User talk:Apokryltaros/User talk:Apokryltaros Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Apokryltaros/User talk:Apokryltaros Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• 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:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Alai 04:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Random Praise

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

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

Opabinia

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

Agreed. It's one of my favorite Burgess Shale beasties.--Mr Fink 22:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I was trying a humorous approach. Maybe you can point out in the article, how the Opabinia is extraordinary. Inserting adjectives based on personal opinion is generally not a good idea on Wikipedia. Subversive 22:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I understand now.--Mr Fink 01:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

"Highly ununsual" is definitely better, in my opinion. Not kidding this time. Subversive 00:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

So it has been written, so shall it stay. (for now)--Mr Fink 02:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Trachipterus trachypterus

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

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

Good work!

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

I'd be honored to have my stuff on Dutch Wikipedia, too.--Mr Fink 20:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Posting drawings/pictures on Commons is the same as posting on En-Wiki: first login (OK, you have to have an account, but creating one is easy: just as you create an account on Wiki, you can use the same name as on En-Wiki) and then choose "upload", upload your file and add a category (for your pictures Category:Extinct animals or one of its subcategories). Rique [3]

I'll get on it when I get home (where the copies are) tonight, and thanks muchly!--Mr Fink 18:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Thylacosmilus atrox.jpg and other pics

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

Drawings

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

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

Mamo

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

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

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

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

Strigogyps sapea

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

Good, then.--Mr Fink 06:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I like the background; I have checked out some Messel data and the date is (very) roughly 40 million years ago, the site is some brackish subtropical swampland, not unlike Fossil Lake.

As regards color pattern, it seems most likely that S. sapea was brownish/greyish with some hawk-like patterning (or owl-like, or Callocephalon-like even...), it's fairly generalized and primitive in these critters. The owl part was possibly not unlike Ninox hawk-owls morphologically... primitive owls came in 2 types, one more similar to Ninox and the other to Strix among modern owls. These two are of course derived tree-birds, while our guy here was more like a (mangrove?) swamp secretary-bird; in any case, a generally Ninox-like morphology seems plesiomorph in the early owls. Dysmorodrepanis 20:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Concerning Gobiatherium

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

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

Good work!

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

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

Raspor

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

Hmmmmm....--Mr Fink 20:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm not trying to dictate what you should do, but Raspor does appear to be an inexperienced editor who is unwilling to listen to advice or comments from the community, as evidenced by the Request for Comment currently open against him, so your time may be wasted trying to bring him to reason. --HassourZain 20:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right. I'll let you handle him, you're more experienced in handling that bubblehead.--Mr Fink 20:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

As you can tell from his talk page, I've been putting a lot of work into helping him understand the right way to engage other users civilly and to make neutral edits. If there's anything else that you feel I could add to help him understand either some of the tenets of the scientific method, evolutionary biology, or Wikipedia policy, just let me know. Thank you! --HassourZain 17:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll let you know when I think of something helpful.--Mr Fink 19:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

his image of the Pterygotus buffaloensis

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

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

Koolasuchus

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

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

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

Praecambridium etc

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

Verisimilus 17:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Verisimilus 17:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Prehistoric Animal Pictures

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

Thanks for the recommendations. I'm in the process of acquiring those books. Wanted to ask your thoughts on a categorization issue. I think we should have a category for extinct hippos and that it should be a subcategory of category:hippos. But I'm wondering if the category should be "Category:extinct hippos" or "Category:prehistoric hippos"? Some of the hippos became extinct in recent times, so I'm not sure if "prehistoric" is accurate. But I've looked at some other animal categories and noticed that they use the term "prehistoric" even for more recent extinctions -- like the European Lion which became extinct during the early centuries AD. There's also the category, Category:Prehistoric artiodactyls so maybe we should reflect that usage? I don't know if you even care, but figured I'd ask for your thoughts. --JayHenry 19:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's go with "Category:Extinct hippos" and have it as a subcategory of Prehistoric artiodactyls and Hippos. You think we should shuffle the Anthracotheres into it, too?--Mr Fink 19:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, it's created, voila! Category:Extinct hippos. I don't know enough about Anthracotheres to know whether or not they can be called hippos. Has anyone else called them "prehistoric hippos" or "extinct hippos"? If not, I don't really think we should be the first. But. if we have sources that consider them ancient hippos I think it's fine as long as we clearly state at the top of the category that it includes members of both Hippopotamidae and Anthracotheriidae. --JayHenry 21:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The anthracotheres aren't hippos per se, but they are regarded as the immediate ancestors of the hippos. Maybe we should ask around for more opinions about that, then?--Mr Fink 22:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Immediate ancestors or closest historical relatives or both? I guess we should ask around, although I don't know where to ask. Is there an extinct animal wikiproject? --JayHenry 22:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

While doing some additional reading, I discovered that anthracotheres and hippopotamidae are sometimes grouped together in a superfamily called "Hippopotamoidea." The reference is a somewhat older taxonomy book, and from a google search the superfamily does not appear to be widespread -- so possibly it's been debunked? But, for the category, we could possibly just state, with or without referencing "hippopotamoidea" that the two families are sometimes grouped together? --JayHenry 19:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Kurtis Levenham (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Your comment regarding the evolution of the horse article

I simply edited the link because it pointed to a non existance article.

Those links are there because we intend to make articles for them in the future. Furthermore, you were also un-italicizing the scientific names, as well.--Mr Fink 22:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. By the way, how to italicize scientific names. 86.138.116.117 09:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Recommendation Concerning the Uintatheres

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

Hmm yes you're right, Gobiatherium is indeed the sole genus in the Gobiatherrinae......I didn't realise that. In that case, merging Uintatheriidae with Dinocerata is fine to me. DaMatriX 16:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The honors are yours! Off-topic: I see you're an artist, specialised in extinct animals. I know palaeos.com, it's a great site. But do you also draw on request? I know quite some articles on extinct animals that could use some pics! DaMatriX 17:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Picture request

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

I'll put them on my list, then.--Mr Fink 20:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm looking forward to the result! DaMatriX 20:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Random Smiley Award

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

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

Ediacaran Biota

Hi (and happy Easter!) I'm currently in the process of re-writing the page on Ediacaran biota, and was wondering whether you could provide some of your fabled artwork to spice up my offering a little? Particularly appreciated would be 'reconstructions' of each of the three sub-assemblages (Ediacara-type, Nama-type and Avalon-type) for that section - I've uploaded a link to a (copyrighted) picture sketching and detailing the characteristic species here if you'd be interested.

Cheers!

Verisimilus 14:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Excellent - many thanks!!

Verisimilus 15:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I've posted the original paper on Vendoconularia which should contain a little information, and a revision - hopefully that'll be enough to get you started. If not I'll go about digging more out, let me know! M

Verisimilus 17:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow

Hi, FAAA man I can't believe you did all these drawings there frigen awseome chico, A fuego! Man I'd love to do something like this to contribute to wikipedia (PS. I hate the copyright crap on the images it's so annoying!) but I just havn't got the time at the moment. So I'm glad there is someone as dedicated and talented as you to help bypass these image permission restrictions. Thanks heaps for all these helpful drawings, and I think that I can say aswell as my self, on behalf of the wikipedia community that it is very much appreciated

I couldn't be more impressed

As this message says, I could not be more impressed with your work on those prehistoric animal images, so keep up the good work! --KnowledgeLord 06:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Marywadea

I've had a good look but haven't been able to turn anything up, I'm afraid. By the sounds of it, it will be difficult to distinguish from Spriggina, which has a photo on its page.

Unless: It is figured on plate four of this article, which I don't have easy access to myself; maybe you can get hold of it? The only other place I could suggest looking is in Mark McMenamin's "Garden of Ediacara"; it's mentioned in chapters 11 & 12 but I'm not sure if it's figured.

Gehling, J.G. (1991). "The case for Ediacaran fossil roots to the metazoan tree". Mem. Geol. Soc. India. 20: 181–224.

Also try Ivantsov, A.Y. (2007). "Small Vendian transversely Articulated fossils" (PDF). Paleontological Journal. 41 (2): 113–122., to which I've no access.

Verisimilus T 11:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know if you might have access to real-world copies somewhere. If this link doesn't work I can e-mail you the PDF, drop me an e-mail. Verisimilus T 12:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Top notch. I look forward to seeing the results! Verisimilus T 14:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Other papers

Would you mind if I e-mailed you the papers? I'm almost out of filespace on my server! There's an 'email this user' link on my user page you can use if you want to avoid giving your address out publicly. Verisimilus T 15:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

AIV reports

Thank you for reporting vandals to WP:AIV. Please note though that IP addresses cannot be considered a "vandal-only account" because IPs may be shared my multiple people or dynamically reassigned. It may be helpful to state whether or not an IP has a history of positive contributions or vandalism. Your most recently reported vandal has been blocked. —dgies^t_c 21:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Love your pictures

Keep making them, I really like the style, good job.

Edrioasters on Trilobites

Afraid I've never come across them - sorry!

Good luck - sorry not to be of more help! Verisimilus T 21:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!!

Thanks for doing Giant Hoopoe!! Its beautiful! :) --HoopoeBaijiKite 02:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It was my pleasure.--Mr Fink 02:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Horned gopher

I moved your request for an uncontested move out of that area, and to contested moves. I don't contest the move, but for animal article titles please read Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of life. Then discuss the proposed move on the article's talk page and request the move only if you reach consensus there. Thanks. KP Botany 19:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then.--Mr Fink 20:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

PS In spite of the fact that you are correct that it is unencyclopediac and will ultimately make for untold difficulties. KP Botany 20:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Understood. Such is the price we pay for an efficient bureaucracy. We should just be thankful that they don't set fire to the hoops we jump through, yet.--Mr Fink 20:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Ahhggg! I've hidden the damage, but please, don't go giving folks ideas. KP Botany 20:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The virtual papercuts are bad enough.--Mr Fink 20:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Hippopotamus

Hey Apokryltaros! I have submitted the article on hippopotamus for featured article consideration at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hippopotamus and just wanted to let you know that I used several of your excellent images! If you have any suggestions for improving the article, please let me know! --JayHenry 07:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Thats not me...

Hi mate, am just back from a break form editing, and that wiki evo, is not my account, I don't know who it belongs to. --Street Scholar 17:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you: I'll go deal with the impersonator, then.--Mr Fink 19:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Edits to cannibalism (zoology)

I noticed you added some material without providing any sources. [4]

Could you please add a citation? If you don't do this, someone else is going to have to at some point, so it's better just to cite your sources whenever adding material. Thanks, Richard001 07:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC).

