You have made some excellent images for prehistoric beasts.My only suggestion is that you may want to (no offense intended) redo the Macrauchenia. Pronounce the neck a bit more as well as the trunk and make the feet a little wider. Other than that, keep up the good work!
KnowledgeLord04:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow Arthur, so many lovely dinosaur images! I'm very impressed. Just a heads up that Barosaurus, Riojasaurus, Lufengosaurus, Heterodontosaurus, and Lambeosaurus are on my to-do list, so we don't duplicate efforts. Again, well done on so many lovely illustrations. Debivort13:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Debivort, Thanks for your kind words. For Heterodontosaurus, sorry I've already done it (check on the image review page) but I am happy to let you do the others. I very much like your Diplodocus size comparison graph. Very neat. Will you be able to do something similar for other dinosaur genera ? Your Eoraptor in motion is cute too. Great work. ArthurWeasley17:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I hadn't reconciled my list with your new images. Your Heterodontosaurus is very nice. Is there a page that lists genera needing illustration? We might think about making a project page with them, and then signing up our names to do them - to centralize the effort and make sure there's no redundant effort.
Doing a profile size comparison is straightforward enough to do for many genera, the skeleton required a bit of effort (~6hrs or so) and was very dependent on having lots of good images, so I'm not sure how easy that would be for an arbitrary genus. FWIW, expect a Barosaurus sketch soon. Debivort18:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for coordinating efforts like this. I'm absolutely delighted at this turn of events: two artists illustrating the articles! Please don't stop illustrating dinosaur articles, though, Debivort! Even with a talented artist like Arthur, we are still woefully under-illustrated. We need your talents! :) Firsfron of Ronchester19:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I promise to have a good look and review your wonderful images on the image review page tomorrow, but I am dead tired and need to sleep. I am not intentionally ignoring your work, I swear! Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester08:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merging an article proposal
Hello, Arthur! Since I saw you liked astronomy, I'd like to tell you about something. On the artitle S/2005 (79360) 1, there is tag proposing to be merged with (79360) 1997 CS29. You can discuss what you want to do on the discussion page for S/2005 (79360) 1. There is only one user that put a note on there. The deadline is Wednesday, December 20, 2006 at 15:00 (Eastern time).
Kamope23:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think a head-only drawing would be useful. It's got a distinctive skull for a hypsilophodont (not a baby doe-eyed Hypsilophodon, as is the norm in books). If you've got some time, it would be great, but dinosaurs without any illustrations should get first priority. J. Spencer22:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for supporting for the proposed merger. Now S/2005 (79360) 1 is merged with (79360) 1997 CS29. Only you and another user posted a note on S/2005 (79360) 1s talk page. Now (79360) 1997 CS29 has a new talk page. Kamope21:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Turiasaurus
Thanks for the heads-up! Been so engrosed in working on the pterosaurs i missed the bruhaha over thin in my email... Apparnetly Google flubbed and released the story early, before the time when technically the paper could be published, potentially jeopardizing the validity of the name, etc... anyway I think everything's ok now :) Dinoguy221:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
24.198.174.168 anonymous user is vandalizing "Longfellow".
Please keep an eye on this person. I sent him a "stop vandalism" notice. I don't know quite how to restore the article back to its longer status. There has been a lot of stuff ripped out. Thanks! Writtenright03:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, liking the drawings. Just thought I'd point out some things about the Dakosaurus drawing: metriorhynchids lacked osteoderms and the forelimbs where modified into hydrofoil-like paddles. Hope you don't mind me pointing these out!
