User talk:68.42.4.76/Archive 2

Note: This page was originally located at User talk:68.84.34.154, and follows me as my IP address changes.

John Baker (musher)
I moved your nice-looking article into the main space. Thanks. You clearly don't want to create an account, so I'll spare you the sales pitch. ×Meegs 12:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it would be a good idea to clear-out your old IP's user and talk page; who knows who'll be using it next. Do you want me to move User talk:68.81.231.127 to User talk:68.84.34.154/archive or something similar?  You could do a cut-and-paste, but a move would preserve the history.  Also, I just made you a user page, so we should probably blank the old one, or have it deleted.  In any case, let me know if I can help you with any registered-user kind of stuff. ×Meegs 13:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. I took care of Ramy Brooks and moved your old talk page to User talk:68.84.34.154/68.81.231.127 Archive. I'm just going to blank the old user page, but I'll list it for deletion if you prefer. ×Meegs 17:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, you restored the redirects. That's fine, just keep an eye out for new users on the old IP, and clear-out if one shows-up. ×Meegs 17:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Dinosaur stubs
Hi, 68. You recently left a message about the quality of dinosaur stubs on Wikipedia on the Wikipedia dinosaur project page.

People may get a "very poor impression of the dinosaur coverage in Wikipedia" because the dinosaur coverage on Wikipedia is very poor. We're slowly rectifying, that, but it will take time. There's no way 1,000 articles of "3-10 short sentences" are going to spring out effortlessly. It takes time. Until we have time to get to each article, the sub-stubs are better than nothing. You say some editors "prefer creating their own articles", indicating we should leave the links red, but that's not really even the spirit of Wikipedia: we're here to build an encyclopedia together, not "claim" articles, or leave articles red in the hopes that someone will write a full-length article. We're writing the articles. But it takes time. Check back in a few months if you get a chance. Cheers!--Firsfron 04:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Dinosaurs
I missed this line of yours at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs for some reason:

"I find it irritating that someone who doesn't actually work on the project is someone who wants to detract from what we're doing." I think it's great that there are a number of enthusiastic people working on dinosaurs, and I've probably made more contributions than you think.

Using the dinosaur article as an example, I added the entire size and behavior sections, and they haven't changed that much; I expanded the intro, definition, and history, and they're still mostly written by me; I significantly added to the feathers, added 3 out of 4 of the general references, and while I didn't create it the "renaissance" section is mostly my words copied from other places in the article. I did a little work on several other sections, but I don't think I touched evolution, most of the areas of debate, extinction theories, or religious views.

I don't really think of dinosaur as one of the articles I've done much work on. I mostly prefer to write new articles or greatly expand tiny little ones, and a lot of them have been on dinosaurs. I'm not really into vanity pages so I would require a bit of work, but if you dig into my contributions at my old IP, you might be surprised. I just haven't been active in about a year (my schedule is like that; in fact, I'm leaving again for about a month, today).

-Pat | 68.84.34.154 14:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Pat!

Thanks for the message. My apologies; my comment there was a moment of frustration I really regret. I haven't seen your older work on the dinosaur articles, but I'm sure it was solid work. And your recent work on the articles has been really great. I'm sorry you won't be around this month; we could really have used your contributions. Have a great month!--Firsfron 00:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)