Thanks for uploading Image:HedCloseUp.JPG. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:DSCN0303.JPG. The copy called Image:DSCN0303.JPG has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and remember exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 01:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Wilson44691, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  -SpuriousQ (talk) 15:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dr Wilson -- while I'm sure your research is reliable and useful as references on some pages, you should be aware that adding links to pages that you are associated with is considered bad form on Wikipedia. Additionally, adding the same link to many pages is considered spamming and is likewise inappropriate. I undid your link to the College of Wooster on the Geology page - we could easily link every university geology department there, but we do not by policy as it does not add anything particular that the article needs or does not have. This is called "linkfarming" - Wikipedia is not a collection of links, even when relevant. Similarly, adding the College of Wooster or bioerosion links to very peripheral pages is not a good idea, unless (as with some of your links) it is with respect to an actual reference supporting information in the article.

Please see External Links, WP:SPAM, and Conflict of Interest for more information. I'd also encourage you to discuss it with Vsmith, a geologist who has probably the most Wikiexperience of any geologist here. Regards, Geologyguy 17:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got a little too enthusiastic. Sorry! Thanks for the direction. MW

Thank you for uploading Image:MainHouseMatthewtown.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 23:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SOLVED. I had just forgotten to tag this image. It is a photo I took and released to the public domain.

Remember to revert back to the original non vandalised version as you missed on Paleontology. Just a reminder, happy editing! T Rex | talk 03:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re this edit: I've made a suggestion on the article's talk page that the entire section be removed, or moved to a separate article. Do you have any view's on the subject? – Tivedshambo (talk) 21:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Prasopora.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 03:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

SOLVED. I had just forgotten to tag this image. It is a photo I took and released to the public domain.

Thanks for uploading Image:PortlandRoach.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --OrphanBot 04:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SOLVED. I had just forgotten to tag this image. It is a photo I took and released to the public domain.

Thanks for uploading Image:TurksHeadCZ.JPG. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 03:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SOLVED. I had just forgotten to tag this image. It is a photo I took and released to the public domain.

		The E=mc² Barnstar
		Thanks for your chipping away at geology topics. SEWilco (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(As this is your first WP:BARNSTAR I'll point out many people copy the above to the bottom of their User page.)

  Thanks!

On 31 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Calcite sea, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--PFHLai (talk) 20:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks - they improve the article a great deal. Good to see a "Cousin Jack" at work on Cornish articles. Best wishes, DuncanHill (talk) 00:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:JPolkinghorne.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We requires this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 14:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask you to take a look at Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Cornwall? I ask because you have already added some good pictures to Cornish articles, and it struck me you might have some more! I hope that's not too cheeky of me. Best wishes, DuncanHill (talk) 04:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•Thanks for asking! I don't have any appropriate ones right now, but you've given me a list for my next trip!

Hi, your expertise is requested. Recently a dispute has arisen in the catastrophism and uniformitarianism (science) articles. An editor has added reference to a recent article in Science (Schieber, Juergen, John Southard, and Kevin Thaisen, "Accretion of Mudstone Beds from Migrating Floccule Ripples," Science, 14 December 2007: 1760-1763.) which he is citing as evidence supporting catastrophism and overturning uniformitarianism. I don't have access to the Science article and the publicity blurb from the university as picked up by Sciencedaily [1] doesn't seem to support his claims. Could you take a look at the Science article and perhaps comment on the various talk pages - or edit the articles directly. The user has also added a bit on the research to the sedimentology article. As this appears to be within your area of expertise we would appreciate some clarification. Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 02:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC) •I'll get right on it. Sounds interesting.[reply]

Hi. Just to let you I have created pages for Makhtesh Qatan and Makhtesh Gadol.--Flymeoutofhere (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Maybe next week I can begin contributing to them. I will be visiting the makhteshim in March so I can get more photos and information. Thanks!

