User talk:Tisquesusa/Archive 6

DYK nomination of Omingonde Formation

Hello! Your submission of Omingonde Formation at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 23:48, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 26

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Bocas del Toro Group (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bocas del Toro

Paso Real Formation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Equus

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Cottonwood Limestone infobox suggestions

Thanks you for the suggestions on my first use of the Infobox rockunit template (3.5 years ago). I have a couple questions:

1. Clarification of "siliceous to quartz nodules or infills of burrows"

"Fusulinids are common, especially in the upper part, and siliceous nodules project from weathered surfaces. In this area the Cottonwood is not a flinty limestone but nodules of partly silicified material that weathered more slowly than the rest of the rock give it the flinty appearance."

This is a particular and identifying characteristic of the Cottonwood (observation of these particular trace fossils gives definite identification of Cottonwood ). I was trying to express the range of silicification seen in the burrows, from just more resistant limey projections, to blue-grey cryptocrystalline flint, to crystal quartz geodes. Much of the flint in the higher units of the Flint Hills are also burrow infills, but completely different architecturally. It is only that it is possible to misidentify a Cottonwood sample as, say Threemile Limestone if one is looking at the blue flint infill. Honestly, the risk is so unimportant that I should just change the text to "siliceous burrow infills"?

2. How should I handle the Coord-missing tag? Just pick a point in the center of the outcrop? I keep thinking a range should be stated. My real problem is with the Western Interior Seaway coordinates when some beds range from the Great Lakes, Arctic, and Utah. I would rather not state the coordinates at all.

3. I used to try to use |author1= |author2= |author3=, etc, until someone changed my usage to |authors=. Reading Template:Citation/doc now, I see that the enumeration is probably preferred, am I right?

IveGoneAway (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Fencepost limestone

(For some reason, a lot of these helpful edits by others aren't showing up in my Watchlist.)

1. So, now I see that you changed "| period = Late Cretaceous" to "| period = Turonian" Isn't Turonian an age, not a period?
2. "Post Rock Limestone" is not a formal formation name, it's not even a formation name, it is cultural name (only for the rock out of the ground), but often capitalized often not, same with "Stone Post". I am wondering if both should be all lower case, but you so often see both in Title Case as a cultural terms, but usually in promotional literature. What do you think?

IveGoneAway (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2018 (UTC) 18:17, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 3

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Mourasuchus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Amazon

South Polar region of the Cretaceous (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to King George Island

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Tisquesusa. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Omingonde Formation.
Message added 00:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey...

I was looking at your blurb, after your name at WP:WPPORT.

You mentioned the updating function of portals.

I am interested in your assessment of the progress of the portals project so far. What have we accomplished, and what yet needs to be done?

Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   06:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Omingonde Formation

Hello! Your submission of Omingonde Formation at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Omingonde Formation

Hello! Your submission of Omingonde Formation at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Tisquesusa. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Omingonde Formation.
Message added 00:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please return to editing as soon as possible so that this nomination can proceed. Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

List of fossiliferous stratigraphic units in Cameroon

When you added the map to this article, you included the Igumale Formation, but the coordinate given is not in Cameroon and does not display on the map, thus causing the article to be in Category:Location maps with marks outside map and outside parameter not set.

I don't know where you got this coordinate. It is in Nigeria. Either the coordinate is incorrect or this formation does not belong on this list. MB 04:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Wetterstein Limestone

Hi Tisquesusa, I'm sorry but I've reverted your edits here as the merge discussion hasn't been concluded. Bermicourt (talk) 09:07, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I have gone to great lengths to improve, expand and reference the article and show the different names used in the different countries. There hasn't been any activity since August, what "not concluded"? They are not two separate formations; Wetterstein Limestone is a name locally used for the broader Wetterstein Formation that includes other lithologies too. Tisquesusa (talk) 15:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