Barnstar award

		The Barnstar of Life
		In overdue appreciation of his illustrations of extinct or prehistoric animals. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Commons

Can you add a links to your userpage and talkpage on Commons, please? Please put links at Commons:User:Apokryltaros and/or Commons:User talk:Apokryltaros to enwik as well. You can link from Commons to enwiki with [[:en:User:Apokryltaros]]. Thanks for contributing to Commons. As an administrator there, I'm happy to see that! Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC) (Commons:User:Wsiegmund)

Is there any way of transferring the pictures I've uploaded in (English) Wikipedia over to WikiCommons, or do I need to upload the same files over in WikiCommons, too? I've been dragging my feet about that, as I have a lot of files to transfer.--Mr Fink 21:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

One of the tools at Commons:Commons:Tools, especially Commons Helper, Push for commons, and Commonist, may be helpful. I haven't used any of these. I have used Python Wikipedia Bot (described on the tools page, too) to re-categorize gallery pages, but I haven't used it for this task. Another possibly useful page is the Commons:Commons:File_upload_service. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Prehistoric art

I see we share an intrest in illustrating the prehistoric creatures articles; it seems to me that some collaboration may be in order. Hallucigenia is my first, and I think that my next will be opabinia, even though that one already has an illustration. I was thinking a close up of some of the structures, especially the head, would be good. (sort of how the audobon pictures are set up with both the bird in action and the closeups) Are there any others in need of further illustration?

On a more frivolous note, have you ever had feeling that a picture is staring back at you when you get it right? I had that last night, had the hallucigenia on a black backround for contrast and had to change it because it had the whole "stepping out from the mists of time" thing going on. Knew it was time to take a break then. The name really makes sense know, that thing freaked me out for a few minutes, lol.

Sorry to leave such a long message on you talk page, but feel free to leave one on mine.--Scorpion451 rant 17:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me think about it...--Mr Fink 20:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You asked?

As per your question, no, Sid is much but much too small to be a Megatherium (Sid's the size of an upright pig!) and thus the only creature that he can possibly be with his size is a Synocnus. --KnowledgeLord 00:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Still, unless the staff of Ice Age say so, wouldn't this be, technically, Original Research?--Mr Fink 02:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It may be, but it is still the most likely explanation, for Sid's species was never revealed! They just call him "sloth", not "megatherium" in the canon information that is given. So there you have it. And even so, I'd sent the film-makers a letter asking them, but they have not even bothered with a reply!

--KnowledgeLord 05:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Praise and a suggestion

Hey! Your artwork's awesome. Keep up the good work:) By the way, I was wondering if you could (perhaps) create an image of a Rugoconites. It is often listed as merely a medusae (jellyfish) from the Ediacaran, but I remember seeing an image of it in Stephen Jay Gould's book "Wonderful Life" and it didn't look like anything of the sort. It was basically circular (like Tribrachidium) but it had dinstinctive veins a little like Albumares. It also had some sort of segment on its body that made appear bilaterally symmetrical. I have never found an illustration of it on the internet and have only been able to find 1 or 2 low-res images of the fossil itself. The image is below.

Have fun! --Thunderclees 9:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

(P.s. If the above image is wrong, I'm sorry. I just haven't been able to find another image to compare it to.)

original research images

Please don't make your own images for extinct animals. This is considered original research, which is not allowed in Wikipedia. Find an existing image that is free for Wikipedia to use and upload it to Commons so that it can be used by all language Wikipedias. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I consider it extremely hypocritical that I be singled out to be disallowed from posting reconstructions of prehistoric animals when so many other people are allowed to do so, AND that many people have asked me to post more reconstructions. Furthermore, I have not found any rule in Wikipedia that specifically forbids the posting self-made reconstructions of prehistoric animals if they are intended to represent prehistoric animals.--Mr Fink 17:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Acording to the wiki policy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:OR#Original_images self made pictures are alowed as they are classed as based on researched material. Enlil Ninlil 05:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Then why am I being forbidden from posting them?--Mr Fink 11:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You are not forbiden untill a proper assessment off your work is undertaken. From the information provided I see you work to be somewhat scientifically correct. Also your famous http://www.palaeos.org/Devonian Enlil Ninlil 04:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh my gosh! Definitely don't stop with your images! I used them in working to get Hippopotamus and Pygmy Hippopotamus labeled as Featured Articles and nobody objected at all! Maybe UtherSRG was unfamiliar with your work and thought you just read the Wiki article and drew based off that? I guess if you have the sources handy for your drawings it might be worthwhile to put them on the Image page? Details about Hippopotamus gorgops comes from "Evolving Eden," and "Mammoths, Sabertooths and Hominids." Something like that? I don't know if that's the best approach but it might prevent a misunderstanding like this from happening in the future. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help. --JayHenry 07:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Planned New Version of the T. Carnifex Image

For my money the best things to base it on would be either [5] which is a model built by people with access to a reconstructed skeleton, or [6] which I believe is based on a more recently discovered full intact skeleton. I think that the biggest flaw in the current image is the awkward visual foreshortening due to the chosen pose. To illustrate a story, the more drama the better, but to illustrate the features of an animal the dramatic parts should be chosen to expose particular features. Karora 11:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Evowiki

Hi - Bunnyform from EvoWiki here, I still can't send you a private message. But would you please be careful who you block - you blocked 129.215.146.60, which was just me editing from work (when I'd forgotten my password). Oh, and you need to revert yourself on Pectoral girdle :-)

I worry about all the protected pages on Evo - it can't be making things that attractive to potential new users... Evercat 11:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I want

I want to thank you, Apokryltaros. Your drawings here are the best and illustrate (forgive the pun!) the points here perfectly.--KnowledgeLord 18:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

creodonta

Thanks for your help with the lead. I'm no expert and am mostly trying to make leads better, in line with guidelines. I need the help of people who really know what they're talking about. Leadwind 03:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Deinogalerix. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Cheers, Lights (♣ • ♦) 18:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

For you

For Good Works on Prehistoric Images
Presented by SilkTork

Your drawings have illuminated and enriched Wikipedia and been widely appreciated and acclaimed - even helping two articles to achieve Featured Article status. Awesome. And you have been so calm and level headed during the recent conflict. Well done. You truly deserve this award. You are an exceptional contributor! SilkTork *SilkyTalk 19:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Protection on EvoWiki

I want to talk to you again about protection on EvoWiki. It seems to me there are way too many protected pages, and this is bound to be discouraging to new users (I still can't leave you a message on your talk page there, for instance). The "Wiki way" - if I can call it that - relies on mass participation.

I realise there's vandalism to deal with, but as far as I can tell, much of this vandalism is randomly targetted, so there's no point protecting pages that have been hit by it, unless you want to protect everything.

To be honest, the vandalism there is relatively light, in terms of difficulty to revert. There's usually only a few anon-IPs vandalising a day. Occasionally you get some mass spree of vandalism from a single source, but this is usually trivial for a sysop to revert via the contributions page. I speak with some experience. :-)

Bunnyform / Evercat 01:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Promerycochoerus

Thanks for catching that. Too many oreodonts with practically the same name. --Helioseus 02:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

In some cases, they have the same name...--Mr Fink 02:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Synonyms are back in there. When there are more genera with pages, they should probably just be put on the generic pages, but for now its a useful place to store it all. Ugh.. such a mess. --Helioseus 02:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism page

Also, why don't you discuss this more at Evowiki's Vandalism page

You mean: http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/EvoWiki_talk:Vandalism ? It's protected! :-) Evercat 02:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm registered, but whatever the criteria are for editing semi-protected pages, my account there doesn't currently meet them. Evercat 02:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I can now edit that page. I wonder what the precise criteria are though for editing semi-protected pages, and whether the system is working correctly? Evercat 03:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Have you mentioned this problem to Joe or Steinsky?

No - maybe you could pass it along... Evercat 01:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit comments

I can understand the frustration with vandals, but "rvt moron" is probably not a useful edit comment. DreamGuy 14:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

OK?

Everything still OK? No more problems with UtherSRG? I've moved your awards to your user page so people can see at a glance that you are a recognised and appreciated user. Let me know if you have any problems with anything. Regards SilkTork *SilkyTalk 18:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Category madness

Oops. I was just about to write that I thought it would be useful to have a Cretaceous category of some form for people using categories to browse, but then I read your message more carefully. Yeah, it's redundant. J. Spencer (talk) 18:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixed them. J. Spencer (talk) 18:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Shielia tiati

It was discovered in Scotland (named after Shiel Burn) by Marss, I think it's also been found in Estonia. It is late Silurian, but its range is poorly determined. The samples I got my scales from were in rocks previously believed (by some) to be Lochkovian (earliest Devonian) but I suspect their age needs adjusting upwards.

Verisimilus T 15:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Independent Article

I believe your picture of Brontoscorpio anglicus was used in an article in today's Independent. I saw it earlier and I'll try and buy one on the way home from work... dunno if it was attributed properly... Evercat (talk) 20:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it is the same picture and with no attribution as far as I can tell. I've sent you a link via private email. Evercat (talk) 21:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

How aggravating, yet titillating.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Well...

Ok, I didn't know. I looked at them in one french book of mine of Michel Cuisin "La Vie Secrete des Betes. La Preistoire". It's written that the Arsinotherium is far relative of the rhino, because it has large horns. And the uinthaterium looked totally like prehistoric rhino, so that's why I put them in the respective category. I didn't know their exact genetic relation, I just did it because I thought they looked like rhinos.

Regards:Painbearer (talk) 17:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding a recent AIV report

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you! JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 03:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I blocked Cherry anyway. But in cases like this, it doesn't hurt to drop a {{subst:uw-v4im}} on their talk page prior to reporting them. Cheers! -- Flyguy649 ^talk 03:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand: it's just that this vandal was apparently quite productive.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Back in the day before I was an Admin, I'd occasionally report unwarned vandals and try to be really clear that they are on a spree. I think Apokryltaros did mention it, but diffs help. Anyway, uw-v4im is your friend. And admin rollback undoes all the damage much quicker than trying to undo each revision manually! -- Flyguy649 ^talk 03:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Thanks for the advice.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: request for some help

I'd be glad to look at those articles. You should also ask arround at wikiproject mammals.Ryan shell (talk) 15:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi there

Yo. I'm Bumbeak. I'm a big fan of your art and share your prehistoric interest. I'm here because I received a message from you telling me to stop vandalizing a certain page that I never even attempted to edit. In addition, you referred to a certain page that, even though I was going to see, never opened (I've got a list of animals I'm doing a project on.)

While I was taking notes on Hallucigenia, you messaged the following to my IP (I wasn't logged in at the time):

"Please stop. If you are trying to vandalize this page like you did to (different page), you will be locked out of editing."

Maybe it's an error? I do know my brother was reading that particular page yesterday on a networked computer... Anyway, nice to meet you. Nice art too! Bumbeak (talk) 22:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Edrioasteroidea

Hello, Apokryltaros. I have just erased "paleontology-stub" because there is no template for that. See you!--Fiquei (talk) 08:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Broken redirect

A tag has been (or will shortly be) placed on Weejasperaspidae, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page.

