User talk:Firsfron/Archive 11

Welcome to Firsfron's talk page

on Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit

Guidelines Please post your messages in accordance with these suggested guidelines: Please post new messages to the bottom of my talk page -- click here to do this automatically. Please use headlines when starting new talk topics. Please sign and date your entries by inserting --~~~~ at the end. As a general rule, expect responses on your talk page. Thank you for your cooperation. Archives Archive 1 -- August 5, 2005 - June 2, 2006 Archive 2 -- June 2, 2006 - June 25, 2006 Archive 3 -- June 25, 2006 - July 23, 2006 Archive 4 -- July 24, 2006 - August 19, 2006 Archive 5 -- August 19, 2006 - September 29, 2006 Archive 6 -- September 29, 2006 - December 2, 2006 Archive 7 -- December 3, 2006 - January 4, 2007 Archive 8 -- January 4, 2007 - March 22, 2007 Archive 9 -- March 22, 2007 - June 14, 2007 Archive 10 -- June 14, 2007 - September 24, 2007 Archive 11 -- September 24, 2007 - May 17, 2008 Archive 12 -- May 18, 2008 - October 18, 2008 Archive 13 -- October 18, 2008 - October 17, 2009 Archive 14 -- October 17, 2009 - May 9, 2010 Archive 15 -- May 9, 2010 - December 31, 2012 Archive 16 -- January 1, 2013 - October 24, 2022 These pages are kept for archival purposes only. Please do not modify them. Subsequent comments should be made at the bottom of this talk page. No further comments should be made on the above pages. Thank you. Messages

Messages here

YGM ;^)

Hello, Firsfron. 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.

jp×g 22:46, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Messages here

DYK

On 29 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Down You Go, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Allosaurus

Hi, Firs;
Thank you very much for having a look at the article! I put an idea on what to do with the typos on the talk page. J. Spencer 23:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'd rather not clear the top slot, just because it would feel odd for a mere genus to be tops, but there are at least three topics left for Paleobio (feeding/hunting, social behavior, and brain/senses), plus redoing the lead, plus a pop culture section with some notable appearances for a change, so it probably reaches 80 k in the end. J. Spencer 03:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

76.201.23.223

Apparently, the block failed -- he continued to vandalise after the block. -- azumanga 02:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

User Adam Cuerden improper blocks

I noticed that you posted to User talk:Adam Cuerden about the Dematt block. He has since abusively blocked a new user, which compelled me to post on WP:ANI. Your input is welcome. -Nodekeeper 12:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Adam's block of an apparent sockpuppet was perfectly legitimate. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I am far more concerned with Nodekeeper's actions in this instance, frankly.--Filll 15:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

What was wrong with starting a rational discussion on AN/I? Several of Adam's recent admin actions seem questionable (at least, they worry me, as I've said), so a rational discussion of a potential bad block seems reasonable to me. I don't see anything in Nodekeeper's actions which concern me. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You've got mail. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Responded! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 05:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the help!

Thanks for catching the punctuation error on Jamaican iguana!--Mike Searson 21:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Help me obi wan (Mt Gay Rum)

Hi Ed Wright here. I added a bit on Mt Gay Cane to "the" Mt Gay article. I got a note about using an image of the lable without permission. I now have permission. I am clueless....... be nice, about where to put/send it. So, I'll dump it on you with a request for guidance and/or assistance. TIA Ed

---

Original Message -----

Received: from sccrmwc134.ops.asp.att.net (sccrmwc134.asp.att.net[204.127.206.184](misconfigured sender))

         by sccrmxc12.comcast.net (sccrmxc12) with SMTP
         id <20071009132451s1200ng8u2e>; Tue, 9 Oct 2007 13:24:51 +0000

X-Originating-IP: [204.127.206.184] X-BLTSYMAVREINSERT: 3iOcgdMLoEcBDqr51t6Ea9c0RsoA Received: from smtp13-02.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net ([64.202.189.200])

         by sccrmxc23.comcast.net (sccrmxc23) with ESMTP
         id <20071009132120s2300aumaqe>; Tue, 9 Oct 2007 13:21:20 +0000

X-Originating-IP: [64.202.189.200] Received: (qmail 18652 invoked by uid 1000); 9 Oct 2007 13:21:19 -0000 Delivered-To: edw@thewrightsplace.us Received: (qmail 18650 invoked from network); 9 Oct 2007 13:21:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pre-smtp01-02.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net) ([64.202.166.24])

         (envelope-sender <webadmin@centauri.fullsix.com>)
         by smtp13-02.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (qmail-1.03) with SMTP
         for <edw@thewrightsplace.us>; 9 Oct 2007 13:21:19 -0000

Received: (qmail 26758 invoked from network); 9 Oct 2007 13:21:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO centauri.fullsix.com) ([195.154.98.162])

         (envelope-sender <webadmin@centauri.fullsix.com>)
         by pre-smtp01-02.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP
         for <edw@thewrightsplace.us>; 9 Oct 2007 13:21:18 -0000

Received: by centauri.fullsix.com (Postfix, from userid 1001)

id 2C3674F89B; Tue,  9 Oct 2007 14:57:38 +0200 (CEST)

To: Subject: Your message to Mount Gay Rum web site MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Consumer Service <consumerservice@mountgayrum.com> Reply-To: Please use the Link in the message <consumerservice@mountgayrum.com> To: edw@thewrightsplace.us Organization: Fullsix User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (Windows/20040803) X-Accept-Language: fr, en Content-Type: multipart/alternative;

From: "Consumer Service" <consumerservice@mountgayrum.com> To: <edw@thewrightsplace.us> Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 6:24 AM Subject: Your message to Mount Gay Rum web site

> boundary="=_c22dce1beb47b5552a124be18c4dafa7" > Message-Id: <20071009125738.2C3674F89B@centauri.fullsix.com> > Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 14:57:38 +0200 (CEST) > X-Antivirus: AVG for E-mail 7.5.488 [269.14.6/1059] > > > --=_c22dce1beb47b5552a124be18c4dafa7 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Dear Edward, > > Welcome on board Mount Gay Rum boat ! > > Thank you for taking the time to contact us. Adventures taste better when shared ! > > We agree on your using this image on your article in Wikipedia. > > Thank you for being part of the Mount Gay Rum family and if you are ever in Barbados, please feel free to come and see us in our Visitor Center at our Brandon's site. > > If you need any further details please do not hesitate to contact us again THROUGH THE LINK BELOW (do not click on Reply). > > Yours sincerely, > > Chantal Breuil > Mount Gay Rum Consumer Service > > > To reply, please use this link : > http://www.mountgayrum.com/contact/contact.dml?uid=4fa6ec6e23015183e48dacfc676f3518 >

>

<img src="footer.jpg">

> > --------- Message --------- > Hi. I contributed to an article in wikipedia > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Gay > about the wonders of Mt Gay Rum. I did without asking include a scan of the label. (Just haooened to have one around :-) ) Could I please have your permission to leave that image on wikipedia ? In fact could I have your permission to post images of all your rums to aquaint people with the BEST rum in the world. > Thank you > Sincerely > Ed Wright > --=_c22dce1beb47b5552a124be18c4dafa7 > Content-Type: multipart/related; > boundary="=_f29cf98a657449b96c0245897be86a01" > > --=_f29cf98a657449b96c0245897be86a01

Tense

Hi Firsfron,

Thank you for messaging me, I didn't realise that the show was from the 1950s when I corrected it because I wasn't taking a detailed look at my edits (I was just basically making sure my assisted editing didn't bork up any pages). I can tell you why I changed it though, it's because it's listed in the 2000 television series endings (probably for the NBC version).

I'm not exactly sure if past tense should be used on the article as I've never come across a situation such as this (I was editing pages listed in the 1990-2006 categories, so I never expected to run across any old shows). I won't revert you if you decide to change it back to "was" as it seems like there's a good case to use past tense.

The guideline you're looking for is WP:TENSE I think.

Have a good afternoon!

Matthew 14:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Italics

To make italic text, you need to use two ' symbols on each side of it, not one " symbol which gives you "non-italic text". See [1] Gene Nygaard 15:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Gene!

As the article explains, "Prodhania" is a nomen nudum: it hasn't yet been formally described, and the name appears in quotation marks until a full description has been made. See here for example, or check a book with lists of dinosaurs in them (Lambert, 1993 for example, has a good one). The List of dinosaurs, a Featured List, includes several dinosaur names which appear in quotes, because they haven't been fully published (names without complete descriptions, images, etc), and are therefore not italicized as a proper generic name would be. You've also added italics to the name of the paper discussing the fossils. This is not correct. An article within a larger work appears in quotation marks; the larger work appears in italics. This is the same format used in Featured Articles Iguanodon, Stegosaurus, Tyrannosaurus, etc, and the format supported by the WP:CITET templates. I'm reverting your changes for now. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 17:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

If you'd like, it's okay by me if you wan to move the discussion from my talk page to the Tree of Life project and ask for comment on it, rather than trying to start all over again. Gene Nygaard 00:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Lambeosaurus

Actually, I just created that template myself only a few hours ago. Obviously, as with any new template, it needs its kinks worked out. --lincalinca 05:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Forgive my ignorance, but can you clarify what you meant by that, when you say "Higher taxo"? Anyway, I'm waiting to hear more feedback about it and will start to pour over adjustment suggestions (I've brought it up at the pump for a wide audience). How would you suggest I implement these changes? Such as:

taxo     = Taxo-group
sub-taxo = Sub taxo-group

Again, sorry for my lack of knowledge when it comes to palaentology, dinosaurs, or even biology and anatomy. I never paid much attention in science classes in these fields. I was much more interested in mathematics and physics (because they were more closely related to music). --lincalinca 05:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've modified the template to accept both "species" which is the specific species, such as Lambeosaurus, while I also have "highspecies" which is Animalia and such, so that the user can specify a high specimen if necessary which will not italify, while sub-groups (selected simply as "species") will italify. Is that what you were after? --lincalinca 05:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

For the purpose of keeping it simple, what if I just made it "hightax" and keep "species" as it is? I can indicate in the usage page that "species" reers to both genus and species and that "hightax" refers only to Higher Level Taxonomy (though I'd rather leave the specific wording to you, as you're clearly more of an expert in the field than I am). I'll put some basic info, but if you could let me know how it "really" should look, I'd appreciate the help! --lincalinca 06:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Velociraptor fair use

Hi Firsfron, I am pretty sure that image is not fair use as otherwise we could use the depiction of anything in a film or tv programme in an article about that thing. I will consult further. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 11:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, please re-read WP:NFC#10(a) as regards Fair Use images, a copyright holder must be provided, I know many people forget this, myself included, as well as most users I would say. Perhaps I did not use the correct deletion tag, however I could not find a more appropriate one, and I asked at WP:AN but nobody answered and my question was archived. Jackaranga 09:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Rinconsaurus

No problem, :) I also wanted to take up User:J. Spencers hadrosaur jaw diagram but I quikly realised it would take ages and i'm really buisy with Uni work. Got my dissertation to be writting :( Anyway, I'll post the results soon. Steveoc 86 12:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Drake Hogestyn

