't contribute to a discussion without lowering the vibrations of it, maybe we shouldn't talk. Have a nice day. Spawn Man 23:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Birthday, Sheep!

Many happy returns and all that. Hope you have a great one. :) --Firsfron of Ronchester 05:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Woot! How old are you now then? Anyway, nobody deserves to not get any wikipics on their birthday, (even though no one cared enough to send me any *sigh*), so here's some big balloons from Bangkok apparently. Have a good birthday... Spawn Man 05:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC). P.S. Yes, I'm nowhere as horrible as everyone acts like I am... ;)

[edit] To a great guy

The Original Barnstar
for fantastic contributions (and inspiration/drive) to the Dino Project - Ballista 08:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome back

Hey Sheep,

Welcome back. Is there any way you could activate your e-mail on Wikipedia?--Firsfron of Ronchester 22:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

When I try to e-mail you, it says: No e-mail address

This user has not specified a valid e-mail address, or has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users. --Firsfron of Ronchester 23:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Missing your great contributions to dino project, at present - like you had 'dropped off the radar' - hope you can get cable stuff sorted asap, to make your life easier. - Ballista 11:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Testing, testing, 1 2 3....

I, Spawn Man, give the first new Dinosaur Barnstar to Sheepy for his edits to the subject, -- Spawn Man 03:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC).
I, Spawn Man, give the first new Dinosaur Barnstar to Sheepy for his edits to the subject, -- Spawn Man 03:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC).

Thought I'd test out the new barnstar Sango created for us from my idea. Hope you like it & put it above Firsfron's cause his isn't as pretty, & this is the first of these ever given out... Have fun... Spawn Man 03:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I like it! It's on my userpage now. Sheep81 10:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Footnotes

Hi Sheepy. Glad you're back. On the Velociraptor article the footnotes/harvard style citation is really stuffed up. I was hoping you would be able to fix it, as I do not have the books for the Harvard style refs & I am not familiar with the new footnote style, as it very different from when I featured Dinosaur. If you could show me how to do it too, that would make it a double bonus as I have a non-dinosaur article I'm eyeing up for FA status... Thanks, Spawn Man 00:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I've figured out how to do the footnotes, so don't worry about showing me. My only problem now is getting this : e.g. (Jerzykiewicz et al. 1993), into a footnote. I mean, all I know is: Jerzykiewicz, no 1st name. (1993). no book, mag, publisher name. no page number. no isbn. And what does et al. mean? How am I supposed to change the Harvards into footnotes without this info? Please help as it's really the only thing holding back support for the article... Thanks, Spawn Man 04:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Now that Albertosaurus is featured, I can really start working on this one. I will revise all of the references today. There are a lot that should be added (most of the article can actually be cited), and the ones that are there need to be converted to footnote form. Gimme a few hours as I am at work (although I did manage to get some done already). BTW I also added some info to the description section (although it is largely left intact).Sheep81 10:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm glad to see everyone has gathered round while I was on my weekend (*gasp*, my weekend doesn't consist of wikipedia!). Typically though, my computer is now playing up again! Anyway, you may have to help me with the photo of the velociraptor in JP. I think we should just delete it, as it's too much hassle. I found a toy velociraptor as memorabilia from the movie, maybe it would be easier to just take a shot of that. But that would probably look too corny. Anyway... Thanks for the refs help, I had no idea about how to convert the harvards into refs. Spawn Man 23:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC). BTW, I urge you to support the article! Just because you worked on it doesn't mean you can't support it (or oppose it). Anyway.... Spawn Man 23:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree that a toy would be too corny. Delete the current pic an let's just find an actual uncropped publicity photo or a screenshot that is less objectionable. Sheep81 01:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Deleted.... Dunno where we will find a new pic though... Spawn Man 02:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for your suggestions on the image pages, Sheep. I didn't really feel confident (or even qualified) to be reviewing custom-made images for WP. I feel like if I make a mistake, it's too late. That's it. If the image was created by an artist, in close consultation with the Project, with the project members approval, and the artist is willing to modify/custom make images, there's absolutely no excuse to later say, 'well, this image just isn't right'. So it feels really wrong for me to somehow say, "Oh, yeah, that looks great." I know when an image looks off to me, and can offer some suggestions, but approving images? The whole idea is a bit scary. Someone with considerable knowledge of anatomy, etc, should be doing it, not me. I'm thankful you're stepping in. With Dinoguy gone for the next month, I was really getting worried. Please don't stop commenting on the images! :) --Firsfron of Ronchester 03:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:JPvelociraptor.png

