User talk:Tbc2

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! - UtherSRG 02:54, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Equisetum japonicum
I've got Equisetum japonicum in my pond, but it isn't mentioned here as a species. Is this really an existing species or not? Tbc2 19:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * From en:Talk:Horsetail
 * Checked up - it is usually treated as a synonym of Equisetum hyemale - MPF 17 nov 2005 11:54 (CET)

English Encyclopedia
Hello, I'm User:TBC from the English Wikipedia. If you want to add your name under the list of people with the tbc abbreviation, do so as I wouldn't really mind. Afterall, Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia. Cheers. --69.140.119.102 16 feb 2006 02:35 (CET)

English Wikipedia Dinosaur images
I guess "bewerk" means edit... Hope I hit the right button... Hoi! Sorry for my lack of Dutch, Tbc. Thanks for your recent addition of a couple of dinosaur pictures to English Wikipedia. Wikipedia WikiProject Dinosaurs is in desperate need of accurate photos for the 800 genera articles that have recently been created. Your Mamenchisaurus addition was greatly appreciated. However, your sketch of Dilophosaurus was removed, because it does not meet the WikiProject guidelines. Recent evidence indicates that theropods had greatly stiffened tails, while the picture you included shows an animal whose tail could perhaps have been tied in knots. Since you appear to be a talented artist, if you could rework the image, keeping to the rather stringent guidelines set up at WikiProject:Dinosaurs (the link to the page is available on every English dinosaur talk page) that would be fine. Thanks again for your Mamenchisaurus addition. Doei! (Hope I got that right...) --Firsfron on English Wikipedia.
 * For the record, the answer: en:User_talk:Firsfron/Archive_2. Tbc 17 jun 2006 21:57 (CEST)
 * Hoi Tbc, thanks for the note on my page. I can only agree with Dinoguy below when he says he hopes you'll maybe create some new images. Thanks also for the correction on my poor attempt at Dutch. I guess I should just stick to English from now on. Happy editing, and...er.. tot later! (Hope that means what I guess it means)--67.150.65.103 17 jun 2006 23:17 (CEST) (Firsfron on en.wikipedia)
 * Hi Tbc, just chiming in after your note on my talk. While some of those images show real artisitc merit (the Deinonychus is great in terms of style and technique), it looks as if you did not use any anatomical references for them (please correct me if I'm off base here). The Dilohphosaurus, in particular, does not really resembe a Dilophosaurus in any of its anatomical details, from the size of the torso, to the proportions of the arms and fingers, to the shape/size of the skull and crests. The Deinonychus and Tyrannosaurus suffer similar problems, and the tyrannosaur is posed in such a way that many portions of its anatomy would have to be completely disarticulated. The images are just not appropriate for an encyclopedia, even as a representation of an historical perspective (an actual period drawing of dinosaurs with these exact same inncacuracies could disprove this point, I guess). Anyway, you do have real artistic talent and I hope you'll consider producing some new contributions. You might find these sources useful in helping with issues of anatomy: Skeletal reconstructions on the Dinosauricon, Scott Hartman's dinosaur anatomy site, Kyoht's dromaeosaur tutorial, with some excellent bits on anatomy that apply to most theropods.69.34.63.86 17 jun 2006 22:44 (CEST) (Dinoguy2 on en.wikipedia)
 * For the record, the answer: en:User_talk:Dinoguy2.
 * Re- your Pachycephalosaurus image: looks great! I'm not as knowledgable about ornithopods as I am on theropods, though, so i'd encourage you to submit it for comments on . 69.34.63.86 19 jun 2006 00:33 (CEST) (Dinoguy 2)

Welcome to WikiProject Dinosaurs!
Saw your name added to the list, and figured I'd drop a friendly note to say hi and welcome (officially!) to the team! I hope you'll add lots of great pictures. Your Parasaurolophus is really good. Happy editing :) --67.150.70.89 23 jun 2006 18:19 (CEST) (Firsfron on English Wikipedia)

"Approving" dinosaur images
Hi there Firsfron, after I stumbled upon your comment on Sheeps' talk page, I'd like to say something and I hope other people who make drawings will agree with me. When a drawing is "approved", this is certainly not something that's forever and that's it. When later other people say: "I don't think this drawing is appropriate", for example because there is a better one or because insights have changed or whatever, images sure can be replaced! That's the wiki way. I'm certainly not going to make a fuss about it. Since I also have the impression that the dinosaur project does not have that many active contributors and you seem to feel a weight of responsability on your shoulders about the images' approval, I'd like to say: don't worry, when an image is "approved", it can be "de-approved" (hmm, don't know if this is right...) again when more people look at it later, eg. Dinoguy or others. As I'm only human, I feels nice to read things as 'I like your drawing!' or 'I think it's anatomically correct', those things do not mean that the image will be in the article forever or that it really is correct. By the way, some images that are in articles today will probably replaced one day (eg. User:Tbc2/notes)... Keep up the good work! Tbc2 17:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note, Tbc! You know, of course you are right, but I still felt strange. It's like: you guys are willing to work with us, and get feedback and suggestions... the least we can do is offer the best advice possible. I'm afraid I sometimes worry I'm not giving the best advice possible. And so if the image is somehow deemed unacceptable, that's not your fault. But I do, at the same time, get your meaning. Thanks.
 * About the three Herrerasaurus images: out of all carnivorous dinosaurs, those three could probably stay, because it's been proved that theropods had highly stiffened tails, but the Herrerasaurs aren't definitely theropods, and might not even be dinosaurs in the truest sense (it's still being debated). So the only carnivorous dinosaurs with snake-like tails that should be up would possibly be those three.
 * Anyway, thanks again for your message. Happy editing! Tot later! (Firsfron on en.wikipedia)--65.122.230.157 30 jun 2006 01:25 (CEST)