First, hello again. Second, I'd like your assistance in yet another dispute, this time regarding Drake Hogestyn, aka "John Black" from Days of Our Lives. I made some corrections and removed some redundant links, but CelticGreen continues to revert back. I have commented and explained my changes on hisHER talk page, and heSHE removed my comments, labeling the discussion as "irrelevant". HeShe has accused me of knowing nothing about the character, and even less about being a Wikipedia editor. Please assist? Rollosmokes 06:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

IMO the discussion, as I am DONE with it, is irrelevant. If it was relevant, I would still be participating, but as it stands I'M DONE. Do whatever you want, make it look like crap, I don't care, hence why the discussion is irrelevant. I did not delete the conversation, I archived it, as I'm ALLOWED to do. If I'm no longer involved in an issue, and there is a discussion on my talk page, I am completely allowed to archive the discussion (I've asked before). I stand by my opinions of your knowledge of the character and responding to other editors. I left you a message on your talk page, it should have stayed there, not bounced all over between, now THREE talk pages, four if you count my archive page. I don't intend to, I don't want to, and I have to laugh that Rollosmokes says ANOTHER dispute. Obviously he's the one who can't deal with people otherwise it wouldn't be "another" dispute, but then again, it's only his self-perceived dispute. I just wanted the article to align with the soap project but he doesn't and it's too important to him for me to deal with it any longer. The matter is only disputed in Rollosmokes' mind. Lastly, I didn't REVERT squat, I made changes throughout. And I'm a SHE.CelticGreen 21:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You might want to really look at all the changes I made and all the crap Rollosmokes put back in that shouldn't be there ~ INCLUDING A TRIVIA SECTION that I had incorporated into the article. He took all the changes out just because I made them and he should know trivia sections are not to be in articles if they can be incorporated into the article, which I did. As for the "it's" and "its" I corrected the entire sentence to make it more accurate and like a child that has to have his way, Rollosmokes reverted it just "because he wanted to". No wonder he's had "other disputes" and pages he's worked on look so bad. I've now tagged the article as needing citations, which it does. He wanted it to look like crap, now it's been tagged because it lacks no citations and is the personal property of one editor as he won't allow others to edit it. Have fun. Just clean it up and tell Rollos not to violate my talk page adding this discussion again. I'm done. This is ridiculous and he's being petty.CelticGreen 21:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the article I seen you've sided with Rolo regardless of content of the article. Did you really EVER look at the FINAL changes I made? It really seems you've taken his side rather than looking at the final edits. If not, you need to further explain your actions allowing his horrid edits to stand.CelticGreen 03:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Input requested

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

Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		I notice you do good, general work around the place, and make quality edits. Regards, -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thescelosaurus

You're quite welcome. No real difference with Thescelosaurus; the Anglicized pronunciation has /s/, but people will say /sk/ if they want a "Classical" pronunciation. (They'll usually try giving the vowels their Latin values too.) Since the Classical pron. is easily predictable from the spelling, I took it out. kwami 12:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Rollosmokes

I tried to "play nice" and make several changes to the Drake Hogestyn page in accordance to MOS and in neutrality to both CelticGreen and Rollosmokes. Instead, I received aggressive edit summaries and an aggressive reply along with a personal attack on CelticGreen on my talk page along with an accusation of making comments on your talk page (prior to this). I've cleaned up the article, but I would like you to address Rollosmokes as he appears somewhat unreasonable in all of this. I tried to be neutral but the response I received was very aggressive and antagonistic. Could you please address the situation. Thank you. Nice day to you! IrishLass0128 18:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

(sorry, don't mean to keep editing, but I did want to add one thing.) The more I assess the comments by Rollosmokes, the more I find it also a personal act of incivility toward me in the tone and calling me stubborn. If you don't mind, would you also please address that.IrishLass0128 18:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm about to throw my hands up in the air and scream that I just don't care...anymore. I saw that IrishLass0128 basically reverted my corrections on the Drake Hogestyn page. But to me, the biggest problem I'm having is that he/she is trying to claim that I am damaging the article and (s)he is the one fixing it. Compare my last revision with IrishLass' earliest from today ([2]) and you'll see what I mean. And this is AFTER I outlined my changes -- and the reasons for them -- in the article's talk page.

And, I will not take back my use of the words "stubborn" and the phrase "do your homework" that got me slapped with an unfair charge of incivility. For starters, I don't think that I was all that harsh. And after seeing how all this is unfolding, my characterization of these particular users are justified as far as I'm concerned. Some people just can't handle the truth. Rollosmokes 16:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your previous help, Firsfron. Due to the repeated attacks, I'm taking this to other admins. Clearly he has stated he will not show good faith and will not discontinue the personal attacks. Thank you for trying. I do appreciate it. I just think at this time, the situation needs to be escalated. IrishLass0128 16:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Back to editing Petey

Join in when you have time!  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

So, what gets capitalized, what gets italicized? I've got to remember to wikilink, capitalize, italicize, oversize, and stand on my head. I'd rather get drunk. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Fangs very much

Now if you had to prioritize the most significant vampire movies - like here from here, which would you choose o buffy-phile? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you From the apostrophe abuser

Thanks for correcting me, I know better, but my fingers disobey me when I'm typing on my laptop :) yeah I know, excuses, excuses...Cheers--Tallard 05:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Shady Grove, Iowa

Why should an 11 line, year old article talking about people building more homes in Shady Grove, Iowa be an external link? Link: http://www.radioiowa.com/gestalt/go.cfm?objectid=967A9F41-A673-7760-7A3DD644B3177A10 Cbogwill 13:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You are horrified at what I'm doing? How many links are too many? Why doesn't Chicago, Illinois have every credible new article with an interview linked in their external links?

Furthermore, the link provides no more information than is in the article. If anything, shouldn't it be a reference, not an external link?

The basis I removed that link on was item #1 from [[3]]: Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article. Cbogwill 19:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:DABS

Heeeyyyy - can me make one at WP:Birds, and WP: Fungi? How do we go about it? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I left this note, do I need to tell him anything else? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Allosaurus

Check it out now. J. Spencer 00:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Admin coaching

I would like to thank you for being an admin coach of mine and giving me many advice on various aspects of Wikipedia. I would like to announce that Wizardman has nominated me for admin at WP:RFA. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Parasaurolophus_crest_interior.jpg

Hi, I'm from the German Wikipedia. I like to use this Parasaurolophus picture for our Parasaurolophus article in the German Wikipedia (that is mostly a translation from the english one). I want to ask if I could upload it and the image description into the Wikimedia Commons? Thank you, --Jens Lallensack 22:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Destiny of an Emperor

Hello, Firsfron. I noticed your minor change (it's > its) to the Destiny of an Emperor article and thought perhaps you could clear something up for me. I noticed the incorrect grammar when I added the sentence, however, since it's contained within a direct quote, I was unsure whether or not I could correct it. Isn't altering quotes in any way a violation of policy? Gamer Junkie 09:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Gamer Junkie!

Thanks for the head's-up! We should not alter direct quotes, but it was not clear to me that this is how it was spelled in the original; if you add a sentence which has incorrect grammar, add [sic] or [sic] to the incorrect part to let the copyeditor know that it's really the mistake of the source, not Wikipedia. You can read sic for more details. I should mention that the source you're using ("Destiny of an Emperor Walkthrough") isn't a great source, and these sorts of self-published pages are more likely to contain amateurish spelling and grammar: the sorts of pages we want to avoid when sourcing articles. I have adjusted it so the sentence will probably not be corrected again, but watch out for quotes like this, and consider finding quotes which don't make the cited source look amateurish. Hope this helps!  :) Firsfron of Ronchester 10:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Believe me when I tell you that I searched extensively for a far more credible reference to add. The problem is that games like DoaE are so old that authentic reviews don't exist online, only in magazines. So until somebody with a few gaming magazines from the 80s decides to scan a legitimate review onto the web, we're forced to utilise what little we have available. As for quotes, I'll use sic from now on. I'm new to gathering references and I've been using "these" instead. Cheers. Gamer Junkie 10:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep. When I find a DoaE magazine review, that'll be the first thing I do... when I find one :) Gamer Junkie 10:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Civility

Have you thought about warning OM about his incivility? Or are you only on my case? Turtlescrubber 04:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I take it that you are only on my case. I would still ask you to warn user about his incivility and ask him to remove his personal attacks. That would deescalate the situation. Only criticizing me is an unfair way to handle this situation. Turtlescrubber 04:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

SO he can call me a troll all he wants. So he can revert every edit of mine that he wants to. So he doesn't have to use the talk page, which I have. He has called me a troll five or six times now. He has removed the pov tag without discussion multiple times. I am not a procreationist religious editor if that is what either of you are thinking. All I care about is sourcing and I am getting the short end of the stick from everybody, and especially from you. As an administrator you should hold yourself to a higher standard than this. I am obviously some kind of troll in your eyes and you should be ashamed of yourself as an administrator of wikipedia. Check the sourcing, it sucks. Check the edit history, it's on my side. Removing a pov tag without discussion by an editor that chose not to engage in an edit war is vandalism. Punishing one editor when allowing another editor to do whatever he wants shows a definite lack of integrity. I am done with all of this and will stop editing that article. I assume that is what everyone wants. Please fix the sourcing on that citation. Please read my comments on the talk page. Please warn OM to be civil and stop calling people trolls. Please remember why you became an admin in the first place. Turtlescrubber 04:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, all of this is obviously my fault. Should I apologize to everyone involved? Turtlescrubber 05:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it was a big mistake of mine to disagree with your friend. Great job as an impartial administrator. Turtlescrubber 13:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Your response to OM, "means some admin (not me) is going to see those diffs and end up blocking you again." BFF. Turtlescrubber 21:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

online?

Are you online? Could you do me a favor and take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New relationship energy? I am trying to close it.. --Fang Aili ^talk 00:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

ST47 batch block of supposed Tor nodes

Firs: I have noted at Wikipedia:Tor that ST47 did a batch of lengthy (five year) blocks that now mostly report NAK via http://www.as3344.net/is-tor/ . I think that if he used whatever data he found on http://torlist.nullnetwork.net/ at the time, then I suspect that he has been duped or acted preemptively and without substantial cause. Based on the speed with which he touched the IP's User_talk pages, I would guess that he used a scripting tool. I have to wonder how much time he put into evaluating these IP addresses before he applied the five-year blocks. Could somebody review this and, if appropriate, undo most/all of the blocks? I would think that the only rational basis for a block would be being listed as both Stable and Exit_node by https://torstat.xenobite.eu/ or to test positively more than once as an exit node with the as3344 tool. The Xenobite report only lists about 200 stable exit nodes.--Straightpress 14:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Turtlescrubber and civility

Firs, since you and I edit a lot of articles together and got Katie to FA status (and I'm slowly working on Petey), and you are one of the most impartial admins out there (despite what Turtlescrubber said), I kept some comments to myself. However, now that a couple of days passed, I want to make several points:

1. My statement that "I owe you shit," to Turtlescrubber's inane request for an apology was perfectly written. It was not even close to a personal attack. I doubt it violated any rules of Wikipedia, since censorship is specifically not allowed. It might have been uncivil, but who makes that interpretation. I grew up in California, which is definitely laid back, but I lived a significant amount of time in New York and Paris, where civility barely exists. My point is that even partially threatening a block on civility is unacceptable in the real world or here. I have never once complained about civility, and rarely any other issues, except vandalizing.
2. Turtlescrubber is a troll. Coming to my user page repeatedly (after being asked to stay off, which is technically my right), and starting it with an immature and childish demand for an apology qualifies high on the troll scale. You might consider a personal attack, but 5 or 6 reversions of my talk page qualifies as a troll.
3. The 3RR warning was correct. Turtlescrubber was reverting consensus material, and unexplained deletion of material can be reverted. In fact, I believe I could justify 12RR on my part, to maintain a consensus. However, given that there are a few incompetent admins looking for a reason to block me, I watch that area carefully.
4. In the end, Turtlescrubber proved his worth to this project by what he wrote above about you. Why do we waste a nanosecond on these types is beyond me. He is now marked. Wait till the admins who actually care about that article focus on it. It might be interesting.