Image:JPvelociraptor.png now has a far better looking rationale, thanks. I'm sorry I'm a bit of a stickler on these matters, it's just that I really believe (a) that Wikipedia's freeness is what's so great about it, (b) featured articles should be the very best, and (c) there's a lot of abuse of the system at the moment. I also inserted a hidden comment (my diff) about the fair use into the article. The article itself is really good - I'm very impressed. I was shocked at how poor the dinosaur articles were when I first arrived on Wikipedia, given the volume of scientific and popular literature, their role in popular culture, and the huge number of dino-fans out there! But now, I am actually frequently impressed :-) Good work! TheGrappler 21:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment at Talk:Velociraptor

Hi there. I put a comment at Talk:Velociraptor about an edit of mine that you corrected. Any comments would be appreciated. Thanks. Carcharoth 00:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No problems!

Hi. Glad you're back! I had no idea you had a girlfriend, I've always pictured you like some lonely paleontologist sitting at his computer... But that's beside the point. Anyway, me & Firsfron have been holding up the fort, both giving each other barnstars for our good work. I've mainly been copy-editing, most of which you undid when you rewrote the T rex page, as per usual. But at least we have great new references now! I'm trying to keep enthusisatic though, & Firsfron says it's catching. So I've copied the below from Fisfron's talk page about which oppser's have said which tasks. The one's with lines & with the word check have been done:

  • Sandy - More refs. Check. Alphabeticalize catagories. Check. Copy edit entire text. Will do. Done.
  • Tobyk777 - More refs. Check. Alphabeticalize catagories. Check. Copy edit entire text. Will do. Done. Fix reference formats. No idea what to do here, I think this is your dept.
  • CG - Expand pop culture. Check. Delete other giant theropods section. Check.
  • Tony - Correct grammar points he gave. Check. Copy edit entire text. Will do. Done.
  • Samsara - Reduce section on feathers. Check. Create warm blood debate section. Check. Delete environment section. Check. Place "more credible" citation sources than dinocards. Check for most. Don't know what he has against them, they're not the back of the cereal box card ya' know...! You took care of that.

So yes, that's about it now. I don't understand why everyone is still opposing. Me & Firsfron have fixed most, & you came & took care of the rest. You can tell me they will oppose this article solely because they want the word "to" replaced with "with" in a few places!?! I think now we just need to go over the writing & copyedit it, which I spent an hour doing before, & try & fix whatever problems there is with the refs (cause I can't see any bliming problems gosh darn it!). It should be featured if everyone sees that we've fixed everything. Thanks, Spawn Man 04:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Plus my friend Petaholmes commented on my talkpage & wrote this;

Hi, about your dinocard problem for ref 6, two of those refs can be replaced with links to the muesum collections, like this one for the 4th reference. You could quite easily just remove the sentence about Albertosarus, since this artice is about T.rex. Many of the other ones could also be avoided, by just removing the offending text when the same things is already discussed, in particular the info from ref 22 doesn't add much at all, and could easily be chopped out entirely.--Peta 03:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hope you actually know what she's talking about.... Spawn Man 04:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I can't understand for the life of me why you never support dinosaur articles! *Sigh* I've looked through your writing, seems pretty good. I just deleted an irrelevant piece not from your work though. I don't know what's still causing the objections though. As I said to Firsfron, I'm at a loss. I've done everything they asked, yet you & them still won't support. I'll go mad by the time this FAC is over.... Spawn Man 04:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I tried to support earlier but Wikipedia was locked up and I couldn't edit anything for several hours. Now I have changed it. Sheep81 10:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Tyrantgraph.png

Please add additional information to your image Tyrantgraph.png, because it was considered for a speedy deletion. --Dudo2 18:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neuquén Group

