User talk:Chris the Paleontologist/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Allosaurus

As I mentioned in the edit summary, your addition unfortunately qualifies as connective trivia. Merely stating that Allosaurus was featured in a show, and citing the show itself as proof, doesn't really add any information about the topic of Allosaurus. You'll notice that the other entries in the pop culture section a) give more details than just "Allo was here", and b) cite a secondary source, like a book or interview, discussing the show. If no other sources are discussing the role of Allosaurus in this show, it's probably not important. Or, in this case, it's probably too soon. there's lots of interesting information about the background (like the fact that the injured jaw was based on the holotype specimen of Labrosaurus ferox, etc.), and if someday a companion book or other source comes out discussing this stuff, it can be added. for now, anything like that would be considered original research. MMartyniuk (talk) 12:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, okay then. Maybe some new information will come out about it and then I can put it back. Thanks. Chris (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

DR Sources

It looks like both should be used. Wasn't the animation in DR shopped out to several different companies? Krentz and others have pointed to this to explain the inconsistency of animation styles. I'll have to find the source but I believe he said the Watering Hole and End Game episodes were done by one company, most of the other segments another, and the opening Permian extinction sequence was animated by a third company. MMartyniuk (talk) 16:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The Future is Wild

Thanks for cleaning up the The Future Is Wild article! cmɢʟee'τaʟκ'maιʟ 11:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Chris the Paleontologist. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Help desk.
Message added 21:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Purplewowies (talk)

Hello, Chris the Paleontologist. You have new messages at Barsoomian's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Barsoomian (talk) 06:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

About imaginary friends what I wrote was neutral and factual: Most of the religions have been proven as fiction on several levels, like Noahs ark, age of the earth, adam and eve and all those other fictional stories. Even that the gods have unlimited power has been disproved by E=mc^2: According to Albert Einstein anything that exists in the universe is either mass and/or energy. So, when a theologian claims his Bible,- koran,- or torahgod "is a spirit" he is ruling out that Biblegod contains mass- that which you can see and feel, and they will tell you such if you ask. So having ruled out mass, all that is left is energy. How much energy do they claim? Infinite energy. But that does not exist, for two obvious reasons. First, if there were infinite energy, there would be no mass, for the existence of any mass whatsoever would mean there could be even more energy were that mass converted into such, per E=MC2. The fact that mass exists- any mass- proves beyond a doubt that the amount of energy in the universe has not yet become infinite. Secondly, if infinite, "without boundaries or limitations" energy did exist, we would not, for the entire universe would be like the insides of a microwave oven on high, to use a poor analogy. The amount of energy anywhere and everywhere in the universe would be so high that life, and even mass itself, would cease to exist. The entire universe would be vaporized in less than a millisecond. The very fact that you and I do exist proves that the amount of energy in the universe is not infinite, but has limitations.

Other sources for proving religious text are fiction are the following fields of science: History, Geology, Biology, physics. I could gather specifics if required. (Sjano (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC))

Greg Bennett Guitars

The prod you placed here was just contested . Just thought you might like to know. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there Chris the Paleontologist, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Chris the Paleontologist.

• See a log of files removed today here.
• Shut off the bot here.
• Report errors here.
• If you have any questions, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

AfD & Sockpuppetry

Out of courtesy I notify you that I have posted the following, which relates to an AfD that you are involved with - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tkizhnerova --Biker Biker (talk) 17:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Frog genetic defects article

I've significantly reworked, expanded, verified, etc. the Frog genetic defects article. Feel free to contribute to it, as the article at this time has really improved. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipediq

	Wikipediq Invite
	Come over here to wikipediq. http://www.wikipediq.wikispaces.com/ ~~ÁlgamiçaĞraţ 20:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

All My Loving

You may want to contribute to a discussion on this article's talk page - your views, either way, would be appreciated.--Patthedog (talk) 08:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Face Raiders

Hi. About the Face Raiders article, I have the game on my 3DS. I mean, we barely have any references for information on episodes of programmes, because people adding content will of watch the episode, just as I have played the game. I don't really see how this is any different to things like that. And please note, I am an experienced wiki editor, so please don't go through a massive list of basics. WP Randomno (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, are you going to reply. WP Randomno (talk) 16:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Cycadeoidea

