Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! KylieTastic (talk) 18:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was:
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 User:Rugoconites Tenuirugosus/sandbox 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 User:Rugoconites Tenuirugosus/sandbox, 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.
Hello, Rugoconites Tenuirugosus!
Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! KylieTastic (talk) 18:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Eagleash was:
References need to be placed inline at the points in the content which they are intended to support. See WP:REFB for how to correctly add citations.
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 User:Rugoconites Tenuirugosus/sandbox 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 User:Rugoconites Tenuirugosus/sandbox, 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.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by GoingBatty was:
Citation needed. Also, please be more careful with your capitalization (which I have fixed).
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:Rugoconites tenuirugosus 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:Rugoconites tenuirugosus, 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.
In addition to David Biddulph's notice above, I need to warn you against simply taking images from other websites, cropping them and uploading them to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons unless there is a clear licence allowing Creative Commons commercial reuse. If you don't understand image licencing issues, simply don't do it unless you actually own the rights to the image you have made. As it happens, the person at Deviant Art appears to have unlawfully claimed this image as their own in May 2009, having themselves taken it from a Wikipedia image that was uploaded in 2006/2007 by User:Apokryltarossee here. But you didn't appear to realise this so, under normal circumstances, you would have been breaching one of our key policies on copyrighted content - though by some miracle it seems you haven't on this occasion.
I'm also unhappy about amateur artistic drawings (no matter how well-meaning) being used to illustrate articles unless the image contains a clear link to a Reliable scientific Source showing how the image was derived. So please tread carefully in future, and ensure you spend time looking for sources in the right places. I did comment to you at the Teahouse that you ought to ensure you use Google scholar to find good sources, but even the ones you have included yield more information than you've included here. Please fill in the gaps (what is it? where is it from? who are the authors of the species? etc from http://www.ediacaran.org/rugoconites.html.
If you can fix those little things, I'd then be only too happy to move it into mainspace for you. It can seem demoralising if everyone drops by and says "do this" ; "don't do that" - but that's how things often go if you dive in feet first as you've done by creating a new page on a missing taxon right from the very start. With over 6.2 million + articles here, t's important that we each take responsibility for ensuring our new articles look their best and conform to the style we've agreed upon before going live. You'll get your head around all of this in good time, I'm sure. Thanks, and regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While regarding the fact that you always put up My drawings of ancient animals up for deletion, I want to know something;
How come this file of Albumares File:Albumares_brunsae.png doesn't get put up for deletion, because it's quite similar to the drawings I've uploaded (Which Got Banned) And yet this doesn't?
And I know you're gonna use the "This paleontological restoration is inaccurate, or its accuracy is disputed." as your evidence to why it isn't deleted. And if you are actually gonna use that, I want to know how I can add it when I upload A drawing of mine. Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 07:25, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rugoconites Tenuirugosus! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
Hi Rugoconites Tenuirugosus! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
Please don't create and add vague interpretations of how a fossil might have looked in real life had it been painted bright green. Unless you can cite a reliable, scientific source upon which a reconstruction is based, there is no place for imagined illustrations on Wikipedia like this. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for moving Kotuites to draft space as I am not going to edit it any further since someone told me that Kotuites was just another name for Anabarites or something like that.Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 15:22, 19 February 2022 (UTC)User:Rugoconites_Tenuirugosus[reply]
Hello, I'm not an expert in this area but I'm very confused about the title of this article. Should it be Leptogromia operculata or just Leptogromia? Just to make matters worse in the taxobox the genus is Gromia should this be Leptogromia? Regards
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Hughesdarren}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
@Hughesdarren Just to come back to you on your first point, please see WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA. Assuming it is genuinely a monotypic genus, which it looks like, this user did do the right thing by naming the article after the genus, even though it is about the species. However the article does not yet make this clear, and I hope it will be addressed. As well as your point about the taxobox, there also appears to be a further issue around its taxonomy, as one recent researcher has placed it in a new family Trivalvulariidae, and that, in turn in a new order Trivalvulariida. I suspect none of us are going to want to delve too deeply into the taxonomy of this group (!) though user RT might well wish to refer to this in their new article, whilst addressing the italicisation of scientific names in due course, too. See source. Cheers from a Talk Page Stalker. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK I created a new template for leptogromia, based on what I read I think the taxonomy is correct. Could you please check my work? If I am mistaken let me know here and I'll fix or delete what I have done. Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 21:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick Moyes I'm trying to do that right now at the time or writing this , but every time I try to put Trivalvulariidae in the family section or Trivalvulariida in the order section it keeps on ruining and breaking (glitching out the taxobox) the template. What should I do when I Encounter this? And how do I create a Taxobox template , because when I try to look at other ones and copy what they've done , it glitches out.Rugoconites TenuirugosusRugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)User:Rugoconites_Tenuirugosus[reply]
I suggest you ask advice from editors at an appropriate WikiProject, and keep articles as drafts until they're less of a mess (as at Zolotytsia which really needs sorting out. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.
Hi Rugoconites Tenuirugosus! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Can anyone help me inproove this article?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.
Hi Rugoconites Tenuirugosus! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Echoconotus references and taxobox, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.
Hello again. I recognise that English is probably not your first language, but following on from my concerns expressed at the Teahouse about your inability to find what should be easily-findable scientific sources, I need to raise another concern with you.
You recently created a new article on the ladybird beetle Hong slipinskii from Chile, stating a single female specimen of this species had been found in Australia. This is a complete misrepresentation of the source, and I have removed it I need you to be more careful in future when interpreting sources, as I suggested elsewhere, you could be responsible for spreading misinformation outside of Wikipedia, either by carelessness or a lack of ability to understand the sources you are reading and basing new articles upon.
