User talk:Abyssal/Archive 4

MfD nomination of User:Abyssal/List of alleged UFO-related entities

User:Abyssal/List of alleged UFO-related entities, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Abyssal/List of alleged UFO-related entities and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Abyssal/List of alleged UFO-related entities during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I have closed the discussion as Keep based on the consensus on the discussion page. Please be aware that long term archiving of this page would likely result in a different result.--Doug.^(talk • contribs) 01:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of alleged UFO-related entities

You do understand that running you away might be someone's goal. I would request you just hang around and give people enough rope to hang themselves. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 23:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption

Due to the constant disruption of List of alleged UFO-related entities , I have entered a complaint at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_user_ScienceApologist DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 00:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lower Lias / Blue Lias

Hi, Thanks for your message on my talkpage. I'm happy to accept that your move of the Blue lias article to Lower Lias was well intentioned, but I do consider that it was contentious and that it did not have consensus. Blue lias is a recognised term in Great Britain, and can be found in official publications, such as the Natural Environment Research Council's Institute of Geological Sciences' publications on British Regional Geography. For example, looking at Chapter 7, "Jurassic Rocks", in British Regional Geology South-West England, I can read (copied below in slightly simplified form):

The Axmouth-Lyme Regis coastal section shows the following Lower Lias beds: Black Marls or Black Marl: 150 ft. Lower Black Ven Beds or Shales-with-Beef 70 ft; Blue Lias or Lyme Regis beds 105 ft; White lias 25 ft.

Before your recent changes there was an article on Blue lias and one on White Lias. I assume your changes where made in respect of two comments on the talk page which you moved to Talk:Lower Lias. However, I'm not convinced that these two comments by User:LinguisticDemographer and User:MichaelMaggs represents an unambiguous decision to move Blue lias to Lower Lias, rather they can be regarded as confirmation of the need for a separate "higher level" article on Lias. It appeared to me that your undiscussed move of Blue lias to Lower Lias was an attempt to create a "higher level" article on Lias more in keeping with the European usage mentioned by User:LinguisticDemographer. You basically took the Blue lias article and expanded it by including a table on Fauna that included a table of dinosaurs in the Lower Lias; and expanded the scope to include Ireland (or Northern Ireland). If that was the intention, e.g. to create an article on Lower Lias with a wider scope as per User:LinguisticDemographer's comments, I see no reason why we should not have separate Blue lias and White Lias articles that accord with Great Britain's accepted usage of these terms.Pyrotec (talk) 18:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Abyssal & Pyrotec, sorry for interrupting. I didn't read this conversation until now. This morning I found out Lower Lias and Blue Lias are subdivisions of the south English Lias (see my TP). The first is probably a "subgroup", the second appears to be a formation within that subgroup. The British Geologic Survey will have a table or list with all stratigraphic unit names they use, all names in there are "official", others are not. Official units will be used in publications, maps, etc. Unfortunately I have never found that table, but I am sure it exists. I am also 99% convinced the Blue Lias Formation must be on it. For "Lower Lias" I am not sure. Even if it is inofficial, it can still have its meaning and would still be worth an article. But since the "main unit", the Lias itself, did not have its own article yet I redirected Lower Lias to a new small article I wrote (Lias Group).

There are a few questions remaining: Are all the dinosaurs I copy-pasted from Lower Lias to Blue Lias found in the Blue Lias? (it could well be, since the unit has anoxic clay, making fossilisation easy compared to the other formations of the lower Lias) Is the stratigraphy of Somerset I included at Lias Group representative for the rest of England or the UK? What about Ireland or Scotland? Unfortunately I don't have the tables/list of the Survey. Woodwalker (talk) 10:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of crurotarsans/sandbox

Hey! Came across this page, which is a sandbox in article space. As far as I know we should keep sandboxes in userspace. I marked it for speedy deletion; hopefully you're fine with that. --Eivind (t) 15:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I moved it to User:Abyssal/List of crurotarsans and deleted the redirect. When you are done with the sandbox, ask an admin to move it back to the article for you (or, if you don't care about saving your individual edits, just copy/paste the current revision of your sandbox over the article). Protonk (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok … your message is taken into account! --Eivind (t) 08:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snake

