This user is a part of WikiProject Dinosaurs, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of dinosaurs. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Welcome!
Hello, HMallison, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
Thanks for the update! I've updated the sauropod entry to better reflect this, by omission (hopefully without crossing the line on original research). Look forward to the new paper! Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for all your work on Plateosaurus. Your work introducing new material and peer-reviewed reference works on this article is greatly appreciated. I'd like to nominate this article as a Good article candidate. Wikipedia:Good articles are those which are well-written, factually accurate, broad, neutral, and stable. With the exception of the "fifth-oldest" bit in the article, this article meets all of those criteria. With your approval, I will nominate the article. Firsfron of Ronchester03:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Firsfron,
awesome - the long term obviously is featured article level (whether it officially reaches that level being another matter entirely). I fixed the sentence, provisionally. Re-reading Moser 2003 brought up a few points (typos, wrong etymology, no data on holotype material, and some other stuff). I'll try to get that done soon; currently I am translating into German and wiki-adapting, which is nearly as hard writing it from scratch. So please give me a few more days. I'll yell one I am done. And a huge thank you, btw, for all the help! HMallison (talk) 13:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is truly an excellent article. Thank you for all your hard work, sir. It is deeply appreciated. We'll wait a few weeks and see what happens with the nomination. I noted your recent start of a revamp on Kentrosaurus, and am looking forward to the results already. Again, thank you. Firsfron of Ronchester03:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not really have a good grasp of the Tendaguru Beds, sorry! However, I have a lot of the relevant publications as PDFs and can either check them some other time, or simply email them to you. I am simply currently too busy to quickly read up on all that stuff.
To quickly answer some of your questions:
Yes, the Tendaguru Beds extend for quite a distance. However, only a few places have been quarried (as opposed to strytigraphically sampled), mainly Tendaguru hill itself, Kindope, and a few other places. Mayer is a good read for that stuff, although the information is a bit spread out over the book.
Tendaguru Beds are divided into several units; of interest to dino folks are mainly the Middle Saurian Beds and Upper Saurian Beds. Marine beds are interspersed.HMallison (talk) 13:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi HMallison, thanks for your very nice note on my talk page. It's always really great to meet a paleontologist. Thanks so much for your kind (and possibly undeserved) comments on my Wikipedia work. As for the Semicassis granulata article and the AP Bio project, it has been a very difficult few weeks for me (and User:Snek01) as we tried to be helpful from the sidelines while simultaneously trying to restrain ourselves from wading in an attempt to straighten things out. As soon as we have confirmation that the AP Bio project is totally and completely over, a couple of us from Project Gastropods will try to clean that article up. Anyway, thanks again, Invertzoo (talk) 15:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm withdrawing from the review. I've left your article where it was in the queue and deleted the review page, so no harm done. You seemed to want to argue about the points rather than address them , and there's lots of OR ("I wrote it from memory" I think was your comment). I don't want to continue, and I'm not going to quick fail despite the possible copyright infringements with the illustrations and the OR. I've done my best to put the article back where it was, let me know if any problems, no hard feelings, Jimfbleak - talk to me?20:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
read above - I changed it. Actually, I basically tore the artcile in half, but if you are happy now, well, good for you. So what changes are you now actually waiting for, hu?HMallison (talk) 13:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See comments on review page. Firston and I have written bucketfuls of GAs and FAs, so we know what we are doing (most of the time). It's better to talk to the nominator than to make knee-jerk responses to my comments. Jimfbleak - talk to me?13:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
it is better to write a polite and correct review in the first place. If you are impolite, make sure you are 100% correct. Also, check other articles that are FA - e.g. Deinonychus - and see what the standard for referencing is there. While you may think so, I am not a fool, and I read a bunch of articles to get a feel for what's required.