For clarity, and using only the source you cited, the genus Hong is known from species found in Chile and Australia. One species only from Australia, and two new species discovered and known only from Chile. However, the genus Hong is authored by Ślipiński, so the genus is written in that source as Hong Ślipiński, 2008. Confusingly, the species you write about was found in Chile and was named in honour of Mr Ślipiński, and is known as Hong slipinskii González & Escalona, 2013. This is a very significant difference, yet one you should have spotted when using the source to create an article. Once again I have to ask you to take care when interpreting sources and question whether working on new articles and interpreting sources is really an area you should be delving into without gaining a little more understanding of taxonomy and the intricacies of using scientific sources. Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for telling me that , I will now try to read the sources extra carefully , and probably translate them into my native language so I can understand them better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rugoconites_Tenuirugosus (talk • contribs)
I think that is essential!
I have since found another fundamental error you made in reading a single source. This time it's at your new article for (Hong guerreroi). Your mistake was unfortunately then innocently compounded by a subsequent editor (YorkshireExpat) whilst copy editing your work. It relates to the collector of the specimens, and to the authority that subsequently named the species. Could you check and fix this, please? (Forgive me for not simply telling you your mistake again, but I need you to learn where you're going wrong and to understand that small errors in reading and interpreting new species accounts like these become compounded if nobody thinks to properly read the source material when they start the article.) Let me know when you've sorted it (and added which country it was from) Oh - and a proper functioning wikilink to Los Ruiles National Reserve would be nice as well. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@YorkshireExpat Don't panic! I assume you only read the Wikipedia article and copyedited their text, rather than going back to the source. Had you done so, I'm sure you'd have spotted the error. I don't speak any Spanish either, but it's an error I need this editor to understand for themselves, rather than you. I have concerns that they're rather overstretching themselves in trying to address underworked groups from sources they're not properly assessing. We're not at the level where WP:CIR applies, but with modern technology nobody has an excuse not to understand a language, and especially so when it's a fundamental one that stands out like a sore thumb on a single page. But we all have to learn, so I'm trying to be a bit blunt here in order to gently knock some sense and understanding into a keen editor so that they can contribute usefully and effectively.
So, watch this space and lets hope RugoT can not only indent his reply correctly, but also tell us the mistake I am alluding to (= hinting at) so it doesn't happen again. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:03, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please go back and improve the citation you tried to insert with this edit.
You must include author, publication, paper title, date at bare minimum. This doesn't seem to be a paywalled reference, it some quite inaccessible link to goodness knows what. If you provide proper details, other editors at least stand a chance to finding the reference sources elsewhere. As it is it's quite useless. See WP:REFBEGIN on how to use the Cite button whilst editing.
Please also remember to use WP:EDITSUMMARIES whenever you ad content. It is unfair to people like me who are having to trail along behind you sorting out your mess when we can't quickly tell what each of your edits were doing. It doesn't need to be long: "Add ref", "copy edit", "add cited statement" "change image" etc will do. 80% of your edits have so far failed to include on - and I'd like to see that percentage reducing, please. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. CUPIDICAE💕18:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your thread has been archived
Hi Rugoconites Tenuirugosus! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Ancient jellyfish identification, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.
Note: RugoTen: The level of immaturity you have demonstrated in recreating this previously-deleted page, and the text you left in its place ("ur mum!11!!1!1") is extremely worrying, and requires an explanation better than 'my brother did it'. I have already tried to help and encourage you to edit constructively and to read scientific sources correctly, yet also explained to you that WP:Competence is required. If you now decide you're simply going to mess around by creating nonsense, then you may find yourself getting blocked to avoid disruption. Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why I typed that silly and stupid thing and created that page is because I though it would be """really funny""" because of how I think that "I am funny". I do apologize for what I've done and I'll never do it ever again seeing as this may impact what other people think of me on the internet , especially on Wikipedia , a place where people want reliable information and not unfunny jokes.Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 13:15, 18 February 2022 (UTC)User:Rugoconites_Tenuirugosus[reply]
Thank you for recognising that was a mistake. I like humour here too (I even wrote this!), but it has to be very carefully handled, and only on talk pages, and always in the context of this being a serious encyclopaedia which collates and brings together published, reliable information. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:59, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An article you recently created, Gastreochrea, 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. RoanokeVirginia (talk) 15:12, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello , I just wanted to say that I accidently published the article because I actually wanted to see how it looks , but instead I pressed the publish button without thinking, I also left a message in there in order to let people know that I accidently published it, I will also probably try to fix the Taxobox itself.Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)User:Rugoconites_Tenuirugosus[reply]
Wikipedia and copyright
Hello Rugoconites Tenuirugosus! Your additions to Draft:Gastreochrea have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.
It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 16:03, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ediacaran fossils articles
For what purpose do you write and edit articles about Ediacaran fossils and anabaritids on Wikipedia? The Ediacaran fauna is a complex topic even for professional paleontologists. Unfortunately, you do not have enough knowledge in paleontology and biology to write good useful articles. Wikipedia should not contain articles about all the insignificant and meaningless fossils. I got the impression that you write articles so that you, someone will tell you about these fossils. This is an irresponsible way of creating articles and getting information. It is unpleasant and there is no desire to rake the Augean stables you have arranged and explain something to you.
It is good that you are interested in the Ediacaran fauna, but you do not have the competence to write articles. Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC))[reply]
You are free to do as you wish. My only advice is to choose a format for editing wiki-articles in which you will make a minimum of mistakes and gain experience with information. Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 09:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC))[reply]
In my sandbox I learned how to make proper sources by copying what other editors to in order to correct my sources. Should I continue to gain experience in writing articles by copying what others do? Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 17:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your lack of competence in understanding technical topics
Whilst welcoming and supporting your amateur interest (off-wiki) in obscure fossil groups, I have to once again ask you to stop creating misleading articles here when it seems clear you either do not understand, or do not bother to properly read and comprehend the scientific literature about them that you cite. I refer you to Alnagov's concerns above. Here are some of my reasons why you need to stop trying to create them, and to find easier topics to edit.
At the Teahouse you asked a specific question about whether you could use two sources (including this one) to create an article on Wigwamiella, and I clearly told you that would not be appropriate as your interpretation and understanding was flawed, and I explained why (diff). Another editor also expressed concern at your desire to use amateur artwork, and I advised you to stop working in topics you do not properly understand.