If you can fix this redirect to point to an existing Wikipedia page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you also fix the redirect. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Russ (talk) 11:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Link fixed.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

"Your artwork, beautiful it is!" -Yoda

		The Fauna Barnstar
		Your artwork has made Wikipedia's paleontology articles much prettier than they would otherwise be. Thank you for your amazing work and tireless efforts.:D Abyssal leviathin (talk) 02:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Mammuthus

Hello Apokryltaros, I am Asier. Ofcourse I want people help to improve the article. But in this article people are making changes wihout any Idea about proboscideans like the user Amaltheus. Adding things like the mammoth is an hoax, that there isn´t exist the species... and removing things without any approach. Is very easy to make changes but before think a little... I´ve been weeks woriking on it (consulting to amateur and very inmportant paleontologis like Adrian Lister, expert in mammoths)You can just ask me in the aritcle disccusion before making changes.

So if you don´t have ANY information or idea about this mammoth how can you make changes?? I can´t undertand this.

Please tell me, what information do you want to be refered?

(Asier) 18:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who suspected it of being a hoax: I just want to see more scholarly information about it, descriptions of it, references of measurements, what its lifestyle was like, distinguishing characteristics, stuff like that. I've tried looking on Scholar.Google, and have found very little information (lifestyle or descriptions) about it. And most of the scholarly information I did find was on a Chinese pay-per-access site.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Gawp Block Problem

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Apokryltaros (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

My IP was apparently used by a vandal called "Gawp" and now I can not edit in Wikipedia

Decline reason:

You were auto-blocked and not directly blocked. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 06:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Blocking admin notified ... Yamla hard blocked several ranges and apparently, there's some serious abuse going on. I want to make sure with Yamla that there isn't an overriding concern preventing the blocks from being changed to soft blocks. Is this IP a hot spot or a public proxy? If so, you may need to edit from home until it is taken care of - public proxies are frequently abused. --B (talk) 06:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm editing from home, actually.--Mr Fink (talk) 06:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't undo the block because of the rangeblock, and unfortunately I don't know how to do rangeblocks to reblock it anon-only ACB. However, I can confirm that there is severe abuse going on here by User:Grawp; he's been stalking Gavin.collins (talk · contribs). -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 06:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I tried and fixed the block; you should be unblocked now. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 06:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Apokryltaros, my apologies that you got caught up in a block targeted at Grawp (talk · contribs). We absolutely do not think you are this vandal. We appreciate your history of contributions and I hope I did not offend you at all. If you are still unable to edit, please do re-request an unblock. --Yamla (talk) 14:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Everything is fixed now, and I understand completely. Thank you.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Kenyapotamus

Unfortunately I don't think anyone has a very good idea what Kenyapotamus would have looked like. As I recall, they've only been identified from very fragmentary remains: partial jaw bones and a femur or two. The recent taxonomy of hippos, the one that the article Hippopotamidae is based off, by Boisserie, didn't even attempt to classify it's place in the family tree because of too little information. --JayHenry (talk) 06:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi

How you doing? You left a message on my talk page a while ago, and I briefly looked at it, then got involved in other things. Sorry. You've pinged me again. I'm happy to look into what's troubling you, as I think you are a valuable contributor to the project. What's concerning you at the moment - point me to articles and diffs. Regards SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 19:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It's the same problem with UtherSRG, in that he refuses to let me post my picture of Procoptodon solely because he refuses to accept my pictures, to the point where he insists on replacing it with a "better" picture, to point where he continually disregards the fact that it is inaccurate. [7] --Mr Fink (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I've started a discussion Talk:Procoptodon. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 00:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Procoptodon

Would you be able to make amendments to your image to fit mine and other's concerns? It's the face, eyes and length of the claws that have attracted comments. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 12:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I will. It's in my artistic schedule.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Anomalocaris, archiving

Hi,

Thanks for your comment on Talk:Anomalocaris, I've replied (basically it's a dumb idea to merge, I agree), and have expanded the page. If you've expertise, could you have a look to check my editing? It's mostly based on popular books obviously, and I'm not specialist enough to attempt much further.

Also, your talk page is quite long, have you considered archiving? If you place the following at the top of your page, it'll invisibly archive automatically. Long pages are harder for low-speed users to read, and are just generally hard to navigate. You are also free to simply delete, but archiving is generally seen as preferable.

{{User:MiszaBot/config|maxarchivesize = 250K|counter = 1|algo = old(7d)|archive = User talk:Apokryltaros/Archive %(counter)d}}

Adjust 250K to change the size of the archive before starting a new one, counter should change automatically as the bot makes new archive pages for you, algo can be adjusted for how old stuff gets before it's archived (7d = 7 days, 24h = 24 hours), and archive = is just the archive name. There's also {{archivebox}}, which sets up a pretty little box for you, and you can add archive names as you go along to whatever specs you want. You can see an example on my talk page if you'd like.

WLU (talk) 20:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Law's Diving Goose (can't seem to get the hyperlink right?)

First of all, I have to say your illustrations are wonderful. Not only is it helpful to have clear depictions of sometimes-obscure animals, they're a pleasure to look at as well. :)

I have two questions (sorry if these are unnecessary or inappropriate; I've had a Wikipedia account for a little while, I've just been shy about using it).

First, is it OK if I link to your illustration of Chendytes lawi in my blog, citing you by name? It's only Myspace and maybe three people read it, but you do amazing work and I try to respect people's intellectual property rights when I can. (I also stop at stop signs at three in the morning, though, so your mileage may vary. :D)

Second, what resources did you have at hand when you composed this picture? I ask mainly because I just discovered this article last night, myself, and everything else I've found on the net so far on this or any other Chendytes spp. is over fifty years old or uses your pic.

Thanks again for sharing your work with us. --13:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)LDhummingbird (talk)

Tommotia

Thanks for the all beautiful pictures of fossil creatures. Your images of aquatic animals especially bring the past world to life for us users of Wikipedia.

I'd like to request that you modify or remove your image of Tommotia, however. Although early on it was interpreted as an ancestral cephalopod, the fossil is now recognized as a single sclerite of a soft-bodied animal that bore a suit of these plus possibly another another sclerite type. There doesn't seem to be any good evidence that this phosphatic fossil belongs to a cephalopod or even a crown mollusk.

Maybe a picture showing a disarticulated Tommotia sclerite on the seafloor would convey a solid impression of what it looked like? Cheers, Cephal-odd (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Peculiar: I will get on it as soon as possible.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The picture from Palaeos is the best I've seen on the web, but I'll keep my eyes open for another one in the literature too. - Cheers, Cephal-odd (talk) 01:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Evowiki troubles

Message from me at http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/User_talk:Bunnyform ... Evercat (talk) 22:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Formal warning for edit war on Placodermi

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

I'm now looking into the situation - but you must never again engage in the disgraceful display of petty reverting that took place on Placodermi on 21st April. If somebody reverts your work, go straight to discussion. Do not revert back! If the other people is unwilling to discuss, or you are unable to reach an agreement, then call for a third opinion. You must never again engage in that sort of behaviour. You have been very lucky to avoid being blocked. SilkTork *^YES! 07:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I apologize: I was upset and frustrated over the situation, especially since the limit of the discussion was that he was right, and that I was lousy.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I have looked into it. There is nothing wrong with either version. Certainly there was no need for the edit war. Both versions could be used in the article, neither has to be displayed in the prime location. The situation called for a discussion not a battle. If someone removes an image of yours in future, please consider what they have done, and open a discussion with them before reverting what they have done. This will save conflict. It will save time in the long run, and it is simply the most respectful and harmonious way of editing. Read Help:Reverting, Wikipedia:Be bold and Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle - these give an overview on the consensus of how to deal with this sort if situation. The key to working on a collaborative project such as Wikipedia is COLLABORATION which depends on DISCUSSION. What we don't want is editors who attempt to force their will on other editors. I have told User:Nicolás10 and I will tell you, that you need to take my advise and the consensus of advise of experienced editors and discuss the matter with Nicolás10 and see what agreement you can come to. If you both find that your discussion doesn't move forward then seek a Wikipedia:Third opinion or ask for Wikipedia:Editor assistance. If you want further clarity on what I have said, then please get in touch with me. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 00:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

rvt vandalism

Please revert something you call vandalism only if you are sure it IS actually vandalism. THANK YOU --demus wiesbaden (talk) 17:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Miacis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Concerning Category:Marsupial Lions

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

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

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

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

Thanks!

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

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

Tommotia (revisited)

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

Paleontology Portal

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

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

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

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

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

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

This user supports Stan. :P

User:Abyssal/userboxesicreated/supportstan

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

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

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

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

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

Leidyosuchus

Hi, Apokryltaros;

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

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

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

Orthrozanclus image

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bowengriphus perphlegis

Never heard of the critter. Google got me:

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

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

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

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

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

The current illustrations discussion, WikiProject Mammals

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

Dodo image

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

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

Sponge illustration

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

Opabinia image

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

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

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

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

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

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

I look forward to seeing Orthrozanclus v2.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Liopleurodon

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

Deviant Art

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

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

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

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

Yunnanozoon

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

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

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

Some nice pics of Yunnanozoon fossils at Fossil Museum.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deinosuchus

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

Dodo

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

Adjustments to Deinosuchus image

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

Mary Livingstone

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

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

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

Another concern regarding Deinosuchus

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

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

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

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

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

Arachnomorpha Arachnomorph merge

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

Horse

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

Deinosuchus image references

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

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

Tooth or Consequences

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

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

Dealing with IPs

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

New image project

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

Re: Suggestion Concerning Iniopterygians

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

NowCommons: File:Ailuravus macrurus.JPG

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deinosuchus pop culture removal

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

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

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

Deviant art

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

Notosuchus

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

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

Echinoderms

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

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

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

Eoentelodon

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

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

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

Crocodylomorphs

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

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

Rogue's gallery

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

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

Controversial

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

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

Big Bang

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

Lampris zatima

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

Talk:Evolution of the horse

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

Kindly explain how can a plain list of citations with no argument for or against the citations qualify as a soapbox and lead to the conclusion that it is an anti-evolution creationist argument? Any neutral person would rather conclude that the ‘Evolution of the horse’ itself may be lacking scientific integrity in view of the information and would attempt to objectively review the matter and article to remedy any potential mistakes. It should be noted that the applicable citations does not promote ‘creationism’ and neither does it question the ‘validity of evolution’, however it questions the validity of the ‘Evolution of the horse’ which was initially published by Othniel C March during 1874. Furthermore the age of the citations should not pose any obstacle as the original theory is much older. It will be appreciated if the rational behind your deletion [[8]] can be explained.UseYourGreymatter 11:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by UseYourGreymatter (talk • contribs)

Concerning Redirection of Giant Beaver

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

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

Re: Query

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

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

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

AfD nomination of Introduction to evolution

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

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

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

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

Monster article

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

Commons

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

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

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

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

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

Cephalaspis‎

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

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

Diatryma

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

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

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

Hylonomus

Hi, Apokryltaros;

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

Crustacean GA Sweeps: On Hold

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

Walking with Beasts: Cynodictis

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

Edits to Japanese giant hornet

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

ghostbusters

Don't believe that there was an Earth Day Special? Watch [9] --67.250.89.3 (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, then. Check out this;[10]. --67.250.89.3 (talk) 22:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Hapalodectes

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

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

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

Megafauna man

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

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

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

Nautilus clarkanus

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

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

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

Eucalyptus change

Apokryltaros,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Specifically

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request for mediation rejected

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

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

Category:Prehistoric perissodactyls

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

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

Legendary animals

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

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

Attention Concerning Paisley (design) Vandal

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

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

WP:ANI regarding User:Gniniv

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

Your recent AIV on the bird guy

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

Tchoiria

Dear mister Apokryltaros, I have made a huge article on the dutch Wikipedia, see here: [11]. The article, though, lacks an image that shows the creature like when it was alive; with flesh and skin. Because you are regarded as one of the best illustrators of extinct animals I ask you if you could do this, please. So, if you want to create another extinct animal and you lack inspiration, please create a Tchoiria. I would really apreciate that. Thank you very much! You can contact me at:

• [12]
• [13]

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

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

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

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

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

Raptor Red

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

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

M. trogontherii vs M. armeniacus - please discuss

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

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

Chimatsuri

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

Disruptive editing?

