Jump to content

User talk:Yewtharaptor

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Yewtharaptor, 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 messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 15:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Yewtharaptor

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as Yewtharaptor, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 15:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi Yewtharaptor! I just wanted to inform you that your article "Paleobiota of the Portland formation" will be merged with the "Portland formation" article. I think it reasonable to keep the fossils together with the formation as long as there isn't anything really special or really lengthy about them. Anyway you should consider checking out the Wikiprojects that work on these articles. Its a great place to ask questions and find like minded editors. --Tobias1984 (talk) 08:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paleobiota of the McCoy Brook Formation

Hello, Yewtharaptor, and thank you for your contributions!

I wanted to let you know it seems an article you worked on, Paleobiota of the McCoy Brook Formation, is copied from another Wikipedia page, McCoy Brook Formation. It's fine to do this as long as you provide the following information in the edit summary:

  1. a link to the article you copied from
  2. the date you copied it

You can do this now by editing the page, making any minor edit to the article, and adding the above information into the edit summary.

If you're still not sure how to fix the problem, please leave a message at the help desk. It's possible that I made a mistake, so feel free to remove the tag I placed on the article.

Thanks again for helping build the free encyclopedia! MadmanBot (talk) 09:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to Mormolucoides has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Firsfron of Ronchester 02:48, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Unnamed Colalura Sauropod.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Unnamed Colalura Sauropod.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. --Animalparty-- (talk) 04:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Ozraptor Dinosaur.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ozraptor Dinosaur.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Ozraptor subotaii.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ozraptor subotaii.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide attribution

Information icon Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Caraphlebia. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 22:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Komlosaurus

You should look into nominating this article as for WP:DYK. Abyssal (talk) 17:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Noumena Studios

Hello Yewtharaptor,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Noumena Studios for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Abbottonian (talk) 16:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:LuxembourgNeotheropod 1.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:LuxembourgNeotheropod 1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Pedal phalangesLuxembourgTheropod1.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Pedal phalangesLuxembourgTheropod1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Megalosaurus cloacinus shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Megalosaurus Cloacinus Thooth. Lost specimen.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Megalosaurus Cloacinus Thooth. Lost specimen.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Luxembourg Sandstone Formation

Hello, Yewtharaptor. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Luxembourg Sandstone Formation, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

  1. edit the page
  2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
  3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Ravenswing 14:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Moskovoretskaya Formation) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Moskovoretskaya Formation, Yewtharaptor!

Wikipedia editor Elliot321 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thank you for creating this useful article!

To reply, leave a comment on Elliot321's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Elliot321 (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Shuangbaisaurus) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Shuangbaisaurus, Yewtharaptor!

Wikipedia editor Boleyn just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thanks for creating this; could you please help address tags?

To reply, leave a comment on Boleyn's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Boleyn (talk) 19:35, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Lucianovenator

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 Lucianovenator requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from carnivoraforum.com/topic/30101905/1. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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 removed 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. — InsertCleverPhraseHere (or here) 13:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Friularachne rigoi Fossil.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Friularachne rigoi Fossil.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
  2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017

Copyright problem icon Your addition to Friularachne has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. This is your final warning. Further copyright violations will result in you being blocked from editing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Reconstruction of Friularachne rigoi.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Reconstruction of Friularachne rigoi.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
  2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:06, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Ostenocaris

Hi, I'm Nick Moyes. Yewtharaptor, thanks for creating Ostenocaris!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please add a literature source for this taxon. Is there any reason you added it to WP:WikiProject Wisconsin on the Talk Page, or gave this Italian fossil article the category:Fossils of the United Kingdom? For the life of me I can't see the relevance of either.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Nick Moyes (talk) 00:20, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Yewtharaptor. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Ohmdenia) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Ohmdenia, Yewtharaptor!

Wikipedia editor SamHolt6 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Reviewed!

To reply, leave a comment on SamHolt6's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

SamHolt6 (talk) 01:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Drzewica Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anura (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) 09:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Yewtharaptor. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019

Copyright problem icon Your addition to Rotzo Formation has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Your last warning was two years ago, otherwise you would be blocked right now. Don't add copyright material to Wikipedia. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:30, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism

Hi, While appreciate your work on stratigraphy, especially on the creation of articles that wouldn't be made otherwise, like the Rotzo Formation, you seriously need to stop directly copy pasting large portions of text from research papers, and make more of an effort to reword things in your own words, I know that english isn't your first language and that writing scientifically in english isn't easy for a non-native speaker, however. It might be better if you write what you want to say in your native toungue (presumably romance?) on your sandbox page and I can help translate it. I know that you aren't a vandal and are trying to contribute. Kind Regards Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mawson Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tylosis (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) 07:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Improving the coverage of Mesozoic Italy

Hello, I have a new canidate article for you to improve. The Pietraroja Formation/Pietraroia Plattenkalk is an Albian geological formation in Italy that consists of marine limestone, it is well known for producing the dinosaur Scipionyx as well as a diverse vertebrate fauna including crocodiles. As well as lepidosaurs. Here is A paper on the depositional environment. The article is currently a pretty barren stub. Given your obvious interest in Mesozoic italian stratigraphy, this seems right up your alley. I am able to help you with copy editing if needed Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ohmdenosaurus

Hi, adding text with made-up sources that do not discuss the subject at all is a very serious violation of Wikipedia rules. Please stop this. Where does the information you were adding come from? Thanks --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In your recent addition you again give information that is not specifically mentioned in any source ("This yields an estimated total body length of 6.2–6.7 metres (20–22 ft) and an especulated weight of 1.1–1.3 tonnes (2,400–2,900 lb)"), and again you cite sources that do not contain any of this information. Please explain. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The size was calculated using Rhoetosaurus as Reference, Like the user who did the scaled figure did, with the Help of Rubén Molina Pérez, with a size of 6.2 m using Vulcanodon, 6.7 m using Rhoetosaurus, same for the weigth, it is not expeculation, is a own results.--User talk:Yewtharaptor 16:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Own calculations like this are clearly Wikipedia:OR and have to be removed according to this fundamental rule. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rotzo Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Guidonia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:50, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Paleobiota of the Posidonia Shale, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pachycormus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without evidence of permission. Please take this opportunity to ensure that you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  — Diannaa (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

To Diannaa (talk)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Yewtharaptor (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

While there was data from articles, it was cited with reference, and sligthy edited (It would being removed on new versions). The "Green Series Formation" is a work in progress (Following the model on the Page Paleobiota of the Posidonia Shale where every day a new Taxon is added. That page is example of how User: Yewtharaptor works). Also, the Main example of respect Copyright violations of Wikipedia is proper ENORMOUS page Paleobiota of the Posidonia Shale (Collosal Work, since +700 taxa are reported), that uses +100 references without steal any data, all the page has been created and edited By the User:Yewtharaptor. Other examples include the File:Liassoscorpionides schmidti.png, that has been added without older problems, respeting creative commons 3.0 (Most of the image problems where realated to errors of communication with the author, but that was solved, as it shows images like File:Drzewica Formation Reconstruction.jpg, that respects Wikipedia Copyright status). Most of the "Copyright violations" atributted has adressed the original link where there appeared, such on the page Neringa Formation, Hanson Formation, Green Series Formation is an special case (That will have to be remade into ""Ciechocinek Formation"", since it turns out to be a simple part of the major Formation, as a recent edit has shown), all linked tho the original publications. Some, as the Green Series Formation, have text from other articles, as in that case the Emausaurus page, text that was created also by User:Yewtharaptor.

Accept reason:

Answers to questions below show an acceptable understanding of our copyright policy and a committment to not violate the policy any more. I am unblocking your account and will be checking all your contributions. — Diannaa (talk) 23:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yewtharaptor (talk)

Content I removed from Green Series Formation was copied from this paper, not from the Emausaurus page. You have received 5 warnings regarding violations of our copyright policy, and this is your second block. Your unblock request does not demonstrate that you understand the reason for the block or offer any assurance that violations will not continue if you are unblocked. — Diannaa (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You. The green Series (Last Work) Is going to be merged on a new Formation on the next Days.Yewtharaptor (talk)


To talk

With the time between Violations i had been reading the politics of Wikipedia. The Green Series Formation, was a last mistake, not corrected due to being more focused on Posidonia at the same time: if you reserach that last page, you will see a diferent type of editing, what i want to implement. Not copy, interprete. An that´s who i fill witouth steal from +100 references. If i get the Unblock, i would translate better the papers, not copy them. My best example of how i would do my work from now would be the own Paleobiota of the Posidonia Shale, that is, cite papers and translate info, not copy...how it should be done, how it demands the wiki. I´m sorry for the mistakes. For evade problems with edition i would use a Sheet outside wikipedia, to translate non copyrigth/copied text.