Despite the above, you still went ahead and created Wigwamiella enigmatica, a wholly uncited and misleading article. Please explain why you did that, and what you think should happen to it now, based upon the sources you supplied to us at the Teahouse (and the lower quality source you subsequently used?
You created another article yesterday on Lorenzinites, even discussing your uncertainties about it on the talk page. I explained there that you should have read and understood the one key source you did cite and I then redirected the article to Rugoconites, bearing in mind there is a merge discussion going on bring the two species within it together on that one page.
You then decided to blank that redirect (diff), which is not an acceptable method of dealing with any article or redirect.
I have fully supported (and applauded) your recent creation off-wiki website where you can fantasise or theorise to your hearts content about imaginary taxa and past environments without introducing errors to Wikipedia. I need you to see your limitations and to curb your enthusiasm for making feebly researched articles on extremely complex topics on obscure organisms and taphomorphs (I even created a redirect and edited the article on Taphonomy so you could understand what the term means.)
Following along in your wake to clean up your mistakes and lack of understanding (including your failure to interpet sources correctly in the genus Hong is time consuming and disruptive. I have already mentioned that Competence is required. I really think all draft you prepare should be submitted to Articles for Creation, and not moved directly into mainspace.
If you do continue to create low quality, misleading articles based upon either your personal guesswork, or your failure to find and interpret proper sources correctly, then I might need to seek a topic ban that could stop you from editing fossil-related topics, and the ediacaran fossils in particular. Now, I really, genuinely don't want to do this, as I can see you're so keen on the subject, and I have been trying to support you ([2]; [3]) But I need you to understand that, as another editor has already told you, this is a very specialised palaeontological area. Even as a museum natural sciences curator with 30 years experience, I would not pretend I properly understood it myself, but I do at least have the ability to find, read and interpret sources correctly- something you are currently seriously lacking. So, it is better not to have an article at all than for you to create ones that are simply misleading or based upon your guesswork. Nick Moyes (talk) 02:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rugoconites Tenuirugosus! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Wigwamiella article references, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was:
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:Mulberry primary school 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:Mulberry primary school, 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.
Once again, you are writing an article on a topic completely unfamiliar to you. What for? Thus you create and distribute false information, fakes on Wikipedia.
1. This image is not a photo of Bilinichnus, but the emblem of the Ichnofossil section of fossiilid.info site. By the way, it is Treptichnus pedum trace fossils.
2. You write "Bilinichnus simplex is a series of trace fossils from the Cambrian Period which resemble tube-like structures" - this description is completely false. It is not "series", not Cambrian but Ediacaron (Vendian) in age, and not "resemble tube-like structures". Bilinichnus consists of two parallel ridges on sandstone bed sole, originally interpreted as trail of peristaltic locomotion of gastropod-like animal. At present, this structure is recognized as a pseudofossil (sedimentary structure groove casts). Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 13:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC))[reply]
@Rugoconites TenuirugosusWhat on earth do you think you're doing? Not only was your language to @Alnagov wholly unacceptable, but I came here to inform you of your incompetence once again, only to find that Alnagov had beaten me to it. The image you uploaded to Commons (see here), is so obviously not that of the species you assert it to be, that I was astounded when I saw it. Was that done as a hoax, or simply because you are not skilled enough to know what you are doing? As stated by Alnagov, it's simply the image used to indicate the entire trace fossil category at the website you took it from!
This draft has, unfortunately, crossed with your somewhat petulant post to my talk page. As I said there, it may now be time to ask the community at WP:ANI to topic ban you per WP:CIR from creating any more nonsense-filled pages and uploads. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:29, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you actually think that someone would be able to cope with a person which quite literally just stalks (not in the means that they go on to find their home) every single article they make then just make a giant paragraph filled to the brim with information that I'll probably not even understand since I'm not of English origin? Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 18:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious?
I stumbled across an article you had heavy hand in. It was not very well-written, so I went to your page, and boy are you a doozy. You Write Like This, you curse at other editors, you're in primary school (apparently), and you have a website in comic sans. I can only assume either A) you are a young child (even if you swear at people), B) English is not your first language, or C) you are a troll. Which one?
@Asparagusus I fully understand your frustration. You’ll have seen that I am myself close to giving up in trying to help and guide this unskilled new user who seems incapable of learning how to edit well. However, I think it’s preferable to stay as polite and respectful as possible, please. You are certainly correct with B), and possibly A). I’m not sure myself what a ‘doozy’ is, so I’m sure a second-language user won’t. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:40, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
" and you have a website in comic sans." What even is the problem with having a website which uses comic sans? Is the only reason why comic sans is "bad" just because of the inconsistent size of the letters? Or that the popular opinion "COMICS SANS IS BAD!!!" has gotten into your mind? Look, I only like using the font because I (in my opinion) think it suits the website well. Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 19:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A) is total nonsense. No, why would people even imagine that someone editing on one of the worlds most important websites in history is a child of all things? B) is the most correct statement that you've said. C) is as trustful as A). Why do you even go out attacking me for no reason? I apologised to the editor which I sweared at recently and I also said that I show signs of anger issues. I am trying to forget about the website I made as it was a total failure. You might as well make up things such as "Rugoconites Tenuirugosus came out of space and is trying to brainwash us" which sounds as realistic as your statements. Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Palaeopascichnid
Oh... "The first specimens of this group were discovered in 1972 by Yu.R Becker". It is fals. In 1972 Yu.Becker discovered the Ediacaran fossil locality in the Krasnaya Gorka site on the Middle Uurals, first palaeopascichnid fossils in this site were found in 2020. The first mention of a palaeopascichnid fossils as unnamed "Meander trails" appears in M.F. Glassner's 1969 article. The next mention is V.M. Palij's paper, where he described Palaepascichnus delicatus Palij, 1976.
Glaessner, M.F., 1969. Trace fossils from the Precambrian and basal Cambrian. Lethaia 2, 369–393.