Hi Apokryltaros,

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

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

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

Apatosaurus/Brontosaurus

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

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

Levithian accidental vandalism

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

Stale warning

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

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

No proof

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

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

Categorizing without references

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

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

Walking with Dinosaurs

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

Père David's Deer

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

Edit warring

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elasmotherium

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

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

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

Commons License

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

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

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

Invitation to take part in a study

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

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

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

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

Walking with Dinosaurs

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

I envy you for that, even.

Asaphus

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

Alien pics

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

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

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

Thanks

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

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Since Dbroadbeck didn't know how to do add a barnstar :) : "thanks for your contributions to the objections to evolution talk page" Noformation Talk 00:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Have a look at Stereom

Would you have a look at Stereom - knowing nothing about echinoderms I had to look all this up and doubtless I've made mistakes. It was a strange word to me it gets used a few places, so I thought it needed an article. I tried to find pictures on Commons but the cupboard was bare. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Fractyl

As part of a new proposal so Fractyl's less-than-perfect episode summaries are not made live, he will be writing drafts that we can choose to improve upon before they are posted on the articles. I am sending you this message to notify you that all of his summaries will appear on User:Fractyl/Summaries, and it will be a group decision as to whether or not his content can be adapted into the mainspace.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Hey, congrats on your image being featured on the main page! (I apologise, it's a bit late). HoopoeBaijiKite 02:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: Thank You!

You're welcome! :) --HoopoeBaijiKite 03:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Hah!

I'm glad I'm not the only one who does this. Danger ^{High voltage!} 02:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

stop!!!

stop deleteing my changes to amia calva. i work for the university of tennessee and am making updates to all of our ocal fish for our ichlyology class. your unknowledgalbe deleting of my changes is only hurting others who want correct information on these fish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csmiths1 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

You weren't explaining why you were deleting entire sections of the article. I can not read minds, and I do not, will not apologize if I revert your edits if you delete the article contents without explanation again.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Weever, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Extant (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Astroscopus countermani (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Calvert Cliffs

Eotetraodon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Caucacus

Stargazer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Calvert Cliffs

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Size in Trilobites

Hello, I noticed you changed the article on Ductina a bit. It is still a stub that needs a lot of work. I plan to do that shortly. I will reverse one of your changes, and I would like to ask you not to undo that reversal. You changed the indication of size from small to very small. Now small is a relative concept. In trilobites, I would say, 3cm is not very small at all. I'll cite from Moore, R.C. TREATISE ON INVERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY, Part O, p. O41 (1959): "The average length of trilobites ranges from 3 to 10cm." In fact I have a specimen of the dwarf species Binumina lirae, that measures 3mm. I would like to propose to stick to the following convention on the total body length of adult trilobites: very small=<1cm, small=1 to 3cm, average=3 to 10cm, large=10 to 30 cm, very large=>30cm. I have 1 Ductina ductifrons of 16mm, and 2 Ductina vietnamica of 26 and 41mm respectively. So the appropriate size indication for Ductina would be 'small to average'. Kind Regards, --Dwergenpaartje (talk) 23:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC).

sea pigs

how is this not a reputable source? It is where the wikipedia page gets it's image. It is an edu and is not original research. I know they are not worms it just compares them to worms http://etc.usf.edu/clipart/53700/53778/53778_scoto_globos.htm Matsuiny2004 (talk) 04:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

It's what under the video that I'm referencing. It gives citationMatsuiny2004 (talk) 05:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Weever, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Extant (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: Your AIV report on 71.70.66.3

Thank you for your report on 71.70.66.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I have however declined to block because considering the length of the disruption, you should report it at the edit war noticeboard. Blocking him for 24 hours won't do much good...

If you have further questions, please don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. Cheers! -- Luk ^talk 10:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Cyranichthys, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Congo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Praecambridium, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sigil (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Amphistium as Transitional fossil

I've included Amphistium in the transitional fossil article: Transitional fossil#Amphistium. It may get more attention. Tell me what you think and feel free to make any changes or leave a message on the transitional fossil talk page. Also, when you added the "taxobox" to the Aphistium article the image wasn't formatted properly which was why the image was not showing up. I fixed that. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

drawing Buenaspis flawed

Hello Apokryltaros,
Thank you for your nice drawings of prehistorical animals. I have just uploaded the page Buenaspis. Looking for an illustration I came upon your reconstruction of Kleptothule and Buenaspis. Regrettably, I cannot use part of the drawing, since it erroneously only shows 4 thorax segments, where there should be 6.
Kind regards, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 14:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what the word critter means. However, if it means do you know any photos that you could use to make a better artist impression, I'd say: you may wish to look at [14].
  

Bonino, E. and C. Kier. The Back to the Past Museum Guide to Trilobites, fig. 9, p.18-19. 2010, gives a lot of small accurate drawings of Buenaspis and other trilobite relatives, but it is not on-line (there are parts of the Spanish original of the book on-line, but those do not include this figure). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwergenpaartje (talk • contribs) 14:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Subfossil lemurs

Thanks for the copyedit on Babakotia today. I noticed on your user page that Megaladapis is on your to-do list. Honestly, you may not need to worry with it. One of my goals for this year is to finish all the subfossil lemur articles. Once I finish a research article I'm working on and get a few other promised articles out of the way, it will be one of my high priorities. If you want to work together on it, I'm up for that, too. – Maky ^« talk » 04:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Bulbaspis, what I could find

Bulbaspis Chugaeva 1956Trilobita - Asaphida – Raphiophoridae - Raphiophorinae Ecology: fast-moving low-level epifaunal detritivore Distribution: found only at Surprise Bay, Southern Tasmania, Australia (Ordovician of Australia)

Bulbaspidinae Kobayashi & Hamada 1971; Bulbaspis (Parabulbaspis) korlaensis Zhang 1981; Bulbaspis brevis Zhou & Zhou 2006; Bulbaspis cylindricus Lisogor 1965; Bulbaspis lageniformis Zhou 1982; Bulbaspis mirabilis Chugaeva 1956; Bulbaspis ordosensis Lu 1976; Bulbaspis ovulum (Weber 1948); Bulbaspis sphaerornatus Chugaeva 1956.

Bulbaspis brevis Zhou et Zhou, 2006. Late Ordovician, Late Caradocian, Badainjaran Formation, Zhusilenghaierhan area, Ejin Banner, western Inner Mongolia.

Diagnosis - Bulbaspis brevis is a Bulbaspis species with large anterior glabellar bulb, which is about as long and as wide as the preoccipital glabella in mature cranidia. Anterior part of glabella short, forwardly converging. Pygidial axis poorly defined, reaching mid-length of border, with three shallow ring furrows. Pygidial pleural field with two pairs of pleural furrows, first pair shallow, second faint. Border wide, steeply sloping downwards. Bulbaspis brevis collected in the Badainjaran Formation, Zhusilenghaierhan area, Ejin Banner, western Inner Mongolia

