User talk:Fred.e

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to my discussion page. Leave a message somewhere. I usually respond on your 'talk page'. - Fred

Older sections from this 'talk page';

Archives

Circulars

If your comments have been archived and you want to pick up the discussion, please feel to paste them back here. Thanks Fred.e

[edit] BAB & AFD

It is a fun article, Back-Arc Basins. Most Expansionists don't deny the compression activity at the subduction zones but it's a long way to go from compression zone to subduction, because of holding to a pre-conceived notion that the Earth has always been the same size. It would be nice to begin seeing a percentage value to theories. Even 75% subduction, 20% expansion and 5% other, would be better than the present state. Though our evidence base is more likely on the side of an opposite proportion, such a system would be more true to the stated creed of science. You're never in my way, btw. We're both heading in the same direction, I'm sure. Your comments were excellent and covered points others were also likely considering. Everyone's input made the discussion worthy, detractors and supporters alike. Thanks much. MichaelNetzer 11:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Never

could paste back my quanratined items - never. Clearcutting is the american usage. Any need for further v- v- v materials? Satu Suro 12:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Lgood one to quote to nefarious rousers of the rabble is Time Cube just saw it mentiond on another talk page... there is room in the ether for that which cannot be referenced first line in a google search after all! Satu Suro 12:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Apologies - delays due to - severe distraction with beelzebub and gommorah being given an aikido trip up, in the name of passive resistance to facing blunderbusses up the nose - (well away in time and space from v and v and v) sigh Satu Suro 12:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Scattered showers of referentials this evening sir? Satu Suro 10:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC) ?

You have a wire with the wordes sir - maybe afds are our field of effluence and efficacy? Satu Suro 12:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Cripes man, I could fill your refs with lots more would you like em ? Satu Suro 12:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Award and awarding

It was always going to get there, but I was confused by dis!?. Fred 11:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry mate, don't know what's you're saying. Oh, wait, maybe I do. There's a massive backlog at TFA. B. integrifolia was promoted to FA back in November last year. We put it on the TFA requests list almost immediately, and it only just hit the main page yesterday. The fact that B. epica was promoted the day before B integrifolia hit the main page was sheer coincidence.

Probably some time this week Gnangarra and/or I will submit a TFA request for B. epica, but the request list is currently 101 articles long, plus TFA is already scheduled up to March 4, so if we submitted it now, it wouldn't get a run on the main page for at least 105 days; longer if Raul decides he is sick of running so many Banksia articles. Hesperian 12:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aborigine

Hi Fred. Fair question.

First, I agree that it was widely used in the pre-2000 literature. I don't think you'll find it used in any culturally-sensitive work after around them, when it began to acquire this offensive connotation. I've been reprimanded a couple of times by knowledgable people like Land Councils when I've inadvertently used it myself, which is why I'm now rather sensitive to it.

We did actually have a discussion on this about a year ago, after which the word "aborigine" was expunged, but I see it's crept back in, so I was just doing a tidy-up, not making a political statement!

Can I give an authoritative refernce which defines what is OK and what is not OK? Well, how about the UNSW guide which says "Some indigenous people of Australia object to being labelled "Aborigines" - a term imposed on them by the first British colonisers, which also refers to any indigenous people in the world." RayNorris 11:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you like the picture!

Yes, even if we somtimes disagree, I think we're both trying to do the right thing, which makes life a lot easier! I might ask AIATSIS if they could spell out what's OK and what's not OK on their FAQ page - I think it might be helpful to a lot of people. I think they used to have a guide but it seems to have disappeared. Maybe for political reasons.RayNorris 11:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The advice was invaluable

You pointed in just the right direction. Hardly a better way to understand how the complex works. I've dressed up my page and am enjoying the research for a new article on a subject I've known little about. I'm thinking of what's needed to reference the EE page and have started compiling sources - coming soon. Addictive is appropriate, especially on a Friday. Thanks again. MichaelNetzer 11:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Loïc Dachary‎ Free Software engineer, spokesman and activist. Started the stub so it commits me. I looked for a project that needed help and was removed from my circle on interests. Joined Category:WikiProject Free Software articles and cleaned up an ailing page. Now it's time to give something back to WP. MichaelNetzer 12:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cool :)

Glad it was of use, I'm going to be on and off busy, alternating between having too much free time and having none, so seemed to make sense to just comment it out :) Orderinchaos78 12:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC) Replied via email. Thanks for the best wishes too :) Orderinchaos78 No worries. And eeeeee.... mail. Orderinchaos78 09:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Fred.e/Sandpile

