User talk:Apokryltaros: Difference between revisions

/User talk:Apokryltaros Archive 1

Miacis

Hello, how are you? I asked Arthur if he could please draw me a picture of Miacis, as I would like to get this animal to FA status on ca.wiki. It's amazing we still haven't got a picture of such an important extinct animal after all this time. Arthur said he's a bit busy as of late and he referred me to you. So... Would it bother you to draw a Miacis, if you have the time? Thank you in advance. Leptictidium (mt) 08:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Leptictidium (mt) 12:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll get to work on it today: remind me to show you progress either 14 hours from now, or on Tuesday (after I've finished voting).--Mr Fink (talk) 12:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello! As you requested, I'm reminding you to show me progress :) Leptictidium (mt) 14:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I find it looks just great. BTW, are you basing your picture on some individual species or the genus as a whole? Leptictidium (mt) 15:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm basing it on the genus as a whole, though, I'm leaning toward the Early Eocene Wyoming species.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello again, how are you doing? Have you done any more work on Miacis? Leptictidium (mt) 11:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, exams and family always come first :) Leptictidium (mt) 16:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, just dropped in to ask if Miacis is ready. Leptictidium (mt) 18:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. Please leave a message on my talk page when it's finished. Leptictidium (mt) 19:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I've already begun it on ca:Hyopsodus, but it's still a stub. If I can find some good info, it may well be the next prehistoric mammal I focus on, and I could use the info on .ca and translate it to .en. Leptictidium (mt) 21:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW: Just saw the picture, it's great! Cheers. Leptictidium (mt) 21:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Concerning Category:Marsupial Lions

Just to let you know, we made Category:Marsupial Lions to hold all of the marsupial lion species. That way, we don't need to add the categories of diprodonts or prehistoric marsupials, what with marsupial lion being placed with Category:Prehistoric Diprotodonts--Mr Fink (talk) 04:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, Mr Fink. I agree that being a member of the Marsupial Lions category implies being a member of Diprotodonts, Prehistoric Marsupials, etc, etc; (and also Carnivorous Marsupials but you/Hartebeest left that). However, the use of category tags is to assist the average reader to find other articles that belong to the same grouping (see Wikipedia:Categorization for more on this). Removing the tags for Diprotodonts and Prehistoric Marsupials is not helpful as now readers are unable to simply click on the link to see what other articles are in that category. Yes, these may be linked in the body of some or, even all, of the articles affected, but the category box at the end is a nice easy convenient place to branch out from, and maybe learn something more (and, afterall, isn't that Wikipedia's main purpose?). I am ambivalent about the Marsupial Lions tag, although I do feel it is too specific to be of much use (and the Thylacoleonidae article contains the same information) but I am happy to leave it if other editors agree. However, I am going to put back the Diprotodonts and Prehistoric Marsupials tags as the lay reader should not be expected to know that (in this case) Marsupial Lions are Diprotodonts. If you disagree with this, perhaps we could have an open discussion about this on, say, Talk:Thylacoleonidae so we can involve other editors. Regards, Secret Squïrrel 04:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Then, should we put the category "Prehistoric Diprotodonts" back in for the time being?--Mr Fink (talk) 04:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

If you mean Prehistoric Marsupials + Diprotodonts then yup, I've done it. I left the Marsupial Lions cat. until we see what others think. Cheers, Secret Squïrrel 05:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

I'm doing Synthetic Cubist art for a videogame set around the Cambrian, and you've done what appear to be the only pieces for some fauna on the net. Excellent works! ChozoBoy (talk) 20:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't need anything particular at the moment, but I mention it if I do. We're looking for any common, unique, or dynamic animals (Trilobite, Opabinia, Anomalocaris, etc.)that can be abstracted and contribute to the gameplay. I'm trying to get a good idea of what the ocean floor would have looked like, as well. ChozoBoy (talk) 20:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Tommotia (revisited)