These are my points. I hope you give me credit that I actually help this project, but my tolerance of fools is nonexistent. We waste time with the Turtlescrubbers of this project. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

OrangeMarlin and Civility

I mean for god's sake, he just doesn't stop. You seem to be okay with him calling me a troll and a fool. What did I do? I tried to make legitimate edits, I didn't edit war on that page. Yeah, I reverted his talk page after "I don't owe you shit" and saying that I was "whining", calling my edits pov and calling me troll a dozen times. All I did was edit a page in a way that he didn't like. My first edit was taking out plagiarism. My second was for a poor citation (later proven on the talk page). My third was was to add a pov tag and my fourth was reverting the removal of that tag without discussion. What is trollish about that? I used the talk page. I used edit summaries. Then I get badgered by someone who doesn't know civility from a hole in the ground. Then you let him walk all over me. I am ready to walk away from this whole situation, but I keep seeing troll, troll, troll attached to my name. I have edited here for months without problem. This has to stop, now. Turtlescrubber 03:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

GA nomination of Ceratopsia

Reviewed and passed! I have no suggestions for improvement, either. This is the best GA candidate I've seen yet! Good job! Mmoyer 02:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Continuing discussion

As one of the administrators involved in the case and/or in its discussions, I think it would be useful if you could comment on the latest here and here. Your input earlier was valuable, and it would be good to have your ideas in how to proceed. Thank you in advance, Mondegreen 17:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Acro

Sorry I have been away... got kinda busy at work after I got back, and then it got even more busy what with the absolutely ridiculous amounts of fire just freaking everywhere a couple weeks ago. Since then I have been drinking a lot (it was Halloween!) and being lazy (my natural state). But I just de-redlinked the article and I'm okay with sending it to FAC if you think it's ready (hint: yes). Sheep81 06:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Apparently I live in the only neighborhood of San Diego that didn't need to be evacuated. I mostly watched the fires on TV, which is a good thing. Sheep81 07:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This is the price you pay for living in paradise. :) Actually San Diego doesn't have too many earthquakes. Lots of fires though. I actually grew up in the Bay Area which is pretty much the opposite in that and so many other ways. Sheep81 07:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Masso ref

Do you still need Erickson et al (2001) "Dinosaurian growth patterns and rapid avian growth rates." Nature 412: 429-433 doi:10.1038/35086558?

If so, i have it and have scanned through it. It has a bit on growth rates of Massospondylus, but not much on the actual mass. It does have a ref to a paper which has supposedly calculated the mass:
Chinsamy (1993) A. Bone histology and growth trajectory of the prosauropod dinosaur Massospondylus carinatus Owen. Modern Geology 18, 319-329

If you need the paper, just yell and i'll get it to you via email. Cheers Kare Kare 12:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

...sent. Kare Kare 02:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

OhanaUnited's RfA

Hello Firsfron, thanks for voting at my RfA. Unfortunately, the result stands at 51 support, 21 oppose and 7 neutral which means that I did not succeed. As many expressed their appreciation of my works in featured portals during my RfA, I will fill up the vacuum position of director in featured portal candidates to maintain the standards of featured contents in addition to my active role in Good articles. As for admin coaching issue, I need some time to think about it. Have a great day. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Dinocephalosaurus

Hi, Firs;

If you get a minute, could you move Dinocephalosaurus orientalis to Dinocephalosaurus? Someone suggested it on the talk page, but the genus name has a brief history (otherwise I'd have done it myself). J. Spencer 02:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! J. Spencer 02:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

masso refs

I have the last one in PDF, will email it to you. I also have the first two in print form. Sheep81 03:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a scanner, sure. Also turns out that I have the 2002 SVP abstracts in PDF form, so that takes care of #2 Sheep81 04:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

All right, sent the scanned version of #1 also. Have you seen the following refs?

• Gow et al. 1990. Skulls of the prosauropod dinosaur Massospondylus carinatus Owen in the collections of the Bernard Price Institute for Paleontological Research. Palaeontologia Africana 27: 47-58.
• Gow 1990. Morphology and growth of the Massospondylus braincase. Palaeontologia Africana 27: 59-75.

Another question: how many of the refs in the article do you actually have? Because I don't have some of them and I would like them! Sheep81 04:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you send me #2? In fact, I would love any papers you have from that volume. Sheep81 05:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, what kind of curiosities?? Sheep81 05:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Yeah I have never gotten my hands on that volume surprisingly. Sheep81 07:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No idea, I just happened across the references. I've never seen them and don't have access to that journal sadly. Sheep81 08:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Temporal paradox (paleontology)

I just came across this article that seems to be an offshoot of the origin of birds page. It deals with Deinonychosauria and the fact they are mostly Creatceous in origin while aves were up and running by the end of the Jarassic. Therefore aves could't have evolved from deinonychosaurs etc etc. Anyway it's not Dino tagged and in need of formatting, so i will leave it with you. Kare Kare 08:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the style of the article is unencyclopedic and slightly confused. There's hardly even a case for merging with Origin of birds, as you said, it's just duplicated for the most part. Kare Kare 09:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Scientific peer review

SPR is not inactive. The reviews are added to a transcluded page. There has been one added only yesterday. It certainly be more active, but you were wrong that the last review was added in September. I try to keep an eye on it and also transclude the review to WP:PR to get more discussion, but I have been overseas and then rather busy and not well since my return. --Bduke 11:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Section 230 Expert

It's a user who was banned, for among other things, paid editing. He has a vendetta against Wikipedia and actively engages in harassing admins. east.718 at 05:19, 11/12/2007

Aerodramus

Thanks for your helpful comments, which I will try to address within the next 24. Most of the uncited stuff on appearance and behaviour comes from Swifts, listed in the refs. How do I cite to that without multiple occurrences of the same source in the reflist? I've not put up an article for GA before, so I'm groping in the dark a bit. Jimfbleak 11:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It works! I've starting on the refs, much more to do. Jimfbleak 11:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I think I've fixed the refs, added a couple more, expanded the description and Papuan Swiftlet sections in particular, and tweaked everything in sight. What else needs to be done? Thanks Jimfbleak 15:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

And thank you again - next time I'll hopefully have more idea what I'm doing, but I appreciate that a first attempt makes a lot o work for the reviewer. Jimfbleak 17:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Bone Wars

Haha! Wow, I must have had a brain fart there, hehe (I was going for carnivaur for some bizarre reason). Nishkid64 (talk) 03:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Pachycephalosaurus

Hey, Firsfron! (Nice name by the way.) With regard to sources for pachy data, I'm usually grossly ill-off. Most of my information is drawn from such papers as that mentioned Carpenter document on flank-butting and (from among my bookmarks tab:) Sullivan's rather wide-ranging paper on the clade as a whole. I've never really had any luck finding reliable printed material on pachycephalosaurs (but then again, I have never really looked). For me, google, as always, is particularly resourceful when it comes to unearthing rare gems of pachy info. ;)

Sorry I couldn't be of much help, Qwo 03:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Aerodramus

Re ref 3, seen the comment - I've got to go out now but will fix later. Because I didn't put in the weblinks initially, it's likely that I made a mistake when I searched again Jimfbleak 08:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I’m not sure of your point with this – in the first para it says The paucity of distinguishing morphological characters among swiftlets has led to a reliance on behavioral characters, such as echolocation and nest structure, to arrange taxa. and Swiftlet nests are constructed with salivary "glue" and may or may not incorporate other materials such as vegetation or feathers (Fig. 1). Variation in nest composition has been used to discriminate between swiftlet taxa and to infer evolutionary relationships (13, 14). However, nest structure may be environmentally plastic (15), raising questions about the utility of nest characters in swiftlet taxonomy (8). Behavioral characters are often viewed as less reliable

Also fig 1 caption Swiftlet nests showing species-specific variation in characters used for swiftlet taxonomy. Illustrations are of voucher nests collected from populations also sampled for DNA work. (Upper Left) A. fuciphagus vestitus nest made entirely of, and vertically supported by, salivary "glue" (A. fuciphagus is the only species with a pure saliva nest). (Upper Right) A. maximus nest made of saliva and feathers and vertically supported. (Middle) A. brevirostris nest made of saliva, feathers, and vegetation and vertically supported. (Lower Left) A. spodiopygius assimilis nest made of saliva and vegetation and vertically supported. (Lower Right) A. sawtelli nest made of ...

Forgive me if I'm being dim, but surely this is saying that nest structure has been used to differentiate taxa - or is the referenced sentence unclear? Jimfbleak 09:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Saw the GA, many, many thanks for your forbearance and help. With luck, the next one will start from a higher standard. Jimfbleak 05:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

dinothoughts

Hi Firs, I took a look at Ceratopsia and Dromaeosauridae. I do have some thougths, that possibly can be helpful to you. Don't let anything I say be distressing, as I'm merely sharing first impressions. If any of my points seem unreasonable it's likely because they are. I am open about my bias: though I strive for thoroughness and rigor, my interest in the topics comes from an interest in conservation. (Hence my focus on rhinos rather than dinos!) My point: I am no expert here.

• I'm not entirely sure what "paleobiology" indicates in these articles. Why, for example, is feathers included in a paleobiology section instead of "characteristics"? Wouldn't a section like anatomy or characteristics be paleobiology as well?
• In Droma' the first section is "characteristics" but in C-tops it's "anatomy." Is there a distinction being made here, or could "characteristics" be a standard?
• In "Systematics" do you think it would be worth adding a section on "evolution"? Phylogeny covers evolution of the genera within a family, but does not cover the placement of the family itself. What were the ancestors of C-topses, what are their sister families? I think this would be especially important for extant families.
• I think it could be useful to give physical comparisons of the genera within a family. Explaining the extent of the variation, and the ways in which they differ. Perhaps even a table comparing key differences? I'm not sure if that would always be practical to compile, but it would certainly be interesting.
• All in all, I do think it's good to keep these articles at higher-levels -- family, order, etc. -- shorter, like you've done here.