Are you sure that the Soviet regime soldier memorial photos should be illustrating Estonias largest island in the image gallery? I would like to add more images about the island nature, sights and architecture instead of the terror regime monuments. I believe that these images should be placed under the Soviet memorials of Estonia list or page instead. User:Karabinier 22:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure. The history is important, and so rich. Let's add lots of nature, sights and architecture images as well to the page. Again, I have zero sympathy for the Soviet Union and its extraordinarily brutal actions in Estonia and other countries (including Russia itself). I also have no sympathy, of course, for the Nazis or the Crusaders who also rampaged across beautiful Estonia. They are all part of the inescapable history, though. Now, that said, maybe you could make a page for "Soviet memorials in Estonia" or some such and we can put the photos there and simply link to them? This particular memorial, and the style of the graves, has considerable historical and cultural interest and should not be lost. What do you think? Wilson44691 (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I see that you've uploaded a heap of useful and interesting photos to the English Wikipedia. If you make an account for yourself on the Wikimedia Commons and upload them there, then your photos can be used not only here but on other projects as well (Wikitravel, Wikipedias in other languages, and so on...). Thanks for your contributions, Q·L·1968 ☿ 11:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I just tried this with one new image and it worked very well. I learn every day thanks to contributors like you. Wilson44691 (talk) 01:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Keep up the good work! Q·L·1968 ☿ 23:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I do. If you see, nearly all my changes are for volcanic tuff in Italy. True tufa is very rare. Ciao and good work!! --Attilios (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

First, thanks for your edits to Edrioasteroid! It upsets me that so many of the smaller problematica have so little coverage on here, so it's nice to see someone tend them as they deserve!

Noticing your removal of the Ediacaran tag from the image in that article, I just thought I'd better check that the organism is indeed an Edrioasteroid? I went with blind faith with the label attached to the specimen, even though I had in my mind that it was a Tribrachidium. I'm not too knowledgeable about these things so thought I'd better make amends if I'd uploaded an image under false pretenses!

Thanks,

Verisimilus T 22:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! That is indeed an edrioasteroid in the top image. It is not Tribrachidium, though, because it appears to be pentaradial rather than triradial, and it is skeletal rather than a mold. What exactly Tribrachidium represents is debated in any case, but it could be an early edrioasteroid. I can't tell which edrioasteroid is pictured, though, without a closer view. Problematica are much fun. I hope we can make many more additions to these pages in the next few months. I enjoy being on our little team! Wilson44691 (talk) 23:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked it up, and Acacia gum is listed as an ingredient in POWERade. That edit was unsourced, but then all the other products listed are also unsourced. IMHO, if you remove POWERade, you should remove the rest of the sentence, as well. Personally, I don't think it would hurt the article at all to delete the sentence, but I now reserve the opportunities for people to snipe at me for bigger stuff. -- Donald Albury 10:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK by me then. Wilson44691 (talk) 11:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wilson,

Just wanted to say thanks for the recent addition to Dinosaur, Image:Eubrontes01.JPG. The fossil footprint image looks great! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 04:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind word! Wilson44691 (talk) 12:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just read the editorial you linked from your userpage - good stuff. DuncanHill (talk) 23:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It sure received a passionate reaction! Best Wishes, Wilson44691 (talk) 00:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! How confident are you that this image is of a fern and not a progymnosperm or seed fern? I ask because I can't see enough venation detail to make a determination myself, but the gross morphology of the leaves look much more like Archaeopteris or Neuropteris to me than a fern. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are very right that it is not a fern. My error. It is indeed a seed fern. I've removed it from the fern article and will correct the caption. Thanks for being so quick to notice!--Wilson44691 (talk) 01:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Escape this place while you can. Don't end up like me. Having nightmares about this place. I keep on thinking it will completely go away, but it doesn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.55.235 (talk) 01:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Granite. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Terrillja _talk 16:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that was a slip by Wilson44691 - the IP he reverted had made a vandalistic error, but had corrected it, so no, Wilson was not vandalising, just being human. DuncanHill (talk) 16:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I see what I did, thinking I was doing just the opposite! Thanks, DuncanHill, for so quickly understanding! I shall be more careful. Those single letter changes can be tricky! Wilson44691 (talk) 18:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I had one a while ago where someone had left their computer unlocked, my warning was the only way they knew that someone had gotten onto wikipedia as them. Anyways, happy editing! --Terrillja _talk 19:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you reverted my edititing on the Permian–Triassic extinction event. Not that I will compain about it, since I must have been more tired than I thought as it was the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event I had in mind when I edited. But, I would really have appreciated if you mentioned the reason why you reverted it back, instead you leaving no explanation at all. 80.202.40.85 (talk) 01:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When all I see is an IP address, I have trouble distinguishing this incorrect edit from vandalism. My apologies. I suggest, though, that you make an account to avoid this sort of thing. A wrong edit from an anonymous IP address is easy to undo with no explanation.Wilson44691 (talk) 01:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked over your photography - very impressive. I like your work. Had the man not been in your Mt. of Olives photo, I would not have replaced it. Thanks for the time you put in here, and the work. --David Shankbone 20:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wilson44691, could you please give me some more information about your picture (right ->)? I would like to use it in an article about stratigraphy, but I'd like to give a bit more info on the rocks - when possible.