Yewtharaptor (talk)

In order to lift the block, we need to be certain that you understand how copyright works on Wikipedia. Please respond to the following questions, explaining in your own words:
  • What is copyright?
  • How is Wikipedia licenced?
  • Why is copyrighted content not allowed on Wikipedia?
  • Under what circumstances can we use copyrighted content?
  • How do you intend to avoid violating the copyright policy in the future?
Your answers will enable us to establish whether or not you should be unblocked.— Diannaa (talk) 13:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ANSWERS To talk

  • What is copyright? Copyright refers to texts, data or images with confirmed (or not) autorship, that belong to a concrete person, Physical or online, to a trademark, to a web, or similar entities that prohibits the use of the data without legal consent. The Copyrigth of some works can be not obvious, altrougth most of the online published data has copyright.
  • How is Wikipedia licenced? The text is copyrighted by the text editors or creators appearing to the public under one or several liberal licenses. Most appear under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC BY-SA).
  • Why is copyrighted content not allowed on Wikipedia? It is dangerous due to copyrigth claims, that can end even on legal disputes. Different claims can also affect to the solid status of the wiki and it´s reputation.
  • Under what circumstances can we use copyrighted content? There are a few exceptions, including the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License, the GNU Free Documentation License, and similar cases. The content has to be public to the author and reference it´s autorship.
  • How do you intend to avoid violating the copyright policy in the future? Using a Sheet outside Wikipedia to order the text, before translate tha data to the main wiki. All the data would be reserached and modified with the original document referenced. There would be a depth revision to evade copy the text. Yewtharaptor (talk)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Paleobiota of the Posidonia Shale, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Delta (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Calcare di Sogno Formation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Collina
Paleobiota of the Posidonia Shale (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Cryptaulax

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Paleobiota of the Posidonia Shale, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chondria (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 15:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Paleobiota of the Posidonia Shale, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mawsonia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Rotzo Formation

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Rotzo Formation you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Buidhe -- Buidhe (talk) 04:41, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Rotzo Formation

The article Rotzo Formation you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Rotzo Formation for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Buidhe -- Buidhe (talk) 05:02, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ciechocinek Formation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Goldberg and Belemnites
Azilal Group (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Tethys

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ciechocinek Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Goldberg (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Drzewica Formation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Jagodne and Budki
Azilal Formation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Horst
La Boca Formation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Syntarsus

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 16:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Drzewica Formation, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Jagodne and Budki (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ciechocinek Formation, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Belemnites and Peniche (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ciechocinek Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mechowo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Paleobiota of the Posidonia Shale

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Paleobiota of the Posidonia Shale you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Paleobiota of the Posidonia Shale

The article Paleobiota of the Posidonia Shale you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Paleobiota of the Posidonia Shale for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sachrang Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dolomite (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ciechocinek Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Czatkowice (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Featuring your work on Wikipedia's front page: DYKs

Thank you for your recent articles, including Blanowice Formation, which I read with interest. When you create an extensive and well referenced article, you may want to have it featured on Wikipedia's main page in the Did You Know section. Articles included there will be read by thousands of our viewers. To do so, add your article to the list at T:TDYK. Let me know if you need help, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Blanowice Formation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Cardinia and Dębnik
Rotzo Formation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Trochoidea

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sachrang Formation, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Methylene and Oxfordian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sorthat Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Delta (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Saubach Formation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Lime, Trochoidea and Collina
Moltrasio Formation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Williamsonia and Ophioderma

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Úrkút Manganese Ore Formation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Bryophyta and Trochoidea
Drzewica Formation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Cardinia

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:23, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Paleobiota of the Ciechocinek Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Polypodiidae.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Paleobiota of the Ciechocinek Formation, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Neaera and Discina.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:52, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting and grammar suggestions

Hello Yewtharaptor. While I appreciate your contributions to expanding Jurassic geological articles, I also recommend improving the grammar and formatting used in the paleobiota tables:

  • Genus names should be italicized.
  • When clades or groups are listed, they should only be capitalized if the entire clade name is used. For example, capitalize Brachiopoda but not "brachiopodan" or "brachiopod". Same with "Ammonite", "Clam", "Goose Barnacle", and other common terms, which should all be lower-case.
  • Capitalization in general should only be used for proper nouns like geological formations, taxonomic entities, and place names. For example, "Shale" should not be capitalized while "Irlbach" should be.
  • Italicization should be used in genus and species names, but not formation names.
  • When citing, try to use journal or book citation templates (WP:CT) rather than plain text. Also try to define your references outside of the reflist, so that they can be edited in the visual editor more easily.

I would be grateful if you take heed of these suggestions. Good luck with your future edits. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 15:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Paleobiota of the Ciechocinek Formation, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Gorzków and Estheria.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Blanowice Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bryophyta.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Drzewica Formation
added links pointing to Cytherea, Unio, Komorowo and Śmiłów
Blanowice Formation
added links pointing to Cytherea and Unio
Irlbach Sandstone
added links pointing to Bogen and Goli
Paleobiota of the Ciechocinek Formation
added links pointing to Cytherea and Unio

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Drzewica Formation
added links pointing to Jagodne and Budki
Paleobiota of the Ciechocinek Formation
added links pointing to Bryophyta and Onychium

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Drzewica Formation
added links pointing to Bryophyta, Cockle and Onychium
Sorthat Formation
added links pointing to Pecten, Trochoidea and Dentalium
Paleobiota of the Ciechocinek Formation
added a link pointing to Trochoidea

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sorthat Formation
added links pointing to Pecten, Trochoidea and Dentalium
Drzewica Formation
added a link pointing to Lisowice

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ciechocinek Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kuraszków.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Irlbach Sandstone, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lime.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dactyliocerassandstein

That definitely wasn't the best way to change the title... if you want to do that, use the MOVE function (available in the tool bar on top of the page) to move the article to a new position. Since you did a cut-and-paste move instead, the entire previous editing history has been left behind at Irlbach Sandstone, and has to be glued to Dactyliocerassandstein Formation by an admin. I have put in a request for that to happen. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ciechocinek Formation
added a link pointing to Nida
Paleobiota of the Ciechocinek Formation
added a link pointing to Nida

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ciechocinek Formation, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Dąbrówka, Sielec and Kowalewo.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:18, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Borucice Formation
added a link pointing to Sławęcin
Hanson Formation
added a link pointing to Bryophyta

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020

Copyright problem icon Your edit to Hanson Formation has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. This is your final warning. Further violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy will result in you being blocked from editing. — Diannaa (talk) 13:56, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Borucice Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sławęcin.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:29, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dactyliocerassandstein Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lime.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:35, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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) 02:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dactyliocerassandstein Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Altdorf.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Paleobiota of the Ciechocinek Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dandya.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dactyliocerassandstein Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lime.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:20, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dactyliocerassandstein Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Haselbach.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rya Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dentalium.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sorthat Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nilssonia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rya Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anholt.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sachrang Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Briançonnais.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to expand to other geological stages/continents?

Hi. I've noticed your contributions and I would like to say you're doing a great job on expanding pages about obscure geological formations. Although your English is sometimes wonky, I am especially amazed by how you are able to track down all the paleobiota recovered in a certain formation, including plants and invertebrates. However, I noticed almost all of your contributions are related to the Toarcian stage of Europe. I would like to make an offer: would you like to work on geological formations from other continents and stages, like the Pliensbachian or the Aalenian? I admire your talent for researching, and I'm sure all of geologic history has lots of underrated formations and paleobiota you can add info for. What do you think? Miracusaurs (talk) 12:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Miracusaurs: That's not really true. Yewtharaptor's interest is in all Lower Jurassic geological formations, not just Toarcian ones in Europe. People are free to work on whatever they are interested in. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:20, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Miracusaurs: Thank you!!! I already did Sinemurian formations (Moltrasio Formation and Saltrio Formation), Pliensbachian (Rotzo Formation and Drzewica Formation) and units outside europe (Hanson Formation, Mawson Formation, Azilal Formation and La Boca Formation being this last one Aalenian). Maybe on a future i expand the Ziliujing Formation, but i would need the help of other users. Yewtharaptor (talk) 16:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hemiauchenia: Did you see the message i left on Ciechocinek Formation talk page? "Green Series" is going to be it´s own unit along this year, so the paleobiota page wouldn´t make any sense. Yewtharaptor (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kayenta Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anura.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rya Formation, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Belemnites and Polypodiidae.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rya Formation

With this edit, I have once again repaired citation errors that you have introduced into the article. Please preview and fix these errors as they occur so that others don't have do the necessary cleanup after you.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:44, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Trappist the monk

Ouch, I notified them after your edit. Nex time I would look to use the preview before update. Thank you!

