User talk:Dinoguy2

Dismount theory for the origin of avian flight

I welcome constructive specific feedback, and healthy debate, but labels like "fringe", "radical" and "amateur" are not helpful, and do not constitute reasons for your sweeping deletions. Some of my contributions to the Anchiornis article were not even related to the paper that you arbitrarily dismissed. Did you read the paper by Fraser (2014)? It was peer reviewed by Ken Carpenter and Peter Larson. Before deleting my work in future, I would ask that you please consider sending me a message which responds to the content of my work or the content of the reference in question. I have made it very clear that the dismount theory is new, and I remain willing to make changes in response to appropriate dialogue. --Cookiecutteramaru (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dinosaurs#.22The_Journal_of_Paleontological_Sciences.22 The journal is affiliated with commercial fossil collectors, which itself makes it questionable. FunkMonk (talk) 04:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of the authority of the article or reviewers, we also have to follow the polity of undue weight. I don't think it's out of line to call this new hypothesis "radical" compared to conventional hypotheses on the origin of flight. One paper published in a commercial journal does fit the definition of "fringe" for now, just as we try not to give undue eight to other minority hypothesis, e.g. Birds Came First or Birds are not Dinosaurs, both of which have been published and reviewed but have not gained nay kind of scientific backing or consensus. Dinoguy2 (talk) 12:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Considering a theory is neither provable or disprovable why would you delete it without providing due cause? It is up to the individual reader to decide if the article fits in to their schema of the origin of avian flight. After reading the article it would appear to be a probable explanation and deserve further discussion, as such it should remain part of this page to encourage academic debate.pluschgreen (talk) 22:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

As I mentioned at FunkMonk's talkpage, one does not encourage academic debate by giving undue weight to a fringe theory, then foisting the burden of deciding whether or not it's correct onto the readers.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your recent efforts toward consensus, and have responded with concessions.Cookiecutteramaru (talk) 03:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Why the revert?

Care to give a reason why you've reverted my edit without any explanation? --Hibernian (talk) 22:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Alright fine, I just thought it would be better to have a slightly inaccurate image then none at all. But ok I'll defer to you on this one, though you shouldn't delete someone's edit without explanation. --Hibernian (talk) 17:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Feather

I just saw your recent edits to Feather. I know your intention was to make the text clearer and, certainly, correct, but I wonder if some of the changes did not make the text more difficult for the average reader to understand. You added several "scientific" phrases and removed some more generally understandable words and phrases. If the latter were not wrong, you might consider changing some of them back. Just a thought. – CorinneSD (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Precious

Dinosaur images
Thank you for quality contributions, based on scientific depth, to articles on dinosaurs, such as your Amphicoelias, especially for images in drawings, scale charts and museum photos, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 364th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Predator X

Hey I noticed that Predator X no longer redirects to its own unique species and just redirects to the genus, Pliosaurus. Is this wise? The article looks rather long and describes quite a few species in detail. ScienceApe (talk) 00:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there is not much to say about these species other than what is already in the article, so better have one long article than several short ones. And "Predator X" is just a hyperbolic nicknamed that should not be used now that the animal has been named. FunkMonk (talk) 05:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't really care much about the name Predator X, if an article exists on its specific species then its scientific name should be used, but the main thrust of my question is whether it's wise to redirect to the genus or not. Making that article so long seems to make the readability of it worse, but I'd like to know what Dinoguy2's thoughts are on this. ScienceApe (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't really work on pliosaur articles, but my feeling is that species articles could be spun off when there is enough to write about them. Some of those Plioaurus species have more info than many individual genera. Alternately, we could do a Species of Psittacosaurus style solution if the article is too long. MMartyniuk (talk) 09:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Smilodon

Hello! I see your Smilodon size comparison, and it is good, but more like the size of Smilodon populator, not Smilodon Fatalis, because Smilodon populator is 1.2 m tall at the shoulder, like the picture. The size of Smilodon fatalis more like this: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Smilodon_fatalis_life-restoration_'08.jpg and not this: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Smilodon.png So, I think your Smilodon size comparison picture is need the good name (Smilodon populator). — Moldovan0731 (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Coelophysis bauri (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Sigmoid, Robust and Gracile

Coelophysis kayentakatae (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Syntarsus

Coelophysis rhodesiensis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Syntarsus

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Aurorazhdarcho, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Enlightenment (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Gallodactylidae may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Cladogram following Andres & Myers, 2013).<ref name=LoneStarPterosaurs>{{cite doi|10.1017/S1755691013000303}}</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:41, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anzu (dinosaur), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CMNH (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Anzu (dinosaur)

The DYK project (nominate) 16:41, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Utahraptor illustration

It's been suggested to me that my new Utahraptor illustration replace the one currently existing on the Utahraptor article. I've put my new version on Commons, but I'm not sure it's appropriate to include it in the article as long as there's no published information about why this version is more accurate. What do you think? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 18:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts!

		The Original Barnstar
		Your name came up on a Wikipediocracy thread about solid content writers who don't get the credit they deserve and I just wanted to drop by and do a little of that. Thanks for your work on behalf of The Project! Carrite (talk) 02:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Neoaves

Hi. I will send you these three papers:

• Yuri, T. et al. (2013) Parsimony and Model-Based Analyses of Indels in Avian Nuclear Genes Reveal Congruent and Incongruent Phylogenetic Signals.
• Kimball, R.T. et al. (2013) Identifying localized biases in large datasets: A case study using the Avian Tree of Life.
• Mayr, G. (2014) The origins of crown group birds: molecules and fossils.

If you need another one, just write me. --Ornithodiez (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Placentalia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ursus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

What traits do birds have exclusively that non-avian dinosaurs do not and vice versa?

This is just a guess, but dinosaurs have long tails while avians do not. I would say that birds have beaks, but all oviraptors have beaks correct? ScienceApe (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The top image here is a good overview of traits: [1]. Other animals do have toothless beaks (oviraptorids, pterosaurs, turtles) but these evolved independently of birds and are not homologous. So far as we know only true birds have toothless beaks, though it's possible we will find some Ichthyornis-like theropod with a toothless beak homologous with true birds. Dinoguy2 (talk) 14:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hell Creek Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Leptorhynchos (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Dismount Theory for the Origin of Avian Flight". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 30 April 2014. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you. Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 08:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Dismount Theory for the Origin of Avian Flight, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. For the Mediation Committee, Sunray (talk) 05:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC) (Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Disambiguation link notification for April 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pterodactyloidea, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Homologous (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)