Well, those comments probably aren't particular useful, but it's given me a lot of food for thought! (p.s. glad to finally make your acquaintance. Been an admirer since I stumbled upon Styracosaurus over the summer.) --JayHenry (talk) 23:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, certainly include my initial thoughts and your responses at WT:DINO. I'll think about it some more and check in on the conversation from time to time. Also, I will check out Acrocanthosaurus hopefully sometime this weekend. --JayHenry (talk) 11:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

T. Rex, Spino, Giga

If you noticed I never did full changes. It is incorrect to say that Spinosaurus is the largest since it has NOT been officially confirmed. Nor has it been confirmed for T-Rex or Giga. Overall yes these three are the main competitors. Also do to the fact that I have read that the most recent Spino is believed to be an old animal. However, with Tyrannosaurus and Giganotosaurus specimens they are considered not to be old(meaning they are done growing yearly) animals have not been truely found. Also not once did I say T-Rex is the largest, or the others. Remember length of the animal does not mean it is the biggest. That is why I specifically changed the saying of largest canivore. Mcelite (talk) 08:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)mcelite

In addition, i'm curious where is your resource stating that t-rex now has 3 digits instead of 2????? When was that discovery made??Mcelite (talk) 08:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)mcelite

Anasazisaurus

Hi, Firs;

Do you think you could re-upload Anasazisaurus? The version there currently has Utah's San Juan County linked instead of New Mexico's. Thanks! J. Spencer (talk) 16:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I've thought about joining Veropedia, but I don't think that I have the time to devote to two projects (he says with no sense of irony); that, and I'm never completely satisfied with an article (at least not any of the articles I've worked on). I think my skillset is probably more useful on this end. J. Spencer (talk) 00:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean that I'm down on the articles, or that I think they're bad, I just think that they could always be better. Obviously, there comes a time when diminishing returns kick in, but I'm firmly of the camp that sees an article as an evolving thing that's never truly finished or complete. On the other hand, as you noted I'm also a perfectionist, so even though I know they can never be perfect, I can't help but to try. :) J. Spencer (talk) 01:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Dinosaur - popularity of sculptor Jim Gary 1990 Smithsonian exhibit

Hi 83,

Thank you for your contributions to Dinosaur. Your input into the content of this article is appreciated. However, I did again revert your changes to this article. It reads like an ad: "The director of the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C., Larry O'Reilly, stated that the clever and appealing dinosaurs created by sculptor Jim Gary, put on exhibition by the museum for four months during 1990, attracted the largest attendance on record for the museum." and is supported by this reference, which does not say anything about four months, or (more importantly) the statement that "the exhibit attracted the largest attendance on record for the museum." That part is not cited, and since it's probably the only part that could be used in a section discussing the popularity of dinosaurs, I have removed it.

Dinosaur is a Featured Article, meaning it represents the best of Wikipedia's articles, with good citations from reliable sources. The sources need to confirm what we say in the article. The obituary you used does not do that. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 01:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I felt that it was extremely germane to the article because of the indication of popularity and was rather dumbfounded by the reason for removal. I must have used the wrong reference for this aspect because one of the sources I had found quoted the director about the draw. Perhaps it was in the Smithsonian magazine article published in 1990. I'll track that down and come back to the article when I can provide a reference for that evaluation of the exhibit. Will copy this to your page also. 83d40m (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC) 83d40m (talk) 19:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi 83,

Thanks for your understanding. I look forward to your further contributions on dinosaur-related articles. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 19:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

You are most welcome -- I think we are here to help one another create the best articles we can for our readers -- nice to have someone take the time to explain a terse comment that could be misunderstood, positive reinforcement and all that...! -- 83d40m (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Notability Standard for Radio and TV Stations

After being struck down in his attempt to have the articles on radio stations WRNY and WRRC deleted, Mr.Z-man has made an attempt at changing the notability standard for Radio and TV stations. This is a REALLY bad idea. This puts not only the work of WP:WPRS, but the work of WP:TVS, and potentially Wikipedia itself at risk. We need to let Mr.Z-man know that changing the notability standard for Radio and TV stations is a bad idea...REALLY bad idea. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 23:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

...and obviously he isn't done. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 23:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I just went slightly overboard on the Village Pump. I hope what I wrote made a point and didn't sound like a raving nutcase. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 05:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Question

I was wondering if you had an experience in adding the MediaWiki software to a website. I ask, becuase I am considering starting my own "wiki" for radio and TV stations and newspapers...a "MediaPedia", if you will :) Only problem is, I don't know how to load the software onto a website. If you would know how, or know someone who does, I would appericate any help you can give. Take Care...NeutralHomer ^T:C 03:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I was brainstorming and I said "MediaPedia"...and my Mom (who was visting at the time) was like "that's a cool name". After tossing it and a couple others around with some online friends, MediaPedia it was. I am glad you like it.

I think maybe it is time to take the media section to another place. Without the notability rules and all the crap that goes on here. Where the articles can be and people won't be almost afraid to add to them thinking "if I do, it will just get deleted, so why bother". I think MediaPedia would be a place for it. I think I can get someone to put the MediaWiki software on there for me (that part is a bit over my head) and the rest should be easy. When it's finished (which is will be a-forever-work-in-progress) I think it will be nice :) Take Care....NeutralHomer ^T:C 04:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The "Canvassing" Mention

On the Village Pump, it was brought up that I "canvassed" for votes. I don't canvass, it's goofy and wrong. I let you and several other members of WP:WPRS and WP:TVS know what was going on. I voiced my opinion but I didn't tell you "you should vote against this" or "you should vote for this". That, again, as we all know, would be wrong. Well, now everyone thinks I canvassed (look at the tag at the top of the pump thread). I guess I should have just stayed quite and let it all be deleted, I guess.

Also, I didn't user IRC (never really understood IRC myself)...just the people who I posted to, I let know what was going on. It kinda sucks when you are told off for letting people know about something that is going on and voicing your opinion. Oh well....NeutralHomer ^T:C 06:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I know...but I didn't think people would get so peev'd that I voiced my opinion too. If you all would have sided with Mr.Z-man, I would have respected that. I have been the lone supporter of something before...but I wouldn't have tried to make you "cross the isle" (so to speak). *sigh* makes my head hurt. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 06:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Chin up, my friend!

I know this latest cr@p over notability is causing you to wonder if Wikipedia is worth it, but don't let it get to you. We've been through this before with Sandstein and others questioning notability, with A Man In Black and others questioning fair use images, with copyvio accusations, and with article deletion noms, but reason and logic have won out before, and I believe that they will again. We're dealing with a lot people who are ignorant to the special circumstance that broadcast stations work under, but when exposed to the facts, they usually see the light. Those who don't at least see our determination. Besides, I'd be willing to explain my POV 100 times if I didn't have to deal with Dingbat again!! ;-) dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Rotational blocking

Hello Firs You welcomed me when I first contributed to WP under the name Rotational. Rkitko has arranged that I be blocked, because of similarities in my editing style with Raasgat. I can't defend myself against the charge as I cannot place a note anywhere, being indefinitely blocked. For that reason I have resorted to using this temporary name to bring the situation to your attention. All I ask is that you look into my editing history and the charges against me. Thank you Physicist68 (talk) 15:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Firs, I am enormously grateful for your assistance in sorting out this sorry mess. You have no idea what a relief it is to be able to edit again - I can see what is meant by WP addiction. Thank you. Rotational (talk) 21:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

3rd Digit

Wow! That is something else. Well that's gonna change some things in the books. Mcelite (talk) 23:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)mcelite

It there a way we can organize a discussion or something because I'm getting tired of people trying to say who't the biggest carnivore. It hasn't been officially declared for Spinosaurus, Tyrannosaurus Rex, or Giganotosaurus. I'm not sure if it's people trying to show favortism or it they have been miss informed about the situation.Mcelite (talk) 23:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)mcelite

Dinosaur

Perforated acetabulum is neither a necessary nor a suffiecient condition for erect limbs, so my object was correct.

The stego image was just eye-candy, the hip images explain the accompanying text. If the duplication bothers you, remove them from later because they help the reader more at the point where "ornithischian" and "saurischian" is defined. If removing them later causes problems, you may need to re-examine the structure of the article.

Re "It's Featured Article ...", FA status merely means it conforms to the stylistic prejudices of some committee, not that it's good. I'm posting a list of flaws to the Talk page.Philcha (talk) 13:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Silesaurus

I am afraid I didn't write that inline citation. It was there, and I simply moved it. I do edit articles when the 'spirit' moves me though, so if, in time, I realize I am doing it more, I'll join the project. One of my favorite things is to make these articles readable—the science heads tend to forget the wide audience that Wikipedia is suppsosed to reach, writing things with much more wordiness than necessary sometimes. Anyway, thanks for the kind words and the invitation!Denn333 (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Gastromyths

It's been pretty convincingly shown by Wings and Sander that gastroliths as popularly conceived are not tenable for the majority of dinosaurs (here's a quick pop summation) (wrong size, wrong size load, don't come out polished, etc.), and internal stones mostly accidental or taken in for purposes other than digestion. I can't comment on the specific case of Massospondylus, but since Wings is a coauthor, it should be safe. I have no clue where the thing about migration (in the Dinosaur article) is from. J. Spencer (talk) 00:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

That's just prosauropods for ya; they've had very little attention over the years, and when they are studied, it always contradicts the previous study. J. Spencer (talk) 14:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it, but it's not a bad article; the subject is just in a state of flux. J. Spencer (talk) 23:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:HEAD concern

Hi, Firs! Thanks for engaging in that discussion with me and Rlevse on his talk page earlier. It was very illuminating and you both are excellent admins. I happened to notice this contribution after you left a suggestion for the user to stick to WP:HEAD. I would have left a note reminding the user of the headings style guide, but I thought it in bad taste given our past discussions. I also wanted to make someone else aware of it. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 16:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Which part of WP:HEAD does that edit violate? Firsfron of Ronchester 16:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

In particular, "Nest headings correctly. The hierarchy is as follows: the automatically generated top-level heading of a page is H1, which gives the article title; primary headings are then ==H2==, followed by ===H3===, ====H4====, and so on." This is also spelt out Wikipedia:Guide to layout#Headers and paragraphs. I have even asked for clarification on the MOS talk pages here and here. The few responses I received confirmed what the guide lays out. In that diff, Rotational used H3 instead of H2 as the primary headings. In other edits, he'll use H4 as the primary. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 17:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Do you really think not adding two more equal signs requires administrator intervention? Firsfron of Ronchester 17:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

No, not administrator intervention, but perhaps another editor. I wasn't sure if I should drop a note on Rotational's talk page given our past conversations (and your note on his talk page to avoid confrontation with me) so I was letting you know. Perhaps this appears to be nitpicking, but if you follow the conversation on Raasgat's talk page, this is a symptom of a larger problem (namely WP:OWN where the user has warned others not to make changes they oppose to their pages; Rotational has not yet done this, should I have waited until he did?). Maybe it won't happen this time around. Regardless, since a lot of these pages he creates show up on the AlexNewArtBot/Plants page and I clean up the ones I find there, what course of action should I follow? Should I ignore Rotational's contributions or clean them up? I'd appreciate your input. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 18:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Firs, thanks for the good discussion and your input. Agreed that MOS is just a guideline and I apologize for jumping the gun. I certainly hope his contributions don't devolve into an ownership issue, but I'll let you know if I happen upon something in the future. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 18:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Guard of New Prussia

This article is probably a hoax or non-notable, but as an anon I can't nominate for deletion. I notice you edited this article - would you mind nominating it for deletion (assuming you agree with my assessment)? More info on the talk page. 199.71.183.2 (talk) 16:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Paleontological Institute of Russian Academy of Sciencies

The title of this article is spelled wrong. Can we move the content and history over to a new article with the correct spelling? Thanks! Sheep81 (talk) 03:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I never noticed that before! I thought an admin had to do it. *prepares to move Firsfron's talk page to Danny Bonaduce* Mwahahahaha... Sheep81 (talk) 03:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, this is my newest sockpuppet. You can also call me Woolly on Wheels (har har har). Sheep81 (talk) 04:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Now I see. So I was partly right. I'm not really interested in being an admin right now (maybe not ever) but thanks for the vote of confidence! Sheep81 (talk) 04:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Sweet, it would go perfectly with my bitchin' Camaro! :) Sheep81 (talk) 04:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW, Happy Turkey Day, you fellow American you! I am going out to a late dinner right now, hope you had/are having/will have a good Thanksgiving as well. Sheep81 (talk) 04:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For reverting vandalism to my user page :) Mushroom (Talk) 13:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Abelisauridae

Hi,

Thanks for your message.