Great articles on the Neuquén Group!! Mariano(t/c) 08:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Polls:

Hi. I'm just sending out a message for a new study I will be undertaking soon. It will involve surveys & polls to gather information & trends of editors on Wikipedia & other subjects. The data gathering will involve yourself recieving a questionaire on your talk page for you to fill out. I will then collect your questionaire & combine it with data from other editors. If you would like to be a part of this experiment, or know of someone who does, place a "Yes" or "No" below this message. Remember, it's only for fun & you can choose not to fill out all or parts of your questionaire once they arrive. Have a nice day... -- Spawn Man 05:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good to see you back

It was great to see you coming in on the T. rex discussion. Good to see you're back. - Ballista 09:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

This was one of my busiest summers ever (second only to last year). I had a flurry of work I had to get done in the last month or so and I also wanted to spend a lot of time with my girlfriend as she will be gone for the next 9 months. I couldn't really commit myself to any big projects here as I didn't really have the time. But summer is over, my girl is off at school, and consequently I have a lot more free time. So I expect I will be making a comeback. Sheep81 09:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
That's good news! Well... at least for us on Team Dino, at least. Possibly not so good for you and your girlfriend, of course. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 09:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Of course. Go as slow as you need. We're just really glad to have you back. Were you here on the day T. rex was on the main page? Kinda sweet. If you want to work on some lesser-known dinosaurs, there's still the list of short dinosaur articles. And of course, whenever you're ready, I'll gladly work on any collaboration to get another article up to FA status. Anyway, just good to see your name back on my watchlist. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 09:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tyrannosaurini

Hello Sheep81,

You removed the tribe Tyrannosaurini from the Tyrannosaurus taxobox, saying it isn't used in any modern classification. Are you sure about this? Tyrannosaurini is listed in the taxonomy section of Tyrannosauridae, and that must have come from somewhere. Jerkov 15:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dilong fix on T. rex page

Thanks for the help with the dilong reference. I knew what was there wasn't right, but I wasn't sure exactly how to fix it. Mdotley 20:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abelisaurus

Hi & thanks for picking up my silly error. - Ballista 17:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ceratopsian images

Hi - sorry to have interfered with that notion - with regard to which order, I don't mind at all - I suppose that, scientifically and educationally, taxonomic order is better - perhaps, whatever decision, it should specify, in order to clarify to the reader - I only changed it around, as I thought the Psittaco drawing was less dramatic, visually & I didn't want to stick my image above your selection, making it look like I was trying to gazump yours. I hadn't noticed your highly logical ordering rational - I would also not be offended if my image were deleted - with the visual impact idea in mind, might it possibly be better to use a Psittaco- skeleton photo, in keeping with the other two images, rather than the skull drawing? e.g.

A Psittacosaurus skeleton

Psittacosaurus skeleton (Dinosaurland)
As usual, you speak much sense - I had not rechecked the Trike image and had remembered it wrongly as a skeleton! I, too, had misgivings and not used my Psittaco- skeleton image before, as I was unhappy about the head depiction (or rather lack of it). I propose that you knock them all about as you see fit and I'll one day redo the skeleton image to show the head better, to replace this one. - Ballista 05:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh yeah? :-) - Ballista 05:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it's no great problem for me to get a new image, although it won't happen rapidly. - Ballista 05:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks really smart, now - good stuff - Ballista 05:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Cas wrote this: "Hi guys, the only thing I thought was to spread around images with different ones on different pages - are there enough good ones for this? eg. triceratops cheers.Cas Liber 06:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ballista" " I replied: "Fair dinkum - It's a good plan - I have to sign off for the day, now - I'll leave it to you folks to look around WP & Wikimedia to see. - Ballista 06:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)"

[edit] Abelisauridae

Thanks for tip-off - I'll certainly give it my FULL attention and wipe out any comma abuse felonies I can find! :-) (but it won't be until t/m) - Ballista 06:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

As promised, I've injected some 'Comma(n) Sense' into Abelisauridae :-). Hope you like it but, of course, feel free to revert anything with which you disagree. Great edits, btw., which bring real improvement, thanks. - Ballista 06:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Take the point about 'whom'/'which'. Couldn't see where you'd edited two Argentina links in Abelisaurus but I've sorted my earlier error, now, anyway. We're 'getting there', I think. - Ballista 05:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yay!

