User talk:Fossiladder13

If you're interesting in writing new articles, then there's an extinct Paleocene turtle (Sindhochelys ragei) that was discovered a week ago and still needs creation. The open-access paper describing it is here:^[1]

Hiroizmeh (Talk | Contributions) 04:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you kind sir Fossiladder13 (talk) 12:56, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

OK ive gotten it done can you get it out of draftspace

An article you recently created, Petraster, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Singularity42 (talk) 16:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Hey, I think your draft version now has sufficient content to go into mainspace. I have tagged the second version you created in mainspace for a non-controversial speedy deletion by an admin so that your improved draft version can be moved over and preserve the article's history. Singularity42 (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

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

I don't think this is ready for a mainspace article yet. I moved the previous version to a Draft, but this version was created a few seconds later (preventing me from moving it to draft again).

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. Singularity42 (talk) 16:37, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Rusalkii was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Petraster instead.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Petraster and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Petraster, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Rusalkii (talk) 23:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Looks like this draft has gone back and forth between mainspace and draftspace and proposed deletion and so on. Just wanted to check in and confirm that the existing article looks good to me, but the initial citation to Wikipedia should be replaced with something else, since Wikipedia is a user=generated source. Hopefully the original article cites its sources and you can use those instead. Rusalkii (talk) 23:59, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I have fixed some of your problematic edits. First of all, it is preferable to basically use a dissertation as a reference. In the case of Dracopristis, when you first created it, there was no reference other than news websites. At least there should be a paper that is described, if that is not too old taxa. As seen in Bandringa, do not use first or second person like "we" or "you" when writing an article. This is clearly stated. You made a mistake in Paleontology in Iowa, causing the whole article to be centered. You may not have understood it because you were editing from your mobile phone, but let's check it. And in Latenivenatrix, you posted an inaccurate paleoart. We recommend that you first check the details of the image on Wikimedia commons. And in Lebachacanthus, I saw some proprietary research. Basically, it is not recommended to write anything other than what is clearly stated in the papers. In fact, Prionosuchus lived only in Brazil, and Dimetrodon teutonis was a too small species to attack Lebachacanthus. Also, don't use the fossil shopping website as a reference... sometimes there are fake fossils. If you want to use the same reference multiple times, merging them is easy with visual editing. Some articles in ResearchGate are not recognized as articles in visual editing, so it is better to use the original link of the article. You should also resolve copyright issues of some of the images you uploaded as soon as possible... Anyway, I'm still a beginner in editing too. Let's do our best each other! Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 10:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok got it Fossiladder13 (talk) 13:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello Fossiladder, I very much appreciate the work you've been doing on articles related to extinct fauna. However, you're making improvements to these articles in an unusually high amount of edits. I wanted to ask if you could try to reduce the amount of times you publish an edit, maybe once you've finished a section of an article? This will help keep the history of the articles cleaner and easier to navigate for other editors. Cheers, --TimTheDragonRider (talk) 12:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

You’re right maybe I don’t need to publish an edit just when I fix a typo. Yeah whenever I edit, I will try to make the edits substantially large. Fossiladder13 (talk) 13:06, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I would not worry about incremental edits in the course of creating/improving an article. As you can see at Vitamin A, I started with an article that was already B-class (perhaps not warranted), and did scores of edits over a month as preparation for submitting for GA. As long as your edit summaries make clear WHERE the edits were, not a problem. David notMD (talk) 16:32, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Erratus 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 Wretchskull -- Wretchskull (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

The article Erratus you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Erratus 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 Wretchskull -- Wretchskull (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

A synpathetic note - most of my GA nominations succeeded, some with LOTS of work, but two failed. I addressed all the outstanding issues, reapplied, worked through (with a different reviewer) and succeeded on second try. Example: Riboflavin. David notMD (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Erratus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lateral. 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) 05:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Dracopristis 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 Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 15:21, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

The article Dracopristis you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Dracopristis for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 15:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

The article Dracopristis you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Dracopristis for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 20:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Erratus at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, there have been multiple comments now to the DYK nomination. Please respond to them as soon as possible, thanks. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Apparently, according to paleontologist Dr. James Lamsdell, the paper under review suggests that its affinity as cheloniellid will be denied. (Please note that it is uncertain because it is information just from his Twitter.) I warn you that in the future you will also need to read that paper when released. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok got it, thanks for the update. Fossiladder13 (talk) 12:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

On 23 May 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Erratus, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Erratus was one of the earliest-known arthropods to show the origins of lungs and limbs? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Erratus. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Erratus), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Fossiladder13. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Petraster, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 00:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello Fossiladder13! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Yorkicystis, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted material from other websites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10145241/1/Gibson_Zamora-et-al_Manuscript_R4.pdf, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate your contributions, copying content from other websites is unlawful and against Wikipedia's copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are likely to lose their editing privileges.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

• Have the author release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License (CC BY-SA 3.0) by leaving a message explaining the details at Talk:Yorkicystis and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-enwikimedia.org". Make sure they quote the exact page name, Yorkicystis, in their email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If you hold the copyright to the work: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Yorkicystis. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA), version 3.0", or that the work is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:Yorkicystis with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.

