User talk:Abyssal/Archive 7

Paleobiota of the Morrison Formation‎
Apologies for reverting your initial edit there. - The Bushranger (talk) 08:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back
Cheers for the warm return! I've now finally got a chance to spend some time on wiki, so I thought I'd return. The thalattosuchians are biting quite well thanks! Got a couple of ZJLS papers out, which is always nice! Best, Mark t young (talk) 13:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Lists
Hi Abyssal. I have dramatically changed your article "List of prehistoric chitons", changing the format of the list from a table to a simple list of items.

I did that because all the columns in the table were empty of information (except the name of the chiton).

Wikipedia is not a place for incomplete articles so, if you are writing an article and you want to save it in the Wikipedia server, please create that in a workpage, a subpage or practice your assays in the sandbox. Release the articles only if you think the article will appear as complete for a Wikipedia user or, at least, even if you want to add more information, leave the article without blank spaces or fields to fill, and continue your work in the spaces designed for that, mentioned before.

Thank you for your work.

Best. Flakinho (talk) 01:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Abundance
Thanks! I'd support changing abundance to material, or maybe something like number of specimens (less technical?). I agree there are relatively few papers listing relative abundance and therefore it will always be incomplete, and likely go out of date quickly. MMartyniuk (talk) 04:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A bit, at least in reference to fossil specimens it's not a term you usually see in popular literature. But I wouldn't have a problem with it either way. MMartyniuk (talk) 07:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The graph project
Hi there - Sorry to bother you...I noticed that you used to be interested in the Wikireason project. I wanted to introduce you to a similar project, thegraph.org, which was presented at a number of Wikipedia-related conferences this year (it was launched by a bunch of Wikipedians late last year). Maybe this will interest you... --Vptes (talk) 19:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for the Barnstar! My first outside acknowledgment of my contributions to Wiki will not be forgotten!Qfl247 (talk) 19:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of people said to be angels


The article List of people said to be angels has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners or ask at Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. I42 (talk) 20:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of List of people said to be angels
I have nominated List of people said to be angels, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/List of people said to be angels. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. I42 (talk) 18:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * just so you know, rather than deleting this article, I've userfied it at User:Abyssal/Angel In the current shape it could have been deleted, but I think you could salvage it... but make sure you have specific references and name it something along the lines of List of Angels according to the UAS or something. That should overcome most of the objections to the vagueness and inclusion criteria.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Angel article
I think you could make something quite decent out of this, so don't give up hope yet :) The suggestion at AFD about adding information about LDS views on who is an angel was interesting, that's an alternative to making it specific to one church. Best of wishes with it! TheGrappler (talk) 10:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Micro-Yix
Interesting! Just M. gui or M. zhaoianus too? This looks persistent in the "early days" of Microraptor. It's on DinoData, for example, but the listed cite only says it was found near Yixian city, and doesn't list the formation. I remember doing a drawing of Yixian critters around 2003 that included Micro. I guess the fact that feathered dino != Yixian only entered the mass consciousness fairly recently ;) MMartyniuk (talk) 02:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and while I'm at it, does he list any M. gui specimens from Jiufotang, or is the whole shebang labelled Yixian? I'm wondering if this is actually referring to some of the undescribed Yixian microraptorians, which could really be anything. MMartyniuk (talk) 02:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Scale chart
Hey Abyssal, what do you like better about the old one? Always room for improvement. MMartyniuk (talk) 01:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you really like them all packed together? I figured this way it was easier to see more of the individual dinosaurs. As for the pose looking unnatural, I'm not sure why... maybe it's really jarring to see a giant theropod not running at full tilt? MMartyniuk (talk) 02:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Endocranium, endocast
Hi! Thanks for your addition to the endocranium article! I'm just wondering if your contribution should have it's own article rather than being part of the endocranium article? The majority of links to the article is actually redirects via "endocast" and "cranial endocast". I haven't come across "endocranium" being used as as synonym for "endocast". If you have a reference, could you ad it? Petter Bøckman (talk) 12:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * See if you like the new endocast article. I have redirected the link pages. Petter Bøckman (talk) 21:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Tooth
Could you give the link? Tb hotch Ta lk C. 23:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Really, becuase i see no Supports oppose neutral votes for NEITHER user, including you. Tb hotch Ta lk C. 23:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Astronomical bodies in pseudoscience and the paranormal
I thought you should know that User talk:Twinsday tagged this page for deletion. Please note that I didn't tag it, but I thought that this list was very interesting and hope that it can be saved. I then noticed that you weren’t notified in order to address the issues User talk:Twinsday listed for deletion.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 16:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC) -