—Yewtharaptor (talk) 13:55, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move at Paleobiota of the Posidonia Shale

I came across your argument for moving the article today doing some technical maintenance. The proper process for requesting an article to be moved is at WP:RM#CM; this will help find editors with a clearer understanding of how Wikipedia does article titles, which might be helpful in settling the disagreement (and will make sure the outcome actually gets executed). Vahurzpu (talk) 00:16, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hasle Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hasle.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hasle Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cardinia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Drzewica Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bryophyta.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recommendations for new articles

As I've gone creating articles for fossil insect families and adding locality information, I've noticed some geological formations from the Early Jurassic of Asia that keep cropping up. I know that you have a deep interest in Liassic geological formations, so I thought I would recommend them to you for article creation. Much of the research on these deposits was done in the USSR days so it's probably in Russian, but there are a number of english sources within the last 20 years that briefly discuss them.

  • Dzhil Formation (Also called Issyk-Kul and Sogyuty locality) near Issyk-Kul in Kyrgyzstan, generally thought to be Hettangian-Sinemurian in age: Fossilworks localities: [1]
  • Sulyukta Formation (Also known as the Shurab 2) in Southwest Kyrgyzstan, listed in fossilworks as Toarcian, but recent scholarly papers suggest Pliensbachian. Fossilworks localities [2]

There are others as well, like Sagul Formation/Sai-Sagul of Kyrgyzstan [3] and the Cheremkhovskaya Formation of Irtutsk, Russia [4]. Thanks, and happy editing! Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Interesting, rigth now I´m busy reparing the Cites in my older articles and preparing the large article for the Grimmen Toarcian Deposits. Yet, soon or latter I would jump to Russia and China. Thanks for the suggestions! Yewtharaptor (talk) 21:12, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Drzewica Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nilssonia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Höganäs Formation
added links pointing to Modiolus, Rosendal, Cardinia and Nilssonia

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Yewtharaptor

Thank you for creating Mizur Formation.

User:Herpetogenesis, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Great work!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Herpetogenesis}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 11:19, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Mizur Formation

Hello, Yewtharaptor,

Thank you for creating Mizur Formation.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Needs grammar fixes

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Herpetogenesis}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 11:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Djupadal Formation
added a link pointing to Archaean
Zagaje Formation
added a link pointing to Zagaje

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Paleobiota of the Ciechocinek Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lagena.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Sorthat Formation

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sorthat Formation you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hurricane Noah -- Hurricane Noah (talk) 19:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ciechocinek Formation
added a link pointing to Suliszewo
Kayenta Formation
added a link pointing to Batrachopus

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Ciechocinek Formation

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ciechocinek Formation you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Ciechocinek Formation

The article Ciechocinek Formation you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Ciechocinek Formation for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ciechocinek Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Suliszewo.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Sorthat Formation

The article Sorthat Formation you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Sorthat Formation for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hurricane Noah -- Hurricane Noah (talk) 00:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without evidence of permission. Please take this opportunity to ensure that you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  — Diannaa (talk) 15:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked your account, because in spite of multiple warnings including two final warnings as well as two previous blocks for copyvio, you continued to add copyright material to Wikipedia in violation of our copyright policy.— Diannaa (talk) 15:23, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock 2022

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Yewtharaptor (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

After the Fair Copyrigth Claims I started to rework all my articles to fit the Wikiedia Policies (Can be Seen on, for example Paleobiota of the Posidonia Shale). I say this, as Mawson Formation was part of this rework. Yet, I commit the error of Work at the same time with my Sandbox and the Mawson Formation article, what ended on a chaotic mess that lead to me not being unaware that I uploaded the unfinished version that was working on, with a part under with that copied text, that shouldn´t have been uploaded, as that isn´t part of the text I had in mind, as I use as only reference for estructure to write with my own words: *This text was taken from the article quoted as the problematic source, that I wanted to use as a reference for estruturation, aspect I usually do, putting in the same window I´m editing, under the true text I´m going to upload this text from articles, as a visual guide. Yet In this case I didn´t even started/finished that part, as it can be seen, it doesn´t have own text, neither I deleted this copied text, I upload all without notify the article text was in. So, I didn´t notify I uploaded it in the main page of the article (literally it was a reflex act of push the upload button). This can be seen of the fact the Image used for that section is a barely edited version of a previous work. Then, as I used the link to acess directly to #Crustacea (That´s why, if you look, you can see that only one of those 6 edits after the wrong upload has the Copyright text, others where table contents), and I didn´t look to the upper sections, and so I edited only the lowers after it, as can be seen on the Article History. To evidence, just compare how I wrote other sections compared to the unnatural estructure of this one. Is literally because isn´t mean to be posted/Uploaded After This, I will do all my edits only on Sandbox, sending them to a revision before do anything new. I don´t want to have more trouble for don´t notify what I upload.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
    1. understand what you have been blocked for,
    2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 11:24, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

So it sounds like you've been placing copyright text in your sandbox and working on it there. That's not allowed. Copyright content can't be added anywhere on Wikipedia, including sandboxes and drafts. — Diannaa (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. I wasn´t doing that. I was editing in the Mawson Page and at the same time another different article in my Sandbox. In the Mawson one, I put below my own text the article text, in the edit window as a visual guide (Not to copy it, niether Phrasing, but as reference of how I should order the contents), and acidentally I pressed the upload button and I added that text. Yewtharaptor (talk) 00:52, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "I will do all my edits only on Sandbox" it shows you don't realize that copyright text is not allowed there; it has the same copyright policy as articles. Up until a few minutes ago there was some copyright material in your sandbox, copied from https://www.biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.4243.2.2. I have cleared your sandbox for that reason. — Diannaa (talk) 01:15, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, to correct myself, I need to do all outside Wikipedia and watch to be careful to evade any copyrigth content, and not post neither on pages neither on the Sandbox any copyrighted text. Yewtharaptor (talk) 01:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Spot checks show violations of the copyright policy in some of your recently edited articles: Hanson Formation (copyvio added in November), Kayenta Formation (plagiarized from compatibly licensed paper; content added March 3), Djupadal Formation (plagiarized from compatibly licensed paper; content added in July). Some of the sources you use are difficult or impossible to check because they are behind a paywall. Saying you are not going to do it any more is insufficiently reassuring as you have made this promise already before at the time of your last block and yet here we are.— Diannaa (talk) 14:13, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What should I do to prove I´m going to change?
Wikipedia is the only Hobby I have rigth now and I really enjoy to edit those articles I did. And Update pages
So, I´m open to do any thing just to be able to edit again Yewtharaptor (talk) 18:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have thought about it for a few days, and I really can't justify unblocking under these circumstances.— Diannaa (talk) 15:59, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I thank you for at least think on it. As I said, I will do anything to just recover it. And I need to recover the ability to edit again. Some articles are going to be forgotten or ignored, moslty because at the present time are poorly redacted to be even comprehensible. I can say more: my work with wikipedia can be evidenced in the great article that is the Paleobiota of the Posidonia Shale, but, that article is now dead if the main Posidonia Shale article is as poorly done as it is now Yewtharaptor (talk) 00:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock May 2022

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Yewtharaptor (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been taking my time to re-read all the rules, as well redid the way I will upload my edits. To show I can return without no more copyrigth problems I would need the unblock. I have thousands of articles to rewrite/rework, as well there is a lot of data that needs simply to be redone. I have repeatedly demonstrated that what I seek to do is contribute information to the web. Now, I'm looking for the same thing, having really learned to avoid any of the problems related to editing... and especially copyright Yewtharaptor (talk) 20:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As copyright violations potentially put Wikipedia in legal jeopardy, we can't just unblock you and give you the chance to get it wrong again. We must be convinced that you understand what copyright is, what Wikipedia's license is, and when and how copyrighted content can be used on Wikipedia. As this request does not do these things, I am declining it. 331dot (talk) 09:14, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Unblock May 2022 2.0

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Yewtharaptor (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been taking my time to re-read all the rules, as well redid the way I will upload my edits. To show I can return without no more copyrigth problems I would need the unblock. I have thousands of articles to rewrite/rework, as well there is a lot of data that needs simply to be redone. I have repeatedly demonstrated that what I seek to do is contribute information to the web. Now, I'm looking for the same thing, having really learned to avoid any of the problems related to editing... and especially copyright

a) What is Copyrigth? Copyrigth (“©”) refers to the legal status that states ownership or control of the rights to the use and distribution of works, that can be Books, images, etc.

b) How Copyrigth content ca be used on Wikipedia? Only when either images or text are labeled with CCBY or licenses that clearly allow the share and use of them (also if fall into the public domain or their copyright is explicitly disclaimed). Even with the most permisive CCBY, texts shouldn´t be copied/phrased Yewtharaptor (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Stale unblock request. You can make a new one if you like. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

