User talk:J. Spencer

• Archives from July 2006 to mid-August 2007
• Archives from mid-August 2007 to August 2008
• Archives from August 2008 to mid-October 2010

Sorry to have messed up with pages of towns in Portugal with "Municipality" in its name. I don't know other ways to address it. I noticed that the English vertion of Google Maps shows some town names with "Municipality" at the end, which seems to me to originate in Wikipedia, because towns that on the map don't have "Municipality" in the name, also don't have it on their Wikipedia page. I also could find "Minicipality" in the name of any town in other countries. "Municipality" takes a lot of space on Google Maps and it doesn't make sense that only some towns have it. Please let me know how it should be addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andycor (talk • contribs) 21:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dr. Spencer, thank you very much indeed for entering the small update I have proposed. http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/39/2/159.abstract I'll continue to follow your articles with more and more interest. Best Regards. --iLivius 11:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ILivius (talk • contribs)

Where did you learn so much about paleontology? I'm guessing you went to school for it (?). Roza (talk) 00:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)Raven Rashal[reply]

Hey J, thanks a lot for taking on the language. I guess when you're through I won't recognize the articles anymore :) I have been very slow in adding stuff, for which I apologize; someone suggest the German edition of my Plateosaurus article for a commendation and the resulting criticism caused a lot of work there. HMallison (talk) 13:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and re-sort and re-structure all you want. I have no clue how other articles are structured, and I'd prefer not to have to go on a safari ;) You're doing awesome work here! HMallison (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good :) HMallison (talk) 14:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the comment you posted on my talk about Coelophysis no longer being Carnian, then what age is the Petrified Forest one? And why does the book for Walking with Dinosaurs say that it lived 222-215 million years ago? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raptor Red (talk • contribs) 04:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm beginning to work on an article for Gerhard Heilmann's famous book The Origin of Birds, and I thought you might be interested in lending a hand. If you would like to help contribute to the source list, feel free to add sources here. Thanks! -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 16:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info you gave me on Coelophysis. Does that mean Placerias was also Norian as well as Carnian? ( Raptor Red (talk) 03:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC) )[reply]

Hi, something went wrong here. I don't know why it is like that, but obviously I did something wrong. Can you correct it, please? Thank you and kind regards, Joerim 82.169.6.135 (talk) 17:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey J. Spencer and thank you! I very appreciate your work too. Keep correcting me because my English is weak and I'm here less than one year. :) Rnnsh (talk) 16:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are two, Hebrew and Russian..Rnnsh (talk) 18:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for the correction of my error... I doubted it could be a reference to birds-maniraptora relationship... but for once it seemed like vandalism. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 18:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey J. Spencer and thank you for thoose sauropodomorphs! I what to start a small revision of ichthyosaurs following the new pepar: "Phylogeny, systematics, and origin of the Ichthyosauria – the state of the art" (PDF). Palaeodiversity. 3: 151–214. 2010. {{cite journal}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help) I will be very thankful if you can help me a little bit with this. Rnnsh (talk) 20:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs has given you a Christmas tree! Christmas trees promote WikiLove and are a great way to spread holiday cheer. Merry Christmas!

Spread the WikiLove by adding {{subst:User:The Utahraptor/Christmas tree}} to any editor's talk page with a friendly message.

I know it's a little late for a Christmas tree, and I know you probably don't know me, but I've seen your excellent work on paleontology-related articles. Keep it up, and happy holidays! The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 15:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi J. Spencer, I've been uploading some images for quite some time now and it are quite a lot of them now. I showed you some of my images, like the one of the Guanlong and the Simoedosaurus and Pristichampsus. They all weren't quite good and were classified as inaccurate paleoart. Now, recently I've been uploading a lot more images. My Commons page is here, so I wanted to ask you if you please could take a look at them and tell me which images are suited for Wikipedia and possibly also for bigger or featured articles. With kind regards, Joerim, --82.169.6.135 (talk) 10:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi J. Spencer, these pictures are with shadows on and underneath the creatures. Are they good enough, or still inaccurate paleoart?

