User talk:Jbrougham

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Firsfron of Ronchester 16:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Dinosaurs
Hi Jbrougham!

Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia on dinosaurs. You may want to consider joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs. The pages there can help you with ideas for improvements to articles and get you in touch with other editors who share your interests and who may have access to publications you can use to expand Wikipedia's coverage of dinosaurs. Again, thank you for your contributions. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester  17:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Little context in WDC DML 001
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on WDC DML 001, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because WDC DML 001 is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting WDC DML 001, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it did not nominate WDC DML 001 itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 13:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of Wdc DML 001
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Wdc DML 001, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Wdc DML 001 is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Wdc DML 001, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it did not nominate Wdc DML 001 itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 02:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Eshanosaurus
Hi Jbrougham,

Thanks so much for greatly expanding Eshanosaurus. This article is much more fleshed out, now. Keep up the great work! Firsfron of Ronchester 21:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about formatting so much. As you say, that can easily be cleaned up by other editors. We're just glad to have you aboard. :) If you do have any questions, you can ask at WP:DINO or on my talk page. Again, thanks for your contributions. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester  23:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Bird reference
Not a problem about the reference fix. If you have a spare moment, please review citation informaiton. It may help you out for future "reference". -- Blind Eagle  talk ~ contribs  21:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Avialae
Hey Jbrougham, I agree that Gauthier's system of apomorphy-based definitions is a good one (though I'd personally anchor the name Aves to feathers...). I'm not so sure, though, that a lot of modern researchers have adopted Gauthier's system, at least among dinosaurologists. I can't recall any papers from the last five years or more that use Gauthier's apomorphy-based Avialae. Most recent papers have used the branch-based definition. Hopefully phylocode will sort this out when/if it's implemented, it seems a lot of top people there prefer Gauthier's system. Maybe the subclades section of the taxobox should simply read "See text", since under the stem definition they would be Epi and Aves, and under Gauthier's system they'd be... well, I couldn't tell you, since I've never seen any published studies using Avialae in the apomorphy sense since the discovery of feathered dinosaurs! With so much uncertainty about flight in fossil species, it could well include Dromaeosauridae (or at least Rahonavis). Then there's the hybrid system, that uses branch-based Avialae and crown group aves... Dinoguy2 05:38, 1 November 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)
 * Hey Jb!
 * Thanks for your note. I really appreciate your contributions, and you've added some nice stuff. I don't think Dinoguy has a grudge against you. But I'm going to talk:Dromaeosauridae to discuss these things, and I hope you will, too. Don't worry, these types of discussions happen all the time; we'll get this sorted out. :) Firsfron of Ronchester  06:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Alan turner interview mahakala.pdf
Thank you for uploading Image:Alan turner interview mahakala.pdf. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 00:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Maniraptora
Hey JB! I agree Maniraptora needs a whole lot of work. I did write some (most of my contribs were over a year ago, when I was still somewhat in my own 'little essay' phase most editors seem to go through!). I'll dig through my refs and see what I can do with it over the next few days. You seem to have a pretty extensive collection of refs as well, so any headway you can make on the article would be much appreciated! Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Archaeoraptor
Hi J! Nice work on Archaeoraptor. Haven't had a chance to look through all the changes yet but they seem to be good contributions. Just wanted to pass along a minor formatting issue--I notice in a lot of your contributions you often neglect to use italics on genus/species names, and tend to place punctuation after a ref rather than before it. The wiki style guide says it should be "Sentence one.(reference tag) Sentence two." Anyway, very minor issues I know, but they help a lot with copyediting. Thanks! Dinoguy2 (talk) 21:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting, didn't know that. Have they published any dubious specimens aside from Archaeo? Which was never actually published by them... my impression has been that their descriptions are lacking, not the fossils. For example, many paleo types seem to resent the Linneanesque way they classify things with redundant taxa (perfectly valid under all current codes), and some of their more out-there theories (Scansors as proto-theropods, etc.) lack cladistic support.