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Tempskya

Orlady (talk) 16:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

AnthillPro Article Update

Thanks for your assistance in my novice stages of editing articles on wikipedia. While I am no stranger to writing articles of this type, the wikipedia interface and form is proving to be confusing and time consuming. Sorry, it is taking a bit of time to collect the resources, awards, citations and so on from UrbanCode to update the AnthillPro article. I thank you all for your patience, and your guidance / assistance in this effort. The work in progress is currently at User:ElodieAndco (talk) 21:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

AfD revisited

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Bennett Guitars (2nd nomination). Drmies (talk) 05:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

EditorReviewArchiver: Automatic processing of your editor review

This is an automated message. Your editor review is scheduled to be closed on 8 February 2012 because it will have been open for more than 30 days and inactive for more than 7 days. You can keep it open longer by posting a comment to the review page requesting more input. Adding <!--noautoarchive--> to the review page will prevent further automated actions. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Question on EditorReview commenting and article deletions

Where is it correct to comment on a page like Wikipedia:Editor review/Chris the Paleontologist? At the bottom of the text? No one had commented and so I had no example to reassure me. I very much want to comment on the "Deletion of articles" ElodieAndco (talk) 14:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

AnthillPro Article Update 2nd note

thanks for your help. It has been a struggle to figure out how to place citations. I really appreciate your contribution and example. I will figure out how to sign these soon ElodieAndco (talk) 21:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, thanks for the tip about ProveIt and signing my history entries. ElodieAndco (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC) Didn't know about external links in the body; it makes sense. --Just didn't want a broken internal link on the company name, And ProveIt is wonderful. Thanks ElodieAndco (talk) 00:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Glad to help. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 01:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Have I succeeded in posting my objections to the deletion of the anthillpro article? I have a lot more work to do on it yet. Also, the continuous integration article is in need of updating and citations as well. I have contacted a couple of folks who are published in the area, my hope is that we can work to add to this article, but again, I am unsure of the procedure. I have read the wikipedia articles on noteworthy, citations, and deletions, and many other things, but I am not sure what I have learned from them yet. ElodieAndco (talk) 15:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you again for helping to clarify "Notable" I have currently 5 other detailed web sources (with multiple articles and awards) and two other books with references for this product, that are waiting to be added to the article. My chief concern here was that I wouldn't get the time I need to create all the citations and update the history to the current state of the product before before it disappears. Meanwhile several of the product's competitors have less information and citations on their software product pages, but they are not under the threat of deletion. --Hense my question above.

Next question: I notice that a few of these software tools use "(Software)" after the product name in the title of the article. Some names, like "Jenkins" do need further qualification, but I was wondering if this is becoming a convention... ? is it desirable (in wikipedia style) to add the (Software) qualifier to the product name across the board? Is this a trend? I tried to ask this question to the wikipedia help pages today, but could not find a suitable forum for it. Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElodieAndco (talk • contribs) 23:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Mistake when closing AfD?

It appears that you accidentally closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of banned items in China with the consensus to merge the article into itself. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 01:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, it should have been Censorship in the People's Republic of China. I've amended the records. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Charts

Hi Chris, I'm not sure what the easiest way would be for you, but I create my charts by importing a drawing into Photoshop, locking the layer and just painting over it to create a silhouette. Add a new layer behind and draw in the grid using the shape tools, and you're all set. MMartyniuk (talk) 14:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Cylindroteuthis

The DYK project (nominate) 16:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

See the latest on AnthillPro

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ElodieAndco/AnthillPro - I created a page. I have left notes and quotes for you to compare to my paraphrasing for the first article. I have also left notes on the structure that I am moving towards in this article. and made several other changes as well. ElodieAndco (talk) 23:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• I invite your comments. Please see: Talk:AnthillPro#Release_Management ElodieAndco (talk) 13:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AnthillPro

I closed the discussion as keep, but still feel free to work on it. Bearian (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Citation styles

Hi, WP:CITEVAR is clear that "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, or without first seeking consensus for the change." All the citations in Renalia (which I created) used the {{Citation}} template, which I strongly prefer, both for simplicity in use (you don't have to choose the kind of citation as you do with the "Cite" family) and for its visual appearance (I hate all the full stops the Cite templates produce). So please don't change citation styles without a discussion first. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I agree with you that not only Renalia, but other articles on extinct plants, are too technical at present. Several of us worked on creating these articles some time ago, partly to balance the number of articles on extinct animals, but they are mostly very much "first drafts", and would really benefit from some copy-editing to increase their accessibility. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Armenianwingchun

I agree on second read oops is all i can say. Ive nominated it for deletion appears to be non notable.Edinburgh Wanderer 23:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)