I am pleased to announce that Abelisauridae has achieved GA Status.

Congratulations,

Tovojolo (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of The Mall at Sierra Vista

The Mall at Sierra Vista, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that The Mall at Sierra Vista satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mall at Sierra Vista and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of The Mall at Sierra Vista during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry For The Misunderstanding

Hi Firsfron. Sorry for the late reply the holiday has slowed me down. Thank You for the links I find them very interesting. I apologize if it seemed that I was favoring T-Rex in any way. I purposely put possibly the largest because I understand fully that T-Rex may not be the largest, and in the T.Rex article I changed it to possibly larger due to the skull that was reconstructed and turned out to be larger than Sue's skull. My only concern is the comparision between Giganotosaurus and Tyrannosaurus. Since there hasn't been a Gigano skeleton actually taller than the most recent T-Rex skeletons we've found. Longer yes indeed I have no issue with that at all, but length doesn't mean that the animal will be taller. Also T-Rex is more heavily built than Gigano. What do you think? Mcelite (talk) 00:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)mcelite

Spiffier triple crown, new awards available

Imperial triple crown jewels.

Hi, I've been sprucing up the triple crown awards. Here's the new version of the imperial triple crown jewels you've already earned. Feel free to replace your old one with this if you like the new version better. I've also introduced two new triple crown awards for editors who've done a lot of triple crown work: the Napoleonic and Alexander the Great edition awards. If you're active in a WikiProject, check out the new offer for custom WikiProject triple crowns. I'll make those upon request if five or more editors qualify. See User:Durova/Triple crown winner's circle for more information. Thanks for your hard work, and cheers! Durova^Charge! 22:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Barnstar

Thanks! I do believe that the barnstar is without a doubt the coolest one by far on this wiki :P David Fuchs ^(talk) 23:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Massospondylus

Well, I've had my fun. It should certainly get a GA, and I think editor interest would be the only thing stopping an FA. There's more that's been done about it than I'd thought, with some interesting paleobiological stuff. Masso tends to grow on people after awhile; there's something endearing about it. I say, get yourself one of those picky writer types for the grammar, and see how far it can be ridden. J. Spencer (talk) 03:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

"picky writer types for the grammar" Would that be moi? :) Unimaginative Username (talk) 06:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome; happy to be of service. I think part of its charm is that it looks kind of like Dino (especially back when it was thought to be a quadruped). :) J. Spencer 15:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. It's the Yates, 2007 Massospondylidae plus Glacialisaurus. Free PDF, too (if you haven't downloaded it yet). Unfortunately, it's not the most complete genus known, just some hindlimb bones. J. Spencer 14:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Really? That's cool. :) How did you do that? Did you borrow from other articles, use a translation service, or are you secretly a protocol droid fluent in over six million forms of communication? J. Spencer (talk) 20:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

There's a problem with Massospondylus upright jpg: there's a good chance it's a copyvio by Dinosoria. It appears to be a slightly cropped and color-balanced version of a photo in David Norman's Illustrated Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs, p. 79, from the South African Museum in Cape Town. J. Spencer (talk) 04:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm certain. All of the background objects are in the same positions relative to the mount in the two photos. I can make a scan of it for you, if you'd like, but it'll have to wait until tomorrow. J. Spencer (talk) 05:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. C'est la Internet, I guess. J. Spencer (talk) 05:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Chicxulub FAC

Think I fixed your issues. :) David Fuchs ^(talk) 12:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

PIRES

Thankyou for tidying up some of the errors I had missed :)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mall at Sierra Vista

No problem; I make sure to look back at AfD discussions I've participated in to see if anything's changed. And in this case, it did. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Your recent proposed deletions

I have deprodded several articles that you recently proposed for deletion. Some of these would clearly not be uncontroversial deletions (international Rugby League player, world champion freestyle skier, for example). Could you please use prod a little more judiciously in future, and could you always provide a concern when proposing articles, so that other editors know why you are proposing them. Thanks.--Michig 09:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Michig,

A huge number (6000) of articles are listed at User:Eagle_101/potential_crap_3/4. These articles were prodded because they were listed there. I'm not about to put that in the edit summary, however. I don't want anyone to feel insulted that their articles were proposed for deletion because they are "potential crap". Firsfron of Ronchester 18:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You're quite right not to put that in the edit summary. You should however have a better reason for proposing deletion than 'some other editor has put it in a list of articles they think are "potential crap"'. A good number of the articles that you proposed for deletion shouldn't have been proposed at all - they just need work improving format, references, etc.. Nominating articles such as these is likely to annoy other editors just as much as saying that they are "potential crap", not to mention wasting the time of other editors who review the nominations and deprod them.--Michig 18:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

David Miles Huber de-PRODded

Hello. I am sorry to say I removed your PROD notice on David Miles Huber. Both the asserted and actual (via online search) notability for him seem clear, with a significant list of authored books and works as a producer. Deletion would not appear to be uncontroversial. It is true that the current article is fairly poor quality, but it does not appear to be a hopeless case. While I would normally support your bold moves to clear out bad articles, and applaud all progress on the woeful state of the cleanup tagging backlog, here I believe your DA* article PROD swath is perhaps cut too wide. Michael Devore 11:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Prods

Please remember to give a reason when you enter the Prod. It makes it very hard to work with them otherwise.DGG (talk) 14:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that one of the articles you prodded was Robert Silverberg, the SF writer, winner of 2 Hugos and 6 Nebulas--with the multiple awards asserted in the lede paragraph. There is some further discussion at my talk page. DGG (talk) 01:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I've provided my own opinion on this issue at DGG's talk page, if you are interested, as he invited further comment there. -- Michael Devore 02:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Firsfron, I greatly appreciate the good humour and tolerance you have shown in what has turned out to be an extensive discussion. 11:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Herrerasaurus

Wow, a lots of progress have been made on this article since the last time I've edited it. Good job! I hope I've clarified the two remaining obscure points. I also noticed that the head image which was commented out because of its wrong shape is back. This reconstruction is inacurate, should it be removed? ArthurWeasley 16:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I kind of remember that there was a picture of the skull at some point. What happen to it? May be it was a copyvio...Anyway, what we really need is a picture of a reconstructed skeleton. Anybody going to the museum? The holotype is in a museum in Argentina, but I think there is a cast of the reconstructed skeleton at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago. ArthurWeasley 20:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that's a little bit far from my place too ;) ArthurWeasley 06:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

A little blurry but great angle. I think it's fine for now. ArthurWeasley 07:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Similar Sizes

Hi Firsfron. I was thinking shouldn't it be edited that Giga and T-Rex were of similar size? Since both are of the same hip height as explained to me by Dinoguy? Suggesting that they may have been the same size with Giga just being longer.? Mcelite 15:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)mcelite

Could you ask

User:Gene Nygaard to be more civil? I asked him to stop using my name in incivil edit summaries (like this one, or this one, or this one), but in his reply he threatened me: If you continue to deliberately missort items, corrective action will have to be pursued. Since I see you were involved a month ago with trying to teach him civility, I'd appreciate if you could look into this. We must maintain WP:CIV across the project, or it will go down in flames as the Usenet did. Thanks, -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 22:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

As I explained to Gene, the missorting results due to a bug in Wikimedia software and will eventually be fixed. I don't mind if people correct the missorting now - even through it will have to be reverted once the bug is fixed. Further, with the very few exceptions of people whose name begin with the such a letter, the missorting will result only in a minor shift of the item in the category. PS. With regards to CIV, I believe that incivil users need to be monitored and reminded when they step out of line, less they revert to their bad standards.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 00:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. We may have different views on many things, but civility is a must for us to be able to discuss those differences. If only all editors would understand this... -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

No matter on what Gene thinks, Piotrus made his edits in good faith and this threats [4] are highly uncivil. Mentioning his name in summaries is clear personal attack. Imagine that everyone would do that Fixing deliberate Firsfron of Ronchester's typo. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 10:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: FAC/FPC

Hi Firs, thanks for the comments. At the moment, the idea is more focused on extant species, and in my mind, that would also exclude the subjects of cryptozoology, for example. You are right that there are two proposals, but they're related, and invitations have been made (WT:FAC, WT:WIAFA). It seems so far that the answer to everything I've suggested is "yes, depends". Personally, I wonder what would happen if we required more illustrations, and thereby raised the intrinsic value of people who can produce them. Would more ilustrators be attracted to the project? It's possible. And I think just maybe I have come up with a model for creating better content faster, by allowing WikiProjects more freedom to set their own priorities. That would be the third proposal. The one impression that I do get is that people are worried that it will be assumed that they agreed to some proposal that they don't like, and so they're reluctant to fully engage their own imagination in the discussion. The latter would be ideal. Hmm. Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement regarding Durova/!! matter

FYI, I am alerting user's who have voted to oppose based on my comments about the Durova matter that I have written a longer statement regarding my views on the matter which I hope clarifies a few points of apparent misunderstanding. See User:JoshuaZ/Statement regarding Durova and !!. Thanks. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. Again, the matter in question wasn't a small grammatical slip-up but a highly obscure word. In any event, as I think I made clear in my statement, I'm in complete agreement that the evidence used by Durova was insufficient. And of course, the use of secret evidence should be mimimized. However, the basic point is that there are times when it is unfortunately necessary. (And if you're opposing based on my attitude about secret evidence solely then I thank you. That seems to be a much more sensible issue to oppose on than the general issue of the email list. Reasonable individuals can disagree about this sort of thing). JoshuaZ (talk) 04:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

GA

Yeah I don't know what Ling is trying to do. The consensus seems to be that it's not an ownership issue, so I don't know what he is trying to achieve. - Shudde ^talk 19:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:Allosaurus:

Woah! That's freaky - I was just going to message you about something when you posted on my talk! NP, Allosaurus is one of my favourite dinosaurs and it's a really good article. No real admin coaching going on as yet. Anyway, what I was going to ask you about was if this fact on Gryposaurus monumentensis was true? It was added to another DYK by a new user and I added it to the linked page, but I can't seem to find any mention of 800 teeth in the Gryposaurus article. Is it for real or is someone just messing (I know hadrosaurs can have a lot of teeth, but I don't know where they got the info from...). Thanks anyway and good to hear from you again. :) Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 05:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah but no one wanted me! *Cry! Sniffle!* ;) I've applied personally again. Thanks for the info - wow, 4 wisdom teeth out in 1 week! That's gotta hurt...Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 06:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl's offered to give me some assistance - but if that falls through you're numero uno! :) I just had to break up a scrap over some minor detail at List of tributaries of Imperial China - man admin work is cool sometimes but it does seem to take me forever to send off all the warnings let alone raising a situation at an Admin Noticeboard! See you around! :) Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 06:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

In case you're bored...