It may also be necessary for the text to be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a template of the permissions letter the copyright holder is expected to send.

Otherwise, you may rewrite this article from scratch. If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Yorkicystis saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! — Diannaa (talk) 14:31, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

@Diannaa hey I got your message. I see the problems and I would like to fix them. I see on the page that I could edit the text to a more encyclopedic format. Would that mean I could go into previous revisions of the page and edit out the text that could be copyright problems. And just replace it with better text or remove it altogether. Please try to respond as quickly as you can because I want to get this done before I leave for a trip in the next few days. Thanks Fossiladder13 (talk) 17:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

You can view the extent of the overlap by using Earwig's tool. Please use the special temporary page for your rewrite: this temporary page. — Diannaa (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Got it thanks!. Fossiladder13 (talk) 18:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Diannaa I don't think you intended it, but Fossil added this 'temporary' page in the mainspace at Yorkicystis/Temp which I highly doubt was your intent when you provided the location above. Please confirm. Izno (talk) 04:47, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

The intention was that he should click on the link to the correct location and do the re-write there, not in mainspace. I have finished the copyright cleanup and moved the new text into the article. The temp page and its talk page are now deleted. Case closed — Diannaa (talk) 14:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for helping me with this @Diannaa Fossiladder13 (talk) 14:16, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Yorkicystis/Temp. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Yorkicystis. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Yorkicystis. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Note I retracted the deletion request as I found out why the page was duplicated. My apologies. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:15, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

@Rsjaffe Thank you Fossiladder13 (talk) 20:15, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

The DYK is not eligible because it was submitted on 8 Sept 2022, whereas the GA review was succcessfully completed in March 2022. There is a seven day window after the GA approval to submit. David notMD (talk) 03:13, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Fossiladder13. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Dracopristis.
Message added 04:36, 13 September 2022 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:36, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Adding a lot of information is never a bad thing, but you should also consider the layout. Huge galleries squeeze articles. As for Paleoecology, it's not bad to mention animals of the same formation a little, but my opinion is that it's better not to be the subject of it. Don't stray too far from what the article describes. I was a little surprised when I saw that the Titanokorys article had a large number of images of animals from Marble Canyon and explained the classification of Dinocarids... Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 08:26, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Titanokorys 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 Dora the Axe-plorer -- Dora the Axe-plorer (talk) 01:21, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

The article Titanokorys you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Titanokorys for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dora the Axe-plorer -- Dora the Axe-plorer (talk) 06:01, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

On 27 October 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Titanokorys, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the relative rarity of the radiodont Titanokorys (video featured) in Marble Canyon suggests that the deposits in which it was found may represent the outermost edge of its distribution in life? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Titanokorys. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Titanokorys), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Vanamonde 00:02, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Are you working on the arthropod section? Because if you're not, I am happy to create this section. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:23, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh, that would be great. I am thinking of doing it, but considering the amount of genera and species I was waiting to see if someone would lend a hand, thanks. Fossiladder13 (talk) 19:45, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