And Another unblock request (June 2022)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Yewtharaptor (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been taking my time to re-read all the rules, as well redid the way I will upload my edits. To show I can return without no more copyrigth problems I would need the unblock. I have thousands of articles to rewrite/rework, as well there is a lot of data that needs simply to be redone. I have repeatedly demonstrated that what I seek to do is contribute information to the web. Now, I'm looking for the same thing, having really learned to avoid any of the problems related to editing... and especially copyright

a) What is Copyrigth? Copyrigth (“©”) refers to the legal status that states ownership or control of the rights to the use and distribution of works, that can be Books, images, etc.

b) Wikipedia's license is usually under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CCBY-SA)

c) How Copyrigth content ca be used on Wikipedia? Only when either images or text are labeled with CCBY or licenses that clearly allow the share and use of them (also if fall into the public domain or their copyright is explicitly disclaimed). Even with the most permisive CCBY, texts shouldn´t be copied/phrased Yewtharaptor (talk) 18:14, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are not being ignored, but there are a limited number of admins, and they participate here in their free time. You can increase the chances it will be reviewed by doing your best to do what you have been asked. Technically I shouldn't be closing this out of fairness to you- but since you insist that someone look at it, I can say that I agree with DFO's comments below. It looks like you lifted this word for word from somewhere(but curiously misspelled copyright). 331dot (talk) 20:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

UTRS appeal #59953

is closed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:47, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User has not addressed their recidivism, as I said they should do, because pat regurgitation, as they have done here, is inadequate to convince anyone there will be no further disruption. However, they do not like my tone. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Unblock Appeal Letter

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Yewtharaptor (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This post is now the situation regarding my blocking from edit by the Amin: Dianaa

A) List of things I did wrong in the Wikipedia

-Early “articles”, that is introducing inappropriate pages, such as “Yewtharaptor” (2012-2015). Back then I was younger, yet I admit the guilt related to those malicious articles. As can be seen on the talk page, I ended that behaviour years ago.

-Copyright violations regarding upload of Images non CCBY

-Copyright callout N1: Regarding the Hanson Formation article. The Paper involving Copyrighted text is: "The Lower Jurassic Hanson Formation of the Transantarctic Mountains: implications for the Antarctic sector of the Gondwana plate margin"

-Copyright violations regarding the article Rotzo Formation and Mawson Formation (2019). Both of this where related with Phrasing and text copypasted from source articles, being this las ones without CCBY

-Actual Copyright violation is around again the Mawson Formation. Text regarding the article “Taphonomy of Lacustrine Interbeds in the Kirkpatrick Basalt (Jurassic), Antarctica”

B) Apology

I, User: Yewtharaptor admit the fault of having ignored the regulations regarding Copyright in Wikipedia, putting it at legal risk. For this reason I proceed to apologize for these facts, especially the breaking of the regulations regarding Copy. My behavior has not reflected the principles that the community of Wikipedia editors seeks, both in terms of how to edit and integrate the content as well as the answers and discussions with the Admins.

How I would restructure my way of edit articles to fully evade again copyright?

From now I will edit outside Wikipedia (Including Sandbox) until I have a truly original text that can be translated to Sandbox, and then an article. This would include the control of both copyright material and phrasing. To be more sure the content edited out of the wiki meets the criterio I would contact other editors for a more clean review, without involving any kind of sock puppet behaviour

I'm sorry, my goal in the near future will seek to take seriously the rules that rule the community (especially related to how to work the content)

I promise that I will never again violate copyright laws and use all the methods possible to stop any possible problems regarding them.

My callouts regarding Copy issues are fair. I´m sorry too for have bring the Admins to the trouble and waste of time that was check my edits to delete text that put the wiki on risk My way to prove this new model would be an initial new type of article on my Sandbox

C) Apology to admins

My behaviour on both the talk page and UTRS 2 wasn´t appropriate. I should have wrote the appeal on a more formal way. Tus, I apologize to Admin: Deepfriedokra (talk) for the call on the tone of the answer to the UTRS 2. To Diannaa (talk) for both the discussions and the time lost moderating my articles content. Finally to Admins in general for the impatient behaviour regarding the time it took the review of my Unblock Appeals

D) About Copyright and Licenses

What is Copyright? Copyright (“©”) refers to the legal status that states ownership or control of the rights to the use and distribution of works, that can be Books, images, etc.

A license is the reference or rule that marks how content should be used by those that don't have the copyright. Wikipedia's licenses are guided by the Creative Commons License, that allows anyone to use, but with several elements that have to be followed to upload legally the material:

  • NC implicates a non-profit use
  • ND implicates the content can't be modified, has to be like the authors did it
  • SA implicates that content with CCSA is required with this kind o license
  • BY implicates credit of the author

Finally to be noted that content with "All rigths reserved" needs proper permision of the authors Yewtharaptor (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I think it's a bit unfair what's happened to you in your unblock requests here. You've had multiple requests declined as "stale", which hasn't really given you any feedback on what to do differently. In my experience, usually when this happens it is because your requests don't have glaring issues but administrators hesitate to unblock you for some other reason. So I'm going to say now what someone should have said to you months ago: You do not communicate clearly enough in English to edit the English Wikipedia (WP:ENGAGE, WP:CIR). For instance, take this paragraph:

From now I will edit outside Wikipedia (Including Sandbox) until I have a truly original text that can be translated to Sandbox, and then an article. This would include the control of both copyright material and phrasing. To be more sure the content edited out of the wiki meets the criterio I would contact other editors for a more clean review, without involving any kind of sock puppet behaviour

All of that is (mostly) grammatically correct, and yet I don't really understand what it means. You're going to draft your articles offline before posting them on-wiki? That's fine, but I don't understand what that has to do with avoiding copyright violations. I'm sure that, now that I've pointed this out, you're able to clarify, but that's really beside the point. The issue is that you're just not writing coherent English. I'm going to be blunt about that, because no one has up till now. And this matters; this isn't just me nitpicking. When you write a sentence like SA implicates that content with CCSA is required with this kind o license, which is kind of adjacent to the correct answer but ultimately wrong, it's impossible for me to tell whether that's because you don't understand what ShareAlike requires, or because you understand but are just communicating it poorly.

I see on your userpage that you are from Spain, and so I assume your native language is Spanish/Castilian or another language of the Iberian peninsula. In all the time that you've been blocked here, you have not made any edits to eswiki or glwiki, both of which you've edited in the past. I would encourage you to spend some more time editing the Wikipedia for whatever language you are most fluent in—after familiarizing yourself with their local copyright policies, of course.

I wish you the best of luck, but I think that, in the near future at least, unblocking you would not be in the best interest of the English Wikipedia. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 01:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: I have a solution to the problem that leads to my English writing not being understood, which I have been developing while I was blocked. Also, I have reasons for only wanting to edit in the English Wikipedia and examples of how my work improves it or can improve it. All of this I will elaborate on if you are open to continue this discussion. I certainly do want to explain everything and give more and better reasons Yewtharaptor (talk) 05:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.


Copyrighted material is not appropriate anywhere in Wikipedia. Including your sandbox. Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Quickly butting in here, what copyrighted content is in his sandbox? Patachonica (talk) 02:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Patachonica: Rigth now, my sandbox is clean. There was a phrase that had copyrigth from an article in my last sandbox text Yewtharaptor (talk) 23:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Deepfriedokra: The section "From now I will edit outside Wikipedia (Including Sandbox) until I have a truly original text that can be translated to Sandbox, and then an article" makes reference to that, but maybe needs more clarification: That Includes a text clean of any kind of copyrigthed material and any kind of phrasing, etc. If Needs to be explained, this point is a reference to an external source to write the text (I.e. Microsoft World), and before translating it to wikipedia (included sandbox), do a revision to see that any kind of Copyr. material is out and the text is 100% own made and with the rules of the Wikipedia. If I need a more clear post, I´m open to hear any suggestion of how I should do it/Improve it. Thanks in advance for your time Yewtharaptor (talk) 22:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Blocking admin has doubt, so will defer. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Deepfriedokra: No problem. Of course, I´ll wait until that. Notify me if the appeal letter needs updates, it isn´t enougth and other way is needed or something else regarding confidence/knowlegde of the situation is needed Yewtharaptor (talk) 23:02, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal Letter 2: Answering Appeal letter 1 doubts

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Yewtharaptor (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

PART 1

This post is now the situation regarding my blocking from edit by the Amin: @Dianaa:

A) List of things I did wrong in the Wikipedia

-Early “articles”, that is introducing inappropriate pages, such as “Yewtharaptor” (2012-2015). Back then I was younger, yet I admit the guilt related to those malicious articles. As can be seen on the talk page, I ended that behaviour years ago.