Check out this edit. It's been fun!!!!  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I was going for this....hee hee

Gawd I'm a sucker for these things....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

ironically GAs are my weakest link...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Masso. GA

Congratulations! - and thanks for letting me know. On to FA! Unimaginative Username (talk) 06:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of animal pictures, articles

I just wanted to write back and thank everyone who's participated in the discussion about what kinds of animal pictures fit the requirement of encyclopaedic value, with specific reference to head shots, notably of birds; and also about whether the inclusion of some graphic information should be compulsory at FAC (distribution maps, various depictions of the animal).

I'm sorry that the discussion became derailed by User:Fir0002. I'll adhere to WP:AGF for the time being.

I thought I would sum up what we discussed:

• Head shots can be useful for birds that have distinctive colour markings or other features on the head, but makes less sense for others (Totnesmartin)
• Head shots are necessary when species are only distinguishable by their cranial morphology (Dinoguy2)
• Head shots are not of interest outside Craniata (Dinoguy2)
• MeegsC brought up the term "soaring" as a better description of where flight silhouettes would be useful; Casliber later referred to "raptors and seabirds" (I checked my bird books (n=4), and I see silhouettes or semi-profile views of the flying bird used in a much wider range of taxa, including ducks, pigeons, herons, cranes, storks, swallows, swifts, and probably others that I didn't memorise)
• Jimfbleak expressed the opinion that there can be no rule where exceptions exist. (I disagree. Rules could allow for exceptions, which just means we only have to discuss the exceptions, not every other case as well.)
• Jimfbleak said it may be better to use sparrows or pigeons for the size comparison. (I disagree: Not everywhere that has internet has sparrows and pigeons, and house sparrows at least are different sizes in different places)
• Jimfbleak expressed desire for restricting FPC to animals in the wild, and allow captive shots only for domesticated species.
• Casliber supported mandatory distribution maps
• Casliber opposed size comparisons for plants (I'm guessing this was pre-emptive, as nobody had proposed size comparisons for plants)
• I then suggested that a mechanism could be created for WikiProjects to set up their own definitions for excellent articles, and these could be showcased aside from the traditional Featured Articles and TFA; this proposal was mostly ignored by subsequent comments
• Firsfron expressed concern that there wouldn't be enough illustrators to create the required illustrations and raised further exceptions (which I regard as irrelevant because the proposal already allows for special cases to be considered differently)
• Firsfron suggested that if anything other than a distribution map was made mandatory, an illustration of a skull might be the best thing
• Sabine's Sunbird seemed to oppose distribution maps being mandatory on the basis that they took effort to make (I'm unsure that this is correct, and was left wondering what the HBW size comparisons were)
• Calibas was against "rules" (I don't see how we can carry on without some of the policies and guidelines we have)

In conclusion, most concerns were to do with allowing for exceptions, which is already the case in all guidelines I'm aware of, including the proposals discussed here.

To return to the original proposal, nobody has been able to make a strong general case for head shots in birds or any other larger taxon, a finding I interpret as meaning my personal guideline is sound. I hope others may find parts of it useful and adopt them. If you have any further comments on the FPC, FAC, or WikiProject content creation proposals, please leave them on my talk page. Thank you. Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

triceratops

I love the triceratop dinosaurs.

I am often disappointed that most museums display their skulls with the back to the wall. This makes it impossible to see that the skull to first-vertebra joint was a perfect socket and ball joint. The base of the skull has a perfect hemispherical socket for the first-vertebra to sit in.

I spent decades looking at them before I saw the back of one. All that time I assumed but did not *know* that they would be able to quickly turn their heads. One glance and it is obvious that my assumption was correct.

Nick Beeson (talk) 23:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Admin coaching:

Grrr, the person I asked for admin coaching is a no-show and as promised, I am now betrothed to you Firs. ;) If you have time that is, but I know you'll be more active than my last few coaches... Reply if yes - I've set up a page here for discussion. For a first lesson, could you check out my recent edits? I've been welcoming editors, tagging pages for speedy deletion and have started a sock puppetry investigation - somehow I don't feel I'm doing it all right! I've also tried to revert some vandalism, but no one's turned that damn bot off so I can ge tin first lol! ;) Well anyway, it's kinda fun in a way, but totally time consuming... Cheers, Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 06:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I had someone indef blocked, but now I feel bad for ruining their day. Sure they were being disruptive, but it's kinda sad having to be the one to report them. Maybe I'm just too empathetic... Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 06:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Replied. I'll just assume you'll be watching that page from now on though... :) Cheers, Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 23:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank You, Firsfron!

You are a benign deity, Firsfron! Thanks for your help on Deinonychus. Can you help me at Dromaeosauridae? I think Dinoguy2 has a grudge against me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbrougham (talk • contribs) 06:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Beware the undead.....

OK after over 400 edits each by Spawny and me I think we're somewhat within sight of the finish line (or is that the starting line?) Anyway, like lion I am anxious about ironing out what we can beforehand - are you just a buffy-phile or a fan of horror stuff too? Be great if you could let us know what you think of vampire...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Well its only by ding this that I found out about this...which I must see sometime..cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Masso

Did you notice that I was in the process of editing the article when you left the message? :) Also, I replied to your previous post on my talk page a couple of days ago, but I replied there (on my own page). Already left a question on the Masso talk page. Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Left a response on my Talk to your kind comments. (Never sure where to respond to anyone! Might start playing it safe and duplicate posts on both users' pages :) Unimaginative Username (talk) 22:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Tyrant cladogram

Check out what I did with the cladogram on Tyrannosauroidea and tell me what you think, good/bad/whatever. Sheep81 (talk) 07:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, I'll use three. Sheep81 (talk) 08:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

They weren't in the cladogram, just in the chapter text (as possible members). I included every tyrannosauroid taxon he put into the cladogram. Sheep81 (talk) 20:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

My, that's snappy service.

Thank you for welcoming me to Wikipedia. I'll try to stay out of ... trouble, and to avoid apostrophe abuse. --AmusedRepose (talk) 19:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Allosaurus

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

Improve the article? JSpencer has done such a great job expanding it, not sure what remains to add really. Will have another look ... ArthurWeasley (talk) 07:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Herrerasaurus

Didn't want to get side-tracked on this at the Masso FA review page, but since you commented there on H.'s PR being empty for four months, also wanted to note that my query on the unclear synapomorphy language has been unanswered in ten days or so. Don't know who's the lead editor on that article. Regards, Unimaginative Username (talk) 06:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Randlords

Hi Firsfron, I would like to let you know that I am going to be working on the Randlords and wonder what Rkitko will infer since Paul venter also worked on this group. Regards Rotational (talk) 07:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Fooling around with Masso

Just fooling around with the layout here.
First change: put the obsolete skeleton back on the left, but one paragraph down. Result:

1. White space restored to normal amount
2. Article's very first non-lede paragraph is no longer squeezed on both sides, making the taxo look even less intrusive (I flat out like it - the lines from "description" join neatly at a right angle).
3. The readers is led naturally to look at the old skeleton immediately after having read why it's obsolete, instead of first seeing a pic, then being told why the pic is no good -- but before moving on to the next paragraph. (We'll assume left-to-right readers :)

Second change: Separated "Discovery and species" as per FAR talk. "Discovery" (only) includes first two paras, which do indeed talk about the discovery. New section, "Other species", has the remaining former paras, which discuss, well, other species. (Could also call this "Other proposed species" if none of them are valid, which seems to be the case).

Anyway, let me know what you think of either or both, and hope you're not peeved at my fooling with it. Unimaginative Username (talk) 10:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yesss! Iguanodon

3 Discovery and history

4 Species

    4.1 Species currently accepted as valid
    4.2 Reassigned species
    4.3 Dubious species

To the lay eye, this makes perfect sense as far as what's in the content of Masso. Perhaps this should be the standard DINO format? Unimaginative Username (talk) 03:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, I don't have the scientific knowledge to make the kind of judgments you're talking about, and while one always learns something from editing unfamiliar topics, reading for polishing prose and grammar isn't the same thing as reading for deep comprehension of the topic. I'll take a little deeper look at the actual content. It does seem that there is some natural separation between the initial discovery/confirmation/naming and the subsequent theses that were later discarded or declared synonyms. I'll try, but as you have the knowledge, was hoping you'd come up with something. I do agree with the commenter who said that "Discovery and species" is a bit off-putting to the lay reader. p. s. Do you like the layout now, with the quad skeleton where it is? Unimaginative Username (talk) 04:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• OK, I took an extra two minutes to read deeply this and the other two articles. Expert on all now ;-) Notes:

1. The other two have "Classification" before "Discoveries". Kind of makes sense to have Classification right after Description, for consistency, but I don't think it's overwhelming enough to change M. now. Just thought you Dino guys had a standard format. Whatever you or the group decides on M. is cool.
2. Styrofoama uses "Discoveries" (plural). Interesting, and possibly more accurate, since the text describes various other discoveries confirmed to be M.
3. I finally have it in my thick skull that there is only the one valid species, M.C. So, yes, agree that a complete section for invalid ones is undue weight. *But*- Since there is only the one, then there doesn't need to be a heading "Species". The sentence that currently is in with the invalid ones, "The only valid species ..." could be fitted into the end of the Discovery(ies). Then there could be a ===Subsection=== with some title like "Invalid, discarded, discredited, obsolete... nomenclature". Not sure of the right word, but you see what I'm getting at. The *real* info is in the main section; the false stuff, which is still an interesting part of the history, gets a sub, for less weight. What do you think -- is this the right direction? Unimaginative Username (talk) 04:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Elopteryx

Well thanks! And though I couldn't find a pic of the remains (might have seen them in Lambrecht tho), I dug up one of a failed reconstruction and tied it in (section 2 para 2). Better to have how it not looks like than to have no visuals at all ;-) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 20:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Who said an obscure dino couldn't make FA? Oh, yeah, you did, that's right... doesn't it feel good to be wrong sometimes :) :) Unimaginative Username (talk) 04:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Still breathlessly awaiting your posting of the coveted star on the article. Or do copy-editors have to do everything around here? :D Unimaginative Username (talk) 04:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see SpawnMan did it. Glad someone is on the ball around here <kidding!> Unimaginative Username (talk) 04:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

...And thanks!