Palij, V.M., 1976. Remains of soft-bodied animals and trace fossils from the Upper Precambrian and Lower Cambrian of Podolia. In: Schul’ga, P.L. (Ed.), Palaeontology and Stratigraphy of Upper Precambrian and Lower Cambrian of Southwestern East European Platform. Naukova Dumka, Kiev, pp. 63–76 (in Russian).
"... are thought to be traces or burrows. ... The fossils are thought to have been a product of worm movement over the ocean floor." and "... are believed to be the first ever macroorganisms (or macrofossils) that show signs of an agglutinated skeleton."
Is the agglutinated skeleton a product of the worm's movement? Think before you write something. You definitely didn't read the articles you linked to... Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 21:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC))[reply]
I read the Russian and English versions of this article, there is not a word that Becker was the first to discover palaeopascichnids. Only that he discovered the locality Krasnaya Gorka. If you have a different opinion about the content of the article, please quote from it. We all make mistakes sometimes, we misunderstand something. Therefore, before disseminating information (writing articles), everything must be re-read and rechecked. Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 14:20, 4 May 2022 (UTC))[reply]
I checked the source which I claimed to have said that Yu.R Becker discovered the Palaeopascichnid group, I think I got that idea from seeing the tiny description which google shows when there's a link. Should I remove that part? Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 06:41, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tirasiana: Another article about a taxon you don't understand?
Hello. I see you have created yet another somewhat troublesome article - this time Tirasiana. Please check and fix all the urls to the references, because the key ones to recent research papers you have cited are WP:DEADLINKS right now - and that should never happen with a brand new article.
You've stated Tirasiana is a genus, but that does not seem to be substantiated by the mindat.org references you put in. Please would you explain the relationship to Aspidella, as my quick glance and interpretation of the accessible sources you listed is that it would be much more appropriate to make this simply a WP:REDIRECT to the form genus, Aspidella. If you don't want that to happen, you'll need to explain why.
It's important you appreciate that, with highly obscure fossils and especially form genera like these, the taxonomy, nomenclature and academic interpretation is very changeable. Therefore, you need to find and utilise the most modern sources, and not reply on short clips from Google books which give an inadequate picture. The bottom line is that if you don't properly understand the topic or the sources, then don't write about it.
Thanks for telling me that, I've fixed the punctuation in the article , and also put aspidella as the genus, but I do not understand why aspidella needs to be a genus because most articles put the genus as the first name of the species (e.g. Rugoconites tenuirugosus), which would make the species have aspidella at the start of the their name , like Aspidella concentralis. For the dead links, I simply copy and pasted what the references looked like from Medusinites and also got the taxobox from there (which resulted in the taxobox working without having someone to spend their time fixing it (YorkshireExpat changed the taxobox template I got from Medusinites and instead used a automatic Taxobox , and also Didn't put aspidella there , instead putting incertea sedis in the order section) Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 11:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't surprise me that you do not actually read the sources that you cite (because I have already tried to explain to you some of the errors you have made in failing to interpret sources correctly in other articles you have started). But are you seriously telling me you copied references without either checking they work and without reading them?
And if you don't know what a form genus is, you should not be trying to create articles about obscure 'species' just because of some schoolboy hobby that you have. You should do that elsewhere. I really do want to encourage you to learn and go on to become a student of palaeontology, but my worry is that your demonstrable lack of understanding and competence in this field never changes. So, I apologise to you for sounding as though I'm picking on you. I am happy to answer any questions you have, providing that you are willing to listen and act upon my advice. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:32, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Deb was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
The comment the reviewer left was:
Context, please.
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:Gastreochrea 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:Gastreochrea, 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.
By "context", I think Deb means that you need to explain in a logical manner what it is that you are saying about this subject.
Yet again, I see an utterly incoherent article or draft article from you, and it simply confirms my feeling that you should be 'topic banned' from attempting to create these utterly confusing articles about Ediacaran fossils. I know that English is not your first language, but we need articles that are factual, clear and correct. I am a supporter of WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES for poor articles, but this does not apply to your misunderstanding of this topic, because you make the same mistakes over and over again. I appreciate that I am too WP:INVOLVED to take action myself, and I would prefer to support you rather than block you. So, ask away, whenever you want an opinion from me. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If I quite literally make the same mistakes over and over again without realising them, why don't you just topic ban me in order to learn the mistakes of writing worthless long paragraphs just to post them on my talk page? Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 18:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would much rather encourage and help you to improve (I have tried) so that you do not write nonsense. Banning or blocking is appropriate where disruption is occurring or where competence is clearly lacking. I also know that you are passionately interested in the subject - and that is wonderful in itself. I have tried to encourage you to pursue that interest away from Wikipedia, and you took that advice. I simply want you to learn to edit on Wikipedia within your limitations and competence, and to take small, careful steps and gradually improve your skills of finding and understanding sources, and not misinterpreting them in this extremely complex area, which you have kept on doing these past few months. Failing to understand your weaknesses in comprehending a difficult subject simply results in new articles misleading other users. If you can't show us that you have the skills, maturity and understanding to do that, then it might well be time to consider such a ban. However, even though I am an administrator, I would not do that myself. That would be WP:HOUNDING and WP:INVOLVED, and not fair to you.
I have spent my life communicating science to people, and I would gladly help you if only you were to ask for assistance to check things, rather than rushing in and making so many errors in a very technical topic. It would actually be for the wider community to decide if such a ban were appropriate. I really hope you can show me and everyone else that that is not necessary. If you're confused - just ask for help! I can be firm, but fair and helpful, too! Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:11, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do indeed understand what you're trying to say. But, I have a question I would really want to know the answer to;
How come when I upload a drawing which I made, it always gets deleted, but this drawing of Albumares File:Albumares_brunsae.png Doesn't, Even though it's still artwork which is similar to mine.