-Copyright violations regarding upload of Images non CC BY

-Copyright callout N1: Regarding the Hanson Formation article. The Paper involving Copyrighted text is: "The Lower Jurassic Hanson Formation of the Transantarctic Mountains: implications for the Antarctic sector of the Gondwana plate margin"

-Copyright violations regarding the article Rotzo Formation and Mawson Formation (2019). Both of this where related with Phrasing and text copy pasted from source articles, being this las ones without CC BY

-Actual Copyright violation is around again the Mawson Formation. Text regarding the article “Taphonomy of Lacustrine Interbeds in the Kirkpatrick Basalt (Jurassic), Antarctica”

B) Apology

I, User: Yewtharaptor admit the fault of having ignored the regulations regarding Copyright in Wikipedia, putting it at legal risk. For this reason I proceed to apologize for these facts, especially the breaking of the regulations regarding Copy. My behavior has not reflected the principles that the community of Wikipedia editors seeks, both in terms of how to edit and integrate the content as well as the answers and discussions with the Admins.

How would I restructure my way of editing articles to fully evade copyright?

From now I will edit outside Wikipedia (Including Sandbox) until I have a truly original text that can be translated to Sandbox, and then an article. This would include the control of both copyright material and phrasing. To be more sure the content edited out of the wiki meets the criterio I would contact other editors for a more clean review, without involving any kind of sock puppet behaviour

I'm sorry, my goal in the near future will seek to take seriously the rules that rule the community (especially related to how to work the content)

I promise that I will never again violate copyright laws and use all the methods possible to stop any possible problems regarding them.

My callouts regarding Copy issues are fair. I´m sorry too for have bring the Admins to the trouble and waste of time that was check my edits to delete text that put the wiki on risk My way to prove this new model would be an initial new type of article on my Sandbox

C) Apology to admins

My behaviour on both the talk page and UTRS 2 wasn´t appropriate. I should have written the appeal in a more formal way. Tus, I apologize to Admin: @Deepfriedokra: (talk) for the call on the tone of the answer to the UTRS 2. To Diannaa (talk) for both the discussions and the time lost moderating my articles content. Finally to Admins in general for the impatient behaviour regarding the time it took the review of my Unblock Appeals

D) About Copyright and Licenses

What is Copyright? Copyright (“©”) refers to the legal status that states ownership or control of the rights to the use and distribution of works, that can be Books, images, etc.

A license is the reference or rule that marks how content should be used by those that don't have the copyright. Wikipedia's licenses are guided by the Creative Commons License, that allows anyone to use, but with several elements that have to be followed to upload legally the material:

  • NC implicates a non-profit use
  • ND implicates the content can't be modified, has to be like the authors did it
  • SA implicates that the creator needs to be credited with all the work being posted under, either identical or similar, license
  • BY implicates credit of the author

Finally to be noted that content with "All rights reserved" needs proper permission of the authors

PART 2

A) "In all the time that you've been blocked here, you have not made any edits to eswiki or glwiki, both of which you've edited in the past"

I don´t want to edit on those Wikis due to problems ex-situ. I only want to edit on Enwiki. I did an edit (https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formaci%C3%B3n_Ca%C3%B1ad%C3%B3n_Asfalto) to show how I would proceed on Enwiki

B) "unblocking you would not be in the best interest of the English Wikipedia"

Well, I can give a reason of why my work contributes to this wiki: I´m almost the only editor on the PaleoWikipedia that has enough patience to edit articles regarding large Geological formations and sample ALL the biota. Being this article the core to understanding the taxa ones, I guessed Ewiki would like to have them decent.

Few users, and the most recent case I know is the Paleobiota of the Morrison Formation...that, takes the structure from Paleobiota of the Posidonia Shale

One Example can be my recent update of the Spanish Version of the Cañadón Asfalto Formation. Nobody wants to work with such units, and, without these articles being decent and deep, taxa articles lose their importance. Explained better: less know taxa is ignored if there isn't a "hub" article that links all...and that is the Geological Formation

C) "The issue is that you're just not writing coherent English"

I already have a solution for this, developed while I was blocked. That is to get help of native english speakers that can correct my text and Incoherences, which, as said above, will be done outside wikipedia. Because yes, the plan is to bring a decent build to the sandbox, not poorly written ones. I also have the benefit that the articles I do are focused on tables with little text, so the grammar/coherence corrections should be easy. Of course, I will not leave those corrections only to others, I´m trying to improve by myself. Yet, the objective is to get the best version possible uploaded

D) All said, I thank @Tamzin: for the constructive criticism and decent answer to the previous appeal letter.

E) In addition, I would also like to request a WP:CONDUNBLOCK under the condition that I do not copy from academic papers

Yewtharaptor (talk) 13:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am closing this because it has been open awhile. This request is pretty lengthy, keeping it to a short paragraph or two would greatly increase the chance of a review. I would tend to agree with the last admin that it would be best for you at this time to edit in the Wikipedia of your primary language. 331dot (talk) 09:40, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@331dot: "keeping it to a short paragraph or two would greatly increase the chance of a review"? Please, if you check the first or second appeal I did, well, BOTH ended declined due to be SHORT. My appeals needs to be THAT large to explain the context, apologize, answer doubts, etc.(talk) 18:12, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Shorter/Compact Appeal Letter to allow an easier Admin review

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Yewtharaptor (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This post is done to answer the situation regarding my blocking from edit by the Diannaa. This appeal is a shorter version of the 2 previous ones, that go more in depth. It was shortened following 331dot decline and comments. I recommend, if the admin checking this wants a larger version, to check the previous appeal.

A) To start I will resume what I did wrong in Wikipedia: Early “articles”, that is introducing inappropriate pages; Copyright violations regarding upload of Images non CC BY; Copyright callout N1: Regarding the Hanson Formation article;Actual Copyright violation is around again the Mawson Formation

B) Apology: I, User: Yewtharaptor admit the fault of having ignored the regulations regarding Copyright in Wikipedia, putting it at legal risk. For this reason I proceed to apologize for these facts, especially the breaking of the regulations regarding Copy. My behavior has not reflected the principles that the community of Wikipedia editors seeks, both in terms of how to edit and integrate the content as well as the answers and discussions with the Admins. Tus, I apologize to Admin: Deepfriedokra for the call on the tone of the answer to the UTRS 2. To Diannaa (talk) for both the discussions and the time lost moderating my articles content.

C) Do I have any plan to solve my problems with copyright? Yes, editing outside the Wikipedia until I have a pure 100%, 0 phrasing or copy self-made text, that I will upload on my sandbox D) There have been 2 suggestions of edit on other wikis: the only thing I can say is no. My goal is, if I do an article on EsWiki, to have it´s equal version on EnWiki. I only did a recent one to show how I will do my new edits on the EnWiki (That is https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formaci%C3%B3n_Ca%C3%B1ad%C3%B3n_Asfalto)

E) "coherent English?" Correct. I already have a solution for this, developed while I was blocked. That is to get help of native english speakers that can help me correct my text and incoherences, which, as said above, will be done outside wikipedia. Because yes, the plan is to bring a decent build to the sandbox, not poorly written ones. I also have the benefit that the articles I do are focused on tables with little text, so the grammar/coherence corrections should be easy. Of course, I will not leave those corrections only to others, I´m trying to improve by myself. Yet, the objective is to get the best version possible uploaded

F) In addition, I would also like to request a WP:CONDUNBLOCK under the condition that I do not copy from academic papers

Decline reason:

Seeing that this is your third block, I'm not convinced that you have the required competence to edit the English Wikipedia.OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@Ohnoitsjamie: can I ask the reason/ns why? I want to show I did learn of my mistakes, and I´m sure I can give hints of how I will edit in the future to show that now, definetely I have learned. I have been blocked for...half a year? In this time I have been trying to analize all my problems regarding edition Yewtharaptor 23:31, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've already explained why. I'm not wasting further time with this unblock request, nor do I think others should have to. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have already unblocked you twice and have been disappointed both times as you resumed adding copyright content in spint or presumably knowing you were being watched. So I am not going to unblock you any more. If some other admin is interested in unblocking you and checking your edits every day like I did they are free to do so. But I don't have the time or interest to do it after being disappointed twice, so sorry. — Diannaa (talk) 16:48, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the anwers, I didn´t prove to deserve an unblock, so don´t be sorry, you where just doing your work. Now, after rethink my way of editing, I think I can prove that I can be a better editor. So, I hope another Admin can give me the opportunity. And sorry for the pings Yewtharaptor (talk) 16:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I feel bad for not being comfortable unblocking you. I forgot to mention another problem, which is that I have no way of checking whether or not you have copied from journal articles that are behind a paywall. This is a main reason why I am not comfortable unblocking - I am unable to properly check your work. — Diannaa (talk) 12:08, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Checking deeper, I see you are also blocked on the Commons, where you have engaged in abusing multiple accounts, uploading non-free content, and license laundering. This makes it impossible for me to trust you to obey our rules and policies. — Diannaa (talk) 13:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn´t abuse multiple accounts: It was Fishboy that did a proxy edit for me (here said, :
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Elcobbola/Archive_14#Mistaken_Deletion_of_Gyrosteus_Image_and_%22Sockpuppets%22). Fishboy86164577 isn´t a sock account of me. Also, in most of the non-free content claims, there where errors that led to misunderstand that, and that can be proven as the images I uploaded ended approved on Commons (Example https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ciechocinek_Formation_Reconstruction.jpg). My block on commons was beacuse in the end I asked for it. Yewtharaptor (talk) 15:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal Letter October 2022: Volume II