I'm so sorry for some of the confusion here. But please, please, please do not take this review personally. Your work is very good (or I would not have nominated it). Jim didn't realize that Arthur is indeed the author of the illustrations, so many of the illustrations should be restored. You gutted your text last night, but J has restored quite a bit, or restored and commented it out so that when the papers are published, it will be easy to restore those portions. HM, I don't agree with Jim's assessment that the references are/were a mess, but honestly, they are easy to modify. It is your text that is the important part here. Please do not be off-put by Wikipedia, because many Wikipedia editors, including J, Cas, myself, and Jim himself, are working on things which are very small issues. Your work is important, and the public should see it. Firsfron of Ronchester18:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Firs,
I do not take this personally. I simply take it as it was: unprofessional. Also, a lot of stuff was demanded that is either ridiculous (sourcing movies that are already present as wiki pages, and linked correctly), wrong, or way beyond the amount of time I can reasonably be expected to spend (referencing textbook stuff), while others are not even able to do it (or do you read German?). Now, I tried to clear up several matters. I was not very polite, and I am sorry for that. However, if I point out errors and ask for information, and I get told that
I should shut up because of my lack of experience, and let you (i.e. the non-expert on Plateosaurus-literature) take the questions, and
I want to argue instead of improve,
I get really pissed. If something's wrong, I will fix it, but if I get blamed for saying an almighty reviewer is wrong, or if my questions are answered by bullying or blustering, then I am gone. Thanks again for your help. HMallison (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi HM,
You absolutely shouldn't "shut up". I saw Jim's comment (which wasn't "shut up"), and I don't think he honestly meant anything like that. It is great that we have a few published authors on this WikiProject, and we're thrilled to have you. If nominating this article drives you off Wikipedia, please except my apologies for ever nominating it. I'd rather see you continue your excellent work on Wikipedia, and absolutely hate the fact that I caused a great deal of this confusion and the ill-feelings. Please accept my sincere apology. Also: I know I am a non-expert. However, I spent several months researching and referencing Massospondylus, so I felt very comfortable looking at Plateosaurus. Firsfron of Ronchester19:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Firs, nothing of this is your fault, nothing at all. And when I called you a non-expert, I simply meant that as opposed to me, you have not spent years reading all the papers, thus can't even know what's in there, much less what's to be found where. HMallison (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, regarding my non-expertise, that's absolutely true. Which is why it's an honor to have you among us, and why I'm alarmed by all this. The simple fact is that if I had not nominated this article, Jim would not have reviewed the article, and you would not have felt insulted by Jim. So at the core of this issue, it is my fault, and I'm quite aware of that. Whatever happens, thank you for putting so much work into this article. Firsfron of Ronchester19:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By adding this material, you are helping thousands of readers who come to these articles every year. I understand that it may be a waste of your time, but it certainly is not a waste. Firsfron of Ronchester19:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not even the criteria of Wikipedia. It's the GA process, only one tiny division of WP. GAs only require one reviewer. Because what one reviewer wants is not necessarily what another reviewer wants, the GA process can vary between one review and another. You unfortunately got caught up in this inconsistency. Firsfron of Ronchester19:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FACs are a little bit insane because of this same inconsistency. I've been told to do something by one FAC reviewer and told not to do it by the very next reviewer; it's way worse than GAN in this respect. Anyway, this is the last time for a few hours that I'll be leaving yellow messages for you, but I'll come back tonight and try to address some other things in the review, once the reviewers have crossed off some of the items that appear to have been dealt with. There is no reason for you to waste your time with this type of minutiae. Thanks again, HM. Firsfron of Ronchester20:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
HMallison, both Firsfron and I have a bit of experience at FAC, so I think we can get it through once we've fully moulded it :) It does take a while to modify writing here from paper-writing to wiki-writing (i.e avoiding OR etc.) Still, not too hard. I'll chip in when I have more time too. Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi HM,
Thanks again for your continued work on the article. It looks as though Jim has restored your papers to the article. Although I know you were disappointed with the review and removed your name from WP:DINO, I hope you are not entirely soured on the project, because you have done excellent work, and we quite frankly need more editors of your caliber. I think the article is close to being recognized as a GA, in great part due to your efforts (though of course J, Cas, and Jim himself deserve a great deal of credit). Firsfron of Ronchester13:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Historical publications (I think prior to 1970) won't have an isbn, so no problem with those. Amazon often has isbns even for technical works. The dashes and spaces was just for info, certainly not needed at GA Jimfbleak - talk to me?13:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the old stuff may, however, been formally digitized, and that version then has an ISBN, which is why I am googling right now. HMallison (talk) 14:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Casliber recommended you since you're an active member of WikiProject Dinosaurs with a lot of professional experience. Would you be willing to be interviewed for an article in the Signpost featuring WikiProject Dinosaurs? You'll contribute to some great publicity for the project and any articles you've been working on. If you'd like to be in the article, I wrote some interview questions. Answer as many as you feel comfortable with. Also, feel free to add anything else you'd like mentioned in the article in the section at the end of the questions. Thanks for helping with this article and I hope it brings your project some great publicity and a few new contributors. -Mabeenot (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I translated most of this article to the French Wikipedia. I have just seen in my watchlist that you've removed 2 images, for "copyright infringement". Do you think these images should be removed from the French version too? Thanks in advance for your reply. Actarus Prince d'Euphor (talk) 09:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Actarus,
I am very sorry, but I really fear that htese images will have to go. From Commons, too, obviously. However, I am currently trying to get them replaced with licensed files, or licensed properly. HMallison (talk) 21:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good news! The museum is happy to give copyright as long as the picture is correctly identified (i.e. that it is an old mount now superceded etc.). They have apparently sent an email to the OTRS on wikimedia commons. The person I spoke to was Marc Jerusel. Anyway, hopefully the OTRS email will be indexed soon. cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! I wasn't actually sure that the citation trick would work, but I figured it was worth a try because otherwise it was messing up the alphabetical listing in regular view. I like to put complete citations at the first point they are used in an article, but since we've started with all of the complete citations at the bottom, it wouldn't be difficult to keep it that way (Siquisiquesuchus is an example). Some editors prefer that method because it keeps the text (relatively) cleaner in edit view, but it's something of a pain to work with when adding or moving citations. J. Spencer (talk) 01:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a star-studded cast of authors! This is really a major paper. I'll attempt to read it through this week. I've noted your (and J's) wonderful work on the draft page, and am cheering from the sidelines. Keep up the great work. Firsfron of Ronchester23:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
HMallison, you might notice a few extra doodads on your toolbar. I tweaked your rights as you're clearly a trusted content contributor. Just ask me any questions if you can't figure out. There are a few changes coming - WP:Pending changes - and you clearly fall into the category of 'reviewer' in case you come across certain protected pages, and I have tweaked J. Spencer's rights too. Casliber (talk·contribs) 07:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With the benefit of (unanticipated) four weeks of perspective, there's certainly enough material at Talk:Brachiosaurus/DraftReWrite to do some "massaging" of the text, combing out any redundancies, making any large structural changes, and so forth. There are only a few sections that are really in need of material (neck position, metabolism, taphonomy [although I'm not sure there's a lot of that out there on Brachiosaurus at the present]). J. Spencer (talk) 02:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to work on the text editing, although I would want to be sure that the structure is as you want it (if left to my own devices, I tend to give all the articles I work on thesamestructure, and I don't want to run over your structure). J. Spencer (talk) 03:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! In truth, I don't feel like I made any sweeping changes; I did try to watch out for parenthetical glosses defining terms, so there weren't multiple glosses for the same thing. I didn't do much to the structure. The only things I might consider changing in the structure would be moving "Classification" up and taking a couple of sections out of "Description" to make dedicated paleobiology/paleoecology sections; these changes would be intended to make the article conform with other lengthy dinosaur article. J. Spencer (talk) 22:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if I was to structure it like the others, this version (here is the actual diff, but it's confusing to interpret diffs when sections are moved) is approximately how it would look. I did it all in one shot so it should be easy enough to go back completely. J. Spencer (talk) 02:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concerns coming from a science perspective; I'm looking at it as an uninvolved reader (I've taken upper-level science classes and I love dinosaurs, but never progressed to the finer art of technical details) and as someone who spends a lot of time doing web usability. Unfortunately Wikipedia's guidelines on linking don't really cover it, but chances are if an internet user sees a link, they will either:
Not click on it (undesirable, because comprehension is lost); or
Click through and then never come back to the page. Unless they are specifically researching Plateosaurus, they'll probably never finish the article, and that's obviously undesirable.