...for the Barn. It really is a pleasure to work with a community of editors who address all concerns so promptly and who take such obvious care and pride in their articles. And I've been thinking about your comments on my initials, and thinking of changing my nick to something simpler. What do you think of Seconfron of Ronchester? Unimaginative Username (talk) 04:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Dromiceiomimus

Hey. I know the idea of a seperate section was a bit silly, but it didn't really fit in any of the other sections and I didn't wanna just tack it on. Furthermore, ~1/5th of Dromiceiomimus google hits are Dromiceiomius and Dinosaur Comics hits, so I figure it's noticible. I'm not quite sure how to proceed, but I just wanted to let you see my reasoning. Thanks!--69.203.22.242 (talk) 06:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Admin coaching:

I am ready sensei san! ;) Bring on the speedies! Spawn Man (talk) 06:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Done! :) Spawn Man (talk) 11:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Done the scenarios - some of them I had questions with and included them with my answers. Hopefully I did okay... :) Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 07:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

A new toy

'nuff said. cool eh? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Knackered

I've stayed up far too late with this, but will teach me to go off half-cocked. On the behavioural axis with 'slob' at one end and 'obsessive' at the other (Oscar/Felix Axis?)..I generally slide down the 'Oscar' end unless reminded :)

However, RwFw still looks like a walk in the park compared with how to fix the Porphyria section on Vampire..but I need to sleep now, what with this and Xmas shopping etc...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Manual conversion

Those are no big deal; I was getting frustrated because what I really wanted to do was disambiguate pelvic bones, but there's usually a lot of other little things to do that distract me. I'm using tabbed browsing, Firefox, and wikED, which work all right. I like doing the taxoboxes manually anyway.
I've been removing image elements simply because I don't like empty fields, but I'll leave them alone from now on. J. Spencer (talk) 03:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Firsfron,

Are you sure it was me? I never edited the New York Giants page.

A request for your consideration regarding CAT:AOTR

...My guinea pigs and the "A"s, "B"s and "C" having felt this message was OK to go forward with (or at least not complained bitterly to me about it :) ), today it's the turn of the "D"s, "E"s and "F"s! I'm hoping that more of you chaps/chapettes will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but a bit scary! :) ++Lar: t/c 18:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

For a final version of this message see User:Lar/catmsg... Note also 1) since the table page has been moved from a cat to a non cat, the edit history has been lost. You may want to re-edit your entry in the table to validate that it was you that added it. 2) If you in future start using my criteria/process, you may want to give a link to a specific history entry version of the page, heck I may change mine to say that admins that start with F only need 1 petitioner to get recalled or something :) Cacharoth's entry is an example of how that was done. ++Larbot - run by User:Lar - t/c 23:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Hooded Merganser

Hi Firs. Can I ask you one thing? (I am not primarily a birder, more of a mollusk person.) I had trouble understanding this section, which I have just made into a separate paragraph in order to keep it separate from the info on the Hooded Merganser in the USA: "Although they have occurred as vagrants to Europe, this attractive species is so common in collections that only a ringed bird would be likely to be accepted as anything other than an escape." What does "collections" mean? To me the word collections means museum collections, but here I suppose it means when people keep a selection of ornamental birds on their property like Muscovy ducks, peafowl and so on? If that is what it means can we possibly make this sentence a little bit clearer? I think maybe it needs a little rewriting to clarify it. Thanks for your help. Invertzoo (talk) 15:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your speedy reply Firs! If you get some good info from the birders you can let me know and I would be happy to rewrite that part.Invertzoo (talk) 17:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

re:inline refs

I really can't speak for Calisber, but I disagree with your characterization of what is ideal for FA. FAs are supposed to be written to a professional standard, and if you tried to stick citations in the middle of a published sentence it would be reflexively corrected by copyeditors. It does look and read sloppy, which is why it isn't done in print. Guidelines technically allow it, but they do not necessarily recommend it. You are welcome to disagree, and can keep it the whatever way you like (I don't particularly care). But to characterize my position as being wrong as a matter "of course" doesn't feel exactly civil. VanTucky ^talk 05:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Wishing you the very best for the new year - Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll get back to you about the other stuff. Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

happy Mango season

'TIS MANGO SEASON....
Have a shlice of mango cheek...well, I am up to my armpits in the things. Yuletide means lots and lots of mangos, as well as turkey and ham and ice-cream and pressies. Were on special so I bought 3 crates for AU$20 and now I have both crispers in the refrigerator full and even with everyone eating two of the ##$@& things every mealtime... I am a bit mangoed out so I thought I'd spread the goodwill around....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Tasks

Hi Zenwhat,

I saw your note about barnstars. I'm sorry you haven't seen any. Of course, thousands of very good contributors never receive a barnstar, so you are in good company.

If you are still interested in tasks to improve Wikipedia, I could easily come up with a list, but I don't really know where your interests lie, aside from (I guess) politics. Coming up with a random list probably won't work for you. Or are you really willing to work on anything? Firsfron of Ronchester 00:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I will work on anything, provided it doesn't require me going to the library. I am interested and knowledgeable in:

• Politics
• Economics (except advanced topics)
• Philosophy (except modern philosophy)
• Theology (mainly the Abrahamic religions and Dharmic religions) Zenwhat (talk) 00:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

"I will work on anything, provided it doesn't require me going to the library." Oh, man. The library is our friend. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 01:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Though I have a local library that's only a mile away, I find it very difficult to get there. And in any case, if I won't go there in order to improve the article on Classical Liberalism, I certainly won't go there for you. Zenwhat (talk) 01:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

"Why are you merging Category:Defunct television channels with Category:Defunct television networks?"

In response to: "Why are you merging Category:Defunct television channels with Category:Defunct television networks?" Although "channels" and "networks" do infer different meanings, the two categories were being used for the same thing, although Networks had much fewer entries.User:Scoty6776 3 January 2008

Admin coaching

Hello, Firsfron! I'm Corvus coronoides, and I'm interested in the Admin coaching process. Since I've seen your name around places, and coached OhanaUnited, an editor that I deeply respect at this point, and your name was in the volunteers list, I would like it if you could be my admin coach. I've been here since last spring, with a bit of a break in editing at some point in the middle. I'm not sure that what I'm really going for at this point is a successful RfA, rather, I'd like to become a more constructive contributor to Wikipedia and learn more about it on the way. RfA might be in my future, but it's a long way off. Please let me know if you are able to take on another coachee. Cheers, Corvus coronoides _talk 22:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course I'm willing to be coached :) Why else would I ask? I see that you usually have your students create a coaching page. I have done so already at User:Corvus coronoides/Admin coaching. So, how do we get started? Corvus coronoides _talk 16:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Elopteryx

Hi, of course it was wrong there. It cannot be placed in the synonymy section of any page at present but if it could, it's likely to be in either Iberomesornithidae, Protopterygidae and Troodontidae. Fat chance though as it's entirely resistant to cladistic analysis. Not that Mickey Mortimer hasn't tried... Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 01:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, that was about -idae. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 01:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Nyarghhhhh and assorted other squicky sounds

I found this article on Yahoo! News and while the detour into British politics is boring, the first paragraph alone was enough to make me taste vomit in my mouth! Talk about your worst nightmare! Sheep81 (talk) 22:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Separated-at-birth twins get married

Haha yes, that's exactly why I shared it with you. Tell Cas he better get a blood test! Sheep81 (talk) 22:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

XD...my dad (who was a muso) always said I might have brothers or sisters somehwere...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

This is cute - I've been quoted (just Cntrl-F my username, I'm on slide 61) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 13 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Hazel Scott Show, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Wizardman 00:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Dinosauria Common

Can you check my Dinosauria Common? --4444hhhh (talk) 01:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, it's actually page 2 of my user page.--4444hhhh (talk) 01:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

So, do you like it?--4444hhhh (talk) 03:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Newton Township

Nice work on expanding the article for Newton Township, Buchanan County, Iowa. The old maps are great. Omnedon (talk) 00:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Edit war

It would be nice to know where exactly this post is located. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I just read all of it. I decided not to comment, however, I'll wait and hear what TTN has to say since I too am strongly in favour of WP:EPISODE. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess I should have been more specific during the arb statement. But really, I don't see anything wrong with sticking sturdily by guidelines. I reviewed those episodes briefly and immediately noticed a lack of aspects from WP:WAF. They also did not fully meet the criteria for what a page should contain and plot summaries. Way I see it, it is perfectly okay to merge articles until in-universe matters are settled and real world data is found, hence, I believe an WP:AFD may only result with a loss of information, or a bunch of obsessed "keepers". What upset me the most was how Casliber utilised the rollback tool; TTN did not vandalize anything, in fact, he is trying his best to improve the encyclopedia by redirecting the messy pages. It's a sad shame that there are obsessed fanboys who just can't let go, and that gets me pissed. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well it wasn't quite just Casliber I was characterizing, merely, I was speaking of those in general. I'm sure you understand where I'm coming from? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Follow up on Admin Coaching

Hello, I just want to propose that our relations in admin coaching should cease. We haven't talked to each other since August last year and I think I got the concept to be an admin now. Sincerely, OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a few) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [5]. --Maniwar (talk) 18:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Contributions and Articles

Firs: Thank you for the directional links you left on my-talk. I have some minor questions I suppose they can be considered as such. My professor stated that these sites are to post articles on different events and thoughts..etc. I have written a paper on a specific crime and styles of crimes and it was stated that I should see about posting the information to a site like this. I have read here that you "shouldn't" post essays and papers like that. What then should I consider for an article for my page, new works that require editing or??? Please advise. Thank you again.

Regards, Rainey912 (talk) 21:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 21:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Vampire is now featured!

I hereby award you the "(Poorly drawn) Vampire Barnstar", because as you may know, Vampire is now a Featured Article and I just wanted to thank you for your contributions to the article or its FAC in order to get this goal. You really helped! Spawn Man (talk) 12:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I am disappointed for a number of reasons

You attack editors on Wikipedia Review, specifically me in:

OrangeMarlin isn't an admin. I know because I told him I wouldn't support an RFA for him. He's just too quick to bite people, especially newbies, and he cannot stay civil. I can't comment on the rest of your message, as I haven't looked at the diffs, but it's unfortunate that this couldn't be handled better.

Your damn straight I'm not an admin, because I do more for this project than 90% of admins. And I do not recall asking for your help to be an admin. I bite newbies, especially POV-warrior types, but very nice to the ones who edit well. And I do not choose to stay civil, though I am entertaining the belief that Admin thought police are more interested in blocking individuals on judgement calls rather than on actual science and neutral points of view.

As for the case described in the Wikipedia Attack site which you apparently frequent, you have none of the facts. I had been trying to clean up the article per WP:MEDMOS, and one of the sections is called "prognosis" It has been hijacked a bit to mean the course of a disease, but it should mean and can mean the course of any medical state from a broken bone to bone cancer to bone replacement. DRREM, without consulting MEDMOS, went about restructuring the article, until it made no sense.

