User talk:MasonHintermeister

Carcharocles sokolovi moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Carcharocles sokolovi, does not have enough sources and citations 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 " " 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.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:12, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Ah, had my list but forgot to put them in. My apologies. I’ll get right to it. WhodamanHD (talk) 11:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

The sources have been added, but the “Submit your draft for review!” Button does not appear on my screen. WhodamanHD (talk) 20:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Calvert Formation has been accepted
 Calvert Formation, 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  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Calvert_Formation 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.

Thanks again, and happy editing! Robert McClenon (talk) 02:59, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Copyrighted images
Hi WhodamanHD,

I noticed that you uploaded an image of an annotated Paraisurus tooth, which is a copyrighted image according to its source (if you hover over the image filename in the source, the licensing pops up). So unfortunately, the image has to be deleted on copyright violation grounds. I also noticed that your Cretodus photos might be a bit problematic at the moment regarding copyright. Wikimedia unfortunately has a bit of a policy in which uploads are only allowed if they verifiably meet the licensing rules. So even though you state that the author gave you permission, Wikimedia still can't take it unless the author makes it clear that they released the image under an acceptable CC license (CC0, CC-BY, CC-BY-SA). This can be done by having the author issue a written declaration releasing the images under such licenses, usually by contacting Wikimedia directly through OTRS. If making the declaration isn't possible, then I'm afraid those uploads will have to be deleted as well.

This is just a heads up, so please don't feel incriminated by this; finding good images while avoiding copyright is quite the annoying task. I myself have dealt with mucking into copyright violations/misattributions in the past, and I suspect that many significant contributors on Wikipedia went through the same. Even now, there are so many times when I see an amazing image I want to upload on Wikipedia that appears to be CC only to later realize that it was a misattribution or an unacceptable version. Some things are just too good to be true.

I really appreciate how you're giving some of the less-represented sharks and east coast Mio-Pliocene formations more of the attention they deserve, even creating their pages does a lot in my opinion! Macrophyseter &#124; talk  01:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey Macrophyster,
 * Not sure if this is how one is meant to respond to a message but hoping it is. The Paraisurus image came from Fossil Wiki, it said all pictures were CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted so I figured it would be okay (Clearly not). The other pictures I was given full permission to use as I please, I kinda messed up on the upload process for Cretodus and couldn't figure out how to undo it. Would it be morally dubious for a friend to send me a picture with full permission and for me to claim it as my own work to avoid the nonsense? I would rather not drive to their houses to take a picture of a tooth! Otherwise, many of these obscure species will never have a picture. I only have so many species in my own collection. Alas, if this is the case I shall swallow it and resign ,myself for picture-less pages. I will continue to update East Coast FMs and Shark species if I have adequate sources and pictures. I'm still learning the ropes in terms of coding.


 * Best,
 * Mason
 * When you are hunting for images, I would say it's always best to have an attitude of skepticism. As for the upload process of the Cretodus images, it can be undone by changing the tags on its associated Wikimedia page to whatever fits the attributions you want the upload to have. They're usually lines of text surrounded by double brackets, but you can learn about each specific on Wikimedia guides (Try googling each tag you find in the page source code and you'll probably find an article explaining how they work). I don't think you should be concerned about morality in this situation; this would be more of a legal thing and the best thing to do is to work out a way in which the uploads are licensed in a way that is both okay with your friend and acceptable by Wikimedia's rules. The best option would be to have your friend go through |OTRS Release Generator, which streamlines the release process. Just give them the link and the file names of the concerned images (i.e. File:Cretodus.jpg). If that's not a preferred option, then if your friend is sure that the images they took are of your credit, I would say that ignorance is bliss and that you could simply go ahead and on each upload page replace the license tag with, the Source section to Own work , and put your name (either your username or real name on your preference) on the Author section. But be sure that your friend is completely okay with this, or there may be some muck when they object. The worst-case scenario is that the uploads are deleted. Copyright is really annoying to deal with, and I can totally understand the hassle with getting through all the licensing mumbo jumbo; I doubt there's anyone who's excited about filling out what's essentially paperwork just to do a favor.