I would like to know:

• the name of the formation
• the lithology (or -I think- lithologies)
• the name of the location
• If you know, the age/stage is in which these sediments were formed (Ordovician is quite a large time span)

I hope you can help me! Best regards, Woodwalker (talk) 13:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! The locality is on Whip-poor-will Road in Wilson County, Tennessee, 2.4 miles north of its southern border on US Hwy 231. The unit is the Lebanon Limestone (in the Stones River Group), which consists of primarily biosparites and biomicrites, with some interbedded shales. It is Middle Ordovician (Mohawkian, Black Riveran[[2]]). I'd love to see your final article. Good luck!

Hi. On Polish Wiki you added this photo. Could you please add some info about it, so it can be more description put there? You can write here, or on my Polish discussion site - you can get link from my user site. I will translate and add on Polish site. Thanks! Lukasz Lukomski (talk) 00:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure -- thanks for the translation. It is an image of the DeGeerdalen valley just south of the Isfjorden shoreline, Spitsbergen. Wilson44691 (talk) 00:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your fixes to sediment transport; the article has been largely my personal work in progress, and I'm happy to see others adding images and correcting my abysmally inconsistent spelling. Awickert (talk) 15:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up the good wiki work, Andrew. It is an important public service we geologists can perform! Wilson44691 (talk) 15:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks. It's also procrastination that you can feel good about! Awickert (talk) 16:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to be in touch when in Israel. Ori (talk) 20:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wilson, regarding this edit: the picture is at commons described as Oolitic limestone. The article about oolite describes it as "a sedimentary rock formed from ooids". Does this mean the description at commons is wrong? - and perhaps: can you fix it there? Best regards, Woodwalker (talk) 12:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the description is wrong. I didn't realize I could edit descriptions. I shall fix it! Thanks. Wilson44691 (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that you do quite a bit of vandal reversion either with undo or manually. If you like, I can give you rollback ability for quick one-click reversion of the obvious vandalism. Just say "I want it!" and it's yours. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 13:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then, thank you for your kind offer ... and I want it! I'll assume I'll figure out how to do it by reading the instructions. Nice working with a fellow geologist, by the way! Wilson44691 (talk) 15:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You got it. And yes, read the instructions and proceed with caution for a bit ... enjoy :) Vsmith (talk) 15:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Wilson44691 (talk) 17:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, alt tags provide explanations of the image for the visually disabled. I noticed you removed these from Oyster. Why?

I've never seen them before in all my wiki-editing, and they are distracting additions to the captions. How do they help the visually-impaired? If they do, why are they so very rare in Wikipedia? Wilson44691 (talk) 17:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked up alt attribute, if this is what you mean by alt tag. It looks like they were incorrectly applied in the oyster article -- or at least they are not working as they should. Wilson44691 (talk) 18:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see now: an alt attribute tag does not work in a gallery as was done in the oyster article. It appears to work only in an enclosed image caption with double brackets on both ends. When used in this way they disappear from the visible text of the caption. Wilson44691 (talk) 18:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't known about the limitation on galleries. Thanks for doing the research. To complete the explanation, text-to-speech software speaks the altLfstevens (talk) 16:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Hi, Wilson44691. I'm about to nominate Bryzoa for review as a possible Good Article. File:OilShaleFossilsEstonia.jpg is used here (and in other artciles) to illustrate very early fossil bryozoans. WP's getting tougher on verification all the time, and that includes pics. Apart from the fact that you've explained your professional background, which is actually not admissible as verification, is there any published source that can be cited to verify that the pic is bryozoans in an Ordov oil shale?

Ditto for File:OrdovicianEdrio.jpg,if you can spare the time. --Philcha (talk) 08:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW if you can spare the time I'll be grateful if you could give the article a look over - especially the phylogeny bits, as I've found it difficult to describe clearly the tangled taxonomic history of the phylum. --Philcha (talk) 08:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Philcha. That's a tough standard for original photograph verification if the photograph is not from a published source. Who then determines that the photo matches the published descriptions? But some system is required, and I can't imagine a better one (save verifying the experts who verify the photographs!). Here is a source on the Estonian Ordovician bryozoans --

Männil, R. M., 1960. The stratigraphical distribution and importance of the Bryozoa in the Ordovician of Estonia. Geol Märkmed 1: 5-14. (Männil had many similar papers.)

Here are two sources for the Cincinnatian bryozoans --

Taylor, P.D. and Wilson, M.A., 1994. Corynotrypa from the Ordovician of North America: colony growth in a primitive stenolaemate bryozoan. Journal of Paleontology 68: 241-257.

