User talk:Renameduser3998939497

Welcome!

Hello, Renameduser3998939497, 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:

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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Firsfron of Ronchester 00:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biological issues in Jurassic Park

Hey! Two things: One, do you still have The science of jurassic park and the lost world? Second, would you be willing to assist us in referencing the article? The book would be a great help. --Kizor 17:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do still have the book. It would be a pleasure to help with the referencing, but my computer is a bit slow. I can give you some information on a talk page though. T.Neo 08:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your offer of help: I was going to apologize for my inability to keep in contact even before the delay in answering the message on the 5th took this to absurd levels. I am sorry. The fact is that I went to ADHD testing in September, where it was determined that (A) I don't have ADHD, (B) I do, however, have a very strong negative reaction to amphetamines, such as those used in the testing. You can see why I've been far more scatterbrained than usual this fall. Not exactly how a fresh admin should behave. Happily, I'll be going on vacation as well shortly and hope to sane up during that time.

Now, as for the referencing, anything you would add or change would be great. The book is the best thing we have - pretty much the only reference that specifically contrasts Jurassic Park and reality. I gather it's primarily about the recreation process? Well, our coverage of specific dinosaurs is pretty good, or at least fixable, what would be of particular interest are hard facts about dino cloning (a simple "DeSalle and Lindley state this to be impossible for the foreseeable future^reference" would be valuable - at the moment the section's mostly random facts) and unrelated biological issues, such as pathogens, the needed land area and those kinds of things, they are practically not covered at all. But again, the limiting factor is the amount of work you can be arsed to do. I'll be on hand (as I can; see previous paragraph) to help with formatting, phrasing, questions and the like as needed. Below is a ready-made tag suitable for any and all citations, just remove the nowikis to use. --Kizor (talk) 04:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<ref>{{cite book |title=The Science of Jurassic Park: And the Lost World Or, How to Build a Dinosaur |last=DeSalle |first=Rob |coauthors=Lindley, David |year=1997 |publisher=[[Basic Books]] |location=[[New York]] |isbn=0-465-07379-4 |edition=(Nth edition, leave blank if first) |pages= pp (first number)-(last number) |quote=(optional quote goes here if you want)}}</ref>

Evolution comment

Thanks for your feedback, I've tried tweaking the lead a bit to make the distinction between the facts that the theory is based on and the theory that explains the facts a bit clearer. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. T.Neo (talk) 13:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 12:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP User

User:Tiptoety just blocked him for 2 weeks before I've responded to your request. Thanks for the alert. --JForget 22:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why the lsit of animals in prehistoric park was created

If Primeval has one, Why not Prehisotirc park. Mr. Loner (talk) 15:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi T.Neo, the test page looks good, it's a good start. Some general things recommendation I'd give to improve the article:

The article is still too listified. The Wiki style guide frown on lists, like the weapons section. I'd recommend re-structuring the whole article into two main sections as follows.
- Plot
  - A general plot summary, possibly broken down by episode. Each should only by a paragraph or two if so. Here's where you can mention weapons, vehicles, and devices, eliminating the need for lists. If a weapon or device is not notable enough to be mentioned (say one character uses a walkie-talkie--unless this is a significant plot point, there's no reason at all to mention that such a mundane every-day item like that was used).
  - Characters can also be bluelinked and explained here as needed. I know a lot of movies articles feature a character list, but in this type of show the "characters" are only slightly more important than other set dressing like vehicles and weapons. It's a docco about dinosaurs first and foremost.
- Production
  - A discussion of the production obviously, incorporating those points from Misc Trivia that have to do with the making of the show and it's relation to other shows, where scenes were filmed, etc. In prose, not a list.
- Science
  - Any relevant scientific issues specifically brought up on the show can be discussed here. If scientific errors were made they can be mentioned and cited. This should incorporate the rest of the Misc Trivia section.

Hopefully that will help a bit. In response to Mr. Loner above: just because another article uses a questionable writing style isn't an excuse. If anything, you're pointing out that the Primeval articles suffers from many of the same stylistic problems as this one. Many, many articles about TV shows on Wikipedia are a complete travesties of in-universe writing, original research, and non-notable trivia. They resemble poorly made fan web sites more than anything, let alone encyclopedia articles. Dinoguy2 (talk) 02:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey T.Neo, been pretty busy I'm afraid but should be able to work a bit on it over the Anzac Day long weekend. I think you've done a heckuva job working to improve this, might have to take it off my list of the worst wiki articles soon! Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Super Comet

Just so you know, someone did nominate the article for PROD (possibly a case of WP:OSTRICH or the nominator is in a region that doesn't receive Discovery). I have expanded the article a little, though I agree it's weird that there's so little about it on the Net except for blogs which Wikipedia, thanks to an outdated rule, rarely allow as sources. You might want to look at the changes I made to the article with regards to categorizing and organizing articles. One thing that might have triggered the PROD nomination might have been the lack of categories, etc. One-line articles that aren't assigned to a wikiproject (see the talk page for the article) or categories are often looked upon more harshly than those that are. Cheers! 23skidoo (talk) 01:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Venus In-Situ Explorer

Hi, I just proposed Venus In-Situ Explorer for deletion, as the only reference given no longer seems to mention it. (I added one that comes closer, but it doesn't cite it either as far as I can see.) If you can provide a more current reliable source, that would preserve it. Otherwise it is likely to disappear in a week or so. Thanks -- Wwheaton (talk) 18:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]