Took me over 4 minutes to do the revert...not really fast in my book ;). I'm not much of an article creator, but love to spend sometime reverting vandalism. Thank you for all your contribution!. --Seba5618 (talk) 17:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arrow

Did I? It still looks like an arrow to me, and I don't recall touching the fossil range template for a good number of weeks... Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 04:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should have asked which page was causing the problem, or whether it was universal Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 04:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both pages look fine to me. If you want to follow this up, I'll need the usual debug-type info (browser version, screen resolution, skin used, anything else interesting) and a free weekend. Best, Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 06:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mothra would be proud of your great work

Hey, I was doing New Page Patrol and saw all of your new entries relating to moths. Wow, that's great stuff! I hope I can share this token of my appreciation:

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		In tribute to your successful efforts in expanding the content and character of Wikipedia. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless, it is information that was lacking here prior to your input. I am appreciative of your work. Be well. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot panic attack

I've explained to CSBot that you're not an evil copyright violator and he should be all nice and quiet now. — Coren ^(talk) 17:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Distribution

Hello, Abyssal;

I just saw the distribution table at Stegosaurus. May I suggest that geographic information be appended, as formations are kind of esoteric knowledge? If you're going off The Dinosauria, the state/province/large-scale political division is usually mentioned, and that would be enough (i.e. "Morrison Formation, Colorado, USA"). J. Spencer (talk) 00:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added them. I think the table is still pretty manageable as it is now. J. Spencer (talk) 00:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stubs

Hey Abyssal, just wondering what the reasoning is behind replacing all the dinosaur stubs with more specific taxa? Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see what you mean. I was under the impression most stubs corresponded with WikiProjects. Bird stubs, prehistoric marine reptile stubs, dinosaur stubs, etc. Not sure who a potential de-stubber might be or what they might do... in fact the latter scares me a little ;) (my impression of stubs is that the tag is for the users as much as the editors, to show an article with incomplete coverage of a topic), but maybe bring it up at WP:Dino? Dinoguy2 (talk) 01:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Ornithischian-stub}} and {{Sauropodomorph-stub}}

Hi - two or more stub types which you created have been nominated for deletion or renaming at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. The stub types (templates or categories), which were not proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, do not meet the standard requirements for a stub type, either through being incorrectly named, ambiguously scoped, or through failure to meet standards relating to the current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Wikipedia:Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding these stub types, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first! Grutness...wha? 00:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DML approval

Hey Abyssal, not sure on that one. I signed up many years ago and they've probably changed the process since then. You could try emailing an admin directly if it's been a few days with no response. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Q-Z

Hey Abyssal, looking good! I've made a few minor tweaks but I like the overall format. Just need cites for the taxonomic opinions like Jr. synonym. Also, I'm unsure about using the upper/lower rather than early/late time scale. Most of wiki uses early/late so LK could be easily misinterpreted by users just skimming the list and not clicking through the links. Otherwise, keep up the good work! I'll pitch in a bit if I can. Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Category

Hi Abyssal, saw you recently created a new category:Sauropodomorpha. Please bring up any changes to the category structure with the other editors at the WP:Dino talk page before making changes like this. Thanks, Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm personally behind it, but maybe it wasn't set up that way initially for some reason. Who knows? anyway, it would be good to announce it for people who might miss the change on their watch list, or at least update the category structure outlined on the main WP:Dino page. Dinoguy2 (talk) 03:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Years in paleontology

Hey Abyssal, thanks for the suggestion but I've followed paleontological discoveries in the news only since 2007, so making a years in paleontology poster for each year prior to 2007 would require some extra effort and time that I do not necessary have. May be if somebody can make a compilation of the most important discoveries for each of these years that would be a good start... however I could not guarantee that I'll be able to complete any new poster in the near future. Cheers! ArthurWeasley (talk) 04:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pterosaurs format