Wilson, M.A., 1985. Disturbance and ecologic succession in an Upper Ordovician cobble-dwelling hardground fauna. Science 228: 575-577.

I'll look at the rest of the article later today. Again, good work on the critters. Wilson44691 (talk) 10:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, many thanks! Especially as I've just figured out early it is in the morning in Ohio. -Philcha (talk) 11:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, still plenty early! I took a quick look before work. Only two things jump out: there is still use of "ectoprocts" in the text (such as in the "Evolutionary family tree" section) which will confuse some readers because of inconsistency with the rest of the text, and I'd like to see more images throughout. I imagine those will be added with time once this new framework is in place. By the way, I'm a coauthor on a paper in press describing biomineralization and phylogeny of lophophorates. We can't use it yet, but I'll send it to you when it comes out. (I don't know when that will be.) There may be some aspects you will want to include later about skeletal ultrastructures. Wilson44691 (talk) 11:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re "ectoprocts", the "Evolutionary family tree" section is where the naming issue gets messy, since Hausdorf, B.; Helmkampf, etc. (2007 and 2008) conclude ectos and entos are close relatives and should collectively be labelled "Bryozoa"! I've been thinking about this since our discussion at Talk:Bryozoa and all the solutions I can see are messy.

Re pics, I've searched Commons and Google Images and there is not a lot about - Bryozoans are a "minor phylum" in terms of (neonto-)zoology. I'd love more diagrams to illustrate e.g. retracted lophophore, a cheilostome lying on its side in its calcareous box, avicularia, range of colony shapes, cyphonautes and corona larvae, etc. --Philcha (talk) 12:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS My dastardly master plan to take over the world started as an attempt to understand just a little the critters involved in the Cambrian explosion, and I shall return, with my accomplices at Wikipedia:WikiProject Geology/Cambrian explosion. Do drop in! --Philcha (talk) 12:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I shall visit the Cambrian Explosion Project, Philcha. This summer I had the opportunity to spend some quality time with the Burgess Shale, so I'm interested. The outside world is calling urgently, though, so I only have time to occasionally dive in for a quick wiki-dip. I'm sure it is all being approached with your usual thoroughness and precision! Best Wishes, Wilson44691 (talk) 00:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trona Pinnacles.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Trona Pinnacles from North.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Trona Pinnacles from North.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 22:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but this image has nothing to do with me. Wilson44691 (talk) 23:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Wilson44691. Your new pic of Lingula anatina at Brachiopod is in some times better than the previous one. However: the previous one was used to illustrate specific features of Lingulid anatomy; the previous caption highlighted these points; and the old pic was cropped and zoomed to focus these, included the chaetae. I can try similar techiques with the new one, but: one bunch of chaetae is masked by ? weed; its in "plan" view and less clearly shows the compressed shape; and what's the ? turd at the right? --Philcha (talk) 17:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Philcha. The Lingula anatina image was mailed to me this morning by someone who thought it would look good on the brachiopod page, and I agreed. The plan view is most diagnostic, especially with the complete pedicle. (The "turd" is sediment held by the pedicle while in its burrow. All such lingulids pulled out of muddy sediments retain it. It is how they anchor themselves.) As for annotations, you can certainly add them to this new image or reinsert the old image and have both in the article. I'm very much in favor of as many illustrations as we can stylistically fit in an article. Good work on this one, by the way, as with the bryozoans. Wilson44691 (talk) 19:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I returned the annotated image, Philcha, and placed the new one in the gallery. We can wait until you finish your rewriting before we sort out which images go where. I can't get those annotations to work, by the way, and the image is out of focus. Still, might as well wait until we have the entire revision done. The good Lingula anatina image could go somewhere else in the text. Wilson44691 (talk) 14:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned in Red Link, please note that

rather than using red links in [...] templates [...] editors are encouraged to write the article first.

If the page for Ahaggar Tuareg Tribe is started, please also consider using the correct template in the Ahaggar Mountains article, which results in the correct format (unlike the manually written attempt that was there). In this case it would be

{{about|the Ahaggar Mountains|the tribe|Ahaggar Tuareg Tribe}}

placed directly below the infobox. Should there are any comments to the above, please add them here rather than on my talk. Thanks, 62.107.237.72 (talk) 18:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also useful when reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. mheart (talk) 23:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed Crustacean for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since you are a main contributor of the article (determined based on this tool), I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've been the images in preparation for GA nomination, and I'm concerned that some may not comply with WP's strict policy on images: --Philcha (talk) 20:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• File:LingulaanatinaAA.JPG is "taken by Andreas Altenburger; modified by Mark A. Wilson." AKAIK WP will need evidence that the use and modification is with Andreas Altenburger's permission.

So what do you need? His email message to me? Wilson44691 (talk) 20:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Research_fellow#RfC:_Use_of_summary_term.2C_abbreviation_of_term.2C_and_fully_spelled_out_term_in_same_sentence. Mootros (talk) 16:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})[reply]

I moved your pic File:FeldsparsGranite.JPG from porphyry (geology) to the newly-created page for porphyritic. I hope this is OK, let me know if you have questions/concerns. Qfl247 (talk) 20:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History of Vienna an example! Why Naples not...

Just not written well enough in English to be added. Grammar errors too complex to fix.Wilson44691 (talk) 01:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I Know, but Could you help it? I spent a long time to add the pieces of the puzzle :). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.26.9.102 (talk) 01:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I made corrections to your writing. I suggest that if you continue with Wikipedia that you become a registered editor. Good luck.Wilson44691 (talk) 01:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much :). Good Luck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.20.150.115 (talk) 12:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wilson, I noticed that you reverted my edit on the Marshalltown trowel page- could you please explain why? Thank you, Veronica. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronny Corn (talk • contribs) 10:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC) I looked again- I noticed that you reverted every single one of my edits today! Would you please tell me why? (I am new to wikipedia). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronny Corn (talk • contribs) 10:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Posting a link to a commercial site is considered "spam" which is to be deleted immediately. You don't want to have your IP address on a list of spammers.Wilson44691 (talk) 13:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Wilson, no problems, I will try to find an alternative reference. Kind regards, Veronica —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronny Corn (talk • contribs) 05:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for asking about the spam link on the thorny oyster page. It is always nice to speak to a geologist; I have always been a very big fan of geology, especially paleontology. Actually for the last few years I have been volunteering in the Invertebrate Paleontology section at AMNH, ever since the AMNH malacology section closed down. I am very impressed by all the excellent photos you have given to Commons, well done! Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Invertzoo! I've long admired your wikiwork so it is a pleasure to meet you. Working at the AMNH must be a dream. I met Neil Landman in the field this summer (Mississippi, Upper Cretaceous) with his large and enthusiastic paleontological team. They were much fun! See you around the project! Cheers, Mark Wilson44691 (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers to you too Mark! Invertzoo (talk) 01:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I needed some pics added to pages like cross-bedding and ZTR index, so I used some of your excellent collection (to which I aspire but am woefully behind). Hope that was OK! QFL 24-7 ^{bla ¤ cntrb ¤ kids ¤ pics ¤ vids} 15:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all, QFL247! That's what they are there for. I like your pics too -- and your excellent editing. Makes you wonder why everyone isn't a geologist. Wilson44691 (talk) 19:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also ask myself that every day, that's why I teach geology to people I know if they want the info or not... QFL 24-7 ^{bla ¤ cntrb ¤ kids ¤ pics ¤ vids} 20:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been editing the article Khetran for quite a time. Few days ago i deleted some cited content. After proper reference was given and i found some other references I created a new section and moved the old cited content along with the new references to the new header. The guy who originally gave the reference keeps on reverting it back on and put on the tags that I have deleted cited content for the first, second and third time consecutively. I dont know what to do with the situation but there is a separate header where the cited content has been shifted with some changes (only relvant material posted). I just dont know who to report it to and get over this problem.

Regards,

OmerKhetran (talk) 10:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm not an Administrator, but at least I can direct you to the Content Noticeboard[3]. Posting a notice there has worked for me in the past by attracting the attention of knowledgeable editors and admins. Good luck! Wilson44691 (talk) 10:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dr. Wilson,

I'm a recent graduate from the University of Colorado in Boulder. I got my honors in The preservation of fossil arthropods in the middle Miocene Barstow Formation, southern California.

Your name looks really familiar, but I don't think I've read any of your articles.

I'm going to edit the Barstow Fm. page. Please stop by.