And yes, You're probably going to use the "This paleontological restoration is inaccurate, or its accuracy is disputed." as a way to defend it, but if you are actually going to use that as a defense towards the file, I want to know how to add it to My files. Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 07:05, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The hope was that you would get a helpful reply to your "Why was my image deleted but not Apokryltaros'/Mr Fink's?" question. It was worth a shot. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:35, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted the image you added to the See also section of Dickinsonia because the animals pictured, which were named Dendrogramma, have been identified as a type of Siphonophore. I have two problems with your addition: 1. The See also section is for links only to existing English Wikipedia articles, and, 2. As the taxon name "Dendrogramma" was given in the source from which that photo was taken, you should have checked what coverage Wikipedia had for the taxon, in which case you would have found that that DNA testing of further specimens established that it is a member of an extant phylum. - Donald Albury15:57, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Rugoconites Tenuirugosus. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Exochonotus, 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.
Hello, Rugoconites Tenuirugosus. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Exochonotus".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If 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.
Following my comment at the Teahouse today. Your draft at User:Rugoconites Tenuirugosus/sandbox had the first two references as simple URL one of which (the one I worked on) was https://www.lyellcollection.org/doi/10.1144/pygs.57.1.61 The important bit is that, as is common in many modern publications they use a link with a digital object identifier (read that article for details). Fortunately, Wikipedia has a gadget you can install called the WP:citation expander. Read the Help article carefully and then install it by following the instructions. Now you'll have in the source editor a little ✔ Citations button at the bottom next to the "show changes" button. This allows you to convert a cite in the form {{cite journal |doi=10.1144/pygs.57.1.61}} into the full citation #2 I initially added to the article. The magic doesn't stop there, however! If you go to your sandbox or any other page in article or draft space you'll see a menu option on the left at the bottom of the "Tools" section saying "Expand citations". This is the same gadget. So anyone can use it on an existing page and it will do its best to complete partial citations into full ones. I did that a few minutes ago in your sandbox with very useful results. You'll see the diff here with an edit summary showing it was the bot activated by me. Note that you have to give the bot permission to run and if you invoke it using "Expand citations" you can't stop the edit happening. Hence I often prefer to use it via the source-editor gadget, where one gets the option of previewing the edit before it gets published/saved. By all means ping me here if you have more questions about this. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, your final citation was to the Geological Magazine but it isn't obvious which edition + page etc. you actually wanted to use to back up the detail in the draft. You should be able to search for it at the Cambridge core website. Let me know if you can't get access to do the search, as I certainly do have access. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:09, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and this is doi:10.1017/S0016756800116383, so once you've got the expander going, make that your first trial (although it's already in the draft). Note the other trick, that you can wikilink DOI as I just did. Not for articles but incredibly useful on Talk pages as it saves faffing around with URL. Also, if you click through from the drawing of the beast into its page on Commons, there seem to be some other citation in its description you could use Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:57, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much, although I do have one question. Does the Citations button have differences in where you get it from? Since I want to be sure whether which one is the correct one I should be using (I'll be trying to use it in the sandbox when I eventually make another article which involves PDF's, book's and etc.)Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 1:02, August 12 2022 (UTC) Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 3:52, 12 August 2022 (UTC) Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 13:52, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of tools/gadgets that different editors use but I can vouch for the one called the citation expander which I linked above. In many years of use it has never let me down, especially for DOI -> citation. It's not always quite so good for book ISBN -> citation or web URL -> citation but that's more because the lookups it uses don't always have the data in formats it can understand. My only grumble sometimes is that it can be a bit slow (say 60 seconds rather than the usual 10) and very occasionally it returns an error. Give it a try! If you look at my sandbox User:Michael D. Turnbull/sandbox you'll see on most days that it only contains a couple of empty citation templates, so I can copy/paste in DOI and get the gadget to do its magic. Incidentally make sure you spell "cite" correctly on talk pages: it is not the same meaning as "site" and can be confusing if you use the wrong one. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:26, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maiocercus, 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 Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs 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.
Hi Rugoconites Tenuirugosus! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Referencing, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.
Hi Rugoconites Tenuirugosus! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Draftspace, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Gusfriend were:
This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.
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 after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Sun sorb and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Hylaecullulus, 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 Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs 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.
I am familiar with Gritsenko, Martyshyn and the collector Finko. Unfortunately, they lack professionalism and sanity. The Finkoella ukrainica described by Martyshyn is a clay clasters, Finkoella oblonga is a sedimentary structure of microbial origin, not tunicate fossils. Martyshyn has an amazing collection of Ukrainian Ediacaran fossils, but he describes some kind of garbage. Unfortunately, most species described by Gitsenko are synonyms of previously described fossils and will sooner or later be recognized as invalid, now we simply ignore them. He is stuck in the 1940s-80s, ignoring contemporary and foreign research and articles. Menasova needed a scientific degree for her career, her PhD was written for her by another person...
That's really sad. Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 11:19, 26 October 2022 (UTC))[reply]
Leave it as is. I can advise you not to write wiki-articles about the fossils described by Gritsenko, Martyshyn, and Menasova. Almost all the papaers of these authors are freely available on the Internet, who are interested in the fossils they describe, they will find them. But I don't insist on it. Martyshyn has articles with interesting useful material, but an article about Finkoella is not this case. Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 12:56, 26 October 2022 (UTC))[reply]
That doesn't answer half of my question about whether or not I should edit them once a new paper comes out in a publication talking about Finkoella and the "others" that you mention (I may request that I want to see these "others" that you state about). Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 13:12, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, regarding one of your pieces of evidence on the merge discussion for my first page, Rugoconites tenuirugosus, you've stated the following "Richard Jenkins erected Wadea genus to include Rugoconites tenuirugosus in 1992 without clear justification and formal diagnosis. Since then, no one has ever mentioned this genus as relevant, his proposal was tacitly rejected by other specialists. In addition, in the book The Rise of Animals (2007), the Wadea genus is recognized as junior synonym of Rugoconites. Among specialists this genus is forgotten like an absurd dream." you mention a preview of The Rise of Animals, and in that preview you expect people which are viewing the conversation to believe you since you're practically saying it without any justification for your claim that the genus Wadea is even mentioned in the book whatsoever when the page that it is mentioned on isn't even available? This is coming from a perspective from someone which doesn't actually have the book in their hands (Although, I can verify that it is in the book since I have the book at home and use it to check some of my information). But still, if a person which doesn't have the book comes across that message you sent they'll go onto the link you provided for that preview and then think you're either making that claim up, or that it isn't in the book.
