"talk) 

 Supersaurus reference  

Do you by any chance have a pdf copy of the reference you added to the Supersaurus page?

Curtice, B.; and Stadtman, K. (2002). ""The demise of Dystylosaurus edwini and a revision of Supersaurus vivianae"", in McCord, R.D.; and Boaz, D. (eds.):  Western Association of Vertebrate Paleontologists and Southwest Paleontological Symposium - Proceedings 2001, Mesa Southwest Museum Bulletin, 33-40. 

Its one I've not read before. Cheers,   

 Micro 

No prob, just caught that during random patrolling ) It's a cool paper in case you don't have it, freely available pdf through link.   

 Zen Award 

  Zen Garden Award for Infinite Patience for all the patience required in getting a huge article like Allosaurus all spruced up good 'n' nice for FA status cheers,   (talk · contribs) 

Re Talk:Dinosaur ""Another error""
I'd respond to your query instantly except that I'm not going to make life easier for those (not you) who have twice reverted my edits to Dinosaur - if it were not for the reverts I'd have quietly corrected the item. But I've noticed your much more friendly and co-operative tone in our few discussions and the many well-earned congratulations in your Talk page, and I'll be very happy to co-operate with you on any other article if it is appropriate.   

Re Physiology of dinosaurs I'd be happy to contribute. I think I already suggested that the warmblooded/coldblooded debate should be a separate article - in fact Physiology of dinosaurs started life as ""Warmbloodedness of dinosaurs"" and I was fairly happy that it was coherent and well-structured after my last edit under that title (although of course there was room for improvements). Physiology of dinosaurs looks the kind of article that will spawn further ""more details"" articles as we find more material.

Re your suggestion of a ""Dinosaur behavior"" article, I agree the relevant section of Dinosaur is getting too long. But I suspect (totally off the top of my head) that there's too much variation for one article when you consider differences in: time (150M years); size; lifestyle (predator / scavenger / browser / grazer); environment; and specific clades (although clade may not be a helpful grouping, look at lions and tigers). My inclination (off the top again) would be to handle this aspect bottom up, e.g. ""behaviour of dromaesosaurs"", ""behaviour of large tyrannosaurids"", ""behaviour of Jurassic sauropods"", ""behaviour of large late Cretaceous ceratopsians"" (bound to be different from that of smaller, earlier ones because the big, late ones had horns). Even working out how to structure a set of articles on this topic probably needs input from people with knowledge of specific groups / periods. But I'm game for it, as I think structuring a large set of related articles is a current weakness in Wikipedia (I'm involved in an attempt to remedy that in 1 subject area, History of IBM mainframe operating systems, see the Talk page). 

Re the conflicts, see User talk:Philcha#Dinosaur (period concerned is Jan - Mar 2007) and Talk:Dinosaur#Corrections_urgently_needed (21 Nov 2007). That's twice I've corrected errors in the article and had my edits reverted. In the earlier instance I pointed out the errors on Talk:Dinosaur and other defects and balance issues in Oct 2007 and nothing happened for 3 months. So I edited in Jan 2007 and my edit was reverted almost instantly. My current impression is that a certain clique thinks it owns that article and would rather revert edits not controlled by them than see the article improved by someone who's not a member of the clique and / or who (in the earlier instance) interprets Wikipedia guidelines differently from them. The more I look round Wikipedia the more places I can see where I can contribute, so I don't have time play games with such people.  ([[