Family RAPHIOPHORIDAE Angelin, 1854; Bulbaspis Chugaeva, 1958; [=Bulbaspis (Parabulbaspis) Zhang, 1981, see Yuan & Zhou (1997, p. 179)]; Type species. Ampyx bulbifer Weber, 1932, from the Djebagly ‘horizon’ (Llandeilo) of the Djebagly Range, southern Kazakhstan; by original designation. Diagnosis - A raphiophorid genus with subrhombic preoccipital glabella that protrudes considerably beyond anterior margin of fixigenae and projects into an anterior bulb. Thorax with five segments. Pygidium short, faintly segmented, with border steeply sloping downwards. Remarks - Exclusive of the poorly preserved forms recorded from Malaysia (Kobayashi & Hamada 1978), southern Gansu, Northwest China (Zhou & Dean 1986), and Tasmania (Burrett et al. 1983), species previously assigned to Bulbaspis can be divided into two morphological groups: the Arenig-Llanvirn ovulum species group, and Llandeilo-Ashgill bulbifer species group. The ovulum group includes B. ovulum (Weber) (Weber 1948, p. 15, pl. 11, figs 12, 13; Chugaeva 1958, p. 26, pl. 2, figs 6-10) from the Llanvirn of Kazakhstan, B. ordosensis Lu (Lu et al. 1976, p. 73, pl. 13, figs 6,7) from the Klimoli Formation (Llanvirn), Zhuozishan Mountains, Inner Mongolia, and B. lageniformis Zhou (Zhou et al. 1982, p. 279, pl. 69, figs 9, 10) from the uppermost part of Zhuozishan Formation (late Arenig), Miboshan Mountains, central Ningxia. Zhou & Zhou (2006, p. 112) suggested that all these listed species are Ampyx-allied and should be reassigned to a new genus Abulbaspis (type species: B. ordosensis Lu in Lu et al., 1976), which is characterised by a clavate glabella projecting over the anterior margin of the fixigenae for only a short distance, the absence of a sagittal carina on the preoccipital glabella, a sixsegmented thorax, and a relatively long pygidium with a well defined, narrow (tr.), multisegmented (7 to 14 rings) axis. The bulbifer group includes, in addition to B. brevicollis sp. nov. described below, B. bulbifer (Weber) (Weber 1932, p. 5, pl. 4, figs 38-41; Weber 1948, p. 15, pl. 2, figs 9, 10) from the Llandeilo of southern Kazakhstan, B. mirabilis Chugaeva (1958, p. 28, pl. 3, figs 1-4) from Caradoc-early Ashgill, southern Kazakhstan, B. sphaerornatus Chugaeva (1958, p. 29, pl. 2, figs 11-16) from the Caradoc of southern Kazakhstan, and Bulbaspis (Parabulbaspis) korlaensis Zhang (Zhang 1981, p. 201, pl. 74, figs 1-4; Yuan & Zhou 1997, p. 173, pl. 1, fig. 7, as Bulbaspis mirabilis Chugaeva) from the Late Ordovician of the northern Tarim Basin, Xinjiang. Species of the bulbifer group are considered to represent real members of Bulbaspis, having evolved probably from Lonchodomas. When compared with Abulbaspis, Bulbaspis differs in having a rhombic, carinate preoccipital glabella, which protrudes much beyond the anterior margin of the fixigenae, a five-segmented thorax, and a shorter, poorly segmented pygidium. Bulbaspis brevis sp. nov. (Figs 6O, 7G, H, J-M, O) Etymology. Latin brevis, short, in reference to the short anterior part of the glabella. Figured material. Holotype cranidium NIGP140468 (Fig. 7G). Paratypes: cranidia NIGP140470, 140471, immature cranidium NIGP140469, pygidia NIGP140463, 140472, all specimens from horizon Zs6b. Diagnosis - A Bulbaspis species with large anterior glabellar bulb, which is about as long and as wide as the preoccipital glabella in mature cranidia. Anterior part of glabella short, forwardly converging. Pygidial axis poorly defined, reaching mid-length of border, with three shallow ring furrows. Pygidial pleural field with two pairs of pleural furrows, first pair shallow, second faint. Border wide, steeply sloping downwards. Description. Cranidium subtriangular in outline, sagittal length 83-87% posterior width. Preoccipital glabella convex (tr.), subrhombic in outline, forwardly expanded to attain its maximum width at about 80% sagittal length (exclusive of glabellar bulb) from back, which is 120% sagittal length and 160-180% basal width of preoccipital glabella, then convergent forwards to anterior bulb. The bulb strongly overhangs the ventral part of the glabella, which slopes downwards steeply to the shallow preglabellar furrow. Anterior cranidial border short (sag.) and gently sloping downwards. Surface of internal mould shows three pairs of muscle scars tightly arranged on flanks of posterior part of preoccipital glabella, located close to axial furrows; anterior pair elongateovate, as long as 30-34% length of preoccipital glabella, situated slightly anterior to midlength of preoccipital glabella; posterior and second pairs subcircular, each 15-16% length of preoccipital glabella. Anterior bulb large, subspherical, as long as 46-48% cranidial length and approximately as wide as maximum width of glabella. Axial furrows broad, extending forwards to anterior margin of fixigenae and then strongly downwards to connect with preglabellar furrow. LO gently convex (tr.), defined by shallow and transverse SO, about 9% cranidial length. Fixigena triangular in outline, about 170% as wide as preoccipital glabella posteriorly, declining steeply forwards and moderately outwards. Posterior border furrow distinctly incised, abruptly dying out close to axial furrow, slightly sigmoidal. Posterior border short (exsag.), sloping toward border furrow and slightly outward. External surface of cranidium smooth. An immature cranidium (Fig. 7H) shows longer glabella, and a much smaller and subrhombic anterior bulb with a rounded median pit on its posterior margin. Pygidium short, broad, semielliptical in outline, sagittal length 37% anterior breadth. Axis poorly defined by faint axial furrows, gently convex (tr.), occupying 30-31% pygidial width anteriorly and 82% pygidial length, extending to midlength of border. On external surface only three ring furrows shallowly impressed; on internal mould there are six pairs of subovoid muscle scars present on flanks of axis. Pleural field flattened, with two pairs of pleural furrows, the first shallow, the second faint, both almost transverse. Border long (sag.), 33-34% pygidial length (sag.), steeply sloping downwards, narrowing rapidly outwards, surface covered with closely spaced terrace lines parallel to posterior margin. Remarks. Bulbaspis brevis sp. nov. Closely resembles Bulbaspis korlaensis Zhang (1981, p. 201, pl. 74, figs 1-6; Yuan & Zhou 1997, p. 173, pl. 1, fig. 7, as Bulbaspis mirabilis Chugaeva) from the late Ordovician of the northern Tarim Basin, Xinjiang, but is distinguished by its proportionally broader cranidium, its less convex preoccipital glabella with shorter anterior part, its shallower axial furrows, and its relatively longer (sag.) LO.

There is a profound change in sedimentary environment and in fauna going from the Middle-Upper Ordovician of Ida Bay to Surprise Bay over a present distance of only 25 km. The transition is from peritidal carbonates at Ida Bay, to subtidal carbonates at Precipitous Bluff to deep subtidal calcareous shales at Pt. Cecil to deep water micrites, graptolitic shales and carbonate turbidites at Surprise Bay. The blind (Nanshanaspis, Bulbaspis) or large eyed (Telephina) trilobites at Surprise Bay suggest sub-photic or twilight depositional conditions and a phosphatic, ironstone hardground enriched in metals and with imploded nautiloids suggests a zone of nutrient-rich upwelling currents at about 300 ± 50 m water depth. Macrofauna from Ida Bay is mainly endemic and is associated with Midcontinent province type or endemic conodonts. The shelf edge sections at Precipitous Bluff and Pt. Cecil contain more widespread macrofossils and Midcontinent conodonts whereas the macrofauna from the deep-water deposits is widespread or cosmopolitan and is associated with North Atlantic province conodonts.

The spines of trilobites (like the sphere of Bulbaspis, (Dwergenpaartje (talk) 22:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)) may have had a function in sexual selection.

The Zhou & Zhou article contains several pictures on page 405.

I hope this helps, Kind Regards, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 22:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Pseudonaraoia, pseudo-fossil?

Hi, thanks for adding Pseudonaraoia to the Naraoiidae article. I had been hesitant to include it, and to make an article on Pseudonaraoia, because I am not convinced it is not a combination of the cephalon and pygidium of Leiopyge. What do you think? Is this a question I could put forward in the Paleontology Project? Regards, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 12:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

resource request

Hi,

I've uploaded the article you requested at the resource exchange. You can find a link at that page. Best, GabrielF (talk) 19:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for italicizing

Thank you for adding italics for the general in Hippocampinae. I need to improve this article which I began. Bruinfan12 (talk) 06:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Malerosteus

Unfortunately, I do not have this images. 82.160.253.226 (talk) 06:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC) (Wikipek)

Auto Taxobox

Assuming the taxonomy is well supported and referenced, you need to click on the little red pencil in the corner of the taxobox to edit it. Simply switch the parent taxon of Bohaskaia to the family it belongs to, and make sure the parent taxon of the family is also correct. MMartyniuk (talk) 12:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

resource request - paleogeography

Hi,

I've uploaded one of the articles that you requested at the resource exchange. You can find a link to the article on that page. Best, GabrielF (talk) 01:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

resource request - Spanish journal

Hi,

I've uploaded one of the articles that you requested at the resource exchange. You can find a link to the article at that page.

Best, GabrielF (talk) 17:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Rebellatrix

Hey there, accidentally discovered just now that beginning today, the article is publicly available for a limited time! Enjoy! Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Apokryltaros. You have new messages at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Shrike (talk) 16:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Apokryltaros. You have new messages at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request.
Message added 10:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shrike (talk) 10:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Apokryltaros. You have new messages at Shrike's talk page.
Message added 05:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shrike (talk) 05:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Apokryltaros. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Aztec Fish Fauna

Hello, Apokryltaros. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Placoderm article

Dear Mr. Fink! I can send you the wanted Placoderm article June 1st or 2nd. Is that okay? So I will need your eMail address. Please send it by wikimail. Thank you, -- Doc Taxon (talk) 12:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Done and done!--Mr Fink (talk) 12:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Apokryltaros. You have new messages at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request#Why_the_U.S._Navy_went_for_Hard-Target_Counterforce_in_Trident_II.
Message added 12:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shrike (talk) 12:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Apokryltaros. You have new messages at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request#Yiminaspis.
Message added 19:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shrike (talk) 19:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Apokryltaros. You have new messages at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request.
Message added 13:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shrike (talk) 13:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Apokryltaros. You have new messages at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request#Jurassic_Fleas.
Message added 17:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shrike (talk) 17:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Apokryltaros. You have new messages at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request.
Message added 04:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shrike (talk) 04:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Apokryltaros. You have new messages at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request.
Message added 20:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shrike (talk) 20:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Aspinothoracidi

Thanks! I'm no expert on placoderms, so I can't guarantee that every genus is in the right place in the template. I couldn't find a cladogram of Aspinothoracidi, probably since Carr and Hlavin's Dinichthyidae and Dunkleosteidae revision happened so recently that there hasn't been enough time to work out aspinothoracid relationships. Most of the genera that I put in the aspinothoracid section of the template came from this page of Mikko's Phylogeny Archive, which has a list of those uncertain genera. I'm guessing some of them should probably be more basal (maybe some trematosteids?), but most seem to have never been included in phylogenetic analyses. Maybe it would it be best to make a section of the template called Pachyosteomorphi incertae sedis. Smokeybjb (talk) 04:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I shortened down the Dunkleosteidae template to include only the ones treated by Carr and Hlavin. Were any of the others ever included in Dunkleosteidae? Smokeybjb (talk) 17:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Apokryltaros. You have new messages at WP:RX.
Message added 05:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shrike (talk) 05:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Apokryltaros. You have new messages at [[User talk:WP:RX|User talk:WP:RX]].
Message added 13:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 13:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

GAR

Megalodon, an article that you may be interested in, has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the good article reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Obtund^Talk 01:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Apokryltaros. You have new messages at WP:RX.
Message added 20:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Concerning Trapa rossica

No, I don't have a picture. It is growing in the gardens at Radomysl Castle if that helps at all. --Bejnar (talk) 12:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The title of this article: Балашов Л С; Мошкова Н А (1973). "Синузии некоторых водорослей ассоциации водяного ореха (Trapa rossica V. Vassil.) в пойме р. Уборти (Synusia some algae associations of water chestnut (Trapa rossica V. Vassil.) in the floodplain of the Ubort River)". Укр. ботан. журн.(Ukrainian Botanical Journal). 30 (3): 360–364.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link), seems to indicate that they were growing in the wild on the floodplain of the Ubort River circa 1973. Unfortunately the online archive at the M.G. Kholodny Institute of Botany only goes back to 2005. I have a reference from the US GNS for the mouth of the Ubort at 52° 06' 05" N, 028° 28' 08" E where it flows into the Pripyat River. A little upstream (south) from there, near the town of Краснобережье, around 51° 54' 02" N, 028° 28' 39" E, there is some reasonable floodplain. There are indications that that is part of the area that was evacuated because of the Chernobyl incident; although, Belarus does not seem to have any exclusion zone, and the towns seem to be currently active. (In other words – I have a lack of data.) --Bejnar (talk) 21:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Your article request for fair use

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B86iegI5pG5TYWtLV0pSVkwzbVk

Please let me know when you are done. Churn and change (talk) 01:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Article you requested per fair use

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B86iegI5pG5Tdlh3cjFxWEdGS2s

Let me know when you are done. Churn and change (talk) 01:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Articles requested per fair use

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B86iegI5pG5TUVdZYlV1aEw3bXM https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B86iegI5pG5TTzNKUUI1NHhBNHM

Please let me know when you are done. Churn and change (talk) 02:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar

I had never come across you until I was looking up something on Starfish. I was so impressed with the article that I dug deeper into your editing history. This is just to thank you both personally and on behalf of the community for all your excellent hard work, not only on creations and drawings, but also on your reverts of inappropriate content. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much!--Mr Fink (talk) 14:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Himalayas