I would also like to make a quick claim about what you said about ignoring taxa like Finkoella, Lorenzinites is an example of what you said. Although it's in the reverse from my perspective since the editor which made the redirect of Lorenzinites to Rugoconites used a reference which is almost 40 years old from The Dawn of Animal Life (ttps://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Dawn_of_Animal_Life/VGo5AAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Lorenzinites&pg=PA243&printsec=frontcover) in which Martin states "No further specimens of the form described as Lorenzinites have been found. I am inclined to consider it as an aberrant Rugoconites". Since you also said that "..And will sooner or later be recognized as invalid" and in the case of Lorenzinites, this might either be both possible outcomes considering that the last mention of it was probably in some old paper from like 20 years ago that only mentions it as being possibly part of the Schyphozoa. I know this entire text may sound like a huge paragraph that only adds onto how much of a stubborn person I am when it comes to advice and that I try to disprove everything, but I need to say this so that way I can't continue old conversations that took place like 6-7 months ago. With all gratitude, Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 13:09, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1) I wrote to you about Finkoella because you are interested in Ediacaran fossils. This is my expert assessment as a person who has been collecting and scientific studying Ediacaran fossils for 20 years and has personally known Andrey Martyshyn and Sergey Finko and their collections for several years.
2) You do not need to redirect or delete Finkoella article, because there is no formal reason for this, there are no papers to refer to. Perhaps they will appear only after many years...
3) I recommend not writing new wiki articles about the fossils described by Martyshyn so you don't spread their delusions. However I have no right or desire to tell you what to do. You are free in your actions. I can only express my expert opinion and recommendations.
4) "Garbage" I called Finkoella and Tymkivia from his PhD thesis and everything that Gritsenko and Menasova described.
5) Pharyngomorpha is a real fossil, similar fossil are known from Moldova.
6) This is Andrey Martyshyn's PhD thesis, written in Ukrainian, not an article by another author. I would not accept his Ph.D. thesis for defense and refuse to award him PhD title, because Finkoella ukrainica, Finkoella oblonga, Tymkivia ancoralis and Tymkivia solodkii heve sedimentary nature, not fossils.
Just in case, I warn you that the species described only in the dissertation are unpublished and do not exist for science, there is no need to write wiki articles about them.
7) BooksGoogle itself randomly decides which pages to show you. If you have reached the limit of viewing pages, they will be closed to you.
8) In the 1999-2000 there was a revolution in the study and understanding of the nature of the Ediacaran fossils. Almost all ideas about Ediacaran fossils previous years turned out to be erroneous. Nearly all discoid fossils described as jellyfish, medusazoans, scyphozooi, cnidarians are recognized as organs of attachment, myriad of their species are rejected or simply forgotten like a nightmare. In simple fossils, described from single specimens (Lorenzinites, Wigwamiella), everyone sees what he wants, such fossils have no meaning and is currently forgotten by scientists.
9) There will always be different opinions and disputes.
1) I was dubious about your claim of knowing Martyshyn since you cited no sources as to what you said, even a quote would've made me believe that (especially if it gave insight into how he describes species and/or how much of a professional he really is)
2) That's the point of what I was saying when regarding whether or not I should change the article as soon as new information comes out regarding Finkoella
3) You have some rights to tell me what to do and whether it's correct or not. I'm the amateur in this situation, you're the expert. I simply am too stubborn to the point that I require evidence to believe anyone on a claim about someone
4)I was thinking about the source from the Finkoella article itself, not his PhD thesis. Although I got that completely wrong
5)Pharyngomorpha was described by Martyshyn, which means that the information I am looking for about Pharyngomorpha is untrustful given how you say that Martyshyn has a lack of professionalism and sanity
6) I confused it with another article (this may sound like the most blatent thing to say, but It's because when I see something mentioning x animal, I immedietly go for it without any further notice and extract all information from that source, I only don't use it when I realise it says the same things as the other source which I got before the source which has the same text)
7) Yes, I know that, I said that because I knew there were gonna be skeptics out there (like me, although I do have the physical book in my hands) that challange everything and try to squeeze as much evidence they can from the person which said that "x is in this book" until they finally get what they want and aren't gonna question it further
8) The Fossil book is a great example of how some Ediacaran palaeontologists still think that the Discoidal fossils are jellyfish (even if this idea is outdated) and Lorenzinites is forgotten about palaeontologists because they don't bother talking about a species which seriously needs re-documentation and instead still assume that a documentation from almost 40 years ago is still trustworthy given the fact that since then, many more ideas have been brought on about the Ediacaran biota and the nature of discoidal and polyp-like organisms. It is generally accepted, on the other hand, that Wigwamiella is a deformed Aspidella or Pseudorhizostomites as seen in The Rise of Animals
9) Since there are always gonna be different opinions, these are bound to somehow or in some way be proven wrong, argued against or built upon over time since most references that specifically focus on the Ediacaran biota are most before the revolution is visualising the Ediacaran biota and studying it which happened during 1999-2000 as you said. I am mostly talking about books and not publications, and those examples being The Garden of Ediacara and The Dawn of Animal life: A Biohistorical study with The Dawn of Animal life being a peculiar example since that's also where the claim about Lorenzinites being Rugoconites came from. Even books like The Rise of Animals get things wrong, like grouping some of the Members of Trilobozoa with Echinodermata and saying that Sprigginidae is part of Paratrilobita. I get that these claims are outdated ideas, although it's still important to realise that the book itself is sharing outdated information mainly to people who just casually study the Ediacaran biota and don't bother to fact check it. It's also rightfully to think that these claims may be fixed with the "new version" of the Rise of Animals book (which I think appears in this image all the way at the bottom of the site, along with a Chinese version, with the new edition being the white one. If someone somehow finds out how to get the new edition which is in that photo and uploads a preview of it onto the internet (in a legal way, of course) the old Rise of Animals would certainly be used less and less if this scenario does indeed occur. Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me if I'm wrong but does this mean that Finkoella is a pseudofossil? Since those rounded clay pebbles which are preserved in negative hyporelief bare a slight resembalance to the holotype of Finkoella which can be seen on my Finkoella page, with the same clay pebbles being labelled as Juveniles of Finkoella as well as there suddenly being a piece of a supposed bigger individual near them which is more oval-shaped that resembles a stretched version of one of these pebbles. Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a pseudofossil, just a clay pebble :) I wrote about this in detail to Sergei Finko in 2013, and to Andrey Martyshin in 2014. In some places they are very numerous in the Ediacaran deposits, we regularly see them, even in the deposits of the Permian, Carboniferous and Cambrian I met them. Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 21:32, 27 October 2022 (UTC))[reply]
The publication of private opinion is prohibited in wiki-articles, only information from published official sources is allowed. But I think it is possible to note the similarity of the Fincoella fossils with the imprints of clay pebbles from the Ediacaran deposits of the White Sea area (Grazhdankin, 2004; Bobrovskiy et al., 2019). Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 09:14, 28 October 2022 (UTC))[reply]
Hello, Rugoconites Tenuirugosus. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Kotuites, 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.