 * In my opinion, one of the best places to get free images is through an open-access journal. |Acta Palaeontologica Ponica is one of my favorites as they have CC-BY papers on fossil sharks; you can simply snip the images out from the pdfs and it's totally fine as long as they're correctly attributed. Maybe you can find some pictures of the more obscure shark genera from papers reporting on deposit assemblages. That's how I got images of Cardabiodon back when I developed the article. Learning the source code for Wikipedia is a bit confusing at first but from experience, it becomes easy once you get in the habit. You can sign your posts automatically when you type ~ at the end of your text; this is something that most users do in discussion pages. Macrophyseter &#124; talk  05:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Macrophyster,


 * Than you for your guidance! It is very much appreciated. I'll make the necessary changes and going forward avoid making them again. Please let me know if you have any constructive criticisms in the future, I will not be offended!!!WhodamanHD (talk) 12:55, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.)
 * Choptank Formation
 * added links pointing to Mola and Ariopsis
 * Nanjemoy Formation
 * added a link pointing to Amia
 * Old Church Formation
 * added a link pointing to Lucina
 * Piney Point Formation
 * added a link pointing to Dentalium

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Nanjemoy
Hey good night, how are you? I saw you were working on the Nanjemoy Formation with the excellent addition of the fossils found there. I did not intend to delete your hard work, as it deserves all praise. But I was working on the article offline in March (see the accessdates) and had it saved, so finally added it to the article. I saw many good articles and additions from your hand! Good to see especially the Cenozoic fauna being added, there is a lot to bluelink in that area (compared to the dinos). I have been working mostly on South America, see Itaboraí Formation for one of the Ypresian-Wasatchian-Itaboraian correlative units of the Nanjemoy there. Now I started the necessary expansion of the Wasatch Formation, as the Itaboraí (and Honda Group and others) a too important formation (Itaboraian and Laventan) to leave as those ugly and unworthy stubs.

What do you think of the idea just using my best practices and work on the NALMA? SALMA was once the biggest article on the biggest Wikipedia... Now most of the information, bibliography and some formations are stored underneath the ages. If you build the large table first (syntax is simple, that's how I build my articles) then you can easily split it up in smaller chunks, using the existing bibliography (less work, more continuity and easier reference) for formations and ages.

I don't want to pressure you, but it
 * 1) would be a nice project
 * 2) would complement my work on South America
 * 3) is worth it; the mammal fauna of North America is even bigger than that here
 * 4) extremely insightful; you become an expert in the mammal and geologic history of your own area (I assume you're North American, or at least there; here, locked down, Eastern Hills, Bogotá  ???)

Trust me, I speak from experience...

and


 * 1) would solve the disparity in quality with South America, which, objectively, is near Gomphothere size...

For the Wasatch alone, the List of fossil primates of South America is humongous(ly) interesting...

In the meantime I am working on more correlative formations, to map out the Early Eocene worldwide better.

Keep up the good work and thanks for your understanding (your thanks). Have a great night! Tisquesusa (talk) 00:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello! I'm doing well, How about you?
 * I am just a high school student from Maryland and I am still learning the basics of Wikipedia editing. I was glad to see your extensive revisions on the Nanjemoy Formation! Although the faunal list might need a little reworking in terms of which forms go to which member. It is a formation I have had the pleasure to fossil hunt in on occasion. You have superior knowledge in source code, my editing skills fall apart once charts come into play (which is why I tend towards lists). I admire what you have done with all of your pages, and would love to help in any form! I think I might make a mess of the North American Land Mammal Ages (I am less knowledgeable than I'd like to be on non-hominin mammals), but I could certainly play with it on my sandbox. I have thus far been utilizing my shark knowledge as well as adding genera from Acta Palaeontologica Polonica (which is creative commons). Let me know if and how I can be of further service!

Best, Mason Hintermeister

Sanmai xuni
Please slow down and take care: when recycling content from one article to another, please check your work: the lead sentence of this one was wrong. I've fixed it. Same problem with Sanmai mengi. Pam D  08:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

My apologies, it will not happen again. Serves me right for making Wikipedia pages at 1:00 AM! WhodamanHD (talk) 14:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Howdy, more to the point here :) - we don't usually have standalone articles for paleo-species unless there is a great deal of material about them that is not covered at the genus page (this is in contrast with extant species, where we will happily entertain ten thousand beetle species stubs of one line each :p). The general approach is to create redirects for the specific names and treat the lot under the genus header. I have thus redirected the three Sanmai species to the genus. If the images of the species fossils are desired, maybe you could turn the list at Sanmai into a table and pair each species with the respective image? Cheers -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Add: as a comparison, the Carcharocles species work as separate articles based on amount of material, although sokolovi is probably at the lower limit. You notice that this is all a bit case-by-case... -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey! I get it, thought it couldn't hurt to put species which people could later add on to but if that's not the way its done I'm 100% fine with that. I added a table as you suggested. Thanks!!WhodamanHD (talk) 16:37, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Categories and Wikiprojects
Hi WhodamanHD. When creating pages, would you please add appropriate WP:Categories to the article and appropriate WP:Wikiprojects to the talk page. Thanks, ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 07:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC)