User talk:Smith609/Archive 3

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Thelodonti, was selected for DYK!
Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 (talk) 18:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Monobook.css
here is the deletion log and here is the RFD discussion. Cheers! henrik • talk  16:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Cambrian explosion timeline
Can you make this about 2/3 of its current width? Its current size and placement force all the TOC entries in Cambrian explosion to take 2 or 3 lines.Philcha 13:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing it, and for the help link. Re my "tiny screen", I have a 17" monitor and use 800x600 because my eyesight's poor.
 * Re "back on the article", I've been waiting for Graham Budd to respond to some requests for info which I added to his long post on in Talk:Cambrian explosion, but he hasn't responded in the last 2 months.
 * I compared my last edit with the article as it currently stands, and still prefer the structure of my last version because it explains the major concepts before going into details, which I think the general reader will need. What do you think?Philcha 20:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:Graphical timeline
Hello Verisimilus, I am a user from the German WP and I find your Template:Graphical timeline really very appealing. It looks much better and clearer than the template that I used for to show stratigraphical correlation of regional stages with international stages. I found the latter template on the German WP (originally from the en:WP) and modified it. However, in your program the lettres are much clearer, it simply looks much better. What I have to do to transfer it to the German WP? Could you help us to do this? I am not very experienced with scripts, I can just modify parameters. Just to introduce myself. I did a lot in the field Geology/Paleontology/Organisms in der German WP (e.g. all geological stages, e.g. ). You can also contact me in the de:WP on my discussion page. Greetings from Berlin -- 160.45.81.162 14:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Verisimilus, thanks a lot for your advice. I first will try for myself. If I need help, I'll contact you again. Greetings from Berlin -- Engeser (talk) 19:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Verisimilus, I copied the templates but the result was this. What went wrong? Greetings -- Engeser (talk) 20:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Now I am very close. Have a look. But what is still missing? Greetings. -- Engeser (talk) 09:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did it. Sorry, I forgot to give you a notice. Graphical timeline/doc is already translated. However, it is a lot more to do. Thanks a lot. Greetings -- Engeser 20:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC) Still some (minor) problems. I wanted at first replace this Template with this graphic (based on your script). Its not yet finished. It looks much better. However, the new template does not display any stages above the Eggenburgium, although the other Paratethys stages are in the scipt. Is there a syntax error at this part of the script (and I do not see it), or is the number of bars limited? The Dividing lines do also not show up. Any idea?. Greetings -- Engeser (talk) 16:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Verisimilus, we tried now your script in several templates (for the Germanic Triassic) and the results look very nice. This was fun, now the work begins (translation and documentation). Could you help me first to remove the 28-bar restriction. In some template it would be nice to have at least 50 better would be 100. Where in the script I have to change the parameters. I haven´t found it in your help pages yet. Best wishes -- Engeser 11:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello Verisimilus, the script worked very well until yesterday before I included categories to the parts of the script with syntax. I thought this is correct. Now the scale text (mya) is far away from scale. Have a look. What went wrong. May be you know a quick solution. Otherwise I have to revert every part of the script to yesterday´s versions. Greetings -- Engeser (talk) 15:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello Verisimilus, my fellow Wiki-Hypo on the de:Wp solved the problem, with the wide distance of the scale legend to the scale. Two script parts show error report on the de:WP (see and ). Translation "Expression-Fehler: Unerwarteter Operator: /" = "expression error: unexspected operator: /" and "Expression-Fehler: Unerwarteter Operator: /; Expression-Fehler: Unerkanntes Wort „strong“" = "unrecognized word „strong“". This part is an exact copy from the en:WP. I tried it several times. Any ideas? I give you later a compilation of our results of testing the script. Some minor problems with different browser and monitors. Best wishes -- Engeser (talk) 09:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC) PS: I think the result see here was well worth the effort of transferring your script to the de:WP. With Firefox it's perfect, however, not so with IE. But I will tell you later. -- Engeser (talk) 09:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello Verisimilus, I tried to understand why a missing template border-style is shown in the template-list of graphical timeline. In the template draw bar I fond the code-line  ) . Shoudn't there be used border-style included of three "{}"? -- de:Wiki-Hypo 19:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC) Here is the change I made in the german template: . A few minutes after the change the missing template was gone. Can you explain me, what this mistake can effect? de:Wiki-Hypo 20:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I've found template to be broken (both in IE and FF), and after some search I think I've located an error in Template:Timeline_Note. It goes like:  I just don't know how to fix it. Victordk13 (talk) 16:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for your bug report. The code you've shown shouldn't (as far as I can tell) cause a problem, nor indeed be visible except in the source. The underlying problem is that the move to the new preprocessor has changed the way that templates work, and I can't find any guide as to exactly what changes have been made - or how to fix them.  Hopefully this will be fixed soon! Verisimilus  T  16:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reply. I see now others already noted this bug or similar. Victordk13 (talk) 17:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

José Cabrera Costas
While correcting the alphabetical order of recent entries in the List of Puerto Ricans, I ran across this name, which I alphabetized without passing judgment as to whether he was sufficiently notable for inclusion in the list. I checked him out and decided to draft a stub, which you have tagged for deletion.

While I personally think his name should not yet be on the list of notables, I'll leave that decision to the Puerto Rico-based editors who manage that list. However, I do believe that his bio merits inclusion in Wikipedia.

