Zofiabaatar seems to be an outright copy. Unless you have permission of the copyright holder to publish this according to the GFDL, you should remove the article, or paraphrase it heavily.

Moreover, the page is barely wikified, so please try to do that in the least. user_talk:hfastedge 15:31 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)

Hi Hfastedge,
Thanks for your note on Zofiabaatar and well spotted. It's pretty much copied in from http://home.arcor.de/ktdykes/plagiau.htm. At the end of the entry was: "MESOZOIC MAMMALS; Basal Multituberculata, an internet directory. Both this page and that internet project are the work of Trevor Dykes."
(I'll change that slightly to: "As that's my webpage, there are no issues of copyright.")

In other words, I am the original author. I'll see what I can do about Wikification.

Ah, I see. I actually tried the same thing witha piece of computer code I wrote, but the pressure was to great to remove the identifying information. I'd suggest you leave a note in the comments.

Next, as to wikification. I suggest that you run any common web-indexing package on your whole book before you decide to import it into wikipedia. This will allow you to find the words , and combinations of words that are most popular. These are the words that should be wikified (usually), so a simple script could [[ ]] them. Then, it would be easier to have another script import them into wikipedia. I can volunteer for this process if you want. user_talk:hfastedge 20:05 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)

Note to myself: I don't think that'd show the words that should be wikified. If it's a multituberculate mammal found when constructing a road in Belgium, that might result in irrelevant links to 'road' and 'Belgium'. Things like 'Paleocene' would be relevant, but not generally the geographical locations. Belgium didn't exist during the Paleocene.

Hi Trevor- you might find Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life useful when adding entries for obscure prehistoric creature- this includes template tables for entering taxonomic details of various creatures, hope this is helpful quercus robur

Hi again Trevor- thanks for your notes on my page- part of my point on the Ecprepaulax talk page was that as well as including the 'scientific' taxonomic information, wiki articles should be comprhensible to the lay-person as well, biology certainly isn't my area, hence I find alot of the language used incomprehensible- which isn't to say such information shouldn't be included, but a general 'over view' in an opening paragraph would be very helpful, eg, some thing like;

Ecprepaulax was an early mammal that lived during the Cretaceous period

(if indeed that is the case!!!), with description of it after eg, "it was believed to be blue, hairy and covered in pink spots, etc", then the more detailed scientific stuff about who discovered it, why it was imporatnt etc, etc... (making use of the established wiki taxonmoic information tables where appropriate of course).

Hope this is helpful, I keep meaning to look at your Nigerain 419 scams website BTW, have you seen the George Bush one doing the rounds? Cheers quercus robur

(copied from Votes for deletion apge in case you miss it there)

• Paulchoffatia Bathmochoffatia Guimarotodon Henkelodon Kielanodon Meketibolodon Meketichoffatia Plesiochoffatia Pseudobolodon Xenachoffatia Kuehneodon Galveodon Sunnyodon - content in all cases has been relocated to Paulchoffatiidae. -- KTDykes April 1.

Hi trevor- these pages are best converted into redirect pages (simply delete all existing text and type #REDIRECT name of page you want to redirect to). Though personally i think there would be a strong case for keeping the details of each individual species on each of the named pages, and making these sub pages of Paulchoffatiidae. quercus robur 21:13 Apr 1, 2003 (UTC)

(But if you do decide to do subpages for each creature remember to wear your plain english hat for the benefit of the great unwashed like me :)

I've done the first redirect page for you at Paulchoffatia as it might be easier to demonstrate than explain....

PS, have you talked to User:Maveric149 who might be advise you on the protocols of writing on biology related subjects for wikipedia a sthis is one of his areas and I've always found him very helpful, I'm sure he'd be happy to advise, cheers quercus robur 21:19 Apr 1, 2003 (UTC)

Hmm, I just wrote the following, but quercus got the point rather good concurrently.

Hello KT, I just saw your additions to Votes for deletion. I have two objections against this deletion:

1. The articles to be deleted could be easily made redirection. That way, links to the mammals will work from other articles and lead the reader towards the content. You create a redirect by creating an article that only contains #REDIRECT [[link target]]
2. I personaly would create a separate article for every genus and have links to those articles from the family's article. The page on Paulchoffatiidae looks very crowded, and the tables are really messed up in my browser. As a backlink I like a "trail" at the top of the article, like in the Siwi article, but this is my personal preference and no general policy.

Besides this, I really appreciate the addition of more biological content into wikipedia. Currently, we are covering mathematics, geography and history and have a rather poor coverage of biology and certain parts of physics and chemistry. I hope you enjoy changing this to a better :-) -- JeLuF 21:26 Apr 1, 2003 (UTC)

Hi Trevor- thanks for your note- it really doesn't matter how many sub-pages you create on your given specialism provided they are each valid articles (which yours definately are)... Cheers quercus robur

Hi Trevor, we have a slogan Wikipedia is not paper. While in a paper encyclopedia we would have to think about the number of pages (== articles), wikipedia can have articles on the most obscure subjects - as long as they are factually correct and neutral. If there are two different subjects, there should be two different articles. -- JeLuF 22:36 Apr 2, 2003 (UTC)

Hi Trevor. Good change on Multituberculata. Before I changed the sublist to "Families", it actually said "Orders" and just listed the current order. If sub-orders exist, they are better than families, but the self-referencing sublist seemed silly. Jketola 18:29 Apr 7, 2003 (UTC)

Sweet! Thanks for killing those hr lines. IMO they are ugly and should be used sparingly outside of talk and talk-like pages. --mav

A request: notes (like the one in Prionessus) that you have the copyright to the material so it's okay should go in the talk page, and should be signed with your username (because, six months from now, it won't be obvious that "I" is user:KTDykes. Vicki Rosenzweig 14:04 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)

  - However, it's not simply a note on copyright.  The note's also a reference, albeit one to a non-scientific source.  Trevor Dykes.