A personal mantra is to try and explain as much as you can without relying on wikilinks. Pretend that this was put out in book form (which it can be). There won't be links to rely on so you need the barest amount of comprehension possible. It's unfortunate Wikipedia doesn't have things like popups enabled by default so that there's a compromise, but that's not how it's gonna be for the vast majority of readers. Ultimately, I think there's greater possible harm done by not explaining these things better than from giving people a superficial understanding. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk)21:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dont worry, not an issue. WP:WIAFA only requires consistent citations by whatever method you prefer, not any one format. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk)
Thank you for the corrections on the Plateosaurus page on palaeocritti (now included). Btw, I am looking for knowledgeable contributors for the site. If you are interested, let me know. NobuTamura (talk) 16:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that--I did skim the article, but I missed the etymology section.
I'm a little concerned that the derivation presented in the lead is overly definitive. Let's say for the sake of argument that if I read the paper that concludes "broadway lizard" is the correct origin, I too would be convinced by the argument--that's still one source who apparently disagrees with most other sources. As good Wikipedians, shouldn't we write a lead that summarizes the views of experts we disagree with as well as experts we believe to be correct?
If it is the case that the 2003 paper actually represents the current consensus in the paleontological field as to what the name means, I think we should put a footnote to that paper in the lead as well as in the etymological section. It does differ from what you'll find in other sources around the Web, so it seems like something that needs backing up on first mention.
I moved the skull section into the past tense as I initially thought you were referring to all the extent material in the present, but then I saw that you referred to the jaws and ribs and teeth in the past tense and only part of the skull-related material in the present. It looked a bit odd to shift to the present for a couple of sentences, but perhaps you just need to shift some of the other stuff into the present (I guess I'm on dodgy ground with the ribs as you are talking about their connection to the spine rather than the ribs themselves) I moved the radius link out of the caption into the main text, as the main text link was pointing to the geometrical concept rather than the bone, and because I didn't think you needed to double up on the links when they were quite so close. Lovely article by the way, but it's a pity it goes out on a one line subsection; I suppose there is nothing on other behaviour to fill that out? Yomanganitalk10:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since you were the one who first resorted to personal attacks on that page, and did so by descending to a level of purely childish and immature juvenile taunting which no one else there has chosen to emulate, I really don't see what right you have to patronizingly and condescending lecture others on Wikipedia policies. Since your contributions to that page have consisted solely of insults and taunting in the service of ignorance and meaningless nonsensical gibberish (the pathetic "broadway"[sic] nonsense, which has no meaning at all that anyone has been able to explicate), you would seem to have very little be proud of. AnonMoos (talk) 09:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I reply here because you deleted my message off your talk page, and I'll put a notice there, too:
Since you have chosen to engage in a purely negative and unconstructive role on Talk:Plateosaurus, engaging in fact-free and content-free flame wars for the sole and exclusive purpose of having a flame war, your record there will not stand up to much scrutiny. AnonMoos (talk) 10:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AnonMoos is clearly getting under your skin, but the best way to proceed is probably to disengage and ignore him rather than prolong the conflict with posts such as this. But I've been there myself, so I know disengaging is easier said than done. Nev1 (talk) 02:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since you appear to have no interest in facts or evidence, or improving Wikipedia articles, but are interested only in fact-free content-free flame-warring purely and solely for the sake of flame-warring itself, these sites would seem to provide more appropriate locales for the exercising the scope of your particular kind of talent. Another person might have reflected on the fact that you played no constructive or useful role in analyzing or fixing a significant problem with a Wikipedia featured article, but instead those who accomplished the task had to work around you, firmly ignoring your useless blitherings -- but you appear to have learned nothing, of course. Meanwhile, dropping random turds on my user talk page for no other reason than to keep your vocabulary of contumelious