If I may suggest ... I am not sufficiently qualified in the Tethys to decide if Tisquesusa Wetterstein Formation sufficiently addresses the merge, but it might ... and if it does, there needs to be at least some corresponding modification to Wetterstein limestone, whether a redirect or not. The discussion needs to be updated to propose the updated Wetterstein Formation as a solution. If it was premature to replace Wetterstein limestone with a redirect because the discussion was not closed, it was equally premature to remove the merge tag for the very same reason. Something still should be done. At the very least, besides retagging, Wetterstein limestone now needs to be updated to indicate that the article is about a classification that is regional in the broader extent of the Wetterstein unit. If Tisquesusa's Wetterstein Formation covers the subject, then retention of Wetterstein limestone in some form needs to be justified in the merge discussion. Maybe the Wetterstein limestone classification is notable enough that it justifies a distinct article, but I think that status needs an explicit defense, now. IveGoneAway (talk) 13:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Tone? While I wholeheartedly support the general concept of merging of the countless, unnecessarily redundant rock unit articles where they can be seen to be so, maybe it would help if you moderated your recent comment to the Wetterstein Limestone merge discussion? IveGoneAway (talk) 19:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC) 20:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC) 20:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bajo Barreal Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chelonia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Copying licensed material requires attribution

Hi. I see in the article Alajuela Formation you included material from a webpage that is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material in the future. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Canaanimico

If you need to change the taxonomy listed for a page like Canaanimico with an automatd taxobox, you update it at {{Taxonomy/Canaanimico}}. Then the change propagates to all relevant taxoboxes. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Automated taxobox system/intro. --Nessie (talk) 03:26, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

You are screwing up my hard work and demand from me that I clear up your shit? Are you serious? Go do something useful. Tisquesusa (talk) 05:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Wow, okay. The swearing really makes you case stronger. Automated taxoboxes are the consensus. Please don't go against that, especially when the fix is simple. If you have a better taxonomy, use it. Don't start an edit war because you don't like consensus. --Nessie (talk) 23:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The solution is simple; get your hands off my work and do something useful. Automated taxoboxes are optional and should be avoided when they cause problems, as is the case here. YOU only have the right to use them as long as YOU change the code of the box such that the information is preserved. YOU want an automated taxobox, so YOU do the work. Now go and do something useful and don't bother me with crap. Tisquesusa (talk) 23:25, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

You need to work on you anger. You don't own the article. The automated taxobox does not cause problems. You can only have one parent in the taxobox, as per consensus. Cramming to taxonomies is not good for manual nor automated taxoboxes. Pick one, add |classification_status=disputed and discuss the other in the text. --Nessie (talk) 23:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Scientific names

"The second [and third] part of a binomial species name is never capitalized, even when derived from a proper name" This is not only WP convention. Autism is not material to the usage. IveGoneAway (talk) 23:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@IveGoneAway: I know that is the case, and that is not the point. The article] said "The specific name honours Guido Bonarelli who advised Tapia in his study of the find. By present conventions the epithet is spelled bonarellii, thus without a capital B.". So that sentence only makes sense if the <wrong> naming with capital is included in the article. Tisquesusa (talk) 00:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

First, I am on a business trip and can only participate in this in non-business/non-business social time. Ok, it is is appropriate in the context on that section to use the historic capitalization and spelling (an embedded comment would help future editors) A quotation in the citation of the relevant section of the source is also appropriate. The following sentences should also be tagged for citation. If the Huene source supports the statements the that content can be quoted in that citation.IveGoneAway (talk) 14:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@IveGoneAway: I agree it should be referenced, as I extensively do in all my written articles, but I was reading the article and it didn't make sense, then looked into the history and some IP (who clearly didn't read the full short text) removed information which explained that point about the name. So I placed that information back, so the text would make sense again. Tisquesusa (talk) 14:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 March newsletter

And so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2. With 56 contestants qualifying, each group in Round 2 contains seven contestants, with the two leaders from each group due to qualify for Round 3 as well as the top sixteen remaining contestants.

Our top scorers in Round 1 were:

• L293D, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with ten good articles on submarines for a total of 357 points.
• Adam Cuerden, a WikiCup veteran, came next with 274 points, mostly from eight featured pictures, restorations of artwork.
• MPJ-DK, a wrestling enthusiast, was in third place with 263 points, garnered from a featured list, five good articles, two DYKs and four GARs.
• Usernameunique came next at 243, with a featured article and a good article, both on ancient helmets.
• Squeamish Ossifrage was in joint fifth place with 224 points, mostly garnered from bringing the 1937 Fox vault fire to featured article status.
• Ed! was also on 224, with an amazing number of good article reviews (56 actually).