Yay! Sheepy's back! I don't think we could've coped without you! We were already starting to get cabin fever with me & Soo having a rowl about how useless the team was without you. I said they were useless & he objected. Lucky Firsfron interjected with a calming sedative though... Anyway, we're way behind our monthly quota of FA's. I got a list featured, but it's your expertise which is the main drive. I'd like to see Allosaurus (click the link... you know you want to..... you are sleepy...) featured before the month is up. Anyway, hopefully you're back for good. I'm trying to boost up my edit count so I look good if I get nominated for adminship, so I might be busy. But as always I'll be maintaining the collaboration & stepping on people's toes in the name of good dino writing... Welcome back Sheepy! Spawn Man 11:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greek characters

Hi again - good question and, yes, that one's been troubling me for quite while. 1) I do think that the Greek characters can add something (personal opinion), for some readers, esp. as it enables them to go to a Greek dictionary and verify, if the need grabs them - sometimes (often), simply giving the English version can be misleading, as it is often not directly equivalent. I expect that there's a spectrum of punters, from those who like to play with disctionaries, those who like to learn (or teach) and those who like to question. 2) While uniformity may be a good plan (I would personally favour it), it's difficult to maintain. I personally like just plain italicised (I think bold emphasises it too much) but I think it was Cas who started bolding them (may be wrong there) but, whoever it was, I had no objection to that. Freedom of expression and all that stuff. If folk are prepared to do the work, I reckon that they have freedom to do it in their way, unless agreed otherwise, in advance. I have seen on occasions that some bolds are bold italic and some are bold non-italic. Whether bold or not bold, I prefer italic, as it stands out better from the English text. I did start trying to make it uniform but gained the impression that it didn't seem to be in line with everyone's wishes at the time. Do you think you should sound out Cas, Firsfron, Spawn etc., to see what each thinks? May be your query and my response should go up on the 'project' or 'collab' page? Whatever, good discussion to get going, thanks. Here's an example of a format that would get my vote: "(Greek καμαρα/kamara meaning 'vaulted chamber' or anything with an arched cover and σαυρος/sauros meaning 'lizard')". In this format it flows and it's in English rather than in note form (i.e. avoids symbols such as + & =) and it's bracketed to give it 'side' importance. I reckon it's interesting, infomative and educational, when presented in such a way, without being so prominent as to attract disproportionate eye time. However, you'll note that the article from which I've taken this is not in this format at present! Wow - pause for breath! :-) :-) - Ballista 04:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

For the record (I know you didn't actually ask me, but I'm interjecting anyway), I really like the Greek characters. I don't speak Greek, but I think it's partially indicative of the depth of an article when the editors spend the time to write out the Greek meanings and derivations, something you don't see on most sites. I was really thrilled when I saw Cas and Ballista adding them, and I hope we'll be able to continue. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 04:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
It's all Greek to me... ;) Spawn Man 10:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, yeah .... - Ballista 18:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] phalanx/phalanges

Hi again - I am not sure that the wording is at its best yet. As it was number, 'fewer' seemed better than 'less'. I still can't work out whether we should have it in singular or in plural and I sort of thought you'd split the difference! How about circumventing the issue by saying something like: the number of phalanges in the fourth and fifth digits of the forelimbs was reduced from three to two? Sometimes, even the wonderful English language runs into problems and needs circumventing by a different approach (wording things ultra-correctly can lead to strange forms, like Churchill's famous 'up with which I cannot put') - Ballista 11:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi & thanks for considered response. This really is a can of worms. You have rightly dismissed my proposal (ignorance of the facts on my part). I am still very unsure whether to use plural or singular after fewer. If there are more than one, shouldn't it be plural? yet it sounds funny. Could we say something like the phalanges on digits four and five are reduced by one? I'm going to be away for a while, with sporadic internet access if any - I'll leave it to you to arrive at the best wording you think. Best wishes & thanks for entertaining my 'sensitivities'. - Ballista 16:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stegosaurus

Hi Sheep!

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. 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 19:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)