User talk:Dinoguy2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Dismount theory for the origin of avian flight[edit]

I welcome constructive specific feedback, and healthy debate, but labels like "fringe", "radical" and "amateur" are not helpful, and do not constitute reasons for your sweeping deletions. Some of my contributions to the Anchiornis article were not even related to the paper that you arbitrarily dismissed. Did you read the paper by Fraser (2014)? It was peer reviewed by Ken Carpenter and Peter Larson. Before deleting my work in future, I would ask that you please consider sending me a message which responds to the content of my work or the content of the reference in question. I have made it very clear that the dismount theory is new, and I remain willing to make changes in response to appropriate dialogue. --Cookiecutteramaru (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dinosaurs#.22The_Journal_of_Paleontological_Sciences.22 The journal is affiliated with commercial fossil collectors, which itself makes it questionable. FunkMonk (talk) 04:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Regardless of the authority of the article or reviewers, we also have to follow the polity of undue weight. I don't think it's out of line to call this new hypothesis "radical" compared to conventional hypotheses on the origin of flight. One paper published in a commercial journal does fit the definition of "fringe" for now, just as we try not to give undue eight to other minority hypothesis, e.g. Birds Came First or Birds are not Dinosaurs, both of which have been published and reviewed but have not gained nay kind of scientific backing or consensus. Dinoguy2 (talk) 12:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Considering a theory is neither provable or disprovable why would you delete it without providing due cause? It is up to the individual reader to decide if the article fits in to their schema of the origin of avian flight. After reading the article it would appear to be a probable explanation and deserve further discussion, as such it should remain part of this page to encourage academic debate.pluschgreen (talk) 22:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

As I mentioned at FunkMonk's talkpage, one does not encourage academic debate by giving undue weight to a fringe theory, then foisting the burden of deciding whether or not it's correct onto the readers.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your recent efforts toward consensus, and have responded with concessions.Cookiecutteramaru (talk) 03:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Why the revert?[edit]

Care to give a reason why you've reverted my edit without any explanation? --Hibernian (talk) 22:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Alright fine, I just thought it would be better to have a slightly inaccurate image then none at all. But ok I'll defer to you on this one, though you shouldn't delete someone's edit without explanation. --Hibernian (talk) 17:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Feather[edit]

I just saw your recent edits to Feather. I know your intention was to make the text clearer and, certainly, correct, but I wonder if some of the changes did not make the text more difficult for the average reader to understand. You added several "scientific" phrases and removed some more generally understandable words and phrases. If the latter were not wrong, you might consider changing some of them back. Just a thought. – CorinneSD (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Precious[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

Dinosaur images
Thank you for quality contributions, based on scientific depth, to articles on dinosaurs, such as your Amphicoelias, especially for images in drawings, scale charts and museum photos, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 364th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Predator X[edit]

Hey I noticed that Predator X no longer redirects to its own unique species and just redirects to the genus, Pliosaurus. Is this wise? The article looks rather long and describes quite a few species in detail. ScienceApe (talk) 00:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there is not much to say about these species other than what is already in the article, so better have one long article than several short ones. And "Predator X" is just a hyperbolic nicknamed that should not be used now that the animal has been named. FunkMonk (talk) 05:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't really care much about the name Predator X, if an article exists on its specific species then its scientific name should be used, but the main thrust of my question is whether it's wise to redirect to the genus or not. Making that article so long seems to make the readability of it worse, but I'd like to know what Dinoguy2's thoughts are on this. ScienceApe (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't really work on pliosaur articles, but my feeling is that species articles could be spun off when there is enough to write about them. Some of those Plioaurus species have more info than many individual genera. Alternately, we could do a Species of Psittacosaurus style solution if the article is too long. MMartyniuk (talk) 09:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Smilodon[edit]

Hello! I see your Smilodon size comparison, and it is good, but more like the size of Smilodon populator, not Smilodon Fatalis, because Smilodon populator is 1.2 m tall at the shoulder, like the picture. The size of Smilodon fatalis more like this: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Smilodon_fatalis_life-restoration_'08.jpg and not this: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Smilodon.png So, I think your Smilodon size comparison picture is need the good name (Smilodon populator). — Moldovan0731 (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 22[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that 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.

Coelophysis bauri (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Sigmoid, Robust and Gracile
Coelophysis kayentakatae (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Syntarsus
Coelophysis rhodesiensis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Syntarsus

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Aurorazhdarcho, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Enlightenment (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) 08:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Gallodactylidae may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Cladogram following Andres & Myers, 2013).<ref name=LoneStarPterosaurs>{{cite doi|10.1017/S1755691013000303}}</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:41, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anzu (dinosaur), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CMNH (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, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Anzu (dinosaur)[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 16:41, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Utahraptor illustration[edit]

It's been suggested to me that my new Utahraptor illustration replace the one currently existing on the Utahraptor article. I've put my new version on Commons, but I'm not sure it's appropriate to include it in the article as long as there's no published information about why this version is more accurate. What do you think? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 18:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts![edit]