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Yewtharaptor (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This post is done to answer the situation regarding my blocking from edit by the Diannaa. This appeal is a shorter version of the 2 previous ones, that go more in depth. It was shortened following 331dot decline and comments. I recommend, if the admin checking this wants a larger version, to check the one called Appeal Letter 2: Answering Appeal letter 1 doubts. A) To start I will resume what I did wrong in Wikipedia: Early “articles”, that is introducing inappropriate pages; Copyright violations regarding upload of Images non CC BY; Copyright callout N1: Regarding the Hanson Formation article;Actual Copyright violation is around again the Mawson Formation B) Apology: I, User: Yewtharaptor admit the fault of having ignored the regulations regarding Copyright in Wikipedia, putting it at legal risk. For this reason I proceed to apologize for these facts, especially the breaking of the regulations regarding Copy. My behavior has not reflected the principles that the community of Wikipedia editors seeks, both in terms of how to edit and integrate the content as well as the answers and discussions with the Admins. Tus, I apologize to Admin: Deepfriedokra for the call on the tone of the answer to the UTRS 2. To Diannaa (talk) for both the discussions and the time lost moderating my articles content. C) Do I have any plan to solve my problems with copyright? Yes, editing outside the Wikipedia until I have a pure 100%, 0 phrasing or copy self-made text, that I will upload on my sandbox D) There have been 2 suggestions of edit on other wikis: the only thing I can say is no. My goal is, if I do an article on EsWiki, to have it´s equal version on EnWiki. I only did a recent one to show how I will do my new edits on the EnWiki (That is https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formaci%C3%B3n_Ca%C3%B1ad%C3%B3n_Asfalto). But how can someone monitorize that? Article bits (to easier review) uploaded on sandbox with the Admin in chargue of control me reviewing them, for example? Use a 3rd party software to communicate (Discord?) and do the proper corrections here, as another example? I can give a lot of solutions, focused on make easy review them E) "lack of coherent English?" Correct. I already have a solution for this, developed while I was blocked. That is to get help of native english speakers that can help me correct my text and incoherences, which, as said above, will be done outside wikipedia. Because yes, the plan is to bring a decent build to the sandbox, not poorly written ones. I also have the benefit that the articles I do are focused on tables with little text, so the grammar/coherence corrections should be easy. Of course, I will not leave those corrections only to others, I´m trying to improve by myself. Yet, the objective is to get the best version possible uploaded F) In addition, I would also like to request a WP:CONDUNBLOCK under the condition that I do not copy from academic papers Yewtharaptor (talk) 21:47, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

That would have been a good appeal when you were first challenged over copyright issues TEN YEARS ago. After this long, and the copyright issues coming back repeatedly, it's woefully inadequate. You've made, and broken, these promises before. Cabayi (talk) 15:50, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@Cabayi: Back then "TEN YEARS ago"... A) At that time, I would not have bothered to respond or even make an Appeal Letter, mostly because I did not use this account, but it was shared among several friends. I did not make active use of this account until the article "Drzewica Formation". B) If it is so inadequate (Is it inadequate to apologize to the Admins? Because, and I apologize if it may sound defiant as this is written with the utmost respect, your response encompasses the entire appeal) I would sincerely like to know, how can I show that I have learned to respect the rules, as well as mitigate other common mistakes of mine such as wording? (talk) 18:16, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
"it was shared among several friends", so the account is WP:COMPROMISED too? As for your question, I have no idea how you convince people you will take copyright seriously in the future when you have said the same in the past and failed to live up to it. Cabayi (talk) 17:36, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cabayi: No. Thankfully is not under WP:COMPROMISED (not stolen, not used without permission, etc). All the faults quoted on the appeal are mine only. I come up with the idea of having someone reliable monitoring my edits, being me who should notify what I am going to edit, where and why, and thus facilitate the work of reviewing what I post, even citing the sources used for a quicker check. And that can be done in a simple and easy to follow way as follows: whoever should monitor me would have a table in his Talk Page, divided into type of edit-reason-sources-changes. With something like this, I would be subject to follow a strict code in order to be able to edit Yewtharaptor (talk) 17:52, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal Letter November 2022

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Yewtharaptor (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This letter is made to clarify the situation of my block in the ENwiki by Diannaa. This text is a shortened version of the initial ones, which were more in-depth about the case. It was shortened after declination and comments by 331dot. I recommend, if the admin reviewing this wants a larger, more complete version, to review the one called Appeal Letter 2: Responding to Queries from Appeal Letter 1. A) To start with I will summarize what I did wrong on Wikipedia: from the First articles, i.e. entering inappropriate pages; Copyright violations regarding uploading non CC BY Images; N1 copyright recall, regarding the Hanson Formation article; The last copyright violation was for an edit around the Mawson Formation page. B) My Apology': I, the User: Yewtharaptor admit fault for ignoring the rules regarding Copyright on Wikipedia, breaching them and putting the page at legal risk. I hereby proceed to apologize for these facts, especially for the breach of the copyright rules. My behavior has not reflected the principles sought by the community of Wikipedia editors, both in terms of the way of editing and integrating the contents and the answers and discussions with the Admins. Therefore, I apologize to Admin: Deepfriedokra for the tone call in the response to UTRS 2. To Diannaa (talk) for both the discussions and the time she has had to waste moderating me. C) Do I have any proposal to, once and for all, proceed to editing without any kind of problem with the copyright? Yes, essentially make the text outside the platform and do not bring it (not even to the Sandbox), until you have a 100% own text without phrasing and that goes according to the regulations. I come up with the idea of having someone reliable monitoring my edits, being me who should notify what I am going to edit, where and why, and thus facilitate the work of reviewing what I post, even citing the sources used for a quicker check. And that can be done in a simple and easy to follow way as follows: whoever should monitor me would have a table in his Talk Page, divided into type of edit-reason-sources-changes. With something like this, I would be subject to follow a strict code in order to be able to edit D) "Lack of consistency in the English I use?" Yes, that's true. I have seen that other users have had to correct some of the articles I made. And I must say that I already have a solution for this: get help from other native English users to help me correct my texts and inconsistencies, which, as already said, will be done outside the EnWikipedia, all so that the text that comes to the sandbox, I do it not badly written, apart from fulfilling everything I said before. Also, I have the advantage that the articles I do focus on tables with little text, so grammatical corrections/coherences should be easy. Of course, I'm not going to leave those corrections only to others, I'm trying to improve by myself.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
    1. understand what you have been blocked for,
    2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 10:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Appeal Letter December 2022

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Yewtharaptor (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This letter is made to clarify the situation of my block in the ENwiki by Diannaa. This text is a shortened version of the initial ones, which were more in-depth about the case. It was shortened after declination and comments by 331dot. I recommend, if the admin reviewing this wants a larger, more complete version, to review the one called Appeal Letter 2: Responding to Queries from Appeal Letter 1.

A) To start with I will summarize what I did wrong on Wikipedia: from the First articles, i.e. entering inappropriate pages; Copyright violations regarding uploading non CC BY Images; N1 copyright recall, regarding the Hanson Formation article; The last copyright violation was for an edit around the Mawson Formation page.

B) My Apology': I, the User: Yewtharaptor admit fault for ignoring the rules regarding Copyright on Wikipedia, breaching them and putting the page at legal risk. I hereby proceed to apologize for these facts, especially for the breach of the copyright rules. My behavior has not reflected the principles sought by the community of Wikipedia editors, both in terms of the way of editing and integrating the contents and the answers and discussions with the Admins. Therefore, I apologize to Admin: Deepfriedokra for the tone call in the response to UTRS 2. To Diannaa (talk) for both the discussions and the time she has had to waste moderating me.