I completely forgot about the articles that edited and created by user Prescov, if it weren’t for your edit, I wouldn’t remember. I work from morning until late at night, there is no time for Wikipedia... The Prescov created false articles and falsified information, wrote his personal fantasies. See his User talk:Prescov. In particular, the Medusoids article. No one has ever erected a phylum Medusoids, and Berthold Hatschek did not do this either in 1888. This type does not exist, it was invented by the user Prescov. Medusoid is a non-specific term meaning jellyfish-like, living like a jellyfish, a life-form of polyp on jellyfish stage. Since the Ediacaran discoid fossils were previously thought to be free-swimming jellyfish, they were called medusoids. As well as a discoid is just a reference to the disc-like form of a fossils or something else. Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2022 (UTC))[reply]
If I remember correctly, Prescov also sometimes edits my articles. Should I be worried of that? Also, I was also thinking that the article was dubious because of how it included taxa (such as kimberella) which weren't even thought to be Medusoid-like, although Kimberella was though to be a cubozoan. It's also important to note how every single article that relates to some kind of Discoidal organism that is in the form genus Aspidella, does not cite any relationship between the X discoidal organism with the Medusoids. It's also quite misleading to the average viewer of the article since it classifies both Nemiana and Beltanelliformis in the same imaginary class that he has made up, and even went as far as to put them within the Cambrian even though on the taxobox for the "Medusoids", it says that it's somewhere around 560 MA which contradicts that statement of the "Medusoids" being in the Cambrian. This whole article is just a imaginary mess of fake ideas and mis-interpreting of references as well as making up lies about other genera from the Ediacaran. Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 18:54, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I Would also like to point out that when Prescov created the article, he translated it from the Spanish Wikipedia, which means that the person which made the article on the Spanish Wikipedia also has played a part into this imaginary phylum of organisms which we now know are thought to have been Holdfasts of Petalonamids with the main root part being de-attached. Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, Wikipedia contains a lot of erroneous, false, and even fals user-made information that other users mindlessly replicate, and Wiki-clones multiply this lie all over the Internet. Wikipedia is not a source of truthful information even in such innocuous topics as paleontology, not to mention the politics and history. In politics, media, and even on Wikipedia, information is easily manipulated :) Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2022 (UTC))[reply]
Information of Wikipedia (esspecially when someone is translating it) can easily be manipulated and twisted to fit the users mindset and favours. In my opinion, when regarding the Medusoid article it's not entirely Prescov's fault that he made the article, although it's more efficient to put it as baiting. Since the user of the Spanish Wikipedia which made the article, which is agradecer (see https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medusoide) that actually made up the lie. Although it could be argued that Prescov probably and intentionally translate the article from the Spanish version to the English version so it can get recognized on the the English Wikipedia. Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 13:51, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pteridiniidae and Archangelia
Many years have passed since Fedonkin's work in the 1980s. Archangelia valdaica (single specimen), Inkrylovia lata and species Suzmites volutatus (genus Suzmites is not synonym of Pteridinium) are junior synonyms of Pteridinium nenoxa, D. Grazhdankin Ph.D manuscript and refferens to his Ph.D in these fossils deccriptions in Fedonkin et al 2007. There are opinions that Pteridinium nenoxa is a junior synonym for Pteridinium carolinaensis or P. simplex or separate species. Podolimirus mirus whit its junior synonyms Valdainia plumose is Proarticulata. Thus, this family Pteridiniidae contains one genus Pretidinium and this page may be redirected to article Pteridinium. Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 19:48, 7 November 2022 (UTC))[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Compusolus were:
This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.
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 after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Sun sorb and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Why did you create the Template:Vendian-stub when there is a similar Template:Ediacaran-stub? This is the same! Soviet geologists proposed a terminal Precambrian system called the Vendian system (period). Australian geologists have proposed their own analogue of this system - Ediacaran. In the early 2000s, the International Commission on Stratigraphy approved Ediacaran as the international name for the terminal Precambrian period. In Russia, the Vendian period is still partly used, but creating the Vendian-stub in the English-language Wikipedia is not justified. The same with Category:Vendian_biota_stubs and Category:Ediacaran_biota_stubs.
In passing, I will allow myself a few words about your reaction to the comment of user Quisqualis. According to the manner of speech, the presentation of thoughts, the perception of information, the reaction to other people's words, and the awareness of responsibility for one's actions, one can roughly estimate the age of a person. Schoolchildren (including 14-17 year old teenagers) are still in the process of their physical, intellectual, mental and social development, they are children, not adults. Being young and behaving age appropriately is normal and not shameful. Formally, the age of majority is usually considered to be 18 years old, but de facto a person becomes mature at 25-27 years old. Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 12:13, 12 November 2022 (UTC))[reply]
I consider the term "Vendian" as being similar to "Ediacaran", but not an exact synonym of it. I use the term Vendian more regularly than Ediacaran when I'm referring to the Ediacaran fauna from the White Sea of Russia and not from anywhere else, I sometimes do use the term Ediacaran when regarding fossils from the White Sea or from any other fossil locality that has Ediacaran fossils in them in order to refer to the time period in which they lived in.