I was going to thank you for catching something I had overlooked. I thought an IP changed two things, one legit and one bogus (thinking I missed it), and that you reverted the entire edit. After I had restored the correct information, I found that it was instead two separate edits by two different IPs. It appears you have simply reverted one edit too far back. Anyway, no problem and just thought I would stop by an explain would might appear to be a confusing edit summary on my part. Thanks for your time. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 21:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of The Beast Legion for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Beast Legion is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Beast Legion until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:47, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

About Placoderms

Hi Apokryltaros. I know what you mean: you think that, in every Placoderm article, there is a redundant category, "Devonian fish". But, in any case, I was erasing another redundant category which was present in more than 200 articles: "Prehistoric fish"; I am replacing that category (wherever possible) by the corresponding paleontological era (Jurassic, Carboniferous, etc.). So, then, let's plainly erase all the "time-related" categories from the different species of Placoderms, understanding that "a Placoderm is by itself a Devonian fish". Best regards, --Fabio Descalzi, aka Fadesga (talk) 00:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Sources you requested

[15]

[16]

[17]

Please let me know when you are done. Churn and change (talk) 02:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Article you requested per fair use

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/9158964/Prokofiev.PDF

Please let me know when you are done. Churn and change (talk) 19:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!--Mr Fink (talk) 19:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Monotypic

I haven't changed it, but you may want to review the first sentence of Indostomus. Indostomus isn't a monotypic genus (it contains 3 species = polytypic genus). It's the family that is monotypic (1 genus). There are several ways of solving this, e.g. Indostomus is monotypic within Indostomidae" or alike. Cheers, 62.107.211.138 (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

My mistake: I meant to say that the family is monogeneric.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Removing talk page comments

I know that some of the edits by the editor using IP address 91.10.56.74 have not been helpful, but I can see no good reason for removing his/her comments from article talk pages. It is particularly important to avoid such actions in cases where you are criticised in the comments in question, as there is a danger that it may look like an attempt to suppress such criticism. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

So we should allow talkpages to be used for petty bickering? I tried to explain my actions to the IP on its talkpage, but it made it abundantly clear that it did want to listen to my justifications.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Typhlops vermicularis, you may be blocked from editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Then could you at least explain what that "question" has to do with the situation?--Mr Fink (talk) 21:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

andrewsarchus with mesonyx

If Andrewsarchus was proportioned in the same manner as Mesonyx obtusidens, it had a length from the snout to the back of the pelvis of about 11 feet (3.4 m) and a height from the ground to the shoulder or middle of the back of about 6 feet (1.8 m). I recognize it is suggesting that it plausibly had physical characteristics with mesonyx, but, but Id rather change it to something like an entelodont. Remember, based off the latest research it belongs to Artiodactyla. --Apidium23 (talk) 18:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm well aware of this.--Mr Fink (talk) 19:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Apokryltaros. You have new messages at wp:rx.
Message added 11:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request Evolution

My reply was not answered on the talk page of evolution and I was hoping you would. Do you care to? --173.66.184.34 (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Drepaneidae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Batfish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Glossus (genus), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Extant (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Mackenzia and Odaria

Could you make a picture of three mackenzias and a Odaria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.177.220.111 (talk) 05:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Eventually, yes, I will.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

You did made a Mackenzia picture in DeviantArt.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.177.220.111 (talk) 05:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

P.S I misspelled Odaraia wrong. I forget the second a.

I need to redraw Mackenzia, as the out of date reference I used lead me to believe it was a cnidarian.--Mr Fink (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The Mackenzia was a unknown Cndarian and I maybe think Amiskwia was a eumetazoan like Cndarians and Bilaterians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.177.220.111 (talk) 05:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

P.S Could you add the Incertae sedis to Mackenzia.

Hurdia

You just created a Hurdia picture and I need you add this picture at your art?

P.S Go add the Mackenzia and Odaria to your making list (Three Mackenzias and a Odaria) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.177.220.111 (talk) 05:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Ecphora (genus)

Hello Apokryltaros. I have very much enjoyed your paleontological art many, many times, in fact every time I see it I enjoy it, so thank you for all of that very helpful work! I also need to thank you for the new gastropod stub you just made. The only thing is, as you already noticed, we have an article about Ecphoras in general. I am not sure whether or not the two should be combined in some way or whether the article about the group of genera just needs to have it made clearer that this is a common name for the whole group, not a scientific genus name. Invertzoo (talk) 17:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your note and for tweaking the article. I also tweaked the intro a bit more and removed italic title on the article which is about the common name. Invertzoo (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Cimolestes

Make a picture of a Cenozoic Cimolestes. I would like it if you add it. I don't know if there's giant animals with Cimolestes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.177.220.111 (talk) 23:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I've done a drawing of Palaeosinopa from the Green River Formation, but I need to find some skull material, or jaw-material for Cimolestes.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Myoscolex

I heard you made a picture of a early Opabinid from the Early Cambrian Emu Bay Shale Myoscolex. Could you add it.

P.S Did you ever heard Ottoia even appeared in the Wheeler Shale? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.177.220.111 (talk) 01:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

My version of Myoscolex is incorrect, as it is now believed to be an annelid, (and I have never seen the head), and yes, the species Ottoia prolifica is found in the Wheeler Shale [18].--Mr Fink (talk) 02:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Your a great paleoartist

You make many picture like fishes, Mesozoic animals, Cambrian or another Paleozoic period and Cenozoic mammals. I really like you. Don't forget about the Hurdia talk page I made for you to add this picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.177.220.111 (talk) 01:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Sirius Passet Animals

Could you add a picture to your user page like Halkeria (Green slug-like animal) from the picture of the Sirius Passet.User:98.177.220.111 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.177.220.111 (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I have an older drawing of Halkeria, but, I'm not sure if they need that reconstruction at the article. I'll check later.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Darkjedi10

An editor has the right to blank their own talk page. Please respect that. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 23:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Even to hide warnings given?--Mr Fink (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, of course. See WP:BLANKING. Drmies (talk) 00:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

This is perfectly legit: editors can't screw around with other people's words. I'm about to slap another template on that talk page, and it'll be the last one, probably. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Understood.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Did Selkirkia and Wiwaxia appeared in the Chengjiang?

I do not find any website that shows Wiwaxia and Selkirkia in any website except Dinopedia or Dinosaurs Wikia (It was a another user edit it named 98.177.220.111 like me but different).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.177.220.111 (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

There was Selkirkia/Paraselkirkia sinica [19] and Wiwaxia taijiangensis, which is known primarily from sclerites very similar to those of W. corrugata [20]--Mr Fink (talk) 23:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Mitternacht90/Extinct/Invertebrates

I saw a incomplete work by Mitternacht90 no one edit on it this month. Could you add more pictures like Wiwaxia and fix the Opabinia. (WARNING:Do not add a Dinomischus picture). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.177.220.111 (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Zhongjianichthys

Could you add Zhongjiangichthys to your gallery?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.177.220.111 (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Mr.Flink.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.177.220.111 (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

P.S A picture was delete a mosasaur that starts with a G. It don't know what it's called.

I find out it was a Globidens and it's on the Mosasaurus picture in DeviantArt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.177.220.111 (talk) 05:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Was your Ancalagon incomplete

Your Ancalagon picture do not have any other animals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.177.220.111 (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

It was just a stand-alone doodle I drew a few years ago. I think I will redraw it soon.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Rhombichthys

You made a picture of Rhombichthys but you need to add it to your gallery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.177.220.111 (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

P.S I edit on the Early Cambrian (Cambrian Stage 2) Gastropod-like Mollusks and changed the fossil range. Good?

Most of the Early Cambrian gastropod-like mollusks are actually from the Tommotian, which is before Stage 2.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Tommotia

Add the picture of the Tommotian Tommotia (You did the Nautiloid one already).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.177.220.111 (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

P.S Is Tommotia mistaken as a Nautiloid?

Tommotia was originally described as a very primitive cephalopod, not a nautiloid.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

But it really had a shell that looked like a extinct Nautiloid like Orthoceras but shorter. Which non-nautiloid is a cephalopod? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.177.220.111 (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I've seen what the "shell" (tail-tip) looked like, it looked very much like a gray Bugle. As far as I know, it was never regarded as a nautiloid.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Globidens

I saw that a user deleted it. Could you talk to the user? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.177.220.111 (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

P.S Go to the pictures you made in Wikimedia to some to your gallery (I think you do not add the old picture of Dicksonia).

The Globidens picture was old, and I will get around to adding the Wikimedia pictures. Please be aware that I have other things to do outside of Wikipedia, also.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Parapeytoia

I want you to make a picture of a Parapeytoia eating a Isoxys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.177.220.111 (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but please also be aware that I am not an art vending machine.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Add the First Nectocaridid Petalilium and it will be a new Chengjiang picture you ever seen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.177.220.111 (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

P.S Why you do not made any Sidneyia and Leanchoilia pictures? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.177.220.111 (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Please be aware that I am not an art vending machine.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I really know Mr Fink. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.177.220.111 (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Anomalocaris_saron.jpg

I only saw Anomalocaris saron in this picture. I know your not a Art Vending Machine by not talking about this anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.177.220.111 (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Amplectobelua wasn't showed in this picture

P.S I really forget your offline during this talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.177.220.111 (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

That is the head of Amplectobelua: A. saron got much of itself cropped out.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The Anomalocaris in the List of Chengjiang Biota by phylum was the species from the Burgess Shale. A, saron would be better if it's added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.177.220.111 (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Cephalopod

I was fixing the fossil range but it says it only lived in Recent then earilest is Cambrian then again but says Devonian the earilest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.177.220.111 (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure you're not looking at the ammonites?--Mr Fink (talk) 23:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I was talking about Nautilloids not Orthoceras the ones from the Late Cambrian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.177.220.111 (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The fossil range is already correct for Nautiloidea.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Late Cambrian Mr. Fink. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.177.220.111 (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

And the problem is?--Mr Fink (talk) 00:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The arrow points at Holocene (Recent) and did not showed the green one but shows earliest. That's my problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.177.220.111 (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

P.S I really need you to edit on User:Mitternacht90/Extinct/Invertebrates (Add one of your photos to there).