epithets in active use is likely to cause more problems for you than it does for me. AnonMoos (talk) 01:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think I am interested in another stupid rant by a verbose asshole with less brains that a slug? Do you think your constant false accusations and insults get you anywhere, you idiot? You have, as a search quickly reveals, a history of incivility and stupidity all across wikipedia, and you slander other editors all the time. What do you want? To stroke your miniature ego? Fuck off! HMallison (talk) 08:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But who could stay mad at those eyes? (but do something about those sideburns, young fellow!)People, people! In our haste to demonize each other, we have overlooked the real villain of this story... none other than Hermann von Meyer himself (mug shot to right), for failing to include an etymology. Also, MMartyniuk receives one demerit for renouncing his original handle of Dinoguy2, Nev1 receives one demerit for employing the word "dude" as a sentence fragment, I receive three (for writing a parenthetical statement outside of a sentence, for falling short of my usual standard of perfection, and for writing this in the first place), and Obsidian Soul receives one for coming in late. HMallison is sentenced to spend 40 hours contemplating an ornithopod that is not Dysalotosaurus, and AnonMoos is prohibited from contemplating ornithopods for a period of one month, effective tomorrow. J. Spencer (talk) 02:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I'm not a big dinosaur person (other than occasionally reading a little Stephen Jay Gould). I looked at the article because it was mentioned on the Signpost newly-featured article listing, and thought I would be a good wiki-citizen by mentioning on the talk page a very obvious problem that existed right up at the top of the article. Big mistake!!! I really don't want anything more to do with the Talk:Plateosaurus crowd going forward, but it's hard to see how that can happen if HMallison continues stalking and harassing me, and dropping random turds on my user talk page. AnonMoos (talk) 13:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, how about we here tell the truth: you posted a yelling and swearing comment on the page, your a sensible reply and the hint to post in a civil tone, and then went off to insult me. Duh, asshole, that's not what gets you anywhere! If your intent had really been to imporve the article, you should have adopted a normal tone. However, seeing your previous, repeated problems with incivility, it seems you're making such posts to inflate your ego. Fuck off, or behave! HMallison (talk) 19:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was offline while Plateosaurus became a Featured Article, due to your work on the article. I just wanted to spend a moment to thank you for your awesome efforts. Also, as you are our resident expert on sauropodomorphs, I'd appreciate any suggestions/advice/criticism on Massospondylus, as your time allows. Firsfron of Ronchester03:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For spending time that would otherwise had been wasted on actual palaeontological research, to improve articles on Wikipedia instead! FunkMonk (talk) 09:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your help and guidance. When you say that I selected only one out of "many cases", do you mean that I should have reported your colleague's findings on the other genera (full range?) as well (Apatosaurus sp., indet. diplodocid, Camarasaurus sp., etc.) in the same Plateosaurus Wikipedia rticle? Also, I understand your point about selecting the "best case" or the TWO best cases, but judging from the table and the conclusions drawn in the Griebeler et al. article, I cannot determine which of the specimens was selected as the "best case."
I reported the Plateosaurus findings in the Plateosaurus Wikipedia article, and the Camarasaurus findings in the Camarasaurus Wikipedia article, and so on. I can eliminate these edits until I determine the proper way to cite the findings of the Griebeler et al. study. This is certainly a learning experience for me and is very educational. Please feel free to send me an e-mail message at salhoit@yahoo.com. I promise that I will fully attend to your advice and it will be worth your time.
Evangelos Giakoumatos (talk) 22:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi HMallison, I'm making an illustration of Leyesaurus and was just wondering if this image would be okay to base it on. The reason I'm wondering is because it shows Leyesaurus as bipedal. Reid,iain james (talk) 15:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On 9 July 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Kentrosaurus, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Kentrosaurus(fossil K. aethiopicus pictured) had extensive osteodermal covering, forming very elongated spikes? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Kentrosaurus. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hello, HMallison. 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.
Hello, HMallison. 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.