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews on 143 good articles, one hundred more than the number of good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Well done all!

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk).

Seattle Fault

Another editor wants to bold, revert, discuss your changes to Seattle Fault. I started a conversation at Talk:Seattle Fault#March 2019 BRD ☆ Bri (talk) 22:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

NPA

Re this, are you aware you can be blocked for attacking other editors? ☆ Bri (talk) 04:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Category:Buildings and structures in Duitama has been nominated for discussion

Category:Buildings and structures in Duitama, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:20, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

April 2019

Hello, I'm Legacypac. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Prehistory of Oceania that didn't seem very civil. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Legacypac (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 May newsletter

The second round of the 2019 WikiCup has now finished. Contestants needed to scored 32 points to advance into round 3. Our top four scorers in round 2 all scored over 400 points and were:

• Cas Liber (1210), our winner in 2016, with two featured articles and three DYKs. He also made good use of the bonus points available, more than doubling his score by choosing appropriate articles to work on.
• Kosack (750), last year's runner up, with an FA, a GA, two FLs, and five DYKs.
• Adam Cuerden (480), a WikiCup veteran, with 16 featured pictures, mostly restorations.
• Zwerg Nase (461), a seasoned competitor, with a FA, a GA and an ITN item.

Other notable performances were put in by Barkeep49 with six GAs, Ceranthor, Lee Vilenski, and Canada Hky, each with seven GARs, and MPJ-DK with a seven item GT.

So far contestants have achieved nine featured articles between them and a splendid 80 good articles. Commendably, 227 GARs have been completed during the course of the 2019 WikiCup, so the backlog of articles awaiting GA review has been reduced as a result of contestants' activities. The judges are pleased with the thorough GARs that are being performed, and have hardly had to reject any. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Category:Muisca art museums has been nominated for discussion

Category:Muisca art museums, which you created, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:13, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi

May you help me edit this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picus_peregrinabundus--Bubblesorg (talk) 05:33, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Roca Formation (disambiguation)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Roca Formation (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Adam9007 (talk) 18:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 July newsletter

The third round of the 2019 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round needed to score at least 68 points, which is substantially lower than last year's 227 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

• Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with 500 points derived mainly from a featured article and two GAs on natural history topics
• Adam Cuerden, with 480 points, a tally built on 16 featured pictures, the result of meticulous restoration work
• SounderBruce, a finalist in the last two years, with 306 points from a variety of submissions, mostly related to sport or the State of Washington
• Usernameunique, with 305 points derived from a featured article and two GAs on archaeology and related topics

Contestants managed 4 (5) featured articles, 4 featured lists, 18 featured pictures, 29 good articles, 50 DYK entries, 9 ITN entries, and 39 good article reviews. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them, and it is imperative to claim them in the correct round; one FA claim had to be rejected because it was incorrectly submitted (claimed in Round 3 when it qualified for Round 2), so be warned! When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello, I noticed your work on a few geology articles: thank you! I see you have been inactive for a while and I hope it's not for that portal deletion, it's not worth it in my opinion. Nemo 03:16, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 September newsletter

The fourth round of the competition has finished in a flurry of last minute activity, with 454 points being required to qualify for the final round. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants with over 400 points being eliminated, and all but two of the finalists having achieved an FA during the round. Casliber, our 2016 winner, was the highest point-scorer, followed by Enwebb and Lee Vilenski, who are both new to the competition. In fourth place was SounderBruce, a finalist last year. But all those points are swept away as we start afresh for the final round.

Round 4 saw the achievement of 11 featured articles. In addition, Adam Cuerden scored with 18 FPs, Lee Vilenski led the GA score with 8 GAs while Kosack performed 15 GA reviews. There were around 40 DYKs, 40 GARs and 31 GAs overall during round 4. Even though contestants performed more GARs than they achieved GAs, there was still some frustration at the length of time taken to get articles reviewed.

As we start round 5, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them (some people have fallen foul of this rule and the points have been removed).

