User talk:Patachonica

Welcome!

Hi Patachonica! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 00:27, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Charles Léopold Laurillard, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page French. 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) 09:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Paramylodon

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Paramylodon 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 Patachonica -- Patachonica (talk) 03:20, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. @Legobot:, When are you going to start it? Patachonica (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Paramylodon

The article Paramylodon you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Paramylodon 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 Patachonica -- Patachonica (talk) 14:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why

Why did you revert my edit on the Eunotosaurus template — Preceding unsigned comment added by Golden Wraith Terror (talk • contribs) 00:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted it because Eunotosaurus' position is currently disputed. Patachonica (talk) 00:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elephant

My mistake, I must have misread the history. - Donald Albury 19:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Provincial infoboxes content

I've opened up a discussion at WP:CANADA's talkpage. Concerning the content of provincial infoboxes. You input is welcomed. GoodDay (talk) 05:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sacacosuchus - species box vs. automatic taxobox

In the Sacacosuchus article, I just recently converted it to an automatic taxobox, but then you switched it back to the species box. I switched it to the automatic taxobox since the article is about a genus, not a species. Thus, according to the instructions here: Wikipedia:Automated taxobox system/intro, the automatic taxobox would be the correct one to use. Why did you switch it back to a species box? Could we agree to switch it back to the automatic taxobox? Thanks Cougroyalty (talk) 21:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But because Sacacosuchus is a monospecific, it does not need an automatic taxobox. For monospecific genera there would have to be a speciesbox, not an automatic taxobox. Automatic taxoboxes are only for taxa that have two or more species within the genus and/or for clades. Patachonica (talk) 21:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see anything supporting your claim that "Automatic taxoboxes are only for taxa that have two or more species within the genus". At this page: Wikipedia:Automated taxobox system/intro, it specifically states: "Template:Automatic taxobox is used for taxa at the rank of genus and above." At this page, Wikipedia:Automated taxobox system/which, the decision tree also leads to the conclusion that the speciesbox is for species, and the automatic taxobox is for genera and higher. I will concede that the speciesbox can be used for monospecific genera - at the template page here: Template:Speciesbox#Monospecific_genera it does specifically provide instructions for how to use the species box for monospecific genera. So at the very least, it is safe to say that either option is viable. So I'm willing to just leave it alone. But I will say that my personal preference is for the automatic taxobox, for the sake of consistency (all genera use the same taxobox), and also in case another species of the same genera is later discovered. It will be easy to add a second species to an automatic taxobox, but alternatively a speciesbox will have to be converted to an automatic taxobox. Do you have any particular reason why you prefer the speciesbox in this case? Thanks. Cougroyalty (talk) 21:58, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Fondation ADAN

Hello, Patachonica,

Please do not tag a page for speedy deletion, CSD G7 if the page creator is not the one requesting deletion. In this case, an IP editor blanked the talk page while a different editor actually wrote this draft article. Looking at the page history would have made this pretty obvious so please do so before you tag pages for deletion. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 04:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry, I was actually trying to tag CSD A3 but it didn't let me. Patachonica (talk) 04:23, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elephant 2.0

I redirected Elephantinae to Elephantidae. If you have a problem with that then discuss at the Rfc at the elephant talk page. LittleJerry (talk) 18:02, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox edit warrior

Just leave them alone, they can blank block notices. Acroterion (talk) 23:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, you're right, I'm just frustrated with them. Patachonica (talk) 23:45, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Their edits were not vandalism that needs to be reverted.I blocked because they were belligerent, but you were not in the right. Acroterion (talk) 23:47, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But was the IP, on the other hand, in the right? Patachonica (talk) 23:50, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NOTWALLOFSHAME and WP:RBI. Vandals want attention, and edit warring with them on their talk page is only giving them more. By the same token, pleading with vandals to stop is likely to have the opposite effect. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 00:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When the IP vandal was edit-warring, I said "please stop" like I have said to Cheese cake magic, but the IP didn't stop edit-warring. Patachonica (talk) 00:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have to realize that you were in the wrong there just as much as the IP was. The sandbox is meant for people to test their editing skills, and blanking the sandbox is allowed -- it gets cleared every couple hours automatically anyway. Asking disruptive editors politely to stop is very unlikely to get them to stop. It's best to revert, warn, report, and ignore vandals, to prevent them from being encouraged more. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 00:33, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerely apologize for the actions I've done, I promise not to do it again. Patachonica (talk) 00:36, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine -- you were trying to do the right thing. I've made mistakes like that before too. Just try to stick to reverting vandalism in the mainspace, where it's visible to readers, instead of the user talk and sandboxes. Thanks! >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 00:44, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a sock puppet!

Hi @patachonica,

I just saw your comment on my talk page, it seems you asked me a question but deleted it 2 minutes later.

I find the discussions on Wikipedia are very confusing. There are many places where others are tagging my account, and then I randomly find out my account is under investigation.