What you linked to looks good, but what was I supposed to compare it with again? Got a link? FunkMonk (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Abyssal, both look good, but aesthetically I prefer the images in table, it looks neater. Might I ask what's the problem with the images inside the table? You said it causes a problem sorting funtion, do you have an exarmple of the problem your talking about? Anyway, what ever works better I'd be happy with. Steveoc 86 (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I have basically no experience with tables in wiki, I looked at the code and my brain nearly exploded. It seems to me that 'any' sorting of tables is tricky. :/ maybe someone who uses tables more often can help. What would make the new version look better would be if you could get the image boarders inside the boundries of the table, (by that I mean that in the current version they hang out the top and bottom)but that's a really minor issue. Sorry I can't be of more help. Steveoc 86 (talk) 21:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Q-Z definitely works better than the others. As long as the name of the genus is attached to the images, I don't think it's a big deal if they don't follow the chart when sorting. J. Spencer (talk) 23:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now I get it and see the difference, I don't favour either version over the other, so whatever is the most practical is probably the way to go. FunkMonk (talk) 07:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing yesterday and today, the only difference I see on my monitor (True Color, 1024 x 768, Firefox) is that the newer version of the table is slightly skinnier. There's one data point for you! :) J. Spencer (talk) 02:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there a reason for there being more space between images in the q-z section than the rest? Is it maybe just because it has less images? FunkMonk (talk) 08:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Abyssal,

What is the page supposed to be compared to? Firsfron of Ronchester 20:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scyliorhinus

Aha, it's fixed itself. It was displayed terribly, the data was partly wrong, & it was below the taxobox. Seemed to be a test version. Good now GrahamBould (talk) 18:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Demopolis Chalk Formation

Thanks for the barnstar. It's probably not deserved, as I've probably garbled the page, but I appreciate it nonetheless. I've have an interest, though not very academic, in paleontology for quite some time. Altairisfar_talk 06:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Acherontiscus

please provide references for this article from reliable third party sources or the article may be deleted. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, I'm a "deletion fanatic"? Why don't you refrain from uncivil remarks and focus on adding sources to your unsourced stubs - help the encyclopedia rather than pissing off people? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the encouragement!!

Thanks for the "encouraging word"....i'm beginning to find that Wikipedia is a bit like the "Old West" that Dubya was so fond of - complete with "no nonsense" lawmen who go around with big delete, undo, revert and ban forever guns shooting first and seldom asking questions even afterwards!!

Cheers, MayFlowerNorth (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Abduction researchers

I have nominated Category:Abduction researchers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Verbal chat 16:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Abduction claims

Category:Abduction claims, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 00:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: There are additional remarks you should respond to when you have a moment. Also, I was wondering if you plan to comment on the other CFD (above)? Cgingold (talk) 17:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lythrosaurus

I removed it from the Poposauridae list because it's not a poposaurid, it's a typographical error for a poposaurid. It's more or less superfluous to getting an understanding of poposaurids. At most, it could be mentioned in the row for Lythrosuchus as an error. For that matter, if Lythrosuchus is a junior synonym there's minimal need for it to have its own row.

I'm very, very wary of having typographical errors mentioned anywhere except in the articles of the taxa of which they are errors. It's impossible to track all of them down, the vast majority have zero notability, and they add much more "noise" than "signal". There's only a couple of cases I know of where they're important at all: "Erlicosaurus" for Erlikosaurus, because of the widespread use, and Richardoestesia/Ricardoestesia, because the lapsus calami ended up becoming the actual name. J. Spencer (talk) 21:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snippet from AIV

• Abyssal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - . I don't know (not an expert!) but the frequency with which this user is creating new articles - several a minute - suggests unauthorised bot use?. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 16:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on your edits (although using {{pagename}} strikes me as a VeryBadIdea (TM), but I thought I should let you know someone was apparently not agreeing with you there :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please use {{subst:PAGENAME}} instead, it'll substitute the text with the name of the page. Cenarium (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]