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

expansion of the Cromptodon article

I have just added to the article on Cromptodon. Would it be possible for you to read through the Cromptodon article and give me feedback on my edits, so I can learn if I made any mistakes and if their are any areas you think may need improving. Thanks in advance. Tknifton (talk) 18:57, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

For looking at the Post-classical History article. You appear to be an expert on Pre-Colombian South American history. I think this is neglected within the context of the World History field.

Good to meet you! Sunriseshore (talk) 13:40, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Improving the Stratigraphic knowledge of Early Cretaceous Spain

Hi, I know you are taking a break from contributing at the moment so when you get back: There are many fossiliferous geological formations from the Lower Cretaceous of Spain, almost all are included in Category:Lower Cretaceous Series of Europe given your obvious extensive expertise in spanish geology given your work on the Tremp Formation I think you can greatly contribute. Obviously there are many different Basins and Sub basins where these formations are located, and it would probably best if an article was created that discussed these different sequences in relation with each other. Hope you are enjoying your break from wikipedia, Kind regards Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:13, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for writing me @Hemiauchenia:. I unfortunately cannot spend the time I wish to articles, but the subject interests me and I have done fieldwork in the Galve Basin more than half a lifetime ago, so it was digging a bit, but I created this template and added it to the various formations. First step would be to improve those; infobox filling, categorization, adding missing fossil content, etc. I did that and a bit more on the Rupelo, Escucha and Camarillas Formations and created a new article for Upper Bedoulian Formation as an example how to quickly and easily do it. The links to Fossilworks (a great start to build onwards from) are on my sandbox 4 page.

Next would be to add environmental information as I did as far as I could for these articles and mainly in South America, and Tremp of course. But there is already so much maintenance to do, I'd start there. There is enough bibliography linked in the template. Cheers, Tisquesusa (talk) 18:24, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I was wondering what you make of this stratigraphic proposal given that it strongly conflicts with the sequence presented in the template. I think my next target is to improve the article for the El Castelar Fm. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:19, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Great link. Of course they are the leading authority; I just managed to build some coherence in 2 days, but it is still not finished or correct. That's why it is great to work with templates, so the articles get automatically updated. The Cuenca region I don't know myself, I will expand the Urbión Group a bit more, as I have also done some fieldwork there. Cantabria and Cuenca I know only the basics. With separate articles on the basins you can go way more in depth and get the stratigraphies right and update the template then.

What I also found, mainly in my Argentinian struggles with the geologic reports, is that Weishampel et al. is good for some indication, but they have introduced or amplified the importance of some units that are actually local or obsolete names. Hence the importance of finding other good information, ideally in English and ideally CC licensed. Nice, I will follow El Castellar and won't touch it. Cheers. Tisquesusa (talk) 07:20, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I find editing the template unwieldy, so It's probably best if you do it if you can understand it. The Galve Basin sequence has undergone significant revision recently, with the additon of the Galve Formation (which is already in the template) and the underlying Aguilar del Alfambra Formation between the El Castellar Formation and the Villar del Arzobispo Formation, with a hiatus between the Galve and El Castellar Formations spanning most of the Hauterivian and Valanginian. See these papers. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:30, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I had that paper and planned to add the Aguilar del Alfambra Formation, but in all the hectics of the template I forgot it. This is where I got the Galve Formation from indeed. I agree, the "template" is a nightmare and there should be a good one developed for stratigraphic sections, as this is universally applicable and useful, especially with so much mess lying around (see the Argentinian horrors). Same for the timeline feature, that is ideal for things but restricted now. The evolutionary templates might work for that. In the meantime I added some other old things lying around; Paja Formation and Kupferschiefer especially. They were, as you will agree, far below what they should be. Tisquesusa (talk) 20:51, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I have created the Castrillo de la Reina Formation article, although there appears to be little recent literature on it aside from fairly brief locality descriptions from paleontology papers. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:00, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Also yes those you've improved those articles massively, to be honest before I didn't realise the Keuper and Kupferschiefer were different units entirely, shows how poor my geological knowledge of central europe is Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:42, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Heres a review of the stratigraphy in the Cameros Basin Apparently there are several competing stratigraphic proposals in the western part of the basin. Figure 5 in particular is especially helpful. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:00, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Welcome back, sorry about the whole portals debacle. Given how dominant the Spanish stratigraphy is in Category:Lower Cretaceous Series of Europe, do you think it is a good idea to place all the articles in a new subcategory like Category:Lower Cretaceous Series of Spain/Iberia?. Thinking about this, most of the Great Oolite Group articles should probably be placed into subcategories as well. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:16, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Peninsula Valdés Basin map - Puerto Madryn, Gaiman, Sarmiento Formations, Argentina.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Peninsula Valdés Basin map - Puerto Madryn, Gaiman, Sarmiento Formations, Argentina.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 01:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For your wonderful contributions to Latin American geology and the 10,000 Latin challenge! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Ha, thank you very much, it means a lot to me! All the best and you are right, Tisquesusa (talk) 20:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 5