• 
  Champsosaurus en Boavus
• 
  Eastmanosteus
• 
  Gigantophis

I'd really like to hear from you. (from 22 february on I'm on a holliday, so I can't answer that quick, but I still like to know!(^_^) Kind regards, Joerim

--82.169.6.135 (talk) 20:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, so is there one of these suited for being on Wikipedia? Gigantophis still lacks an image :o)

Kind regards, Joerim

--82.169.6.135 (talk) 12:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for keeping up the Dinosaur Portal in my absence! : ) I just added some featured articles to our random section thingy. If university allows I might be back to editing within the next year, but this time probably on photography articles, which I'm getting my degree in. ; )

So, how has everything been? I've missed you guys! I'm going to go over and say hi on the Dino wikiproject board too. It's been too long... Spawn Man (talk) 02:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey J, been keeping an eye on the progress (sorry I haven't had more to contribute, I pretty much spent my sources on my first re-write) and it's looking great! I'll give it another once-over today but it looks like you guys have nailed it. MMartyniuk (talk) 00:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey J,

I noticed this and just wanted to say thanks for five years of cleanup, sourcing, expansion, etc, of thousands of articles. It was fantastic working with you. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear! Well, take care of yourself in whatever you do, you've been an incredible building block here in the 'pedia :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, everyone;

I should explain I'm not leaving at this point, just de-affiliating. J. Spencer (talk) 01:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, J. Spencer. I was tempted to GA review Sinosauropteryx, but I'll be away for 1.5 weeks from tomorrow, and hope you will get a reviewer before I'm back. Knowing you, I'm confident that the content is really good. Unfortunately IMO the writing is weak and needs some re-structuring and more copyediting. Some examples:

• In para 1 of the lead, you understandable want to feature the "DYK" element of the feathers and colouration. But paras 2 & 3 also mention feathers and colouration. I'd be inclined to combine them and then see whether they work better as part of para 1 or as a new para 2.
• In "first genus of non-avialian dinosaur", I doubt that many readers will understand "non-avialian" - I think I first met the term "avialian" on WP, and I'd been read about dinos on and off for decades.
• In para 2 of "Description", "Sinosauropteryx was anatomically similar to Compsognathus, differing from the European genus in its proportions" looks puzzling as you immediately describe several differences. The taxobox classifies as a Compsognathid, although the main text suggests there is debate. If you think the debate favours classifying Sinosauropteryx as a Compsognathid, you could start the para with e.g. "Although Sinosauropteryx is closely related to Compsognathus, its proportions are different."

Etc. (I've a busy day tomorrow). I hope these comments help. Good lucky with the GA review. --Philcha (talk) 23:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on March 26, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 26, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 21:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Acrocanthosaurus is a genus of theropod dinosaur that existed in what is now North America during the Aptian and early Albian stages of the Early Cretaceous. Like most dinosaur genera, Acrocanthosaurus contains only a single species, A. atokensis. Its fossil remains are found mainly in the U.S. states of Oklahoma and Texas, although teeth attributed to Acrocanthosaurus have been found as far east as Maryland. Acrocanthosaurus was a bipedal predator, best known for the high neural spines on many of its vertebrae, which most likely supported a ridge of muscle over the animal's neck, back and hips. Approaching 12 meters (40 ft) in length, and weighing up to 6.17 metric tons (6.8 short tons), it was the largest theropod in its ecosystem and likely an apex predator, possibly preying on large sauropods and ornithopods. (more...)

Hallo, J. Spencer!

Sorry. Just checking your vigilance. ;) Thanks for the note! Rnnsh (talk) 16:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't have that one either unfortunately... could use a re-write anyway. I'll see if I have some time this weekend to help out and put a bit of work into it. MMartyniuk (talk) 11:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE STOP REDIRECTING MY PAGES!!!

I WROTE NOT ONLY ABOUT Scelidosauridae(WHICH CONSISTS NOT ONLY OF SCELIDOSAURUS BUT ALSO OF BIENOSAURUS AND PERHAPS EMAUSAURUS) BUT ALSO ABOUT SCUTTELLOSAURIDAE: Scuttellosaurus, Tatisaurus etc.

The problem is that I have not Holtz's book. I live in Ukraine, and there unfortunately are no such paleo-books. Howewer in other encyclopedia I found the names Scelidosauridae and Scutellosauridae. It's Visual encyclopedia of Dinosaurs. Howewer there were only Scelidosaurus and Scuttelosaurus.

But even if I live in this country it doesn't mean that I do not study dino fossils. I was several times on Crimean penninsula, and I found here many dinosaur fossils (see User:John Troodon/Paleobiota of Undescribed geological formation from Crimea). Dis you hear about anything like this before?

P.S.Do you want to be a member of my projects:Wikipedia:WikiProject Theropods,Wikipedia:WikiProject Sauropodomorphs?

Thanks!