The article Astronomical bodies in pseudoscience and the paranormal has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * not notable subject, depends mostly on one source, synthesis

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Ceratopsian hands
I'm basing the idea on Fujiwara, S.-I. (2009), A Reevaluation of the manus structure in Triceratops (Ceratopsia: Ceratopsidae). and Senter, P. (2007), Analysis of forelimb function in basal ceratopsians and some discussion on the Psittacosaurus page, but if I've misunderstood the situation please do notify me. Albertonykus (talk) 08:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Cryptozoology
Hi! The above article needs some work; we are trying to increase its quality to raise awareness of the topic in wikipedia. If you can help that would be great!-- Gniniv (talk) 06:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Gorgonocephalus


The article Gorgonocephalus has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Invalid genus name, as noted here, occupying pagespace rightfullying belonging to a genus of echinoderm.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mokele (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Ornithomimosaur scale
Very tempting... but the question is, to Deinocheirus or not to Deinocheirus? MMartyniuk (talk) 03:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Alert!
Congratulations! Abyssal (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A bit late (haven't been checking messages on wikipedia for a while), but thanks. NobuTamura (talk) 15:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar!
Hey Abyssal, thank you for the Barnstar! :) It's greatly appreciated! Steveoc 86 (talk) 23:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks...You are the first but to be fair I don't do that much around here these days. Steveoc 86 (talk) 21:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Oobox
Sure! I'll put it at oobox. Got a couple questions for you-- *Do you have some sample classifications I can test this with? Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 19:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The basal root taxon for automatic taxobox is Life; the one for ichnobox is Ichnos. Should the one for oobox be Eggshells, or is there a better word? Edit: Veterovata, perhaps?


 * Found some samples. Never mind that question. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 19:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Restore
Done, but with all due respect, it was nothing but a taxobox. Asking "please" in the future would be of tremendous help as well. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, gotcha. Sorry for the inconvenience.  It was bot-tagged for being too short and I simply deleted it based on the lack of content.  Should have checked your edit history first.  --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

No prob. :) Signing off for now.  Take care and thanks for setting me straight.



PMDrive1061 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Taxonomy/Dendroolithus
It should be working now. You had linked the Dendroolithidae to the wrong parent. I've corrected that and normalized a few other things, such as making the taxa extinct, adding the oomagnorder, and cleaning up the format of Taxonomy/Dinosauroid-Spherulitic. Also-- was Taxonomy/Spherulitic created in error? Let me know if you have other issues! Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 20:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Try adding the 2 parameter. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 21:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I was actually using the para template to display the code you needed to add to the oobox. So, assuming you don't have any other parameters in the oobox, it will look like this:

Hope that helps. There are lots of other parameters that can be added to it, such as authority and fossil range. I've also added underconstruction for you to that page so that it doesn't get deleted again prematurely. Also-- if you'd like to test an ichnobox in a sandbox, you'd add the taxon parameter-- like so:

You can use as many parameters as you need to, just like in the taxobox. The automated taxonomy generation just makes it much more compact and updates the taxonomies across all articles at the same time. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 22:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoops! Glad you spoke up again; I'd made the changes to Oobox but I'd used "Preview Changes" and forgot to save them. It should be working now. Thanks for your persistance! You've helped debug a template! Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 23:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks for the barnstar! I hope you continue using the automatic taxobox family templates I'm sure eventually you'll master the art, too. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 00:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)