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Colubridae (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Gaiman, Santa Cruz Province, Córdoba Province, Jacana and Santa Cruz Formation

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tuffeau de St Omer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arques (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:59, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Oculudentavis

On 18 March 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Oculudentavis, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Black Kite (talk) 19:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

South American land mammal ages on Phorusrhacidae pages

Hello, recently while editing some of the terror-bird articles I removed some ages used in SALMA from the pages. However, I have no intention deleting these ages on every article I come across, my apologies for the misunderstanding. My intention was to make taxobox not too overcomplicated for the reader. This is why I choose ICS ages over the SALMA ages. I suggest maybe, those ages could be moved into the text. Please let me know if you have any suggestions. Paleocemoski 22:18, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Kem Kem Group

Hey Tisquesusa, the claim that "The Kem Kem Group is also referred to by various names including the Continental Red Beds and Continental intercalaire" is not confirmed by the sources (Michard et al. 2008). The only confirmed thing is that the Kem Kem Group is commonly known as the "Kem Kem beds" (per Ibrahim et al. 2020), ....commonly referred to as the “Kem Kem beds”. Kind Regards -TheseusHeLl (talk) 20:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Lourinhã Formation

Hi Tisquesua, I made some effort to improve the Lourinhã Formation article back in November, and I think it is worthy of bringing to the same status you brought the Tendaguru Formation article to."The Lourinhã Formation: the Upper Jurassic to lower most Cretaceous of the Lusitanian Basin, Portugal – landscapes where dinosaurs walked" is an excellent paper that covers the geology of the formation quite well and is CC BY 4.0 licensed meaning that that the many excellent images in the paper can be uploaded to commons. The only real issue is that the stratigraphy of the formation is a total mess and varies enormously between authors, but I have tried to follow the interpretation in this paper for consistency. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Ornithocheiridae

I understand why you put the clarifications to several sentences, and I know that the page itself needs some minor improving, that's why I removed GAN for now, but what I don't understand is why'd you revert my edit when I put the letters that indicated the specimens, plus, the ref markup template doesn't exist, so why put it? Anyway, I also have to do an apology for reverting you're edit at the article. Cheers, JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 12:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@JurassicClassic767: First of all I applaud you for creating these Good Articles, I think it is excellent you turn your fascination for pterosaurs into those high quality articles!

Last time there was an issue about the reference markups and I didn't explain it then. I have worked slightly on thousands of paleontological articles and even the merely 2 phrase stubs have proper ref markups. Then your reviewer came on and autistically pointed to the "guidelines" of GA's and that proper cite temps are not part of that. That is redundant, not only for the former reason, but also as just a good practice in any case and as a preparation for Featured Articles, where that is a requirement, saving you work for the future. The same for conversion templates, just get it in your general practice of using them, as there are many imperial unit accustomed readers.

When I saw Cuvier being mentioned as "a french (sic) naturalist" I cringed, I hope you understand that, as he was one of the main pioneers in paleontology and highly respected for that, laying the groundwork for the Owens, Marshes and Copes of the later decades.

In general I would just read your GAN proposals over and over again to avoid those things for the future, which I know will be plenty!