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
Your name came up on a Wikipediocracy thread about solid content writers who don't get the credit they deserve and I just wanted to drop by and do a little of that. Thanks for your work on behalf of The Project! Carrite (talk) 02:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Neoaves[edit]

Hi. I will send you these three papers:

If you need another one, just write me. --Ornithodiez (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Placentalia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ursus (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) 08:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

What traits do birds have exclusively that non-avian dinosaurs do not and vice versa?[edit]

This is just a guess, but dinosaurs have long tails while avians do not. I would say that birds have beaks, but all oviraptors have beaks correct? ScienceApe (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The top image here is a good overview of traits: [1]. Other animals do have toothless beaks (oviraptorids, pterosaurs, turtles) but these evolved independently of birds and are not homologous. So far as we know only true birds have toothless beaks, though it's possible we will find some Ichthyornis-like theropod with a toothless beak homologous with true birds. Dinoguy2 (talk) 14:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hell Creek Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Leptorhynchos (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) 08:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Dismount Theory for the Origin of Avian Flight". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 30 April 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 08:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected[edit]

The request for formal mediation concerning Dismount Theory for the Origin of Avian Flight, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, Sunray (talk) 05:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Disambiguation link notification for April 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pterodactyloidea, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Homologous (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) 08:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Taxonomy/Odobenus[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Taxonomy/Odobenus has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. The Banner talk 09:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Question regarding unit ages[edit]

In The Dinosauria' stratigraphic distribution section, are the age ranges given for dinosaur-bearing units confident or uncertain? Say, if a unit is listed as Albian-Aptian does that mean the oldest sediments in the unit are Albian and the youngest are Aptian or does it mean that researchers don't know if it was Albian, Aptian, or straddled the boundary, but do know that it falls somewhere in that range? Abyssal (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, I had a feeling I couldn't take those ranges at face value. Abyssal (talk) 16:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh, just for clarification, when you say stage alone is useless for comparing formations, do you mean that because one formation might be, say, early Albian and another might be late Albian and therefore a ~10 million years separate in age? Or is there some other factor compromising its utility that I haven't thought of? Abyssal (talk) 16:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Kentrosaurus GA[edit]

Hello, would you be able to review Kentrosaurus? LittleJerry (talk) 21:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

See talk. LittleJerry (talk) 16:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Will you take the review? LittleJerry (talk) 01:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello? LittleJerry (talk) 18:29, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Air sacs[edit]

Hi, Dinoguy! I just read your interesting blog about dinosaur vocalisations. You referred to "theropods known to definitely lack clavicular air sacs". However, we must keep in mind (many, some of the greatest names in paleontology among them, don't) that "air sacks" are primarily the soft tissue structures outside of the skeleton. They invade the bones via diverticula, but the hollow spaces thus created are only a minor part of the system. Their absence does not imply that the entire air sack is absent. Applying the method of phylogenetic bracketing the clavicular air sack of Aristeon makes it most parsimonious to assume this structure was present in the Avetheropoda.

Greetings, and saving the T. rex roar, --MWAK (talk) 05:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Megapnosaurus[edit]

Why are you convinced that this is an invalid genus. Many paleontologists would disagree, and it is certainly not fair to change the whole page because of it. You should keep the page until there is a general consensus!

Alternatively you could delete Dracorex, Stygimoloch, Nanotyrannus and all the ridiculous new Iguanodontids (Dollodon, Mantellisaurus ect.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.98.186 (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Just to sort of let you know, I'm fairly certain that this is User:Animalarmageddon trying to evade a block as this is a fairly identical editing pattern. I know he will likely check this, so I'd like to stress that he should not make edits until he has applied for an unblock via his talk page. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 03:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Mostly I'm doing this because I want to ensure that he goes about getting unblocked and editing the proper way, which would necessitate him reading over our guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 08:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 22 June[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Would you be interested in edditing some texts I wrote on theropods?[edit]

Hi Dinoguy2!

I'm currently writing my PhD thesis on the evolution of teeth and some cranial bones in non-avian theropods. I have, in the introduction section, chapters on the history of the discovery of theropods, as well as the history of the classification, and the current classification of non-avian theropods. These chapters are, according to me, more exhaustive than those I can read in the theropod article on Wikipedia. I would love adding them to this article, yet I don't have time to edit the text to fit to the Wikipedia style (I know how to do though, as I did it many times for the French version, but I'm too busy right now to deal with this). Would you be interested in editing my text with the reference I will provide you so that these sections car appear in the article on Theropoda? You would also need to correct my English as this is not my mother tong. What do you think of my proposition? If you can't, would you know someone else that would be interested in this task? Many thanks in advance for your time and consideration. Best regards, --Christophe Hendrickx (talk) 08:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Taxonomy/Torvosaurinae[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Taxonomy/Torvosaurinae has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Taxonomy/Sinraptoridae[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Taxonomy/Sinraptoridae has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Taxonomy/Hypacrosaurini[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Taxonomy/Hypacrosaurini has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

What lead to the decline of large flying animals[edit]

Someone over at the reference desk asked a question somewhat related to pterosaurs (although it may be outside your area of expertise), thought you might be able to offer some insight, Decline_of_large_aerial_predators ScienceApe (talk) 23:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)