User talk:Jerkov

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello Jerkov, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Regards, Carioca 00:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting choice of username

I don't know if you're aware, but your username could, in English anyway, be interpreted as a sexual innuendo (jerk off). I'm sure it wasn't intentional, and my dirty mind is probably the only one that noticed, but I'm just alerting you to this fact so you're not surprised if your username is blocked. Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 22:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I chose it on purpose. A bit childish, I know, but I don't see a major problem with it. If Wikipedia blocks it they're far more childish. Jerkov 20:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and I like your username--^The ^Nation 21:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] World of Kong animals - overdoing it?

You're adding quite a few fictitious animal articles to Wikipedia. Most of those probably don't qualify for inclusion under Wikipedia's WP:FICT policy. The general idea is that King Kong, the movie, is notable because it was a major film, and King Kong, the character is notable as a cultural icon. The Empire State Building is a famous building. But after than, all the little stuff really belongs in the main article. Thanks. --John Nagle 18:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

There's an additional problem with what you're doing—by copying the "information" in The World of Kong into Wikipedia articles, you're just committing copyright infringement of that book. The descriptions of the creatures are not facts because they don't exist outside of that description—the description is itself the fiction. I also don't believe that any fictional subject that doesn't exist outside of such fan reference materials is worth an article on Wikipedia, but I'd personally be more concerned about your liability to the authors. On either ground, I expect them to be deleted eventually, so I wouldn't bother creating any more. Please feel free to discuss this matter with me further. Regards, Postdlf 23:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] prehistoric reptile edits

Hi Jerkov, I recently noticed you've been doing a lot of edits around prehistoric reptiles. Your comment on the talk page of Ornitholestes clearly indicates you're someone who keeps up with information on dinosaurs. As such, and as I noticed you've declared interest in editing English Wikipedia on your talk page, I'm inviting you to join Wikipedia: WikiProject Dinosaurs, if you're interested. It seems to me your comments come from someone who is informed in the field, and we're in need of good, quality editors, so I figured I'd drop an invite. Cheers! :) --Firsfron 17:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll sign up and see what I can do! Jerkov 19:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Sweet! And welcome to the team! :) --Firsfron 19:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Minor nitpick by the way- most of my recent edits were around prehistoric fish, although dinosaurs/reptiles are indeed my biggest interest. Although I didn't sign up for Taxo- and Paleoboxes specifically I must say I've become really addicted to adding them to pages. They are great! Jerkov 19:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, well, I just saw your comments on Seismosaurus, Ornitholestes, and Postosuchus, checked your contribs and saw lots of ancient names. I'd assumed, without exploring further, that the others were reptiles. Thanks for the correction. And if you love taxoboxes, by all means feel free to add them to the dinosaur pages. There are hundreds still missing! --Firsfron 21:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I will most certainly do so! Jerkov 10:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Appreciate your recent additions this morning. Went thru a few of them. You do nice work. :)--Firsfron of Ronchester 14:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! Jerkov 14:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the additions on the Ceratopsian taxoboxes. I was going to fix them myself, but you beat me to the punch. Appreciated! :) --Firsfron of Ronchester 18:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome! It seems everybody forgot Marginocephalia. Jerkov 18:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Taxoboxes

Hey Jerkov, thanks for your continued contributions to the dinosaur articles! Just wanted to let you know that we recently had a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs to try and standardize the use of ranks above order in dinosaur taxoboxes, and basically decided against any super-, sub-, or infra- ranks except for Superorder Dinosauria. In the future, if you could refrain from adding thnigs like Archosauromorpha and Diapsida to the dinosaur taxoboxes, it would be a big help to the project. Thanks again!Dinoguy2 13:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Jerkov 20:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, don't do that. Leave only the major ranks, plus the intermediary ranks between the subject and the next higher rank. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paleoboxes