Oh, one mare thing to look out for--somebody on the DML posted the correct way to cite Sereno's Taxon Search (which should be done sparingly, as it is unpublished and should be considered on par with any other web site). Also Sereno's... unconventional approach to redundant taxa and taxa based on dubious types should probably be kept to taxonomy sections, not the introductory paragraphs. Much of it stems from the fact that he blatantly ignores the ICZN. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Jiufotang Formation
A tag has been placed on Jiufotang Formation, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on |the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. hateless 21:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I decided to remove the Speedy Deletion tag since it started to look as if the article could be on a valid subject. However, it is extremely confusing, especially to a laymen. Please rewrite the article to make it accessible to the average reader. Thanks. hateless 21:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

edits to birds
I noticed you made some substantial edits to bird regarding the bird origin controversy. While any edits are welcome from someone who clearly knows a great deal about the subject I was wondering if you could perhaps go over your edits from a stylistic perspective. This is a general article, giving a higher level overview of the subject; as such the details of who thought what are less important and don't need to be cited in the form of an introduction to a journal article ( Many maniraptoran lineages are extremely birdlike, and it has been sugested that different groups of birds may have descended from different dinosaur ancestors. is much preferable to Barsbold (1983) [18] and Zweers&Vanden Berge (1998) [19] noted that many maniraptoran lineages are extremely birdlike, and sugested that different groups of birds may have descended from different dinosaur ancestors. for this kind of article). Obviously some names are important, like Martin, Feduccia etc, but the more detailed toos and fros can sit more comfortably on the more specialised articles. In fact, the paucity of information on the alternative theories was as a result of input from the team at WP:DINO, who suggested against giving it undue weight. Please also notice that the article is already way too long. Cheers! Sabine's Sunbird  talk  19:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for so many authors, but people might be really interested in some of the diverse opinion. That is true, but there is far too much detail for an article that is supposed top cover the whole sweep of bird. This is a featured article and it has to be concise and that means covering many aspects quite sparingly, particularly when they are covered anywhere else (as in the specific articles on origin of birds and bird evolution. For example, the whole domestication of birds gets barely two lines. A multi-billion dollar industry gets just two lines. Do you mind if I pare it down to something more manageable and general? Sabine's Sunbird  talk  02:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't intend to delete much of it, I just want to make it about the birds and not about the science and scientists as much as possible. I realise that the dino crowd might like to know who said what but it is not the style in which the rest of the article is written. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  03:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, subpoint. The bit about archie not being a bird at all would belong in the archie article (featured but not currently mentioned, and it should be. It deserves a mention here but is more about Archaeopteryx. Me moving it is problematic, because that would be cut and paste moving which is tricky for attribution reasons. You should add it, perhaps leaving a message on the archie talk page discussing it first. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  03:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Me again. I moved your text to two talk pages so that people can incorporate it into the best places, and summarised the main points (archie maybe not dino, something else may be), using your refs. The rest I just rephrased do drop too much mention of scientists. Cheers! Sabine's Sunbird  talk  03:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply
The deletion discussion was at Articles for deletion/Temporal paradox (paleontology). — Kurykh  03:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Archaeoraptor
Hey Jb,

After all your hard work on Archaeoraptor, I have decided to nominate it for Good Article status, meaning that the article is well-written, factually accurate, broad in coverage, neutral, and stable. Thanks so much for re-writing this article. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester  02:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