I have anger issues. It's the reason why I cursed at you and why I reacted like that; and yes, I am sorry for doing those things and I regret doing them. I also reacted like that to Quisqualis because I assumed he was saying that because I don't have proper knowledge of the English language and I still make mistakes when trying to word stuff from references that I couldn't be able to properly write articles that he was making fun of my age. I am just going to say that the anger issues might make me look like an immature jerk when someone "makes fun of me" (like how I thought Quisqualis was) and in doing so I argue back and I disturb other people in doing so. I want to also say that the reason I make articles regarding the Ediacaran fauna is to try and expand my English skills and while doing so also learn a bit about the biota itself (It's mainly the latter than the former since I want to become a Palaeontologist).
Currently, discussions are underway in Russia about the lower boundary of the Vendian period in connection with new definitions of the age of sediments in the stratotypic region. Geologists are looking for new criteria and age for the lower boundary of the Vendian (there are options from 720 to 580 million years), which correspond to the local geology better than the Ediacaran, but there are also options to abandon the Vendian in favor of the Ediacaran. In Russia, the Vendian period, but for the fauna the term Ediacaran biota is usually used (after localyty in Austaralia).
I usually don't pay to what strangers and unfamiliar people say or write about me, especially on the Internet. There are many other problems in life that do not allow to worry about such trifles, quirks. Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 20:21, 12 November 2022 (UTC))[reply]
This is no more notable than any of the other about 10,000 stamps issued worldwide each year. The fact they were issued, what they depict and who designed them does not make them notable in and of themselves.
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.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creatures of the Slime until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Hello, Rugoconites Tenuirugosus. Thank you for your work on Staurinidia. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
Thanks for creating the article!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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.
Orphaned non-free image File:Creatures of the Slime stamps set of 6 from Australia.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Creatures of the Slime stamps set of 6 from Australia.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).
As I have written to you many times before, do not use on-line paleo-bases to create articles. They contain many errors, false citations and inadequate generalizations.
The paleo-base cites Erving et al. 2011 (it doesn't even state what publication it is. Сrazy...).
5) Triradialomorpha: Triradialomorphs (Trilobozoa?) are a monophyletic clade characterized by three plains of symmetry (Anfesta; Triforillonia) or by the spiral rotation of three independent arm-like structures (Tribrachidium, Albumares). Each branch is typically composed of smaller branching structures.
Occurrence: Avalon to White Sea: Mistaken Point New foundland Canada; Flinders Ranges Australia, White Sea Russia; Podolia, Ukraine; Uttar Pradesh, India.
Ecology: All Triradialomorphs are benthic reclining.
Taxa: Albumares brunsae, Anfesta stankovskii, Pomoria corolliformis, Skinnera brooksi, Tribrachidium heraldicum, Triforillonia costellae. *note: it may be that certain forms like Eoandromeda (which have 8 spiral arms) might fit within this category, although the unbranched tubular arms are distinct from known Triradialomorphs.
”
There are no anabaritids! A paleo-base is once again spreading lies, and you spread it even more.
Why does some sources in the article refer to Trilobozoa and Trirdialomorpha as separate entities? Isn't Tribrachiomorpha also a synonym of Trilobozoa? It always just sat there on my mind that there's something fishy with the clade because of its name. Gonna redirect the article to Trilobozoa along with Tribrachiomorpha if it is a synonym. Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 20:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why do people invent new names for already named taxa? They do not know about their existence, frivolity, weak ideas of some scientists about systematics, personal animosity between different scientists, ambitions to erect a new taxon, ignorance of foreign literature, language or unwillingness to translate. Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 09:58, 19 January 2023 (UTC))[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Sketches of multiple Triradialomorphs (Anabarites) Moulds and Internal moulds.png
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Sketches of multiple Triradialomorphs (Anabarites) Moulds and Internal moulds.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).
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gotland enigma until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Orphaned non-free image File:Jotnian red sandstone with Gotland Enigma.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Jotnian red sandstone with Gotland Enigma.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).
Orphaned non-free image File:Artists interpretation of The Gotland Enigma by Sven Littkowsky.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Artists interpretation of The Gotland Enigma by Sven Littkowsky.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).
Hello, Rugoconites Tenuirugosus. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Sun sorb".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, 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.
Orphaned non-free image File:Artistic representation of the morphology and living environment of protist specimens.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Artistic representation of the morphology and living environment of protist specimens.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).
Thanks for uploading File:Newly discovered Planktonic disc-shaped Francevillian fossils.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).
Hello, Rugoconites Tenuirugosus. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Arborea (genus), 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.
Hello, Rugoconites Tenuirugosus. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Arborea".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, 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.
Please do not introduce links in actual articles to draft articles, as you did to Berkeley Softworks. Since a draft is not yet ready for the main article space, it is not in shape for ordinary readers, and links from articles should not go to a draft. Such links are contrary to the Manual of Style. These links have been removed. Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Brian P. Dougherty, 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 C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! 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.
Hello, Rugoconites Tenuirugosus. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Arborea (animal), 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.
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.
Hello, I'm Jalapeño. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. 🔥Jalapeño🔥Stupid stuff I did11:44, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Replaceable non-free use File:Creatures of the Slime stamps set of 6 from Australia.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Creatures of the Slime stamps set of 6 from Australia.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of non-free 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 non-free 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:
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, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Vanjagenije(talk)00:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An article you recently created, Windows Triton, 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. Dan arndt (talk) 14:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Thaumaptilon walcotti fossil specimen from the Cambrian Burgess Shale.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Thaumaptilon walcotti fossil specimen from the Cambrian Burgess Shale.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).
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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.
_Moulds_and_Internal_moulds.png){kind=link}