C) Do I have any proposal to, once and for all, proceed to editing without any kind of problem with the copyright? Yes, essentially make the text outside the platform and do not bring it (not even to the Sandbox), until you have a 100% own text without phrasing and that goes according to the regulations. I come up with the idea of having someone reliable monitoring my edits, being me who should notify what I am going to edit, where and why, and thus facilitate the work of reviewing what I post, even citing the sources used for a quicker check. And that can be done in a simple and easy to follow way as follows: whoever should monitor me would have a table in his Talk Page, divided into type of edit-reason-sources-changes. With something like this, I would be subject to follow a strict code in order to be able to edit

D) "Lack of consistency in the English I use?" Yes, that's true. I have seen that other users have had to correct some of the articles I made. And I must say that I already have a solution for this: get help from other native English users to help me correct my texts and inconsistencies, which, as already said, will be done outside the EnWikipedia, all so that the text that comes to the sandbox, I do it not badly written, apart from fulfilling everything I said before. Also, I have the advantage that the articles I do focus on tables with little text, so grammatical corrections/coherences should be easy. Of course, I'm not going to leave those corrections only to others, I'm trying to improve by myself

E) A previous Procedural decline has taken what I have said and responded by doing what has led at previous points to no one reviewing my appeal. No, it's no use for me to write 50 or 100 times "I'm not going to do it again", I have to prove it, that's why I insist so much on the procedure of having someone watching me that I have to update every edit I make. "I understood why I have been blocked" and the answer will be "No, declined". Words don't help me at all, what will help me will be to prove that I do want to contribute to Wikipedia (As I did in the past, Paleobiota of the Posidonia Shale exists as proof of that).

Decline reason:

The description of your intended editing process in part C suggests that you still fundamentally don't understand copyright. Text introduced to Wikipedia should at no point be derived from a copy of the original text, even if it is workshopped off-site before being pasted into Wikipedia. signed, Rosguill talk 22:56, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Yewtharaptor (talk) 14:01, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: This is not written in a rude way: Where does it say in C) that the text is to be copied? paraphrased? Repeated? Even, that it is going to be something extracted from a work as is or in general, extracted (= stolen in any form)? Nowhere. What it says in C is a text 100% made by me, but of course with citations to confirm that I don't make up what I write (And quoting the work following the Wikipedia model, is not copying, mostly because you don't put any text from it). Yewtharaptor (talk) 2:20, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

essentially make the text outside the platform and do not bring it (not even to the Sandbox), until you have a 100% own text without phrasing suggests that you are intending to copy text from a source, tweak the wording a bit, and then paste it into Wikipedia. This is not allowed. signed, Rosguill talk 01:54, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't mean that, but if I were to explain it, no one would want to read my appeal because it is too long. That sentence means what I have put before: to write something by myself, that is not/does not include copying or phrasing or any other act that affects copyright. It means that, nothing else. Yewtharaptor (talk) 13:53, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal letter for Christmas

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Yewtharaptor (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

First of all, I wish whoever reviews this Appeal a happy holiday season (in case you review it at Christmas). And thank you for your patience in reading this. This letter is made to clarify the situation of my block in the ENwiki by Diannaa. This text is a shortened version of the initial ones, which were more in-depth about the case. It was shortened after declination and comments by 331dot. I recommend, if the admin reviewing this wants a larger, more complete version, to review the one called Appeal Letter 2: Responding to Queries from Appeal Letter 1. A) To start with I will summarize what I did wrong on Wikipedia: from the First articles, i.e. entering inappropriate pages; Copyright violations regarding uploading non CC BY Images; N1 copyright recall, regarding the Hanson Formation article; The last copyright violation was for an edit around the Mawson Formation page. B) My Apology': I, the User: Yewtharaptor admit fault for ignoring the rules regarding Copyright on Wikipedia, breaching them and putting the page at legal risk. I hereby proceed to apologize for these facts, especially for the breach of the copyright rules. My behavior has not reflected the principles sought by the community of Wikipedia editors, both in terms of the way of editing and integrating the contents and the answers and discussions with the Admins. Therefore, I apologize to Admin: Deepfriedokra for the tone call in the response to UTRS 2. To Diannaa (talk) for both the discussions and the time she has had to waste moderating me. C) Do I have any proposal to, once and for all, proceed to editing without any kind of problem with the copyright? Yes, essentially make the text outside the platform and do not bring it (not even to the Sandbox), until I have a 100% own-made (Without taking as-is or heavily modified or any of the alternatives involving replicating/copying/phrasing) text without phrasing and that goes according to the regulations. I come up with the idea of having someone reliable monitoring my edits, being me who should notify what I am going to edit, where and why, and thus facilitate the work of reviewing what I post, even citing the sources used for a quicker check. And that can be done in a simple and easy to follow way as follows: whoever should monitor me would have a table in his Talk Page, divided into type of edit-reason-sources-changes. With something like this, I would be subject to follow a strict code in order to be able to edit [What it says in C is a text 100% made by me, but of course with citations (=The Toolbar Citation) to confirm that I don't make up what I write (And quoting the work following the Wikipedia model, is not copying, mostly because you don't put any text from it)] D) "Lack of consistency in the English I use?" Yes, that's true. I have seen that other users have had to correct some of the articles I made. And I must say that I already have a solution for this: get help from other native English users to help me correct my texts and inconsistencies, which, as already said, will be done outside the EnWikipedia, all so that the text that comes to the sandbox, I do it not badly written, apart from fulfilling everything I said before. Also, I have the advantage that the articles I do focus on tables with little text, so grammatical corrections/coherences should be easy. Of course, I'm not going to leave those corrections only to others, I'm trying to improve by myself E) A previous Procedural decline has taken what I have said and responded by doing what has led at previous points to no one reviewing my appeal. No, it's no use for me to write 50 or 100 times "I'm not going to do it again", I have to prove it, that's why I insist so much on the procedure of having someone watching me that I have to update every edit I make. "I understood why I have been blocked" and the answer will be "No, declined". Words don't help me at all, what will help me will be to prove that I do want to contribute to Wikipedia (As I did in the past, Paleobiota of the Posidonia Shale exists as proof of that).

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
    1. understand what you have been blocked for,
    2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 11:11, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hi Yewtharaptor, I have read through your latest unblock request, and skimmed through some of the previous ones to get a sense of why you were blocked and what you have learned since your block. My biggest concern is that this is your third block for copyright violations: first in 2013, then January 2020, then March 2020. In order to consider an unblock request, I need to be confident that you understand Wikipedia's copyright policies. Please outline below 1) How the edits that led to this latest block violated Wikipedia's copyright policy. WP:COPYRIGHT is a good place to start looking for the relevant policies. 2) How you will change your editing habits to ensure that this mistake does not happen again. You may ping me to review the responses, although I encourage others to also comment below. There is no rush to complete this. Z1720 (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I will try to explain everything, as well as make it clear how I would proceed if I had the option to edit again:
A) Let's start with the fact that got me banned: copyrighted text in the article Mawson Formation. I have to say that my plan in editing that article was not to upload that version to Wikipedia, but I was using the editor to shape the text. But instinctively instead of closing the page I hit save changes, and so I uploaded a text that is clearly against the rules. My previous problems with copy didn't help much.
B) How I am going to solve this problem: basically using platforms other than Wikipedia to edit where I write a text that is 100% mine, that does not violate any of the platform's rules, that does not copy or have phrasing. If that is not enough, I made the suggestion that I should be obliged to notify the admin in charge of monitoring me, and that can be done in a section of his talk page, where I have to put the updates I am doing Yewtharaptor (talk) 13:58, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned with the above response of how the blocking incident happened. It seems like you are copying text from a source, then working to change some words around. This is a bad idea, as close paraphrasing is also considered plagiarism, and Wikipedia adopts a summary style of prose writing instead of copying from sources. Please review strategies on how to summarise information (as opposed to copying text from a source and changing or deleting wording). When ready, please outline 1) Why it is better to summarise information from sources (or to put information into your own words) instead of copying and pasting from a source and then editing the text, and 2) How you will change your editing habits in order to adopt a summary style of prose-writing, instead of copying and pasting from the source. Z1720 (talk) 00:44, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1) The information must be written using the editor's own words so as not to commit acts of phrasing, copying or other copyright infringement. The model to follow must be an original text supported by references, which must be cited.
2) In order to generate a text in accordance with the regulations, my new method will be based on writing in a more leisurely manner, seeking my own wording that summarizes what is explained by the source on which it is based. This text, which I will call "refined", will be the one that will reach the Sandbox. In order to make sure that I can write a text like this: I will make an initial sketch, which will be a structured outline based on the results of the publication to be cited (Example of section of this outline "this work talks how Geologists where able to sample a surface and determine it was a riverbank paleosoil"), and based on this outline, I will write in my own words. Yewtharaptor (talk) 23:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In answer 1, you say "The model to follow must be an original text supported by references, which must be cited." I am confused by this, because I interpret this to mean that Wikipedia should have information in their article copied from the original source, then cited. Can you please clarify this?
I think your answer to question 2 is sufficient. In order to be sure, can you please give an example of text (about a sentence) that you would like to add to a Wikipedia article that sufficiently summarises the information from the source? Be sure to also include the reference for the information you would like to add. Z1720 (talk) 18:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: Hello, and again, thanks for the patience in answering this.
1) No, Wikipedia should not have copied that text. I am looking to write, for example, the results & conclusions of the text in my own words, without paraphrasing or copying, citing the latter. Convey the result/process/doubts in my own words, citing the source without infringing copyright regulations.
2) With your permission, I will quote the example I made in the Spanish Wikipedia from the Cañadón Asfalto Formation page: "The initial study of Brachyphyllum spp. cuticles have allowed to know the presence of a common environmental stress in local conifers during the deposition of the Chacritas member" (The Source is this Abstract: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281120288_Diversidad_de_coniferas_de_la_Formacion_Canadon_Asfalto_Jurasico_Inferior-_Medio_en_la_Patagonia_central_Argentina_aplicacion_de_nuevas_tecnicas_en_el_estudio_de_cuticulas_fosiles). The sentence cites the central theme to work on, the study of cuticles, and then clarifies the genus (Brachyphyllum) the member (Chacritas) to finally collect the result (environmental stress). All without paraphrasing, compiling in a single sentence with my own words what is quoted in that work. Yewtharaptor (talk) 17:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Noumena Studios