And as opposed to your attack site buddies, I rarely reverted her edits. In fact, I looked who might have, from the old gang that your buddies accuse us of having, and there were normal edits and such. There was a significant discussion on talk about Prognosis and we all compromised at using Progression. Wow, that must mean we ran DRREM off the project.

I have no use for those admins who test their power on attack sites. Have fun there with the rest of the liars, blowhards, losers, POV-warriors and a few sociopaths. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Seriously? I'm disappointed in you. Not in what you said - but you could have said it to OM's face, you could have said it here...but going to an hate site and joining in with that filth - I really thought better of you. Guettarda (talk) 14:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Guettarda,

We've never had any interaction, you and I. You've never left a message for me before, and we've never worked on the same articles. The fact is that everything I said there has already been said before, either by me or by OM himself, on this site. Why does it become "filth", an "attack", "hate", etc, when it's said over there? Just because it's said over there? I don't believe that, and you shouldn't, either.

Here's OM stating he thought I wouldn't support his RFA because of his civility: [6]. Here's me pleading with him to stay civil with other users: [7]. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

At first I defended you. I thought for sure it was an impersonator. You know that Jimbo has blocked people who frequent that website and contribute there just for participating there? You know that website is viewed extremely negatively? I am stunned. Shocked. Disappointed. I really thought better of you.--Filll (talk) 14:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

There are a half-dozen WP admins over there, Filll. I am aware that WR is not liked among some Wikipedia editors, but not everyone agrees. And I've never heard of Jimbo blocking users here just for being there. If you are shocked, stunned, and disappointed for me saying something there which has already been said here, you're worried about the site's reputation, and not about the comment. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok fair enough. I hope the WP admins over there know what they are doing. I have edited with OM for a long time, and although he is sometimes uncivil (as we all are sometimes, including me), I know that he cares about being factual and careful with the quality of references. I do not believe that OM takes his responsibility as a doctor lightly and I think he is highly ethical. The suggestion that OM is attempting to be a bully and to push dangerous unscientific medical advice on assorted medical articles on Wikipedia is just astoundingly off-base, and very disappointing. And to have someone like you, who was basically friendly to OM and even to me, join in and by your input suggest that OM is a just a piece of unethical *&^$# pushing unscientific trash and driving away the true physicians here on Wikipedia is just horrifying to me. Well you are welcome to your POV. But I still remain pretty disappointed. I hope you are happy with yourself. --Filll (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with almost everything you've said above, Filll: about OM being careful with the quality of his sources, about his care with facts, about him being careful with his responsibility as a doctor, etc. The incivility thing bothers me. My statements there say nothing about OM being "unethical" or "pushing unscientific trash", or "driving away true physicians"; you go too far. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

But even though you only said he was uncivil, by uncritically joining in, as an admin on Wikipedia, you do give a certain amount of tacit approval and affirmation of the other charges and claims, inadvertantly or not, whether you agree with them or not.

I also think OM has been uncivil sometimes. He has said things I would not say. And vice versa; I have said things OM would never say, I am sure (in fact OM has cautioned me about it). But I would never join in on a discussion of people figuratively sticking a knife in OM's back, or discussing in a derogatory fashion what an awful jerk OM is, or worse.

It gives a certain impression, which I do not want to give, and a certain implied approval of the statements of others. I just would not do it. And that is where I guess we are different. You are free to do it of course. However, you should be aware of the signal it sends, if you are not. --Filll (talk) 22:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Try to switch it around, Filll: Could it be said that when you participate in a conversation on Wikipedia that is somehow implying approval of what other people in the conversation are saying? Of course not. It would be nonsense to say that your participation on Wikipedia means that you approve of what is being said on Wikipedia. It would be silly to state that your participation on Wikipedia talk pages meant that you agreed (or it was implied that you agreed) with the rest of the content on the page. You would laugh if someone told you that you were "sending a signal" by merely commenting on a talk page. Commenting on talk:Rape doesn't mean you want to rape someone ("no, but it sends a signal"). Commenting on talk:Abortion doesn't mean your wife has had one ("no but it implies something.") Please, Filll, look at what I wrote and not what you think it "implies" , "sends a signal" about, or "tacitly approves of". If you really think I approve of attacks, incivility, or nastiness, you do not know me, and I thought I knew you better than that. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I will try one more time. Let's imagine a scenario. Your neighbors are standing around talking about Joe. One says, "Joe beats his wife". Another says, "Yeah, I have heard awful fights over there". A third says, "That dirty jerk has given her a black eye and I bet he is a child molester too". And another says, "Yeah Joe gang-raped a girl in high school you know; he is a dirty pig".

And on and on, these neighbors are discussing how awful Joe is. You are listening to all this, and then you say, "Yes, well I can't verify that other stuff, but you know what else? Joe curses sometimes and I am really angry at him for cursing plus he sometimes belches in public." And everyone else stirs your comments into the mix and you all stand around discussing how Joe is one of the worst people you all know. You do not disagree with the other comments or dispute any of them.

And you are having this discussion in a local biker bar that has a terrible reputation for crime and bad behavior and your boss has said bad things about on more than one occasion.

And then Joe, who maybe does not always tuck his shirt tail into his pants and has yelled at the paper boy and caled him a "Goddamn jerk" for throwing the newspaper in the bushes, but would NEVER go to something as sleezy as a biker bar, sees that someone has made a video of this entire conversation and posted it on Youtube. And you used to be friends with Joe and went on vacations together with Joe and Joe used to babysit for you and you used to babysit Joe's kids.

And Joe is hurt and upset. And so Joe confronts you with it and tells you he is hurt.

And you are dismissive of the entire event and continue to defend yourself, by saying "Well I never said a thing about child molesting or wife beating. I am shocked that you would assume that I did anything wrong by being in a biker bar and taking part in a conversation and saying bad things about Joe. How dare you berate me for that? It tells me how awful you are that you would think I did anything wrong."

See? If you don't see, then we just have to agree to disagree. You can go on and feel you are above reproach and have never done a thing wrong in this instance.

And I and others are free to disagree with you.--Filll (talk) 23:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

What a terrible analogy. If you can see the site, you already know it didn't happen that way. My comment was the third posted, and that was my extent in the conversation. All this other stuff is made up. OM knows I'm bothered by his incivility to both "trolls" and legitimate users. I've said it before, and it's only because I've said it at that site that it has become an issue. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I see. You are right and the others who expressed dismay about this, both on this page and in other venues, are wrong. Very good.--Filll (talk) 02:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, I'm mildly horrified that OM brought up popularity with regard to WR. Popularity should honestly never play a part in building an encyclopedia. Also, my membership with the NCSE has nothing whatsoever to do with participation on WR (and in fact I have commented against Creationist statements on WR on several occasions, though Creationism is hardly a major facet of WR). The statement that I "should resign" my membership with the NCSE makes no sense. Being a member of a scientific community does not preclude reading WR (and vice versa), just as reading On the Origin of Species doesn't make someone a scientist. OM states that "civility is a lie", while ignoring that collaborative efforts without civility aren't fun to work on, and incivility kills a project because it fosters an environment where people don't feel welcome to contribute. OM states he is uncivil to POV pushers, but he's been uncivil to many good-faith users as well; the user:Badgerpatrol case sticks out in my mind. As recently as a week ago, OM apologized for his words to that user, while still defending his use of incivility.

I loved working with OM on K-T. I absolutely loved it; he was such a hard worker, and the article turned out beautiful thanks in great part (ok, nearly entirely thanks) to his efforts. But as I grew to know OM a bit more, I grew uneasy at the constant incivility with other users. A new user who gets in an argument with OM isn't going to come back, and we've lost a perfectly good contributor because of it. And that has happened more than once. Sure, it may chase away POV pushers, but it also chases away good contributors. We've all been uncivil at one time or another. OM often takes it to extremes. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I see. So OM feels dismayed at what he sees as betrayal, and I think is quite understandable, and suggests that being a regular contributor at WR might create a negative image of you. And you are upset at being told that? Hmm...

There are many regular contributors here who have been driven off by assorted uncivil newbies, POV pushers and disruptive trolls. I have seen it several times. I would be glad to give you examples. Believe me, someone who is producing 10,000 or 20,000 edits a year and FAs and GAs is worth plenty.

What is the chance that the average toll or POV pusher will actually contribute something of value? I hear this argument all the time, but it is based on no data, no information, no statistics, no nothing. Just pure gratuitous claim that we should suffer any attack imaginable from someone who is new, or who purports to be new, and in all cases give them the benefit of the doubt. Where is the study that shows this is an optimal course of action for our productivity?

And you think there are not people uncivil to me, and OM? I would be glad to give you plenty of examples, including one you hold in high regard, who was quite uncivil to me and blocked me. He was so angry at the suggestion that the word "denialism" is a real word in English, although we found dozens of examples in places like the New York Times and other reliable sources, that he blocked me. But of course, he is above reproach. Yes...

There is a constant problem on WP in controversial areas, with dozens of sock puppets, meat puppets, trolls etc showing up weekly. And demanding that their POV be inserted into the articles. Some are even paid to disrupt WP and come from public relations firms. OM and others, sometimes with reason, and sometimes without succumb to provocation. So that makes him worse than the worst possible criminals? Ok you are free to believe that. You are not the only one who thinks it.

But User: Peter morrell, who is sometimes uncivil, and User: Amaltheus who has had terrible outbursts, and User: Orangemarlin and several others I could name, are productive. And I am far more willing to defend those who are uncivil but productive, than those who are unproductive but uncivil, or unproductive and civil, or unproductive and disruptive editors.

You are free to choose some other viewpoint. But I do not think you are basing it on any data or information of the value of this view, but just a personal conviction based on no data. --Filll (talk) 03:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The policy is to be civil. It's not a "personal conviction", Filll. I don't have to base it on data; it's what we're required to do. I know very well that there are people who are uncivil to both you and OM. Responding in kind only makes the situation degenerate further. WP:CIVIL advises against replying in kind. It only escalates the situation. "I'm productive so it's ok for me to break the rules" is messed up. OM has called people names, sworn at them, etc. It's not conducive to editing. The "they're trolls, so they deserve it" chestnut doesn't work; calling someone a troll only dehumanizes them so that it's easier to perceive them as inhuman, and not worthy of a civil discussion. And it, again, misses the fact that several of the people OM has upset are users in good standing. user:Badgerpatrol is one. As far as the user who blocked you goes, I don't remember ever having stated I held him in high regard (I actually don't remember working with him at all!), so that's coming way out of left field. As is the NCSE thing. I am not at all "upset" that someone has told me my participation on WR upsets him/her; I expected such at some point. I am concerned that the issue has devolved into "popularity". Popularity won't build an encyclopedia, Filll, and it certainly won't build an encyclopedia of good repute. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

YOU WIN

We managed to drive off another productive editor who worked on an article for a year and brought it to FA level. We did it so we wouldnt offend a mentally ill troll and sock puppet creationist. Why? Because we have to AGF. Good for you. Feel proud of yourself. I am going to put the article up for AfD because of course, we know that AGF to creationists and sock puppets and trolls is worth far more than content and productive users, right?

Of course, you are right. You are always right. Good job!!!--Filll (talk) 04:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)