All I want is another set of eyes to look my request.

Anyway, I'm not a sock puppet of anyone. I'm only posting under my own account. I don't know who the others are, or what their past histories are.

Thanks, Sheytoon Sheytoon123 (talk) 04:08, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can go address your concerns at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Dnywlsh. Patachonica (talk) 14:04, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks I added a comment there as well, appreciate your response. Sheytoon123 (talk) 16:13, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sheytoon123 It was actually my fault really; I was socking myself. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 14:13, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022

Information icon Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If an administrator or bureaucrat feels that something at any of the Administrator or Bureaucrat Noticeboards is inappropriate, they are the ones allowed to remove those comments. Exceptions can be made for clearly racist, sexist, or actual defamatory statements, but generally editors without a mop are expected not to change other editors' comments in any significant manner. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 04:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

Hi. Thank you for your many sloth-related articles and redirects. Something I should perhaps mention is that a redirect must point to an article where the topic of the redirect is actually mentioned: so for example, Eufolivora is not mentioned in the article Sloth, even though that may seem the obvious target, so (for now) I've pointed it instead to Megatheriidae, which does mention Eufolivora. I wanted to give you an explanation of why I did that. Ingratis (talk) 08:20, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, Eufolivora actually refers to the clade including Mylodontidae and Megatherioidea, so Megatheriidae is the wrong target. Patachonica (talk) 16:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely fair enough - I know nothing about the subject and you do, and please change my edit. But from a purely box-ticking / rule-following point of view, whichever article you want Eufolivora to redirect to, should mention it. Ingratis (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2022 in Prince Edward Island

A tag has been placed on Category:2022 in Prince Edward Island indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Priosphenodon?

Priosphenodon avelasi as a synonym of Kaikaifilusaurus calvoi is proposed in the paper of Patagosphenos, but interestingly that 99% of the subsequent papers and studies continues using the name Priosphenodon avelasi rather than Kaikaifilusaurus calvoi, so it seems not to be a scientific consensus or a direct support. But the merge tag of Priosphenodon is proposed, we usually do formal merging if it was a scientific consensus.

What do you think? Huinculsaurus (talk) 02:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on which name was coined first, but then again both taxa were described in the same year (2003), so there's no way to tell which was named before unless there's a specific date IMO. Patachonica (talk) 02:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So is it more feasible to remove the merge tag on both pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 02:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I'm just gonna look at the dates of the papers describing the two taxa. Patachonica (talk) 02:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is what the Patagosphenos paper says:

"However, the original material of Kaikaifilusaurus calvoi shows diagnostic features (see detailed discussion below), and thus, we consider that Priosphenodon is a junior synonym of Kaikaifulusaurus calvoi"

Unfortunately I cannot get access to the full paper.

Do you have the link for that paper? Patachonica (talk) 02:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The paper link is here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 02:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And where is the link for the paper describing Kaikafilusaurus? Patachonica (talk) 02:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The paper describing Kaikaifilusaurus calvoi is this one: M. E. Simon and A. W. A. Kellner. 2003. New sphenodontid (Lepidosauria, Rhynchocephalia, Eilenodontinae) from the Candeleros Formation, Cenomanian of Patagonia, Argentina. Boletim do Museu Nacional, Geologia, nova série 68:1-12

But unfortunately I cannot find the link

The paper describing Priosphenodon avelasi is here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 04:49, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this at User talk:Magnatyrannus when I get unblocked. Thank you. Patachonica (talk) 15:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Magdalenabradys has been accepted

Magdalenabradys, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Theroadislong (talk) 07:05, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.
Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.
Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.
Girth Summit (blether) 09:11, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that you have a lot to offer this project, but you can't just keep creating new accounts when the last one gets blocked. Not only was this account created while you have an active block in place on more than one previous account, but I also see that you have been extensively WP:LOUTSOCKing, including posting requests about undeletion on admins' talk pages, and at least two instances of posting abusive messages to other users. All of this has to stop completely before you can be considered eligible for unblock. Also be aware of WP:3X - at the moment, an admin can unblock you at their discretion of you persuade them that you can edit productively. If you are caught socking again, you may be site-banned, which is much more difficult to overturn. Best Girth Summit (blether) 09:24, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add on here, Patachonica: I've had high hopes for you as an editor ever since I welcomed your original account, and I've been glad to see that on this account you've done fairly well to avoid the issues that Cullen328 identified in his original block rationale. If you can put together a compelling unblock request on your main account, personally I'd really like to hear what you have to say, because I'd hate to see yet another chapter in the long book titled Potentially Constructive Contributors Who Got Banned Because They Kept Making Sock Accounts Rather than Just Appeal Their Original Block. I'm open to working with you toward a solution here that doesn't see you sidelined from creating content for six months, but that has to start with you coming clean and committing to stop socking and LOUTSOCKing now.
I hope to see you over at User talk:Magnatyrannus. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 10:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]