Hey, how's it going man. I see you have been adding a lot of taxoboxes to articles. Awesome, awesome work, they really needed it. But hey, I don't want to sound like I'm nagging you after some of the other little nitpicky discussions so far, but I really think the paleobox needs a lot of work before we start throwing it on every dinosaur page. My main objection is that it's just redundant info copied from the article and placed in box form for the benefit of people with short attention spans. On a lot of the less complete articles, this is a good thing as otherwise the information isn't in the article at all. But in more complete articles, especially ones with good lead sections, the same info is already summarized in the taxobox or at the very beginning of the article (see: Albertosaurus for an example). I just don't think it's necessary to regurgitate the information a third time. I also have problems with the format of the box (it just looks really 'rough' and thrown together), and the fact that it refers to itself at the bottom. It's strange having a huge bar on the right side of the page with some of the same information repeated twice, and often times the paleobox and taxobox are different widths, which looks silly and messes with spacing in the article. So I have a lot of problems with the current paleoboxes and I guarantee you an article with a paleobox in its current form will not ever become featured (and not because I don't like it, but because the reviewers will jump all over it). So basically I think I have got my point across that I don't think paleoboxes are appropriate additions, especially not to relatively complete articles, although they may be a useful addition to less complete articles and/or stubs (although the taxobox+paleobox will be much longer than the article itself, which is weird also). If you want to work on the paleobox template and improve it (or better yet, find a way to incorporate some of that info into the taxobox), that could be a welcome project too. Of course this is just my opinion and if you want to bring it up on the DinoProject talk page, it could be a very helpful discussion. Who knows, maybe the consensus will be to keep them and I will look like an idiot for rambling on like this.

Please do not take this as a personal criticism in any way. On the contrary I am very happy to see the work you have been doing on dinosaur articles... keep it up man!! Thank you!! Sheep81 10:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mesosaur

When I found it, the article on Mesosaurus was really about mesosaurs in general, so i moved it there. As long as your new article discusses Mesosaurus specifically, I have no problem with it as a seperate article.Dinoguy2 18:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Period or Epoch

When I was editing your fish articles, you have put epoch instead of period.

These are periods:

Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, Carboniferous, Permian, Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous, Tertiary, Quaternary

Now these are epochs:

Paleocene, Eocene, Oligocene, Miocene, Pliocene, Pleistocene, Holocene

Giant Blue Anteater 06:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiAward

Hi Jerkov, Thanks for your many contributions to articles on dinosaurs and other prehistoric animals. Because I feel you have made a significant number of contributions to both WikiProject Dinosaurs and to Wikipedia itself, I am awarding you this barnstar. I hope this barnstar will encourage you to continue to edit, and I do hope to see you more often around WP:Dinos. Thanks, --Firsfron of Ronchester 21:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The Original Barnstar for your many additions to WP:Dinos--Firsfron of Ronchester 21:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Just glad you're on the project! We've got a ton of work to do, and not a whole lot of active editors. Hey, as long as you're doing taxoboxes, don't forget about the dinosaurs on the Shortest Dinosaur Articles List! :) Happy editing, --Firsfron of Ronchester 21:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I noticed you just added a taxobox to Airakoraptor. Since this is a nomen nudum, not yet fully described, it can't receive a taxobox, as taxoboxes are only for fully described critters.--Firsfron of Ronchester 21:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Whoa! That was a lot of taxoboxes, dude! Thanks for adding so many more. You've just saved me a ton of work! Thank you! :) --Firsfron of Ronchester 15:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations to the barnstar. I appreciate your work too, nice articles but could you please always categorize them? Thank you. ;) -- Darwinek 12:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infraclass

Pleae change all of the existing marsupial pages to match your change, or undo your change. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apologies

Just looked at your other edits, and you don't look like a vandal, go on tell me Hominoidea isn't a joke. Regards Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 20:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't a joke, but it wasn't in keeping with the taxonomy we're using anyway. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I saw your username, and then checked the edit and thought it had to be joke. Anyway sorry for that, and I've reverted it back. Regards Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 20:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aegyptopithecus

Check out this. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

And note that the taxonomy set out in primate differs from where the extant taxa are arranged in PaleoDB. If you want to add text to articles describing that the taxonmy we're using is X via author Y, while author A lays out taxonomy B, you should be bold. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dolichocebus

I reverted because the listing is a complete list of extant species. If you want to put in Dolichcebus, then you should put in all of the known extinct species, not just one singular one. An alternative would be to add some text about the significant extinct findings. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

Messed up. Hainosaurus is largest. Bibliomaniac15 19:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You must be one skinny @#$%!