For those who are familiarized with the recent political history of Puerto Rico, where elections are won or lost by tenths of a percentage point, Cabrera has taken upon himself to rebuild the organization created in 1979 that virtually decided the 1980 gubernatorial election (decided by 3,000 out of 2 million votes cast). The founders then of the organization are now the current president of the Puerto Rico Senate Kenneth McClintock and Congressman Luis Fortuño.

While I don't know him personally, based on what I've read and heard about him, he is an emerging leader who may very well help decide the 2008 gubernatorial race.

I would urge you to allow this bio to develop, through further reesearch on my part, and contributions by others.Pr4ever (talk) 13:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll get on it early in the week.Pr4ever (talk) 20:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Edward John Horan
Hi,

I noticed that you added a "notability" tag to this stub. I don't understand why? He was a Roman Catholic Bishop of Kingston, Ontario and his biography is contained in the Dictionary of Canadian Biography, a third-party source dictionary of biographical entries for individuals that have contributed to the History of Canada. Can you please explain why you think this stub is not notable? --YUL89YYZ (talk) 17:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:Documentation/doc/see also reverted
I reverted your edit as confusing to the original purpose. I've added comments stating purpose and instructions for additions to assist your addition if still appropriate, see Documentation/doc/see also.

I read your template and that's a great idea and implementation. I just don't understand it's relationship to the documentation support templates. – Conrad T. Pino (talk) 01:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Přídolí
I don't doubt you that Přídolí is the proper spelling in Czech of the place after which the Pridoli epoch is named. But do you have a substantial reference for calling the "Pridoli epoch" the "Přídolí epoch" in English? There is plenty of evidence for "Pridoli epoch" in English, see, e.g. The Pridoli, GeoWhen Database, etc. --Bejnar (talk) 13:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of instances in the scientific literature, I'll dig some examples out when I get the chance.

Verisimilus  T  14:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd appreciate that. Not just examples, but authoritative examples would be useful. The USGS appears to use Pridoli. "Divisions of Geologic Time—Major Chronostratigraphic and Geochronologic Units" USGS, "Strategraphis Nomenclature and Description" Suggestions to Authors of the Reports of the United States Geological Survey --Bejnar (talk) 15:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

New Thelodont Image Question
Was Shielia tiati from the Silurian or Devonian and was it from Europe?--Mr Fink (talk) 15:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks muchly!--Mr Fink (talk) 18:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:Redundant taxobox
Hello, how about creating a separate category Category:Redundant taxobox as a subcat of ToL cleanup. This would make it easier to identify pages with your new template. Thought I would ask before doing it as you just created your template and I didn't want to step in where I wasn't wanted. Regards&mdash; G716  &lt;T·C&gt; 14:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Do you know how to prevent the template being listed in the category? Regards&mdash; G716  &lt;T·C&gt; 01:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Just added template to additional 94 pages using AWB. Regards&mdash; G716  &lt;T·C&gt; 01:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

RE:Aeropyrum pernix for Did you know
Well, I can expand the artcile further. Once the article is expanded, will it be accepted? Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Eocene
I saw you put a "misleading" tag on the Eocene page. Could you put something in the talk page clarifying what is potentially misleading? It's hard to tell from the position of the tag, and nothing jumps out at me about it. KarlM (talk) 12:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Tribrachidium.png
Please explain why this is wrongly named and should be deleted. I am restoring your licenses pending your answer. Thank you.--Jusjih (talk) 01:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Because it's not Tribrachidium, it's an Edrioasteroid. A more suitably cropped version of the image is available elsewhere.


 * Thanks,


 * Verisimilus  T  11:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Where is the substitute image?--Jusjih (talk) 03:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message so I have deleted the wrongly named duplicate per your request.--Jusjih (talk) 02:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Cambrian explosion draft 1 done
Hi, I hope you had a good Christmas, and a good New Year if you don't see this before then. I've completed draft 1 of the revised Cambrian explosion and would be grateful,if you'd review it and post comments on its Talk page. Still on my To Do list: decide whether to produce a separate section on Mol Phylo analyses (the "Mol Phylo" item in "Types of Evidence" already summarises with refs ‡); check whether I need to incorporate anything from GB's "Significance of the Data"; consider whether the length of the article is a problem and, if so, what to do; smooth the rough edges. ‡ I confess I'm a sceptic about using Mol Phylo for dates, especially when the fossil evidence seems to be improving so rapidly. Philcha (talk) 18:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for looking in on Cambrian explosion. I understand and share your concern about the length of the article. My first concern is whether the current draft (excluding "Significance of the Data") contains any errors or omits anything important; in particular, does it need a separate section on Mol Phylo analyses? Then I'll trawl through "Significance of the Data" and merge in anything else that seeems important; when that's done I'll comment out "Significance of the Data" and eventually remove it. Once I'm happpy there there are no errors or significant omissions, I'll slim it down.
 * I probably won't start any of this for a week or so, in the hope that I'll be seeing the article with fresher eyes and will be less likely to fall into the trap of seeing what I expect to see. Philcha (talk) 11:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your recent comments. I've made a few small changes as a result. Now I think we need to get down to some serious discussion, as I agree there's a lot of room for improvement. Philcha (talk) 12:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Snowball Earth
Hi, you added a ref Kirschvink1992 but in the next edit you used a named ref Kirschwinv2002 which is undefined ? - phe 17:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)