Hello, J. Spencer. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on August 1, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 1, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article directors Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 06:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parasaurolophus is a genus of dinosaur from the Late Cretaceous Period of about 75 million years ago. A member of the Hadrosaurid or duck-billed dinosaurs, it was a plant-eater that walked on two legs or all four. Three species are recognized: P. walkeri, P. tubicen, and the short-crested P. cyrtocristatus. It is known for its cranial crest, which forms a long curved tube projecting upwards and back from the skull. The crest's purpose has been debated by scientists; possible functions include thermoregulation, visual recognition of both species and sex, and trumpeting. It was first described in 1922 by William Parks from a skull and partial skeleton in Alberta. Only a handful of good specimens are known. (more...)

Hi J. Spencer, this summer I've been drawing a lot, so I had some more images that could be uploaded to Commons. If you have time and feel like it, you might want to take a look at them. The five images in the gallery below are the ones I think are the best from the past time. I added shade to all and I tried to make some fishes in different sizes and swimming directions. Do you think they are still innacurate paleoart and need to be improved at some points or are they already good enough to be shown in some articles about extinct species? I'd really appreciate it to hear you opinion and maybe some comments about what could be done better.

• 
  Crassigyrinus
• 
  Koolasuchus and unnamed dicynodonts
• 
  Ichthyornis, Canadaga, Scapanorhynchus and Caproberyx
• 
  Protosphargis and Caproberyx
• 
  Dallasaurus and Woodbinesuchus

Thank you and kind regards, Joerim -- 82.169.6.44 (talk) 15:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC) P.S. If I'm getting annoying, please tell me![reply]

By the way: I am seeying that I have a new number/IP, so that involves a new talk page. Therefore I'm fine with the idea that it is a lot of useless work for you to create a new talk page, so if you like you can also answer here or at my old talk page. Of course you don't have to :o). Thank you for your understanding and kind regards, Joerim -- 82.169.6.44 (talk) 12:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer. I find it surprising, as I think the image of the Koolasuchus and the dicynodonts is the best. Are there some inaccuracies in this drawing/illustration? And do you think the images of Protosphargis/Caproberyx and Dallasaurus/Woodbinesuchus are suited for Wikipedia or not yet? I'm looking forward to your answer. Kind regards, Joerim -- 82.169.6.44 (talk) 12:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi J. Spencer, with your comments in mind I made the following drawing/illustration of Machimosaurus, Cetiosauriscus, Hybodus and Aspidorhynchus. What do you think of it? I'd really appreciate it if you could give some comments on this one. Thank you and kind regards, Joerim -- 82.169.6.44 (talk) 15:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw your answer. I really appreciate it that someone is willing to look at my images and give some comments, so thank you very much for that. As my images are mainly created with Paint and Sumopaint some creatures look indeed very pixelated. Unfortunately I don't have any Photoshop-software and I think Inkscape is not really suited for making images like that. Next to that I think Inkscape is very complicated. Still I have one more question. As I am actually a Dutch guy my English isn't fluent, so I was wondering what you meant by bold colors. You also say the colors need some work like with Crasigyrinus. What exactly did you have in mind when you were speaking of colors that need some work? Do you mean more fluent colors, less bright colors or something else? I'd really like to hear. Again, thank you for your time and your comments. Kind regards, Joerim -- 82.169.6.44 (talk) 08:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi J. Spencer, is it possible that you mean that the colors should be more dull, as most modern animals don't have that bright colors? So I should use more green, grey and brown colors, or did you mean something else? That is looks like it's colored again with colored pencil is true (although I only use felt tips). Still I would like my animals to 'live' by adding some color. I think black and white is good for a schematic reconstruction, although reconstructions of animals like they could have been in real life need color in my eyes. Do you have any other way you could possibly prevent this? I'm looking forward to your answer. Kind regards, Joerim -- 82.169.6.44 (talk) 15:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi J. Spencer. I've read your reply. I think it makes sense, but still I was wondering about what you mean by more natural texture. Could you explain that to me, please? I'd really be grateful. Thank you and kind regards, Joerim -- 82.169.6.44 (talk) 16:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I understand. Thanks a lot, I will work on it. Kind regards, Joerim -- 82.169.6.44 (talk) 14:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi J.Spencer, I've made some new images recently. Two of them are these:

• 
  Metriorhynchus and Geosaurus
• 
  Metriorhynchus, Geosaurus, Aspidorhynchus and Pholidophorus