I was just perusing your userpage, and saw your height and weight. I couldn't help thinking you must be skinny as all $%#@ to be 6'6" and only 165 lbs! Anyway, I love that whole classification thing you've got there on your page - very clever! Mr. Conky 13:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] categories, taxonomy

When an article can be included in more than one category, and one of those categories is a subcategory of the other, please only tag tha rticle with the subcategory: all prehistoric prosimians, for example, are prehistoric mammals. One is sufficient.

Please also check against Mikko's Phylogeny Archive for additions or differences.

Otherwise, keep up the good work! :) - UtherSRG (talk) 16:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eoraptor

Hi Jerkov, Thanks for your recent additions to the dinosaur pages. I do, however, have one problem with your recent edit to Eoraptor. You state it *was* a theropod, and provide a link. However, even though there are many web-sites which claim it *was* a theropod, there are just as many sources which claim it *wasn't* a theropod, or which claim it was only *possibly* a theropod. The issue is still being debated in the scientific community, and there are just as many "for" as there are "against" inclusion. A recent cladistic analysis posted to the dinosaur mailing list shows Eoraptor was no closer to theropods than to Sauropodomorphs. Here is the post. So you can see it's still being debated, and adding that it *was* a theropod, as you did today, is a bit POV, don't you think? I don't want to start an edit war or anything, but is it possible that at least a question mark could be added before the word Theropoda to indicate it's still in question? Happy editing,--Firsfron of Ronchester 22:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Hiya, Firstfron

Thanks for the heads-up, I've taken care of it. By the way, that analysis also puts Herrerasaurus outside of Theropoda. Does this mean a question mark also needs to be added to the theropod ranking of the infraorder Herrerasauria and its members? Jerkov 11:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift response. Yes, it hasn't even been definitely proved that the Herrerasaurs are theropods (some even debate that they were dinosaurs at all!). I think a question mark is in order as well, at least on the word Theropod(a).--Firsfron of Ronchester 15:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I saw! And thank you! :)--Firsfron of Ronchester 22:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rhinoceros

Since I wasn't sure if you were going to check back on the Rhino talk page I took the liberty of writing to you in your user talk page. Do not worry if you don't see this message for a long time as I will check back daily at that page. Just wanted to alert you of my most recent post:

It so happens that it is not impossible & I have heard of & seen a great many intergeneric hybrids & even some that cross family boundaries (documented, not just rumors).

Please reply at Talk: Rhinoceros.

[edit] Dino Crisis 2

Hi. I don't know if you have added my talk page to your watch list, but just incase you haven't, I thought I'd give you a quick notification that I replied to your message. :) --Dreaded Walrus 21:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Names of Animals in Walking With... pages

Jerkov... I posted this on Dora Nichov's page, but in case you don't monitor everyone's talk page... Here it is!

You are right; filmmakers like Haines et al sometimes use generic names in order to present a film that is more comprehensible to a broader, less educated audience than Dora, you, me, etc.

Dora Nichov is really struggling with how to name the animals. I understand where he is coming, trying to resolve the animals he sees with actual, scientific animals; moreover, he wants to provide that information to the audiences who watch the programs with Wikipedia as a cross-reference resource!