Note from Tbc2
The comments above were copy pasted from my Dutch discussion page, but since I come here more often nowadays, I thought maybe I should not redirect people to my Dutch page anymore in order to keep comments on en and in order to save other some Dutch adventures :) Tbc2 12:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Chasmosaurus now Agujaceratops..?
Great drawing, now I think that it was inspired by the C. mariscalensis which is now (as of 2006) renamed.....Agujaceratops....Cas Liber 00:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you want it on the page as is? If you want to be really daring there is some evidence the horny growths on the jugals may have been longer than thought (i.e. the keratin may have been quite a bit longer than the bone, judging from a recent very well preserved Psittacisaurus find in Liaoning China. Cas Liber 00:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hello Cas, thanks for your interest. I took another look at a drawing of the skull of C. mariscalensis (Texas Memorial Museum, Austin) in "The Horned Dinosaurs" by Dodson (1996).  There are indeed arguments why the skull looks like C. mariscalensis, for example the size of the slightly recurved postorbital horns, the curved frill and the number of epoccipitals.  However there are also notable differences: the shape of the nasal horn (C. mariscalensis' nasal horn points forward).  This skull also has no pronounced jugal horn cores.  The nostrils of C. mariscalensis are also notably bigger than other Chasmosaurus species.  The two bulges near the extreme top of the frill also have the same size as the other epoccipitals, which is not the case in the drawing.  After comparision with the skulls of C. belli (looks very much like the drawing, only this skull type has small postorbital horn cores), of C. kaiseni (don't see differences with the drawing) and C. brevirostris (it seems a shorter skull to me, with the horns closer together), I'd say it is a C. belli or C. kaiseni, with the size of the postorbital horns under artistic license.  About the size of the jugal horns, I'll answer that this evening because I really have to go offline now...  Greetings, Tbc2 11:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Back online. I think I will keep this drawing like it is now, but I will keep your hint in mind when I draw Pentaceratops.  This ceratopid doesn't differ much from Chasmosaurus or Agujaceratops and is more known for its jugal horns.  With Pentaceratops, I will be daring ;) Tbc2 16:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

What is this?
I was weeding in my garden this morning when this insect caught my eye. I live on the edge of a swamp in Chilton, Wisconsin, USA. It looks a bit like a dragonfly or damselfly, but doesn't fit the description of either. THANKS! Royalbroil 16:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * According to the picture, this certainly is not a damselfly: it is built way to heavily and the wings are spread out. It think it is a male (because of the blue color) dragonfly and a species of Libellula or a closely related genus.
 * To name a specific name: for me it is a Common Whitetail (Libellula lydia). I have never seen this dragonfly before, but as I am a European and this is an North American species, that shouldn't surprise.  Glad to have helped you out, Tbc2 17:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The insect fits the description as described in the Common Whitetail article. THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP!! Royalbroil 18:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Erithacus rubecula
Hi! I'm just writing to let you know that I'll be using your Wikimedia Commons image of the European robin in my Ubykh-English dictionary. Could I have your full name, so I can credit the photograph properly? You can contact me at the_famous_eccles1 at hotmail dot com. Cheers! Thefamouseccles 03:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've sent you an email. Tbc2 15:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Image Credit
Greetings, Tbc.... Wanted to let you know I was planning on using your image of a trilobite on our museum website's new area for kids (should be up shortly, fingers crossed). If you could, please forward me your name and the year the photo was taken so I can give you credit. You can e-mail me directly at education@everhart-museum.org, if you prefer. Many thanks in advance.... Everhart Museum 20:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've sent you an email. Tbc2 10:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Plateosaurus image
hello TBC 2, A new catagory of dinosaur images has been created category:Approved dinosaur images. It has been created so that people can know which images are accuarate as possible and up to date. Your excelent image of a plateosaurus is currently under review, as recent resurch has shown that plateosaurs couldn't pronate thier hands. Is it possible you could alter the image so that the hands face the correct way, with the plams faceing inwards. See the discussion here at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review. If you could do this it would be greatly appreacated. thanks. Steveoc 86 18:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers
I see you were trying to label spoilers. Well, it used to be a template here, but... Templates for deletion/Log/2007 November 8.

Just so you know. DS (talk) 12:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for informing me. Regards, Tbc2 (talk) 07:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Cross spider in web.jpg


The file File:Cross spider in web.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Unused. Low quality. Superseded by files at c:Category:Araneus diadematus."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax &laquo;&brvbar;talk&brvbar;&raquo; 13:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)