Notice

The article Noumena Studios has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

lack of notability

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Waxworker (talk) 15:43, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot write on the Talk Page of this article because I am blocked.
But I am already against its removal. Yewtharaptor (talk) 18:58, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Noumena Studios Logo.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Noumena Studios Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal Letter Ma 2023 (Continuation of December 2022)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Yewtharaptor (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

First of all, I wish whoever reviews this Appeal a happy holiday season (in case you review it at Christmas). And thank you for your patience in reading this. This letter is made to clarify the situation of my block in the ENwiki by Diannaa. This text is a shortened version of the initial ones, which were more in-depth about the case. It was shortened after declination and comments by 331dot. I recommend, if the admin reviewing this wants a larger, more complete version, to review the one called Appeal Letter 2: Responding to Queries from Appeal Letter 1. A) To start with I will summarize what I did wrong on Wikipedia: from the First articles, i.e. entering inappropriate pages; Copyright violations regarding uploading non CC BY Images; N1 copyright recall, regarding the Hanson Formation article; The last copyright violation was for an edit around the Mawson Formation page. B) My Apology': I, the User: Yewtharaptor admit fault for ignoring the rules regarding Copyright on Wikipedia, breaching them and putting the page at legal risk. I hereby proceed to apologize for these facts, especially for the breach of the copyright rules. My behavior has not reflected the principles sought by the community of Wikipedia editors, both in terms of the way of editing and integrating the contents and the answers and discussions with the Admins. Therefore, I apologize to Admin: Deepfriedokra for the tone call in the response to UTRS 2. To Diannaa (talk) for both the discussions and the time she has had to waste moderating me. C) Do I have any proposal to, once and for all, proceed to editing without any kind of problem with the copyright? Yes, essentially make the text outside the platform and do not bring it (not even to the Sandbox), until I have a 100% own-made (Without taking as-is or heavily modified or any of the alternatives involving replicating/copying/phrasing) text without phrasing and that goes according to the regulations. I come up with the idea of having someone reliable monitoring my edits, being me who should notify what I am going to edit, where and why, and thus facilitate the work of reviewing what I post, even citing the sources used for a quicker check. And that can be done in a simple and easy to follow way as follows: whoever should monitor me would have a table in his Talk Page, divided into type of edit-reason-sources-changes. With something like this, I would be subject to follow a strict code in order to be able to edit [What it says in C is a text 100% made by me, but of course with citations (=The Toolbar Citation) to confirm that I don't make up what I write (And quoting the work following the Wikipedia model, is not copying, mostly because you don't put any text from it)] D) "Lack of consistency in the English I use?" Yes, that's true. I have seen that other users have had to correct some of the articles I made. And I must say that I already have a solution for this: get help from other native English users to help me correct my texts and inconsistencies, which, as already said, will be done outside the EnWikipedia, all so that the text that comes to the sandbox, I do it not badly written, apart from fulfilling everything I said before. Also, I have the advantage that the articles I do focus on tables with little text, so grammatical corrections/coherences should be easy. Of course, I'm not going to leave those corrections only to others, I'm trying to improve by myself E) A previous Procedural decline has taken what I have said and responded by doing what has led at previous points to no one reviewing my appeal. No, it's no use for me to write 50 or 100 times "I'm not going to do it again", I have to prove it, that's why I insist so much on the procedure of having someone watching me that I have to update every edit I make. "I understood why I have been blocked" and the answer will be "No, declined". Words don't help me at all, what will help me will be to prove that I do want to contribute to Wikipedia (As I did in the past, Paleobiota of the Posidonia Shale exists as proof of that).

Accept reason:

I'm satisfied by the understanding and planned editing process described in the above section in discussion with Z1720. signed, Rosguill talk 05:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply] 

Yewtharaptor (talk) 16:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: Hello, I continue the conversation on this new section after Yamla´s procedural decline. Again, thanks for the patience in answering this.
1) No, Wikipedia should not have copied that text. I am looking to write, for example, the results & conclusions of the text in my own words, without paraphrasing or copying, citing the latter. Convey the result/process/doubts in my own words, citing the source without infringing copyright regulations.
2) With your permission, I will quote the example I made in the Spanish Wikipedia from the Cañadón Asfalto Formation page: "The initial study of Brachyphyllum spp. cuticles have allowed to know the presence of a common environmental stress in local conifers during the deposition of the Chacritas member" (The Source is this Abstract: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281120288_Diversidad_de_coniferas_de_la_Formacion_Canadon_Asfalto_Jurasico_Inferior-_Medio_en_la_Patagonia_central_Argentina_aplicacion_de_nuevas_tecnicas_en_el_estudio_de_cuticulas_fosiles). The sentence cites the central theme to work on, the study of cuticles, and then clarifies the genus (Brachyphyllum) the member (Chacritas) to finally collect the result (environmental stress). All without paraphrasing, compiling in a single sentence with my own words what is quoted in that work. Yewtharaptor (talk) 17:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What has Yewtharaptor being working on section

This section is made so that, in case User Yewtharaptor makes an edit, it will be noted here, so moderators can easily see what he has been doing.

Current Project: Transferring the Spanish Wiki text of the Cañadón Asfalto Formation article to the English one Yewtharaptor (talk) 17:10, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17/04/2023 Reworked Rotzo Formation (talk) 21
15, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cañadón Asfalto Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oxfordian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:07, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rya Formation, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Mytilus and Plagiostoma.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Cañadón Asfalto Formation

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Cañadón Asfalto Formation you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Reidgreg -- Reidgreg (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Cañadón Asfalto Formation

The article Cañadón Asfalto Formation you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Cañadón Asfalto Formation for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Reidgreg -- Reidgreg (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Kota Formation

The article Kota Formation you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Kota Formation for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Fritzmann2002 -- Fritzmann2002 (talk) 01:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Grammatical issues

Hi! While I appreciate your edits and significant expansions to paleobiota lists/formation pages, it seems like you are continuously introducing several minor grammatical issues in your edits. Most of these consist of unnecessary capitalizations for clade names and common nouns. Don't forget that formal clade names (i.e. "Ichthyosauridae", "Pterosauria", "Theropoda", etc.) are always capitalized, but their informal derivatives ("ichthyosaurid", "pterosaur", "theropod") are not. Common names are also not capitalized ("clam", "osyster", "sea snail", etc.). These are just things to keep in mind when writing. Hope this helps, -SlvrHwk (talk) 17:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree I do too many unnecesary capitalizations. I will try to check more any prototype text before I upload it. Thx Yewtharaptor (talk) 19:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Scanilepis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Evenkia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thank you for making Ellsworth Land Volcanic Group! It's a really informative page. BuySomeApples (talk) 00:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to you for taking the time to review! And for the Barnstar! I'll try to keep it up like this Yewtharaptor (talk) 00:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The Morrison Man (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rotzo Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Modiolus.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

Information icon Hi Yewtharaptor! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Carbonate platform that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. ~Darth StabroTalk/Contribs 17:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the concern. I clicked on minor edit almost unconsciously as I have been making corrections in other articles. I'm sorry about that and otherwise I hope the added information is welcome. Thank you too Yewtharaptor (talk) 17:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tafraout Group, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trochoidea.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yewtharaptor&oldid=1254284764"