bird scales
I moved your contributions to bird about scales to bird anatomy; it was good but a little detailed compared to most other aspects of bird anatomy in the article. If you have big objections to this let me know. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  20:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Lithornis
A tag has been placed on Lithornis, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template   to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. SpitfireTally-ho! 22:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Paleognathae orders
Hi Jason. Great to see the new content you're adding about Paleognathae. A question though - you have said there are 6 living orders, including Dromaiidae. But aren't there 5 orders, with Dromaiidae part of the Casuariiformes order? Note that Dromaiidae ends in -idae suggesting it is a mere family. Can you check. cheers Nurg (talk) 11:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Original synthesis
Hi, I noticed this. The actual content itself seems to be original synthesis - the references only talk about the birds, the link itself is not established by them. Is there something I am missing? Thanks, &mdash; neuro  (talk)  16:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Neurolysis. I am not sure what you mean about the link itself is not established by them. I am trying not to amke it an original synthesis, maybe you could suggest how I could make it more strictly factual. My point is that, in Biology, one always wants to compare a specimen to other specimens to help interpret them accurately. I would be interested to see if anyone agrees that this may be useful. But, really, I'm open to your suggestions.Jbrougham (talk) 17:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My point is that your comparison is original synthesis. None of the sources link what you are saying with Deinonychus. Being 'useful' does not supersede being verifiable. &mdash; neuro  (talk)  17:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. Got you. What I wrote does not say that they are linked to Deinonychus. And I was careful to make sure it is all verifiable. In other words, in an article about, say, the horns of a Triceratops, where everyone wonders if they used them to fight each other or T. rex, or both, can you add a blurb about chameleons that only fight each other with them? That seems a relevant piece of information, one must just be careful not to suggest, in an original manner, that, therefore, Triceratops used them that way. I'm just trying to enrich the subject with comparison, not present any point of view. Do you think there's any room for that?Jbrougham (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't doubt your ability to read that cassowary paper, but it could nonetheless be an interesting read (adress is dram.epost at gmail.com). I might as well commnt on the originality charge above: a web search reveals you are not the first one to make that comparison. Narayanese (talk) 11:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Snakes and Cassowaries
My bad, I adjusted the diet section, added the reference and left the snake in there even though (you are right of course) it was not in the Davis Literature. I should have deleted the snake bit. Again my bad and thanks for cleaning that up. speednat (talk) 05:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Anchi...
Was just blogging this based on your update to the article! I couldn't find the article in the article section of Nature, thanks for the link to the front page! I'm blown away dude! Every theropod worker out there needs to buy GSP a beer, it's his bloody birthday. Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Right on about Greg Paul! However, I don't think we can be certain the ancestral paravian was a glider and not a flier. Looking at basal members of each of the 3 main paravian lineages, we have Anchiornis (wings with curved rachis but symmetrical), Microraptor (wings with curved rachis and asymmetrical), and Archaeopteryx (wings with straight? rachis and asymmetrical). If it was a polytomy, you could say it was a toss-up. However, Anchi is closer to Micro than to Archie, so it's almost more parsimonious to assume that curved asymmetrical rachides are the ancestral trait and that Anchiornis was on the way to losing flight (like the symmetrical primaries of the Kakapo). Or alternatively, that asymmetry evolved twice from flying or gliding, symmetric wings in response to selective pressure, and the asymmetry in Micro and Archie are not homologous). So GSP may still be right though the picture is still pretty murky... Anyway, also curious to see GSP's take, I wonder if this comes too late for the new book he's been working on. Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Venom
Yeah, no worries. If there are sources that can cast a bit of light on the odd assertions in the paper pending a specific BAD rebuttal we should certainly include them. Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Temporal paradox (paleontology). Re-AFD?
I've started a discussion on the article Temporal paradox (paleontology) on the Talk page of WP:Dinosaurs -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dinosaurs#Temporal_paradox_.28paleontology.29._It.27s_back._Need_to_re-AFD.3F

I invite you to participate.

[EDIT] - also added a link at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Temporal_paradox_%28paleontology%29 for the benefit of other editors.

-- Writtenonsand (talk) 14:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Active
Hi Jb,

Saw that you're active again and figured I'd drop by and say hi. Nice to "see" you! Firsfron of Ronchester 12:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)