I don't know how to fix that sort of taxobox problems, and please let me edit Wikipedia how I want edit Wikipedia, and not how you want me to edit Wikipedia. I find it very distracting and hard to focus when I'm being constantly barraged with messages asking this and being told to edit that.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry I would not mistaken fossil ranges anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.177.220.111 (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

P.S I just fixed it before you send me the message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.177.220.111 (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Hallucigenia

You forget about 2 Hallucigenia pictures to your gallery (sparsa and fortis). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.177.220.111 (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

And then can you stop constantly nagging me all the bloody time and leave me alone for a while?--Mr Fink (talk) 02:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok I will be back intill Wednesday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.177.220.111 (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

And when you come back, please bother someone else. I don't like being nagged constantly.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Trisecphora, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Chesapeake and Aquitanian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Apokryltaros. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request.
Message added 01:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Sven Manguard Wha? 01:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

they already got him

Hello A. I wanted to let you know that the pest that you have been dealing with has already been blocked[21]. I saw that you were being thorough by reporting him to AIV so you might want to go ahead and remove that - but it is up to you. Thanks for your vigilance and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 23:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Followup - one of the helperbots already got the report at AIV so there is nothing else to do. Thanks again and now back to normal editing - whatever that is :-) MarnetteD | Talk 23:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Heydar Aliyev International Airport

Thanks for helping while I'm maxed out on 3RR. HkCaGu (talk) 06:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure.--Mr Fink 15:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Glossus humanus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Extant (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk) 12:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Note of appreciation

I realise that you love your work, but speaking as someone drastically incapable of anything of the kind myself, I just wanted to express my appreciation (as opposed to merely saying thank you). More strength to your eye, arm, and tools! JonRichfield(talk) 09:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Your signature

I thought you should know that your signature does not currently link to your talk or user page, as required. I should add that I like your illustrations and thank you for picking up on the removal of "obsolete" at Spontaneous generation while I was still thinking, "Is this for real?" (I'll blame daylight savings time for my sluggishness.) Novangelis (talk) 03:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, and yes, my signature does link to my talk and user page: I put my surname in it.--Mr Fink 03:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I should have been more specific: there is no internal link. I'm almost absolutely certain that there has to be a clickable link (you can always get another opinion), plus there are other male users with the same surname[22] on Wikipedia.Novangelis (talk) 04:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

On the other hand, when you put a link on the page the link links to, Wikipedia programming does not put in the link. Otherwise, my signature shows up fine on other talkpages.--Mr Fink 04:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment

Hey Apokryltaros; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Fossil barnstar

	The Fossilized Barnstar
	For your extremely diverse contributions of paleoart, as well as contributions to the paleontology articles themselves! FunkMonk (talk) 09:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much!--Mr Fink (talk) 13:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Welcome! FunkMonk (talk) 15:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

De-extinction

I appreciate your input. No meanness detected from your comments. I concur that until the de-extinction process actually starts it probably isn't notable until the process gets rolling (if it gets rolling at all). Stylteralmaldo (talk) 12:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Pretty much all authorities agree that most of these are impossible to resurrect, much of the DNA is so degraded that it can't even be analysed properly, let alone used for cloning. FunkMonk (talk) 12:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Your painting style

What is it called? Th4n3r (talk) 19:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Holonematidae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Boulonnais (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk) 12:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Oncorhynchus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Progeny (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk) 15:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Aepyornis

I didn't bother to check because I had no clue where to look as there was no edit summary. I wasn't trying to be rude, I just saw what looked like to me an incorrect deletion and fixed it "with" an edit summary explaining. SeeEdit summary speednat (talk) 05:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Indonesian IP

I've requested page protection for some of the pages (see Wikipedia:Requests for page protection). You might want to add some pages to that list. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 08:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Indonesian IP? It must be "Megatherium Man"--Mr Fink (talk) 13:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with these "Megamen", but the IPs are all from Indonesia. If these "mega-contributors" are known old problems, maybe you should mention it on the RFPP? --Fama Clamosa (talk) 14:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up

Thanks for the explanation regarding User talk:125.164.1.8. I wasn't quite sure what to make of their edits, but I'll revert anything I see involving Category:Extinct animals of Oceania in Special:RecentChanges now that I know. Out of curiosity, are they always an IP, or did they have a username at any point? Sophus Bie ^(talk) 13:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

How odd! I'm surprised I've never run in to them before. Or, perhaps I did, and didn't recognize it. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 13:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ammonoidea may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

From AIV

I don't want to make AIV any more cluttered, so I'm responding here. Please see WP:VAND#NOT. The behavior you are describing includes:

• Disruptive editing
• Harassment or personal attacks
• Lack of understanding of the purpose of Wikipedia
• NPOV contraventions.

All of these things are specifically listed in Wikipedia:Vandalism as not vandalism. AIV is meant to handle clear-cut cases of plain vandalism or spam that do not require discussion. The behavior you're describing warrants at least some level of community discussion to resolve, so it's not appropriate for AIV. —Darkwind (talk) 20:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Xiangshuiosteus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Epoch (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk) 11:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Might, you want to join "sci.bio.paleontology"?

You seem to be interested in paleontology. Might you want to join, the newsgroup sci.bio.paleontology?--Mr.23 (talk) 23:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the offer!--Mr Fink (talk) 23:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

What? You don't have a program? Use Google Groups.--Mr.23 (talk) 03:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll try that out, then.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh. One more thing; ignore the spam, and try to stick to the on-topic discussion.--(Mr. 23) (annoy) 11:49 31st May 2013 (UTC)

Sure thing. I'll probably lurk for a while, though.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)posters).

And, if you see any posts, under the name "Thrinaxodon"; that's me. Try to ignore that, (unlike some other posters).--(Mr. 23) (annoy) 17:29, 31st May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mizia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Min Zhu (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk) 14:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:THC Loadee. Thank you. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  03:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Birds of Azerbaijan

Hi.

I am putting this category by using IUCN reference. I do not see the justification for erasing this category. Otherwise all other country categories should also not likewise stay. — Precedingunsigned comment added by 88.224.24.19 (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Not all of those articles specifically state that said bird lives in, is a migrant/vagrant species in or even mentions Azerbaijan.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I would urge youto check each IUCN reference in each article, before automatically erasing it. There is a Category:Birds of Azerbaijan for a reason. And please do not empty this category.

Then would it kill you to write about which locations and or habits each bird is found in Azerbaijan rather than haphazardly spamming the articles with the category like a spambot?--Mr Fink (talk) 14:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I don't think I violated any Wikipedia rules by using a credible reference in each article which states that the particular species is native to Azerbaijan. (And not just migrating species or accidental travellers). I was not spamming and nor is it or was my inention. I edited too fast withouth putting an edit summary, sorry about that and for any other misundarstandings. But when citing sources, will you at least allow the category to stay. Or should the categories be restricted to continents only, instead of countries, which is the case in many of these articles? — Preceding unsignedcomment added by 88.224.24.19 (talk) 14:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Table help

For each of your tables, I think you need to remove the lines of code before and after the actual sortable table code (which begins with{| class="wikitable sortable" style="width: 100%; font-size: 95%;"). I'm not sure what this code is, but for some reason it's making your tables appear next to each other rather than above and below each other. Smokeybjb(talk) 16:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!--Mr Fink (talk) 17:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Dodo

This is a note to let the main editors of Dodo know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on July 6, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or one of his delegates (Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), andBencherlite (talk · contribs)), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. You can view the TFA blurb atWikipedia:Today's featured article/July 6, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The Dodo is an extinct flightless bird that was endemic to the island of Mauritius in the Indian Ocean. Its external appearance is evidenced only by 17th-century paintings and written accounts that vary considerably, so its exact appearance is a mystery. Little is certain about its habitat and behaviour. Subfossil remains show the Dodo was about one 1 metre (3.3 feet)tall and may have weighed 10–18 kg (22–40 lb). It is presumed that the Dodo became flightless because of the ready availability of abundant food sources and a relative absence of predators on Mauritius. The first recorded mention of the Dodo was by Dutch sailors in 1598. In the following years, the bird was preyed upon by hungry sailors, theirdomesticated animals, and invasive species introduced during that time. The last widely accepted sighting of a Dodo was in 1662. Its extinction within only about a century of its discovery called attention to the previously unrecognised problem of human involvement in the disappearance of entire species. The Dodo achieved widespread recognition from its role in Alice in Wonderland, and it has become a fixture in popular culture, often as a symbol of extinction andobsolescence. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Elephant

If you see my contributions, you can tell, it was not an attempt at vandalism nor was it intended. I made a minor change to the page and somehow wiki messed up --Muhammad(talk) 23:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

On being gentle

Hi Apokryltaros. Would you mind being a bit more gentle with newbies? Otherwise we might lose potentially valuable contributors, such asthis one. Thanks. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

It would help a great deal, also, if the newbies made more effort to distinguish themselves from delete-happy vandals before they throw fits, too.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree :) --Epipelagic (talk) 17:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

But otherwise, I'll try not to bite too often. My dentist is nagging me about wearing out my teeth.--Mr Fink(talk) 18:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Template

Hey Apokryltaros

I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).

So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy theVisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.

What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.

The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guidehere, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on theFeedback page.

Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Phyllolepididae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Flatheads (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry

I'm sorry. I shouldn't have done something like I did on User talk:SummerPhD. I promise to stop disrupting others in the harmful way. I was like "Oh man I should not have said that". Honestly, I didn't mean to hurt anyone. I was just trying to reason with SummerPhD, not to antagonize with SummerPhD. Hopefully it settles well between you and me. All I want to say is that I am truly sorry.Batman194 (talk) 19:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Apology accepted, it would also help if you also apologized to SummerPhD, too.--Mr Fink (talk) 19:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Orthoceras

Thank you for the cleanup in Orthoceras (orchid). I'd generally prefer titles for a genus name used for both plants and animals to be a DAB, but I try to be conservative in moving animal genera away from an ambiguous base title. I feel more competent to judge plant genera as not important enough to deserve the base title than animal genera. I glanced at Google results for Orthoceras and the cephalopod seemed to dominate, so I'm not totally comfortable establishing Orthoceras as a DAB. What do you think about makingOrthoceras a DAB, and moving the cephalopod genus to something like Orthoceras (mollusc)? Plantdrew (talk) 06:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Grizzly Bear

I don't know why you reverted my changes to Grizzly bear. They certainly aren't vandalism. Binomial or trinomial names are supposed to be in italics. Why do you think only the subspecies part should be in italics and not the genus and species part? Dger(talk) 22:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I thought is might be a mistake. Cheers. Dger (talk) 03:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Bell Miner

I am curious, do you have a source for your information that:

(Bell Miners) were given their common name because they feed almost exclusively on the dome-like coverings of certain psyllid bugs, referred to as "bell lerps," that feed on eucalyptus sap from the leaves. The "bell lerps" make these domes from their own honeydew secretions in order to protect themselves from predators and the environment.

This is followed by the line:

They are also very likely to be named after their bell-like call.

Most Australians will subscribe to the second meaning, given that they are almost universally known as Bellbirds.

I assume you also realise that the word 'miner' here is a corruption of the word 'myna', and does not refer to the habit of the birds of 'mining' the bell lerps but to their similarity (or to be more accurate, the similarity of their cousins, the Noisy Miner) to the mynas of India.

123.122.200.143 (talk) 23:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

That was the explanation I had heard from a Nature documentary on Australian wildlife, i.e., that they were "mining" the sugar-domes of the bell lerps.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that that's really a very satisfactory source. Especially when it is wrong. I think that the explanation should be removed from the article, unless you have a reliable and checkable source.

221.219.154.205 (talk) 12:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I've formally proposed removal of the explanation at Talk:Bell_Miner.