If we are doing the arthropod section, I think it would be best if we group them based on their orders (artiopoda, radiodonta, etc). Fossiladder13 (talk) 19:47, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Sure, I've listed them roughty by major section anyway, so If you want to split them that would be fine. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Got it, I am going to start doing more in depth descriptions Fossiladder13 (talk) 19:58, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I think I have added the bulk of the taxa now, so you should be free to write the descriptions without me treading on your toes. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Great, thank you. Fossiladder13 (talk) 21:04, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Hey, I've been seeing your edits on the subdivisions of the arthropod taxobox. It would be preferable if your additions were accompanied by citations, especially for those groups that have no article of their own. Sources would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! ☽ Snoteleks ☾ 10:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I posted a speculative reconstruction of the Waukesha Marrellomorph and description of its assignment as "Butterfly Animal" on DeviantArt. Please note that since it is personal interpretation I have no plans to post this on Wikipedia. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 09:19, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ta-tea-two-te-to That’s a really nice reconstruction, and I have no problems with you not posting it. Just wait until the arthropod is actually named. Also, didn’t know the “butterfly animal’s” wings could actually be fluids. Fossiladder13 (talk) 13:40, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Well that's just my speculation. In Wendruff et al. (2020) specimen shows black streaks on the upper side of the 'butterfly wings', which may be the legs seen from the ventral side. (I don't really know) The butterfly-like shape of the entire fossil may be the result of fluid or something leaking out as the legs expand, and that may reason that only anterior horn visible in fossil, but this is just speculation and I am pretty amateur. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 14:16, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ta-tea-two-te-to Thats possible, not the first time we have found marrellomorph fossils with leaked bodily fluids. Fossiladder13 (talk) 15:19, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ta-tea-two-te-to One interesting thing to note is that the "butterfly animal" specimen used in the Wendruff et al. (2020) paper, UWGM 2449, has some differences to the 1985 paper's specimen. For one the "wings are not as well defined, and the specimen is lacking the "antennae-like horns", instead having a weird looking attached ball thing on it's head. Fossiladder13 (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ta-tea-two-te-to so that may be something to keep in mind. Fossiladder13 (talk) 02:19, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I think because some kind of fossils may just preserved body without carapace. Yeah since Marrella preserve body fluid it is possible I think. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 03:07, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you recently uploaded "Reconstruction of an Enantiornithine bird" from the Sci-News article on Yatenavis. This image is actually of Cuspirostrisornis, and is already on Wiki Commons. Sci-News often adds images of related taxa to their articles if a restoration of the actual animal is not available (e.g. their recent article on Ruixinia, which reuses Levi Bernardo's Sauroposeidon image). I just wanted to make you aware of that for future scenarios. -SlvrHwk (talk) 18:11, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

@SlvrHwk Oh, gotcha, I assumed it was that because it appeared in the same article. Thanks though Fossiladder13 (talk) 19:31, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Waukesha Biota 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 Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The article Waukesha Biota you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Waukesha Biota for comments about the article, and Talk:Waukesha Biota/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:26, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello. just want to say, but you're able to nominate Waukesha Biota for DYK now because it fulfills the requirements for newness which is why the nomination failed to begin with. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Onegreatjoke I already did that, but thanks for letting me know regardless. Fossiladder13 (talk) 21:11, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Thing is, I do believe that you can nominate it again. Your just going to have to create another page for the template. Though, if you don't want to then I fully understand. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Onegreatjoke Do you know how to do that?, cause I really do wanna renominate it before the window of times passes. Fossiladder13 (talk) 21:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Make the article Template:Did you know nominations/Waukesha Biota and add something in the title like Waukesha Biota/1 or something to create the new nomination. Then, try to copy the source code from dyk nominations and paste it there.

Another thing you could do is just to do the nomination again at WP:DYKCNN and submit. If I remember correctly, there will be an error saying how the nomination already exists. However, the source code will be displayed. You can copy and paste that source code into a brand new template page like I explained above.

Once your done, add the nomination to the DYK page by placing {{Did you know nominations/NOMINATION NAME}} (Replace nomination name with the name of the template page such as waukesha biota/1) at the newest category and you should be good. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Onegreatjoke Thank you Fossiladder13 (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Onegreatjoke the main page, or the talk page?. Fossiladder13 (talk) 01:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

This Template talk:Did you know page. Put it at the Articles created/expanded on January 19 section Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Onegreatjoke did it, how does it look?. Fossiladder13 (talk) 01:57, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Good but the waukesha biota link seems broken for some reason. It should link to waukesha biota when it says waukesha biota but it isn't doing that. Onegreatjoke (talk) 02:04, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Onegreatjoke there ya go, its fixed. Fossiladder13 (talk) 02:47, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

At present, the number of species included is not so large compared to other formations with separate paleobiota pages, and the Waukesha Biota page itself has mostly introduced paleobiota, so perhaps these two I think one should be integrated. Probably good to replace whole "Biota" section, there should be just simple list showing paleobiota like Fezouata Formation, with descriptions for undescribed taxon may good. @Hemiauchenia, I think you agreed for that but what do you think? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 09:36, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah in addition, I found that recent study mentioned about situation of "leech" fossils. Hope this helps. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 09:38, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ta-tea-two-te-to Oh, then I probably need to change part of the DYK nomination. Yeah I will integrate them. Fossiladder13 (talk) 12:52, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

New study about Waukesha "leech" fossil just published! Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 16:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Ta-tea-two-te-to Yeah, I saw that. Quite an interesting development with that worm. Very excited For Kenneth's and Simon's review on the Waukesha biota to be published. Thanks anyway!. Fossiladder13 (talk) 16:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Fossiladder13. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Dracopristis, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 20:12, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Fossiladder13. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Dracopristis".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:41, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Fossiladder13. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Iowagnathus".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission, and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 01:30, 7 September 2025 (UTC)