This page is confusing the AfD categorisation system. Could you comment out the REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE... template so that it isn't listed in the list of current AfDs? --ais523 17:26, 2 March 2007 (U T C)

Oops. My sandpile nearly became an article for deletion. As it contained an article for deletion discussion it was sure to be confusing debate. - Fred 17:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, everything's fine now. Thanks! --ais523 18:13, 2 March 2007 (U T C)

Fred - I am currentl embroiled in an alternative universe - unknown hours out of sync - shall try to break through the synergistic lunr solar dinscrepencies and jump into your sand with water bucket sometime this weekend. - keep promising one thing and then real life gets in the way - more power to the brindersnatch, and maye they gyre and gimble in the waves but never let john lennon meet them on the other side. Trust all that very clear, ta. Satu Suro 02:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC) (whares gnagn when we need him, in the mountains of the south, sigh )

[edit] Please ignore the following

AAAAAH(please dont mention it)NNNGGG Satu Suro 13:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC) Aaah that feels better, now as I was saying.... ummmm... 13:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Fredulence my voracious viper of virulent paper makers from the home of douglas adams falling whalemeat, and the deep dark days of the infernos on ice, have been distracted by complete and utter idiocy Satu Suro 14:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC) and there seems to be more - its all inthe planting guides - either side of the moon i'd say other than the other side - and as for anyone with a user name that starts with the letter d- dont let me start. i'm off and out - having had the most uproductive edit evning since the blatant serial vandal on winnie the pooh got the btter of me as my better half requested that i turn the computer off... argh the terrors of life...Satu Suro 14:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cretaceously speaking

It is truly a masterful pieces of science my fraudulence - tril;y vicace vivate voraciously giljie jiglie- may you be hongratulated ! exkwisitedly louigi ready! well done! Satu Suro 12:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC) Tidy? Satu Suro 13:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Missed the bit about brother be - yup first part only Satu Suro 11:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You're welcome

What a bloke! That's why I love Wikipedia - so much interesting stuff! I was atually going through the Fellows of the Royal Geographic Society category adding the names to the cats (yeah, I know, what a way to spend my Sunday ...) as they get alphabetised oddly otherwise, and came across him and his brother there. Jasper33 12:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Satusuro and you - I'd read the above and thought 'Uh?' and then thought 'these guys have clearly known each other a loooooooong time. Either that or they're barking mad. Or it's the 35 degree heat. Or too many Tooheys.' Which sort of narrowed things down a bit. Jasper33 13:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] For truth, Justice and the WikiWay

Truth by Wiki project. I'm curious to see where it goes and willing to participate. I saw the comments there after closing the discussion but wonder what would happen if you hadn't reverted. Would a bot of some type have detected and removed it? MichaelNetzer 15:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ask Aurora

They are two different species: See this link. Aurora north (WikiDesk) 11:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Western Australia project

Fred, thanks for taking the trouble to leave a message on my talk page. Apologies for the delay in replying; I've been away for more than a month.

I'm flattered by your invitation and would like to help, but I have to say that I've increasingly made it a policy not to get too embroiled in contributing to articles on subjects I've already researched and written in detail about. My reason being that I find it irksome and indeed soul-destroying to go to the effort of writing something based on extensive input of time and trouble when the 'reward' is to have to spend, potentially, the rest of my life monotoring said articles and policing changes made by users who really don't know anything about the subject. I've had a few run-ins with self-appointed experts on various pages since joining Wikipedia (Talk:Thuggee:Second Photo is a good example), and I find them very dispiriting. The site's resolute unwillingness to make any distinctions between edits by specialists and those made by people with no knowledge of a subject whatsoever is often commented on, and is, in my opinion, one of the principal problems facing Wikipedia as it moves forward. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but life really is too short to spend it in spats with fellow Wikipedians. Good luck in your drive to improve the quality of WA material on the site, though. Mikedash 15:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] E...

...is the 5th letter of the alphabet. Orderinchaos78 15:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] F

My fredulence i failed to fortify your inFormation - glad to see your foraged on anothers talk page - yet another round owed (or is it another keg) apologies distracted as alwats .. need i say less? Satu Suro 12:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It is on the occasion of the time of the evening to let you know that unfortunately the usage of NA in a header in a talk page means that it is not an assessable article in a project - but if it is a list it is a list and is not eligble to have the NA because although it is not an article it donst deserve to get a NA because only category talk pages are ever allowed to have a class NA in them and if it is a list, then it cannot be a non article even if it is not an article, phew... savvy? Satu Suro 13:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You are most welcome to abuse me with expletives off-wiki if such a message left you even more confused. :) Satu Suro 13:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] G

Good, the problem is lists and articles can be assesseable - although there are indeed increasingly considerable pressures against lists -viz ie WP is not a list, and the current OZ people push to encourage editors to utilise categories for bunching arts rather than making lists - it is possible to get a list as featured list - we got one recently in the Indonesian project - however who let the cats out', um - the categories gotta be populated by 20 blue links minimum to avoid the cat police, and lists with big amounts of red links are like bulls to the toreador... Satu Suro 13:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Riley

I cropped the LISWA tag off and have uploaded the cropped version over yours at Commons. I just use Microsoft Picture manager which has a crop tool. I hope thats OK.