221.219.154.205 (talk) 13:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Artiocetus, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Keto and Gaia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk) 11:28, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Coconut oil

I have reverted your removal of an IP's comment at Talk:Coconut oil as it was not clear why you removed it. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Opting in to VisualEditor

As you may know, VisualEditor ("Edit ^beta") is currently available on the English Wikipedia only for registered editors who choose to enable it. Since you have made 100 or more edits with VisualEditor this year, I want to make sure that you know that you can enable VisualEditor (if you haven't already done so) by going to your preferences and choosing the item, "MediaWiki:Visualeditor-preference-enable". This will give you the option of using VisualEditor on articles and userpages when you want to, and give you the opportunity to spot changes in the interface and suggest improvements. We value your feedback, whether positive or negative, about using VisualEditor, atWikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback. Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

RE: Mudpuppy

In this case I'm not sure about this (I'm not familiar with scientific classifications). In both articles, Necturus andProteidae, it is said they are "Mudpuppies". © Tbhotch^™(en-2.5). 21:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I think you know more what you are talking about, so, I think there's no problem if you redirect the page and the talk page.© Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 21:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Re: Behemoth

User:Bishapod swimming

Thank you for the thankyou, and thank you for your great artwork! Have you ever depicted a Tiktaalik, or fishapod? I'm interested because I'm, hmmm, related to User:Bishapod. Sort of. Bishonen | talk 14:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC).

Disambiguation link notification for November 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Megalonyx, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Extant (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Requested paper

Send me an email and I'll reply with the remaining placoderm paper you requested. John M Baker (talk) 21:29, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

You have multiple requested papers still waiting to be downloaded on WP:RX. Please mark them when you downloaded them.OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 23:33, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brachydeiridae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rostrum (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Adorf/Vogtl.

Would you kindly undo the name change you made from the official Adorf/Vogtl. to the non-existant Adorf/Vogtl- I think then you need to fix the change that Emmausbot then did.

Adorf Museum gives you plenty of examples of the official spelling as does de:Adorf/Vogtl.. We all have bad day! -- Clem Rutter (talk) 23:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Your talkpage

I stumbled upon your talkpage and read the history, noticing that you often delete comments.

You know, your talkpage is yours, and you're totally right to delete anything you want (as long as you don't misrepresent anyone, of course). If you do not want ugly comments to remain in your talkpage (neither do I!), you are allowed to move the discussion to the talkpage of whoever started it.

I would have done the same if I were in your shoes--I too might one day get so focused on the questions of whether each comment deserved to be on my talkpage, and not see the big picture of how not friendly my deletion edits looked like.

It's just that, to some people, deleting unreplied comments without edit summaries will give some people a bad first impression of my willingness to reach agreements.

I probably shouldn't be minding your business in such a way, but I already wrote 4 paragraphs and don't want to delete it, you know.135.0.167.2 (talk) 19:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I appear to delete a lot of edits on Wikipedia because I spend at a minimum of seventy-five percent of my time here undoing vandalism edits: I don't give edit summaries because I use the Twinkle "(TW)" application to revert vandalism edits, which does not permit me to give summaries. And some of the time, I often undo edits on other users' talkpages that I assume is harassment. *shrug* At the very least, I think I can be forgiven when an anonymous editor writes a title of "Donald Trump Told Me To Tell You You're Fired." Either way, if I've made a mistake, it can always be reverted.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I always wondered what Twinkle is... does it removes additions the same way as direct editing except it doesn't give edit summaries?135.0.167.2 (talk) 23:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

When you click "Rollback Vandalism," yes, it doesn't permit edit summaries. When you just click the plain-old "Rollback" or "revert to this version," then it brings up a new window for an edit summary.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I can understand why anyone may use that to keep control of the talk page they own. I was just a little uncomfortable with what message it sends to people who don't know better. The most notable revert I think was [23]... someone who sounded like a completely lost newcomer to Wikipedia was looking for an explanation, but instead got reverted and given this response. Then he/she posted something I can't even understand[24], (poor English maybe) but what's clear is he/she was made upset. Even if you suspect that IP is someone else who has vandalized, it doesn't hurt to assume good faith with that harmless comment.

Maybe talkpage comments should not be responded to in such a way, unless we double check the comment was an deliberate attack.Personally I think even deliberate attacks should be responded with some understanding--there are few admins on Wiki who haven't made one, but this is my irrelevant opinion. 135.0.167.2 (talk) 00:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brachydeiroidea, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Superfamily (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Squaloraja, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Liassic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Change to Woolly mammoth

I reverted article Woolly mammoth to an edit made that does not include personal opinion about "how money should be spent" on something. The Edit summary may have suggested that I was responding to your edit, which I was not. FunkMonk is abusing his privilege as a major contributor to this article, and I suspect that in escalating to the admins, you may be involved. I'm sorry about this, but I thought I'd give you forewarning. Leptus Froggi (talk) 15:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Dude, it doesn't even matter what I think, when the content was approved by several experienced Wikipedia reviewers.FunkMonk (talk) 06:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

My Cold

Mr. Fink, Thank you so much for the soup suggestion-sounds great. I had some viral bug for two weeks before I caught this awful cold. My ears are clogged and my head fogged. The soup sounds like it my open me up. I appreciate it! Regards, GetAgrippa(talk) 18:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Megalania image

Hi, I guess that you are the author of this image [[25]], that someone else has uploaded to Commons. Did you have permission for this?--Rextron (talk) 04:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

That person didn't ask for permission to post it. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

No problem, by the way I found another illegal upload of your art ([[26]]), and I requested the deletion too.--Rextron (talk) 04:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this person don't want to stop, he has upload another of your images with another account:[27] (not to mention that he make erroneus editions in articles about fossil cetacans).--Rextron (talk) 16:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I posted a note at the person's latest account asking him in English and Spanish to cease and desist, as well as telling him if he wants to use some particular picture of mine, to just ask.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I wrote a similar message for this user in the Spanish wiki. I hope that a future talk with you will be about another issues.--Rextron (talk) 21:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Jaguariba

Hi! Send me a wikimail and you will get the second fossil article, too. Thank you, -- Doc Taxon (talk) 17:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Season's greetings from Santa and her little helpers

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Don't worry, you are not the subject, Irishfrisian is. I just thought you ought to know. Op47 (talk) 00:02, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

FYI - I accidentally hit rollback on your ANI post. That was purely a fat-finger error and your post has been restored. My apologies for that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:06, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Understood. I, in turn, just fixed a broken link.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:07, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Pampus argenteus

Hello, Apokryltaros. You have new messages at talk:Silver or white pomfret.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 01:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Fossil papers

They are ready OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 07:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Killer Whale

Apokryltaros, it has become clear at this point that the discussion at Talk:Killer Whale is an attempt to violate WP:COMMONNAMEdue to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Consensus cannot violate the rules, so there is no point in further conversation. Do you think that it would be appropriate to collapse the thread? 76.107.171.90 (talk) 14:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

That would probably be the best course of action, at the very least we should bring this up to see if they persist.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Slimonia

While I’m here I might as well address another issue. I noticed that your drawing of Slimonia has a prodigious set of claws. The article, as well as the fossils, and illustrations (other than yours) seem to indicate that Slimonia’s chelicerae were actually quite small. Also, Slimonia’s body appears to have been shaped more like a modern scorpion’s (with an anterior bulge and a more distinctive “tail region”) while your eurypterid has a gradual taper. While I’d prefer not to look the gift art in the mouth, I’m also somewhat concerned that the illustration could give the reader the wrong idea about Slimonia’s morphology.

In zoology I was taught that a eurypterid’s claws are its chelicerae, while a scorpion’s chelicerae are its mouthparts and its pedipalps are its claws. When I read the article and saw the illustration (which seems to contradict it) I became quite confused and I had to spend the better part of two hours refreshing my memory of chelicerata before I was able to sort the whole mess out. Would you object if I were to remove your illustration from Slimonia and place the picture of the fossil into the info box? Understand that I’m not taking issue with its artistic quality, only with its accuracy. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 04:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I swapped it out now, now that you pointed the inaccuracy to me. I greatly appreciate you taking the time to ask, and I will update the reconstruction accordingly.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 04:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Type species (Walliserops)

Hello, I like to reflect on your undoing of my edit of the Walliserops article.

• Firstly, this kind of swift edits motivated by "It should be done like this", doesn't work very well with me psychologically: it upsets me.
• Secondly, I would like to know where it says it should actually be done like this.
• Thirdly, if it says so somewhere, it introduces a repetition of information, which I think is silly.
• Fourthly, I have created, extended from stubs to substantive and overhauled hundreds of trilobite articles, and never indicated the type your way and always my way and this is the first time anyone corrected it.

Kind regards, -Dwergenpaartje (talk) 18:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

If making a separate mention of the type species was unnecessary as you claim, then there would not be a feature for it in the taxobox template in the first place. Furthermore, it is, in fact, important to make mention of the type species that way, especially if it was originally described under an invalid synonym.--Mr Fink (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Why such a strong reaction?

Why are so reacting so strongly against the IP editor who posted on the Elephant talk page? I know about the history with Colbert, but you seem to be making quite the bad faith assumptions about this user. LadyofShalott 22:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I had a lot of aggravating experiences dealing with some of the various Stephen Colbert trolls who have been trying to insert "elephant population epidemic" bullshit.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

So show the link of me inserting the tripling claim into any articles on elephants. I would like to see.67.182.171.189 (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I made a mistake.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I just reverted this edit as being a clear violation ofWP:TPOC. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Appropreateness of signature

Reading this: WP:SIGFORGE and the lines above it "A distracting, confusing, or otherwise unsuitable signature may adversely affect other users."(emphasis mine), it dosn't seem to me like your username shoudl be "Apokryltaros" but your signature "Mr. Fink".CombatWombat42 (talk) 23:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

"Fink" happens to be my surname in real life, and "Apokryltaros" is the name of one of my art creations.--Mr Fink(talk) 23:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not particularly concerned with the fact that it may be your real name. I am concerned that when reading discussions about you one sees comments about "Apokryltaros" which are responded to by "Mr Fink" and it is confusing. CombatWombat42(talk) 23:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I gave you my justification for why my username is "Apokryltaros," and why I use "Mr Fink" in my signature. Can you point out where this is an actual violation of Wikipedia user policy?--Mr Fink (talk) 23:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

It isn't. Many Wikipedia users have displayed nicknames that do not resemble their usernames. See Wikipedia:Username policy for the actual policy. WP:SIGFORGE does not apply; you clearly are not impersonating another editor. --Guy Macon(talk) 20:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Mistake

Dear mr Fink (???)I received this message from you, apparently... "Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Walking With Monsters. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)" I do not know the date nor the meaning of the message,i've never been on the page "Walking With Monsters". I think it is a mistake. Maurizio — Preceding unsigned comment added by79.41.179.177 (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Or, it could be that four years ago, another user had this dynamic IP and used it to vandalize that page, and then, today, you got this particular message in a bottle. If you did not use this IP to commit vandalisms, then please disregard that message.--Mr Fink (talk) 19:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)