I encourage you to edit the entry to reflect what information is provided IN THE TV show. However, to appease people who want to cross reference what they SEE with what SCIENCE knows, I encourage you to notate things in the following form:

* NAME GIVEN IN FILM (representing X")

or, occasionally, as appropriate,

* NAME GIVEN IN FILM (modeled on X, but possibly representing Y)

where X is the name Dora Nichov want to include and Y is a very closely related animal occasionally used by Haines, etc., to figure out how the heck X should look on screen!!! In both cases, it would be best to cite the Haines-published encyclopedia (or set up the citation and let someone who has the book fill in the page number. The book can be referenced, I think, simply as

Haines et al, The Complete Guide to Prehistoric Life

For the record, while Wikipedia is supposed to be an encylopedia (official rules) and NOT meant to be a scientific reference guide for television shows, I think it's safe to say that nobody will cite you for breaking that rule here (nobody has cited him yet, after all!!!) And we ALL will have fun clicking the names to learn more!!! (If you want to write back to me, you can do so on my own user talk)--Denn333 03:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Jerkov... See (and perhaps watch, if you like) my talk page for a response to your recent message.Denn333 20:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline of fictional historical events prior to the 20th century

If you believe the AfD was wrong, recreating the article is not the answer (it'll just get G4 speedied). Open up a WP:DRV instead. ColourBurst 22:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tyrannosaurini

Thanks for the question. Tyrannosaurini has been used in the past. However, I haven't seen it recently. Neither Holtz 2004, Currie et al 2003, nor Carr et al 2005, use it. Those are the main groups of people working on tyrannosaur relationships at the moment.Sheep81 18:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] adding them all?

Are you planning to add each and every genus? or just the extinct one? You seem to be moving beyond dinosaurs. (this is a friendly comment)DGG 05:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

As you wrote on my talk page, you like both living and fossil animals

I believe the usual estimate is there are ~250,000 known fossils; are you doing them all, or just the genera? If you do genera only, that would be what? 50,000? I guess 50,000 is a practical number. At 10 a day, that's about 15 years--faster if you share the work. Much less if you only do the vertebrates.

If you were adding all species, the estimate of known living species is about 2 million. May estimated the true number of living species would be 10 or 20 times that.

(these ae total counts.) Because of the immense number of insects, the number of animals in each case might be ~80% of each number. DGG 16:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stegosaurus

Hi Jerkov!

I'm planning to send Stegosaurus to Featured Article candidacy. The article failed its first nomination, but user:Casliber and I have been hard at work fixing stuff. As you're listed as a member of Wikipedia: WikiProject Dinosaurs, I figured I'd drop you a line and see if there was anything you thought should be added/removed/cited on the article before it is sent to FAC. We definitely want it to pass! :)

(Feel free to make any edits on the article itself, comment on the talk page, or leave a note on my talk page). Thanks for your time, Firsfron of Ronchester 19:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mammalodon colliveri

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Mammalodon colliveri, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. VeniVidiVici007 20:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Classification of Ediacaran biota

Whilst you may well be right that "if anyone knows the facts, these people do", I think the problem here is that nobody does know the facts! Seilacher, MacMenamin, and (depending on how enthusiastic he's feeling about using filter feeding as the sole synapomorphy, which he seems to have become quite attached to of late) Narbonne would still be comfortable placing rangeomorph Ediacarans in their own kingdom, and whilst I would almost be comfortable with suggesting that they're animals (with caveats and disclaimers in capital letters) the cnidarian hypothesis finds very few, if any, adherents today: see Antcliffe & Brasier 2007 ("Charnia and sea pens are poles apart"). Whilst the database does look like a very useful resource, which I'm glad you've pointed me towards, I would have reservations regarding its authority on such hotly and actively debated topics as these, especially as it is unlikely that it is kept up to date with recent developments. Peer reviewed literature - even if you can only access the abstracts - would be a far more reliable (if time consuming) source of data; the Ediacaran biota article is based, as far as I've been able to, exclusively on primary literature, and (I hope) contains a factually accurate and reasonably concise summary of the current camps of thought.

Verisimilus T 19:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)