I tried to make the lightfall more realistic as well as the texture of the creatures and I also tried to reduce the "colored pencil" appearance and the pixelated lines. Next to that I tried to reduce the thickness of the black outlines, so I hope that the "suspension of disbelief" isn't broken any more and that the creatures look more realistic as I also did some coloring in Sumopaint and I added some irregularities on the creatures. Do you think they are better now and do you maybe have some extra comments on the images? I would appreciate it if you could take a look at them. Thank you and a happy new year! Kind regards, Joerim --82.169.6.44 (talk) 14:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi J. Spencer, thank you very much for your opinion. So does that mean that the images are good enough to be in articles? Kind regards, Joerrim --82.169.6.44 (talk) 11:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, the last Dinosaur article I plan on expanding is Chasmosaurus. It will be a while though. LittleJerry (talk) 23:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, i was wondering if you could help me do some rewording for the Plesiosaurus and Elasmosaurus articles. I did make some word for word copying of the sources, mostly in the description sections. Thanks LittleJerry (talk) 00:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tahnks for fixing Elasmosaurus. Can you please fix Plesiosaurus too? LittleJerry (talk) 03:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. LittleJerry (talk) 19:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello J. Spencer! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Hi J. Spencer, I've started a discussion regarding Thescelosaurus here. As you are the primary contributor to the article, I wanted to notify you about the section. Cheers, Melicans (talk, contributions) 23:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I thought I was the last of the Plate-ohicans! many thanks! HMallison (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

tell me what you need and give me an email address. Do you dropbox? ;) HMallison (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks again! Your contribution made a crucial difference. I'll have some more things to edit, stuff that was mentioned in the FAC review, but that will take some time (Keuper plants, e.g.). Want the Moser 2003? If so I'll dropbox it. HMallison (talk) 10:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited McCoy Brook Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lacustrine (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) 11:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, J. Spencer. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Ruraltexas (talk) 04:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)ruraltexas[reply]

i am considering opening an article for Phyllodont fishes, specifically Casierius sp.. Estes did some good work (2 papers) on phyllodonts in 1969, Johnson i believe in the eighties. in addtition i published a paper in feb 1990 in The Texas Journal of Science. its not a great huge deal that this happens as there are not that many people who study phyllodonts from the lower cretaceous but i wanted your input. thanks. regards...208.193.185.22 (talk) 04:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

huh i could have sworn i signed that last one. okay then as time permits i will throw something together and if you don't mind i will drop you a line if you want to help flesh it out.not sure how notable lower cretaceous phyllodonts are but...and yes that is my article. thank you for your time.Ruraltexas (talk) 03:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning up after my attempt to disambiguate Articulate. It is used frequently in dinosaur articles. Perhaps there's a need for an article on Articulated (fossil). SchreiberBike (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When I wrote the Nordenosaurus article, all I was looking at regarding its classification was the crocodilian list from Paleofile.com.[1] I can't find any mention of it being an alligatoroid anywhere else, but with a little searching it seems that Gauthier (1982)[2] briefly reinterpreted Nordenosaurus as a crocodilian. I'll add some of the info from the paper (apparently it's only known from a frontal bone, so there's not much to say). I don't have access to Estes (1983), so maybe he classified it as an alligatoroid. Smokeybjb (talk) 23:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A smile for you You’ve just received a random act of kindness! 66.87.2.142 (talk) 15:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a note to let the main editors of Iguanodon know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on April 24, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 24, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Iguanodon is a genus of ornithopod dinosaur that lived roughly halfway between the first of the swift bipedal hypsilophodontids and the ornithopods' culmination in the duck-billed dinosaurs. Many species of Iguanodon have been named, dating from the Kimmeridgian age of the Late Jurassic Period to the Cenomanian age of the Late Cretaceous Period from Asia, Europe, and North America. However, research in the first decade of the 21st century suggests that there is only one well-substantiated species named I. bernissartensis, that lived from the late Barremian to the earliest Aptian ages (Early Cretaceous) in Belgium, between about 126 and 125 million years ago. Iguanodon's most distinctive features were its large thumb spikes, which were possibly used for defence against predators, combined with long prehensile fifth fingers able to forage for food. Named in 1825 by English geologist Gideon Mantell, Iguanodon was the second dinosaur formally named, after Megalosaurus. A large, bulky herbivore, Iguanodon is a member of Iguanodontia, along with the duck-billed hadrosaurs. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, J. Spencer. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 04:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hello again, I was wondering if you could reparaphase the "Paleobiology" section for the Carnotaurus article and spotcheck the Stegoceras article? I know did some close paraphasing for the former. Also, just to let you know, I noticed that, in the Stegosaurus, some one the articles aren't given DIO's and such, enough though they are available. I think this might threaten its FA status? LittleJerry (talk) 22:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might post an explanation at Talk:Mount Kirkpatrick Formation regarding your redirect of the page to get ahead of potential problems. Vsmith (talk) 01:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To quote "the man with the curly locks" (his words, not mine), "Soitenly!" J. Spencer (talk) 03:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Spencer for teaching me that Middle Cretaceous is not officially recognized. Now I understand. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.233.103.86 (talk) 02:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi J.,

Thanks for tagging the Mormolucoides article, created by User:Yewtharaptor on October 22nd. It is indeed a copy-and-paste, specifically of Contribution, volume 66 Department of Geology, University of Massachusetts, 1990. I note you've already given the user several warnings about content. I've issued one last warning. Thank for taking care of most of the clean-up. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found a second unambiguous cut-and-paste copyvio last night at Scots Bay Formation, which I revision-deleted. If you see/know of more, please let me know. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Spearfish Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conglomerate (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) 11:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's apparent from this note on my talk page that user Leictg (talk · contribs) is the author of the thesis where the name was coined, and is unhappy about the existence of the article. I'm not sure I really understand his concern, or what is the best thing to do. I don't think a redirect to an article that doesn't mention the term is a long-term solution. Should there perhaps be a brief paragraph in Pliosauroidea, to which the redirect could link, saying that this name has been coined in a PhD thesis but is not yet accepted? Would WT:PALAEO be a place to discuss this? I will point Leictg to this note. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought that the Maastrichtian ended 65.5 mya. Since when does it end 66 mya? Now I'm really confused. Could you please explain that to me? Thanks! SuperHero2111 (talk) 02:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But the Cretaceous-Tertiary mass extinction event happened 65.5 million years ago. So, does that mean that the extinction event occurred during the Cenozoic Era? If that is true, then I think we should update the Paleocene dinosaurs article... SuperHero2111 (talk) 01:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iguanodon
Thank you for your quality articles on dinosaurs, such as Acrocanthosaurus, Iguanodon and Parasaurolophus, for creating "stubs" in the field and articles on demand, for diligent maintenance, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were the 363rd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the Edmontosaurus! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seven years ago, you were recipient no. 363 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Firs;

Got another one: YPM 6281, almost entirely ripped from [3] (Olsen, P. E., McDonald, N. G., Huber, P., and Cornet, B., 1992, Stratigraphy and Paleoecology of the Deerfield rift basin (Triassic-Jurassic, Newark Supergroup), Massachusetts: in Robinson, P. and Brady, J. B. (eds.) Guidebook for Field Trips in the Connecticut Valley Region of Massachusetts and Adjacent States (vol. 2), New England Intercollegiate Geological Conference 84th Annual Meeting, Contribution no. 66, Department of Geology and Geography, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts, p. 488-535.) with a dose of the editor's interpretations of two fragments of bone. J. Spencer (talk) 23:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, J. I've deleted the copyright violation and issued the editor a short block. The editor has already been warned about copying and pasting content from other sites, so there's no reason for that to continue. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Teresa Maryańska is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teresa Maryańska until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. RockMagnetist (talk) 04:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Spencer When you have a moment can you check the additions I made to the Dilophosaurus page. I also did some re-organization, without removing any data from the page. I'm new at this and based on your extensive Wikipedia work on dinosaurs I feel you can give me some constructive criticism. Evangelos Giakoumatos (talk) 04:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Dinosaur Barnstar
		For being the ornithopod-man on Wikipedia! I'm surprised you didn't have this one already! FunkMonk (talk) 09:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a note to let the main editors of Thescelosaurus know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on May 24, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or one of his delegates (Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs)), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 24, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Thescelosaurus is a genus of small ornithopod dinosaur known from Upper Cretaceous rocks of western North America. It belonged to the last dinosaurian fauna of North America before the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event at approximately 66 million years ago, living alongside dinosaurs such as Tyrannosaurus and Triceratops. This common genus was described from a specimen discovered in 1891, but not unpacked and studied until the 1910s. These circumstances suggested the names of the genus and type species T. neglectus, which roughly translate to "godlike, wondrous, or marvelous neglected lizard". Thescelosaurus is best known from several partial skeletons representing three species: T. neglectus, T, assiniboiensis, and T. garbanii. One specimen unearthed in 1993 was initially thought to include a preserved heart, but later study found the object is probably a concretion. Thescelosaurus was a bipedal animal with a relatively long pointed skull and robust limbs. Typical individuals measured on the order of 2.5 to 4.0 metres (8.2 to 13.1 ft) long. It was probably primarily herbivorous and may have preferred to live near streams. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Allosaurus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Biomechanical (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) 10:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ceratopsipes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pes (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) 11:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I respect your work but I'm wondering why there is no such thing as Middle Cretaceous. Can you explain to me why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dustinliu75 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	For helping a random IP who asked questions about dinosaurs on the Dinosaur Portal talk page back in November, 2010. You made Wikipedia look good! Abyssal (talk) 17:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just don't let it go to your head. :P Abyssal (talk) 04:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, would you like to work on Apatosaurus for FA some time? LittleJerry (talk) 23:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Langobardisaurus 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:

• |first3=F. M. |year=2013 |title=First record of ''Langobardisaurus'' Diapsida, Protorosauria) from theNorian (Late Triassic) of Austria, and a revision of the genus |journal=Neues Jahrbuch für

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The general article has been brought up again[4][5], I think you have the vastest knowledge on the subject. FunkMonk (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	For your kindness and teaching me about the Cretaceous time period. Dustinliu76 (talk) 15:52, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you'd better watch out, you'd better not cry, you'd better not pout, I'm telling you why Christmas Velociraptor is coming to town He sees you when you sleeping, he knows when you're awake, he knows if you've been bad or good, so be good for your life's sake Oh, you'd better watch out, you'd better not cry, you'd better not pout, I'm telling you why Christmas Velociraptor is coming to town Merry Christmas, and watch out for the Christmas Velociraptor, IJReid (talk) 25 December 2014

We are preparing to take a closer look at Featured articles promoted in 2004–2010 that may need a review. We started with a script-compiled list of older FAs that have not had a recent formal review. The next step is to prune the list by removing articles that are still actively maintained, up-to-date, and believed to meet current standards. We know that many of you personally maintain articles that you nominated, so we'd appreciate your help in winnowing the list where appropriate.

Please take a look at the sandbox list, check over the FAs listed by your name, and indicate on the sandbox talk page your assessment of their current status. Likewise, if you have taken on the maintenance of any listed FAs that were originally nominated by a departed editor, please indicate their status. BLPs should be given especially careful consideration.

Thanks for your help! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond at Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/sandbox#Pinging next round; thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, not sure if you're still around. I'm going to be finished shortly with a summary of a Featured Article you nominated at WP:FAC, to appear on the Main Page soon. Was there anything I left out you'd like to see put back in? - Dank (push to talk) 22:47, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you'd be most welcome in running your eyes over Stegoceras, which is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stegoceras/archive1 currently. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, J. Spencer. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, J. Spencer. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, J. Spencer. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have Stenosaurus redirecting to Cricosaurus, but Cricosaurus does not mention Stenosaurus. Do you want to add Stenosaurus to the Cricosaurus article as a synonym? & do you have a source you can cite? All i know about either species comes from trying to sort out a fictional character, and Wikipedia does not consider itself a Reliable Source.

Do you think using hatnotes

would be a good idea?

71.121.143.240 (talk) 01:58, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little complicated. Cricosaurus comes from Wagner transferring a species he previously named, Stenosaurus elegans. Stenosaurus is a typographical error for Steneosaurus, but it could also be used as a distinct name because it is not a homonym (they wouldn't be pronounced exactly the same). Technically, Wagner could have left it as Stenosaurus elegans and it would have been distinct from Steneosaurus, although very confusing. Instead, he must not have considered the name "Stenosaurus" distinct from the name Steneosaurus (I haven't gone through his body of work, but he may well have just thought that Steneosaurus was supposed to be spelled Stenosaurus), and so gave elegans a new genus. J. Spencer (talk) 23:55, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've updated the numbers on the List of dinosaur genera, and judging by your edit summary, you seem confused by how they're calculated. I wrote the numbers before you updated them; the first is the number of entries on the page and the second - which you claim is "entirely subjective" - is simply the number of links that don't redirect to another page or link to a page whose taxobox states the creature is outside Dinosauria or within Avialae. Just letting you know. Atlantis536 (talk) 13:14, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This should be explained in a hidden comment, then. J. Spencer (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Atlantis536 (talk) 00:10, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. - Happy new year! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural depictions of dinosaurs has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. PrimalMustelid (talk) 12:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]