I was wondering if you have done any life reconstruction drawings with the animal in a natural setting? Mark t young15:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Currently I'm writitng some papers on metriorhynchids after examing the material held in UK institutions and reviewing the literature. All metriorhynchids minus Teleidosaurus lacked osteoderms. Metriorhynchids have, unfortunately, been neglected by most vert palaeo workers, which is why most (if not all) reconstructions of them are slightly inaccurate. Mark t young13:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Images for you to review
Hey, really like the drawings! Especially your rendering of M. casamiquelai! D. andiniensis looks much better, I have dorsal views of all the lateral views I sent you. I can send you them if your interested. Mark t young21:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing to like your metriorhynchids, and Sarcosuchus is kool too! Just to let you know there is no postcrania for Teleidosaurus. So it could have a body like Pelagosaurus or like Metriorhynchus, or more likely be somewhere intermediate. Looking forward to your next croc pix. Mark t young10:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Teleidosaurus & Enaliosuchus
Concerning Teleidosaurus having or not having osteoderms, no-one knows if it does or doesn't. Thats why I said all metriorhynchids minus Teleidosaurus lack osteoderms (I probably should have been clearer on that one, soz). I've gotta paper which has a partial Enaliosuchus skull. Unfortunately, no complete skull for this genus has ever been found. In my analysis it comes out as a derived Geosaurus, so if you want i'll send you the pdf of Enaliosuchus, and I'd recommend using G. araucanensis to fill in the blanks at the back of the skull. Though, I should note that Enaliosuchus and G. ara show the beginings of narial retraction, which is something we seen in sustained swimmers. Just something i'd mention, if you plan to draw em ;-) Mark t young17:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent pix! My paper will resurrect Suchodus as a valid genus (with M. brachyrhynchus and M. durobrivensis now as Suchodus). Though, I believe M. casamiquelai could in fact be a seperate genus. I may also resurrect Purranisaurus as a valid genus, but that requires a bit more work. Next week i'll be able to provide you with some of my pictures of M. brachyrhynchus (its body is very similar to that of M. superciliosus). Mark t young15:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stethacanthus
Hey Firs, I noticed the image in the taxobox of Stethacanthus is a copyvio with no source and no permission. Since you are an admin you can probably do something about it (like deleting it as a copyright violation or mark it as such). Thanks. ArthurWeasley00:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The second image on Janjucetus had a fair use tag which claimed it was used "To illustrate the object in question where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information "; as we know an image could be created, it's not Fair Use. I've removed it from the page, and I assume Orphanbot will notify the owner. They usually give Fair Use imags a week or so before deleting. Keep sending them my way if you spot more. :) Firsfron of Ronchester05:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your M. superciliosus and Pelagosaurus pic are great. I'm glad your getting recognised for all your efforts! Sorry, i've not been able to get pix of M. brachyrhynchus for you. Things have been a bit hectic here with me organising my first PhD trips to Germany & the USA. Also my 23rd birthday has kinda put me back a few days! I hope to get them for you by early Feb, sorry! Mark t young00:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm Osedax from the de-WP. I have seen your wonderful palaeo art. Can you make a picture like your palaeo art for my article Panay-Waran in the german Wikipedia? Pictures are
Hello. Would you explain why you reverted the article Li Na? It was written just like other articles of Chinese tennis players. Wasn't it necessary to write that part? Thanks in advance. 219.126.185.21820:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Firs, you reverted this edit: "The unusual name Irritator is in reference to the fact that its skull was found in several pieces, and its dicoverers were so irritated putting it back together. " back to the Irritator article. The story as I know is that the diggers added plaster to the incomplete skull to make it more impressive and that the paleontologists were quite mad on having to carefully remove it without damaging the fossil (as already explained further down in the article) not because the skull was found in several pieces. Which version is correct then ? I am confused ArthurWeasley23:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I wasn't paying much attention. I was just so surprised at seeing an edit from an IP which wasn't vandalism or the introduction of POV claims of T. rex being larger than Dinosaur X that I goofed. Thanks for catching it, Arthur. Firsfron of Ronchester23:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Firs (my favorite administrator), I noticed that this user is downloading copyrighted material on wikipedia with bogus license attribution in order (presumably) to avoid copyvio tags (or was it just a mistake?). One example is this image. ArthurWeasley22:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Arthur,
Thank you very much for your note. At least three of the images were copyvios (two false currency tags and one uploaded from dinosauromorpha). I am particularly sensitive about copyvio images from dinosauromorpha, because they were kind enough to let us use two of their images on Psittacosaurus, and it would be nice to show our appreciation by, you know, not allowing people to violate the copyright on their site.
I agree. Fred Spindler's artworks are unvaluable additions to the wiki articles so let's not disappoint him with copyvio issues (I like the Spinosaurus and the Huayangosaurus!). Noted a few others (from various artists): this one was spotted earlier by LoH. There are also this one and that one from I guess S. Kirk which were downloaded from a site which is itself in copyvio. Also noticed that this user has started downloading every artworks from Todd Marshall. All the images have the tag "copyrightfreeuseprovided" which might be alright but is there a signed proof of it? Cheers. ArthurWeasley02:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will look into the Benosaurus issue; thanks for mentioning it. I had to delete the other images, unfortunately, as they were Fair Use images with very invalid Fair Use rationales, or blatant copyvios. As far as the yellow background is concerned, what browser are you using that causes your wikilinks to (presumably) show up in yellow? My wikilinks are blue (empty ones red), which I thought show up fine with a yellow background, but I may have to rethink that... Oh, and in case I'm not around, and you see more images which are copyright violations, you can place the {{db-copyvio|url=url of source}} tag on them and some admin will be by to delete them shortly (I don't mind deleting them, of course). Firsfron of Ronchester04:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
TV broadcast/ illustrations
Hi Arthur,
I think your illustrations are fabulous and wondered if you would give permission for the use of a couple (with attribution) for an Australian science program Catalyst - broadcast on the ABC (a non-commercial channel). The story is about limbed fish - and the evolutionary transition which took fish out of the water and onto land. The two images which would suit perfectly are of Tiktaalik and Icthyostega.
I have read the copyright license but it appears to apply only to documents..... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anjalisa (talk • contribs) 05:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