Theropod (talk) 05:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kevin! I look forward to your edits! I'm a native of Barstow, one of my students did her Masters there (Lisa), and you may know me through Ali. Good luck with your work! I shall indeed stop by. Best Wishes, Mark Wilson44691 (talk) 08:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I worked under Kathy Hollis for her masters at CU too. I don't think I know Ali. I created a new page Schistomerus and plan on uploading a few pictures to that page and the Barstow page as well. It's a work in progress but it's improving. Thanks for your help. Theropod (talk) 16:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And here's another connection, Kevin: Lisa Park was one of my students at Wooster!Wilson44691 (talk) 01:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Wilson44691. IIRC while your work is mainly on brachiopods, you've also writing papers that include phoronids. I've almost finished a new draft of Phoronid, at User:Philcha/Sandbox/Phoronid, and would be grateful of you can make time to comment, at User_talk:Philcha/Sandbox/Phoronid. --Philcha (talk) 10:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Philcha. I'm always impressed with the range of what you do. I don't have a lot of time immediately (I leave tomorrow for a week of fieldwork), but I can give you some comments regarding the short fossil section: (1) I don't know if anyone now believes Iotuba chengjiangensis is a phoronid because it is preserved in ways that make it very difficult to interpret; (2) Talpina is a boring, not a burrow; (3) Cliona is a boring sponge and not a phoronid; (4) I don't have a pdf of this online but I know you will find it interesting: Taylor, P.D., Vinn, O. and Wilson, M.A. 2010. Evolution of biomineralization in ‘lophophorates’. Special Papers in Palaeontology 84: 317-333 (I can send you a pdf if you give me an email address); (5) the hederelloid fossils have been suggested as related to phoronids, as you'll see in the article and some refs. Sorry for such a quick answer! Again, keep up the good work. Wilson44691 (talk) 11:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• While Chen and Zhou suggested Iotuba chengjiangensis is a phoronid in 1997, Emig still believed this in 2010 - Phoronida and related ichnotaxa. The only other potential hit at Google Scholar was Community structure and composition of the Cambrian Chengjiang biota (Zhao & Zhu, 2010), but I can't access this Can you suggest a source. --Philcha (talk) 15:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, Talpina is a boring. I'll fix this. --Philcha (talk) 15:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. -Philcha (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Re Cliona, I used "The ecology of a Middle Jurassic hardground and crevice fauna" (Palmer & Fürsich; 1974). But Google Scholar has much more hits that support a sponge. I'll fix it. --Philcha (talk) 15:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I used a table in the source, but the text near it said Cliona is an extant genus of sponge and is associated with different ichnogenus. So I've removed all about Cliona. It seems minor phyla have minor budgets for copyedting etc. - I found an equally serious misprint in Emig's "Phylum: Phoronida", which says Phoronis ijimai (also called Phoronis vancouverensis) and Phoronis hippocrepia are both associated with Actinotrocha vancouverensis! --Philcha (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try this quote from the Taylor et al. (2010) paper I just sent you: "Two soft-bodied fossils have been claimed to be phoronids, Iotuba and Eophoronis from the Early Cambrian Chengjiang fauna of China (Chen and Zhou 1997; Chen 2004), but the affinities of these fossils have been questioned (Cohen and Weydmann 2005), and according to Conway Morris (2006) and Huang (2006), they may be priapulids." The questioning references are:

COHEN, B. L. and WEYDMANN, A. 2005. Molecular evidence that phoronids are a subtaxon of brachiopods (Brachiopoda: Phoronata) and that genetic divergence of metazoan phyla began long before the early Cambrian. Organisms, Diversity and Evolution, 5, 253–273.

In Cohen and Weydmann (2005): no mention of "Eophoronis"; "Iotuba" mentioned only in a "personal communication". But I'll include Cohen and Weydmann "Family tree". --Philcha (talk) 14:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CONWAY MORRIS, S. 2006. Darwin’s dilemma: the realities of the Cambrian ‘explosion’. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, Series B, 316, 1069–1083.

Darwin’s dilemma: the realities of the Cambrian ‘explosion’ says Eophoronis and Iotuba "may well be synonymous, and are similar to the priapulid Louisella." I'll incorporate it.--Philcha (talk) 14:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