Thanks for displaying your new drawing of Tommotia and Friends. I'm not an expert, but your Tommotia looks elegant and favorably resembles the few other restorations I've seen. I especially like the inclusion of the other Small Shelly animals, which have been undeservedly neglected in many other depictions of Cambrian life. - Cheers, Cephal-odd (talk) 02:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Paleontology Portal

Your art is definitely worthy of being selected pictures at Portal:Paleontology. I've added a lot, but you've been so prolific that I've gotten exhausted. :( Everything in your userpage gallery from the "Placodonts" onward needs to be added to the list. If you would like to do that, it would be a big help (and give your art some promotion). Also, the images I've added need to have their descriptions fixed and yourself given proper credit for them. Any help would make me appreciative. Keep it up with your distinctive art work! :D Abyssal leviathin (talk) 06:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. I just wanted to note how disgusted I am at the discussion at WikiProject_Mammals. Please don't be disheartened; there are far too many people out there that take the view that anything they don't like should be removed, and I for one will be fighting them tooth and nail. All the best, Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 22:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

You're supposed to ignore all beaurocrats (gosh, I couldn't find a WP: page for that one!) Getting involved in silly debates like this will only embitter you towards WP, and that's a bad thing for everybody. Common sense will eventually prevail (if it kills me). If I were you, I'd unwatch the mammals page, forget about it, and let it all blow over. The good point they do raise, though, is that it is useful to reference any sources you use when making your reconstructions. As with all of WP, this allows people to decide for themselves how far to trust things. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 22:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a relief that some administrators are sensible. If there's no citations around, I guess it's best to be honest and give people an idea of how you came up with it - even if it's just as simple as "I just drew a moose but with a longer neck". Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 22:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

In the battle over the inclusion of your paleoart you have my strongest support. This is why I hate deletionism. I swear, are those guys trying to do major damage to Wikipedia? Crap like this throws "Assume good faith" right out the ****ing window. We can't take this sitting down. Even if we win, this sets an ugly precedent that may encourage similar radical dletionists to be emboldened in the future. This doesn't bode well, we have to squash this movement now! *steaming out the ears* I'm going to alert the association of inclusionists to these happenings. Abyssal (talk) 00:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you: I really appreciate your support.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

This user supports Stan. :P

User:Abyssal/userboxesicreated/supportstan

FYI. Also, I tried to suggest something of a compromise at WT:MAMMAL. If there's anyway that I could help implement that suggestion, or to help at all, please let me know. I'd be very sad to see your artwork go. --JayHenry (talk) 01:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts would be to mention both books and Web sites when they were used. For new images, the easiest thing might just be to say, "image based off description at XXX and partially informed by illustration on YYY" where XXX and YYY might be books, or good web sites, or even museum illustrations, etc. With books, just enough information to track the book down. I remember I was able to track down one of the books you'd mentioned about hippos, and it had a lot of interesting information, so another side benefit of listing such books is that other researchers (with no ability to draw like me!) can still dig up other information on the topic. Also, if the image is partially informed from reviewing the sources already listed on the Wikipedia article, there'd be nothing wrong with citing those sources again on the image page. --JayHenry (talk) 01:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I should add a personal note to state that your images are excellent contributions and that the only additions needed are a list of sources to avoid such questions from passing editors. I must say that the discussions forced me to add sources to a couple of illustrations of extinct bird that I made as well. Shyamal (talk) 08:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I've checked out your artwork and it's clean and credible. I wish I could produce anthing one tenth as good. Illegitimis non carborundum - don't let the bureauprats grind you down - no, that wasn't a typo :-)

This is one of the less pleasant aspects of Wikipedia - certain people lack the industry, resourcefulness and skills to produce good content, and they see this kind of move as a way to make themselves look important. It would be a major error to give them any encouragement at all. -- Philcha (talk) 10:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Leidyosuchus

Hi, Apokryltaros;

Are you sure about that extension to the fossil range? As far as I know, genuine Leidyosuchus is only from the late Campanian (all the Paleocene and Eocene species being shunted off to Borealosuchus). J. Spencer (talk) 05:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, Borealosuchus and Listrognathosuchus, to be fair, although the former got four species and the latter only got one. Leidyosuchus really slimmed down. J. Spencer (talk) 05:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

L. riggsi is indeterminate; if this was my website, I'd list it as "Leidyosuchus" riggsi under Crocodylia incertae sedis, or something similar. It may be close to Borealosuchus acutidentatus. I ran into a similar issue with Coelurus, which has the indeterminate "C." gracilis attached to it. I handled it there by including the species in the taxobox, but identifying it as indeterminate, and only covering valid C. fragilis in the fossil range and categories. My reasoning there was that only C. fragilis can be reliably shown to be Coelurus, so the article's categorization should reflect that, but at the same time "C." gracilis should be included in the taxobox because it is nominally a species of Coelurus and no one is probably going to give a new genus in the foreseeable future. J. Spencer (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Orthrozanclus image

Hi, Apokryltaros. Someone told me that you withdrew the Orthrozanclus image because you had doubts about it. I edited the article yesterday, reading the primary source thoroughly (Conway Morris & Caron, 2007). Your pic looks very like the b/w one in the source. I'd be very grateful if you'd reinstate it.

If you have a look at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Palaeontology, you'll see that there's little tolerance for the bureacratic attitudes you've had to put up with recently. As I said earlier, don't let the bureauprats grind you down! -- Philcha (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! That's a relief - these Cambrian weirdies really need pics, because they're so unlike anything since. -- Philcha (talk) 18:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Bowengriphus perphlegis

Never heard of the critter. Google got me:

• Australian Museum Collections - The blob
• An Odontogriphid from the Upper Permian of Australia. No reconstruction. Describes it as:

The holotype and larger specimen (AM F.55115) is preserved as an almost circular, smooth imprint on a block of pink, indurated shale. Although slightly incomplete the specimen is about 130mm long and 120mm wide. The surface of the fossil is noticeably smoother than the texture of the surrounding rock and, in places, is slightly crinkled in rather random fashion. A slightly raised, sub-rectangular area some 30mm across and 40mm long extends near to what is taken to be the anterior margin. This raised area is bounded on each side by a sinuous, shallow impression that flexes inwards near its midlength. At the posteromedial end of each impression is an ovate lobe (`lobe' in Text-®g. 2) that bears a roughened ornament. Lying inside the raised area, in the midline, are two structures: a larger, transversely oriented, double-loop feature and, posterior to it, a much smaller ovate structure. The double-looped structure is situated at a wide part of the raised area, whereas the ovate organ is positioned where the raised area is constricted in width.

A prominent median ridge (Text-®g. 2), low but quite distinct and continuous, extends anteriorly from the posterior margin for about 80 mm, terminating just short of the anterior raised area. The anterolateral margins display well-developed subparallel grooves roughly following the outer margin. Some weak, rather irregularly spaced, subtransverse grooves intersect the anterior end of the median ridge at right angles. More posteriorly a set of grooves extends from the median ridge towards the posterolateral margin. All the other grooves and wrinkles were apparently caused by post-mortem crumpling of the dorsal and/or ventral integument of the organism. It is also probable that both dorsal and ventral features have been superimposed.

Not the most promising subject, I'm afraid. -- Philcha (talk) 04:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

PS Now I've seen how your recent troubles started, I've formed my own opinion of the person responsible - a look at his user page made a deeply unfavourable impression, too. Let me know if you get any similar aggro - the last wiki-bully who tried it on with me regretted it, twice. That doesn't mean I'm a thug, just that experience has taught me to fight fire with fire because such people will regard the slightest concession as encouragement. OTOH if someone politely disagrees with me, I respond politely, in the hope of learning something (see for example Talk:Cambrian explosion, where I did plenty of both). -- Philcha (talk) 04:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)