Did I understand you are native Spanish-speaking? En caso si, podriamos trabajar en más articulos sobre géneros y familias de España o Sudamérica. He trabajado bastante en articulos, vea por ejemplo Tremp Formation y Lefipán Formation. Un abrazo y muchos éxitos, Tisquesusa (talk) 13:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Sí, soy nativo de España, pero por alguna razón prefiero hablar en inglés (más preferible Americano), pero si te resulta más fácil hablar en español, lo podríamos hacer así.

It really doesn't matter to me what genera I'm working on if I have the sources and resources for that article. For example, I'm working on Pteranodon (in my sandbox; the current version is messed up, just look at its GA review for instance!!). Oh! Speaking about GA, I was thinking on my next project being Tropeognathus, and it's a South American genus, so we could work together with that (as you stated above)? But if you want to work on another article, I'm fine with it. Also, could you indicated which sentences need to be clarified in Ornithocheiridae, 'cause I really want to get it to GA, though if it needs more work, I definitely understand.

Recuerda que siempre puedo hablar en español si es preferible para tí, y gracias por mencionar sobre las referencias, y nunca se me ocurrió que Cuvier se merecía tanto respeto (aunque sé que es uno de los pioneros de paleontología). De todas formas, muchos éxitos a tí también. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 14:13, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Quercy Phosphorites Formation

Hi Tisquesusa, thanks for beefing up the Quercy Phosphorites Formation page. What you added is fine, I think, though I will have to look more closely later. And on of my PhD student is working on fossils from there, which will result in slight modifications to the faunal list, but I must wait for this to be published to make these minor changes. In the meantime, the only thing that I would recommend changing is the order of the papers in the bibliography. Normally, they are sorted by alphabetical order of first author's last names, but that is not so on that page, right now. Best wishes, Michel Laurin (talk)

List of large volcanic eruptions

Why did you change all the citations in this article by capitalizing all the parameter names in the citation templates, as seen in this edit? 7 of the 8 references in the References section all displayed as "Empty citation". Please don't do that. Some of your other "fixes" look questionable as well, removing valid wikilinks, etc. Please be more careful in the future. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pielach Formation, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Anomia and Gari.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2021 WikiCup!

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The competition begins today and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. We thank Vanamonde93 and Godot13, who have retired as judges, and we thank them for their past dedication. The judges for the WikiCup this year are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Copyright problem on Sanga do Cabral Formation

Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from https://doi.org/10.1080/08912963.2016.1255736, which is not released under a compatible license. Copying text directly from a source is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa (talk) 13:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

WTF is this? I haven't even accessed that paper, see it now for the first time. I don't copy copyrighted information. It is coming from Fossilworks, released under CC-BY 4.0. Can you revert your edits? @Diannaa:. Tisquesusa (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Your addition was flagged by a bot as a potential copyright issue and was assessed by myself. Here is a link to the bot report. Click on the iThenticate link to view what the bot found. The journal article was published in 2016, so it's possible that whoever added it to Fossilworks copied it from there. But I can't find the content at the citation you provided. It points to this page, which does not contain the text I removed. Also, I can't find a copyright page for Fossilworks. Where are you seeing the CC-by license?— Diannaa (talk) 13:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The bot has also located a problem at Ingersoll Shale, noting a paragraph you added appears to be copied from https://doi.org/10.2110/palo.2010.p10-091r.— Diannaa (talk) 14:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, the bot needs to include FW then, see where I got the info from here Tisquesusa (talk) 14:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I see a statement "Creative Commons license: CC BY (attribution)" but there's several CC-by licenses. Not all are compatible with Wikipedia's license. See this page for a list of compatible licenses.

The content on this page was entered on 09.02.2010, which is prior to its appearance in https://doi.org/10.1080/08912963.2016.1255736, so that one will be okay to keep if we can determine exactly what license Fossilworks is using.

The content on this page was added on 31.08.2015, and the matching journal article the bot found is dated 1 June 2011, so we won't be able to keep it regardless, as the journal article is not compatibly licensed and pre-dates the addition to Fossilworks.

It's okay to copy from compatibly licensed material, but you have to provide attribution when doing so (that's the "attribution" part of the CC-by-SA license). You can do it manually like I did here or you can use the {{CC-notice}} template. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material in the future. — Diannaa (talk) 14:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)