A list is an article. I'm not exactly sure what the issue is but it looks like the article is midway into a restructure with a "To be alphabetized" section. —Moondyne 13:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see what's happening now and its a mess. Looks like someone has started a restructure and has ran out of steam. I'm not getting involved but it does need some firm hands to finish it off. —Moondyne 13:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] W.A. Chip & Pulp Co

Needs a companion out there in wiki world... :) Satu Suro 10:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC) Thank you now theres playing in the chips and not the sand - thanks for that...would appreciate any extra text for the chip co stub...(dont forget to put it in new arts section in WP Oz! ) Satu Suro 12:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC) NEVER. now as i noticed we need cats, just like the smell of the karri forest ferns in the morning... hmmm Satu Suro 12:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC) Ohmygawd the endless poisibilites of the puns and complex crross refrences - (put the cat out put the cat out) its all too much for a monday - :Forestry gotta balance out for the lmberjacks and they are ok, and go to the tree... to be reasonable the old growth foresters need their economic terms too Satu Suro 13:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC) Man the potential the sheer cats piss aroma from the karri bracken ferns seering through the nasal passage and voila - cons and environ - wont our mate be happy to see that i really do have gneiss and conglomerate in my brain after all! still no forestry yet, sigh Satu Suro 13:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC) Beware my fredulation my vivacious voracious link corrector - I have carved out (no not chipped) a disambig for the singular case - as in Woodchip - it probably should be noted that the product in the article itselff stands in the plural - we should take careful note of that, in the event of an article being created for the plural form... Satu Suro 14:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC) :Old foresters dont die they just become old growth - there is no article for triabunna, tasmania - its a red link - there is a real lack of adequate work on the pulp mill locations of the past! yikes more work to go! Satu Suro 14:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC) signing off for now - good stuff! Satu Suro 14:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Woodchipping

Nice work! —Moondyne 00:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree that the claims regarding the economic imperatives do need some supporting references though. Surely that wouldn't be too hard. —Moondyne 08:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do but don't depend on it. —Moondyne 08:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

(from User Talk:Greatwalk#Thank_you)

for your contributions and good manners. Here is something you may find useful: Woodchipping. You inspired me. Just a start, see if you can add something. Best regards - Fred ^(talk) 13:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Fred, Thanks! I knew Satu was working on articles but didn't know he'd started one on woodchipping. Thanks, too, for the contributions. Kind regards, --Greatwalk 04:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I explained the truth to Greatwalk. Satu Suro 11:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Nah too modest - just wait till our friend returns (hi there!) - no doubt further tags - maybe more OR where it should be cite, and Bite where it should be ref. needed Satu Suro 12:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

So it goes - cats cradle vonnegut noh theatre? I have reatreddded my trailer with 8 ply after an embarrasing driving on rim with busted tyre - and have retreated to my ruined javanese graveyard for peace and benzoin mist - listing each one in their variants... the cowboy has companions - but seeing this is a b grade movie, the dust from the horses hooves can be seen but the yeehahs and yippieeeh eye ohs cannot be heard from here in the hills, in a manner of speaking. Satu Suro 12:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC) ::Ah another roadside, ... hmmm...Satu Suro 13:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC) Exclusive at that - but an apple - thats profanity to a milliganism before the mcgonnalism before snowballs borges quote... Satu Suro 13:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC) Ah its all in the c - the triple c and the double c- whole articles could be created from this alone... Satu Suro 06:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC) FDredulence, your frolicking on the dusty roads of east midland perchance brought this wild east theme? If only I had memporized the blazing saddles lines i would be happier Satu Suro 08:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] woodchipping

Sorry I haven't replied to a few of your messages recently; I'm not snubbing you... well, no more than I'm snubbing everyone else, anyhow. Good on you re: woodchipping; it was needed. Pity about the graffiti :-( Hesperian 11:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Masons

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 4. >Radiant< 12:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

"these people weren't notable for being masons so they shouldn't be categorised for it" - I've been seeing this fallacious argument a lot lately. I wish these people would get on and nominate Category:American people, since it is full of articles about people notable for reasons other than being American. Hesperian 07:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the debate on the CFD I mentioned above appears to have a consensus for deletion of that category, for the arguments given there. I'm afraid I'm not sure what your question is. >Radiant< 12:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not troubled, don't worry :) I think you might be interested in this guideline on the subject, which appears to be the base of several of the comments. >Radiant< 12:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Section of the guideline? All of it, it's not that long :) I'm unaware of many categories about freemasonry existing. At any rate I closed that debate, I didn't start it. Whomever started it is quite free to start other debates. >Radiant< 13:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  - (Non-defining or trivial characteristic) Oh, but we're certainly not going to delete our information on Freemasonry! Just some categories, the information is still there. >Radiant< 14:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
It's also not "freemasons aren't notable" (indeed, we haven't deleted any articles on them recently, to my best knowledge). It's "information about freemasons is better kept in a list than a category." The aim here is to keep the amount of cats on bio articles down. >Radiant< 14:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_4

-- Drini 03:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] cain and destructus

Drop a message on my talk page when you've got something up. Hesperian 10:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] fair game

Given that its Australian ca. 1886, I think its public domain. Tag with {{PD-Australia}}. —Moondyne 16:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

That all good. Nice work. —Moondyne 23:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A tip

Thanks for that... I haven't added categories to my sandpit projects yet, but what you say makes sense. Warm regards, --Greatwalk 04:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Botanic art

Me too. I already uploaded the Sydney Parkinson ones.

Uploading them to Commons can only be a good thing. We've got a fully fledged category structure going over there. As you can see, Commons:Category:Banksia marginata is rather light on for images. If you can be bothered, Commons will take any and every PD or suitably licenced image that you can find.

Whether a particular image can and should be used in a particular encyclopaedia article would have to be decided on a case-by-case basis. Use your own judgement. Hesperian 23:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] draughty

I have been doing a bit on biota and was wondering if you had some thoughts on, or examples of, articles for communities such as "Organic mound (tumulus) springs of the Swan Coastal Plain". It is a "threatened" community according to the reference I was using for Rottnest bee. When you have nothing to do, ta. - Fred 14:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Threatened ecological communities rock! I would already be working on them if there were six of me.

Some of the TECs have already been written up by CALM, e.g. Camerons Cave Troglobitic Community. But most have not.

The only TEC-related content I've written for Wikipedia can be seen at Lake Bryde-East Lake Bryde. Note the annoyingly long red-link. I don't know how to handle this. Most TEC's don't have a name, so are widely known and referred to by their official descriptions. But we can't very well use the description as the article title when the description is "[[Herblands and Bunch Grasslands on gypsum lunette dune community is located on grey sandy-clay on the top of a lake-edge dune and includes the herbaceous species Danthonia caespitosa, Lawrencia squamata, Maireana marginata, Podolepis rugosa, Senecio lautus subsp. meritimus, Asteridea chaetopoda, Atriplex paludosa, Halosarcia syncarpa, Scaevola spinescens and Stipa juncifolia]]".

(Well that settles that then - the above is correctly linked, but Wikipedia refuses to render it as a link. I guess it exceeds some link length limit.)

I suppose we can very slightly breach OR by coining our own shortened version for a title, e.g. Herblands and bunch grasslands on gypsum lunette dune community.

In summary: go for it!

Hesperian 01:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

There's a list of threatened ecological communities under the EPBC Act 1999 here. But we also have TECs at a state level too, see here. There is no legislative framework for the WA TECs, as WA is still under the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950. This was a brilliant piece of legislation for its time, but not so brilliant as to anticipate the need for protection of ecological communities.

If you look down the right sidebar of the latter website, you'll see a PDF list of WA TECs (which is badly out of date). This list includes a "community identifier" and a "community name". In some cases, the community identifier seems like the most appropriate title e.g. Koolanooka System is a much better title than [[Plant assemblages of the Koolanooka System (Beard 1976): Allocasuarina campestris scrub over red loam on hill slopes; Shrubs and emergent mallees on shallow loam red over massive ironstone on steep rocky slopes; Eucalyptus ebbanoensis subsp. ebbanoensis mallee and Acacia sp. scrub with scattered Allocasuarina huegeliana over red loam and ironstone on the upper slopes and summits; Eucalyptus loxophleba woodland over scrub on the footslopes; and mixed Acacia sp. scrub on granite]]. But in other cases, the community name is obviously more appropriate: e.g. Sedgelands in Holocene dune swales of the southern Swan Coastal Plain is a much better title than SCP19.

Clearly we need articles for threatened ecological community, List of threatened ecological communities of Australia (with EPBC Act scope), and List of threatened ecological communities of Western Australia (with DEC scope).

Regarding placement in bio-regions, the DEC's biodiversity audit [1] is based on the 53 IBRA subregions. For each subregion there is a summary available in PDF. One of the things the summary covers is any special landscape or ecosystem values for the subregion. If a subregion contains any threatened ecological communities, then the corresponding summary document will list and discuss them.

Hesperian 04:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Good on ya. Probably need a Category:Threatened ecological communities of Australia, but perhaps not until you have a few articles to populate it. If you ever want any of your redirects deleted, e.g. User:Fred.e/Eucalyptus macrandra, or any other user space cleanup, just say the word. Hesperian 05:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Just give me a list of redirects, etc to be deleted, and I'll nuke them for you. Hesperian 12:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Any time. Hesperian 13:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue I - March 2007

The inaugural March 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 04:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fact checking

Part of this re C.L. seems wrong to me, but I can't place my finger on what. Thought I'd send it your way as you know way more than I about this stuff :) Orderinchaos78 15:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I think between us we managed to fix that :) Looking at the history it's been "gone" a long while - hopefully by mid-year we can have a quality (and accurate!) set of articles about WA political history. I'm going to spend some time on it once this Wheatbelt thing is done and I've written the Hamersley spinoffs. Orderinchaos78 16:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editing

If you remove or add text, do not mark an edit as minor. Also, I'm not sure why you removed Grye's comments off the talk page, but there was no reason to do so. Talk pages are precisely for talking about citations and other article-relevant items. MSJapan 14:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I see what you did, which was to refactor Grye's refactor (which was still a removal from one section to another), and I'm not sure why (because Grye moved it and gave reasoning for it), but it's still not appropriate to mark it as "minor". There are particular guidelines on what is minor and what is not at Help:Minor edit, and that is my main concern here. MSJapan 04:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Fred, I looked at the diff, and it's very much on the talk page - right here. I have no idea what else you expect me to say about this that I haven't already said. MSJapan 13:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] thank you kindly.

I noticed that you edited someone else's comment for clarity, spelling or grammar. As a rule, please refrain from editing others' comments without their permission. Though it may appear helpful to correct typing errors, grammar, etc., please do not go out of your way to bring talk pages to publishing standards, since it is not terribly productive and will tend to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thanks, Grye 23:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, Talkpage header's good, thank you for a positive edit !~) Grye 01:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] says it all

3 see also

Golfers Fish

Satu Suro 05:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] amphibians

"/(List of) Amphibians of Western Australia which would only contain frogs." And maybe Deltasaurus kimberleyensis? Hesperian 05:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Good luck finding material on that - you'll probably have to trawl through paleontology journals from the 60s! Hesperian 05:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Decided to turn it blue myself. Hesperian 11:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Another cat? - what would that be? Hesperian 12:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Siamese cats are alledgedly water lovers/amphibious when pressed.... Satu Suro 12:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

That led to an interesting one... a locked article.... indeed... Satu Suro 12:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Refs:

Black 1982 A labyrinthodont amphibian from the Early Triassic of Queensland BSc Hons thesis, La Trobe Uni
Cosgriff 1965
Cosgriff, Zawiskie 1979 A new species of the Rhytidosteidae from the Lystrosaurus zone and a review of the Rhytidosteidea Palaeontologia Africana 22.
Howie 1972 On a Queensland labyrinthodont Studies in Vertebrate Evolution
Jensen 1975 Permo-Triassic stratigraphy and sedimentation in the Bowen Basin, Queensland BMR Journal of Geology and Geophysics, Australasia
Warren and Black 1985 A new rhytidosteid (Amphibia, Labyrinthodontia) from the Early Triassic Arcadia Formation of Queensland, Australia, and a consideration of the relationships of Triassic temnospondyls Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 5.
Warren and Hutchinson (then in press) A new rhytidosteid temn0ospondyl with postcranial skeletals preserved. Alcheringa

Refs aren't inlined, so don't ask me which are relevant to the content I included in the article.

So where's the contradiction? I'll double check it. Hesperian 00:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I have

"Deltasaurus kimberleyensis, pictured here, which grew to an average length of 91 centimetres at maturity, ...."

If your reference is newer or more reliable than mine (which is essentially a volume of Peter Schouten's palaeontological reconstructive artworks) then feel free to overrule it. Hesperian 00:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/r/e/User_talk%7EFred.e_8a59.html"