H U A N G , D.-Y. 2006. The early body plan, origin and evolutionary radiation of Priapulida. 125–137. In R O N G , J., FANG, Z., ZHOU, Z., ZHAN, R., WANG, X and YUAN, X. (eds). Originations, radiations and biodiversity changes – evidences from the Chinese fossil record. Science Press, Beijing, 962 pp. Wilson44691 (talk) 16:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books finds Huang's "The early body plan, origin and evolutionary radiation of Priapulida" but only snippet view, nothing useful. --Philcha (talk) 14:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for keeping me busy :-D --Philcha (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for "Evolution of biomineralization in ‘Lophophorates’". I hope you enjoy your field trip. --Philcha (talk) 09:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support at Temple Mount. Hertz1888 (talk) 11:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks to you for all your work and vigilance. If all works well, by the way, I may even be in Jerusalem next week. Wilson44691 (talk) 11:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your kind words. "We do our part" (NRA slogan). If you have been following events at the Temple Mount page, you know it has been a busy day. You are mentioned on the article's talk page. This may also be of interest. All that pales in comparison to the prospect of a trip to Jerusalem. If you go, may you experience the holiness of the actual Temple Mount. Hertz1888 (talk) 04:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you.--John (talk) 01:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson44691, I enjoyed reading your "Professors Should Embrace Wikipedia" piece from Inside High Ed. I stumbled up your profile via your Egypt-Israel border pic. Keep up all the great photo work. Thanks. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, JWeiss11. I appreciate this very much -- especially since you crossed the Michigan-Ohio cultural border! Good luck with your own work and passions. Wilson44691 (talk) 13:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson, I'm a New Yorker and I think of Ann Arbor as an East Coast exclave amidst a sea of Midwest provincialism. There's no Michigan-Ohio cultural border on my radar. :) I just referenced your Inside High Ed piece today in a correspondence with a coach of American football in Europe. An article about him was recently deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Sholars (2nd nomination). Jweiss11 (talk) 19:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jweiss. Thanks for the reference. I'm a Californian so the Ohio/Michigan rivalry has never meant much to me either, to be honest. Good luck with your work! Wilson44691 (talk) 01:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, this is sort of a random question. Do you have any recommendations for getting brachiopods identified? The interpretive canter I work for has a number of specimens labeled as "Three Forks Formation, Cardwell, Montana" that have very well preserved brachipods and occasional bivalves which I think would be useful to WP and good additions to the centers collections. Thanks for any advice.--Kevmin § 21:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Kevmin: I do it through the professional literature, which is easy for me because I'm at a college with full library resources. When I type in "Three Forks Formation" and "brachiopods" in Google Scholar, I get what appear to be useful papers with descriptions and images. I also have access to comparative collections when I have specimens in hand. Without these aids, identifying fossils is much more difficult. I would start with a list of fossils from the Three Forks Formation and then Google away on the names and hope for some images and descriptions for clues. Good luck. I hope I see them on WP! Wilson44691 (talk) 22:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was interested to see your recent photo of the seige ramp at Lachish - it has pretty much reverted to how it was before the excavation. I was a volunteer digger there, it was fascinating to find arrow heads, slingstones and everything just as depicted on the relief. I'm surprised Olga Tufnell's work isn't brought out, the pottery of Lachish was and still is important. The ostraca and the seals are covered though. Hartley Patterson (talk) 02:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hartley. It was a most fascinating place for me -- my first visit. Wilson44691 (talk) 02:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please offer some advice as a native English speaker (I hope) whether "Panga pank" is appropriate name for that article or should it be renamed to "Panga cliff"? And whether cliff is actually an appropriate English term for that geological feature ...:) Plaes (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Plaes: "Panga Cliff" would be the better name for the article in the English Wikipedia. "Cliff" is indeed the proper translation, even if in some places it is not very high! Thanks for writing the article. It is a fantastic place. Now we need to add much more to it. Wilson44691 (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's fantastic place. I grew up around here and now I'm back ;) Also, Is there a way to access preprints for geology articles (physics/CS has arxiv.org). I would like to see what you have found out about Saaremaa.. Plaes (talk) 08:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to get a list of articles I've written about Estonian geology is to go to my CV[4] and search for "Estonia". Google Scholar is very good for Estonian geology articles. Have fun! Wilson44691 (talk) 14:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you might be interested that one of your photos of Yad Kennedy was used today in the Times of Israel obituary for the memorial's architect, David Resnick. You can add that fact to your resume! :) NearTheZoo (talk) 04:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Very nice. Wilson44691 (talk) 11:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mark, I have a question about your excellent picture of a thrombolite, File:PurbeckFormationPortland.jpg. It was being used at the Purbeck Marble page, although that obviously wasn't right. I'm keen to use it in the Purbeck Group article instead, but I'm a little unsure about its stratigraphic position. I think it's from the basal part of the Purbeck Group (from one of Ian West's many web pages), therefore low in the Lulworth Formation. I would be grateful for clarification. Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 18:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mike: You are exactly right. Have fun with your editing! Best, Wilson44691 (talk) 18:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the rapid reply. Mikenorton (talk) 19:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Discohelix may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• tunisiensis'' from the [[Matmor Formation]] (Middle [[Jurassic]]) of southern [[Israel]].]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your upload of File:CalciteSeasTable.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have read many books concerning American involvement in World War I. The term is American Expeditionary Force, not Forces. So I'm not quite sure what you're sorry about. Italia2006 (talk) 03:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. National Archives refer to the American Expeditionary Forces (in plural): http://www.archives.gov/research/guide-fed-records/groups/120.html The Stars & Stripes refer to the American Expeditionary Forces in plural: http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/sgphtml/sashtml/aef.html These are just examples. Wikipedia is encyclopedic and thus should be using the official (not popular) title for the organization. I'll post this in the article talk pages for discussion and resolution. Wilson44691 (talk) 15:22, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further evidence: The "Final Report of Gen. John J. Pershing" (1919) is from the "General Headquarters of the American Expeditionary Forces". Check it out in Google Scholar. Wilson44691 (talk) 15:45, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have recently read the article on Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary and have made a few minor edits. I was looking at the photos at the beginning of the article, and I have a question about the second one, which I believe you added to the article. In that photo, a man is pointing to the boundary, but it appears that he is pointing to the boundary between a very light yellow-beige and a slightly darker yellow-beige. Is that really where the boundary is? Or is the boundary where the yellow (either lighter or darker) changes to a dark gray? Going by what I see in the first photo in the article, the change marked by the border seems to be between a layer of beige rock and a layer of dark gray rock. If that is the case also in the second photo, the place to which the man is pointing is a little confusing. Perhaps the caption could be modified to make the boundary clearer, or, if that isn't possible, then perhaps you have another photo that would illustrate the boundary clearly. CorinneSD (talk) 02:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello CorinneSD. The man is pointing to the real Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary at this site in The Netherlands. It is confirmed by the paleontology. The boundary looks very different in different places, especially between continents. The rock types change as well as the local conditions at the time. It is a complex boundary in Europe, which is part of the story. Best wishes, Wilson44691 (talk) 04:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your informative reply. CorinneSD (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mark. There is a question concerning a photo taken by you. Your comment will be a great help. Thank you in advance. Beagel (talk) 18:29, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I put in my opinion. Wilson44691 (talk) 18:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the image you added. I try to figure out which mine it might be. By year you visited it and by location near Kohtla-Järve, it seems to me it may be Ojamaa mine, opened in 2006 and operated by VKG (a private company). Alternatively, it may be Aidu mine, which was operational in 2007 but which is now closed. Do you happen to remember who was the operator of the mine you visited, was it recently opened or old one, or any other bit of information which could help to identify the mine. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 05:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Beagel. I believe it was indeed the Ojamaa mine. The name is familiar and it was a newly-opened excavation. Other than this I have no other information. Cheers, Wilson44691 (talk) 09:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I hope you don't mind if I would update the capture of that image. Beagel (talk) 18:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all, Beagel. I put that image up so that you can do whatever you want with it. Wilson44691 (talk) 18:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging was originally computer jargon for...poking another computer, see Ping (networking utility). (Hey! Hey! You there? No? OK, I'm reporting you as dysfunctional!) Then it evolved into poking people. On Wikipedia, it's used as a slangy reference to WP:ECHO, the feature that adds to one's little red message button. Hope your field trips are pleasant...good weather, good finds...and that people keep their cries for "WILLSSONNN!" to a minimum (I would have a hard time with that). Best wishes, Novickas (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not too busy, you might have a look at a comment I posted at User talk:Sminthopsis84#Yukon and read Sminthopsis' reply. It seems that there is a need for an article on the geology of the Yukon so that the article on the Yukon can be mainly about human history. CorinneSD (talk) 14:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Corinne. I've never liked the mix we often see of "history" including the geological as well as human. I think there is a need for an article on the geology of the Yukon. (I won't be able to start it, though.) The geological history that is there now (those two sentences!) is hopelessly vague. I'd suggest just taking them out. Wilson44691 (talk) 18:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Red Rock Pass is a mountain pass between Idaho and Montana on the Continental divide. Despite the image label as Idaho, it is the same pass as Red Rock Pass, Montana. --Mike Cline (talk) 21:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mike. I took this image in question. It is of Red Rock Pass in southern Bannock County, Idaho. There is a Red Rock Pass between Idaho and Montana as you say, but this is not it. A simple mix-up. Wilson44691 (talk) 21:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mark. I would like to ask your professional assistance. There is an ongoing GA review on Oil shale in Estonia and there is a question concerning Graptolitic argillite. Currently there is a sentence in this article: "Although the name Dictyonema argillite is widely used instead of graptolitic argillite, this name is a misnomer as the fossils in the rock are not graptolites from the genus Dictyonema but from the genus Rhabdinopora." There is a comment at the review page: "This needs rewording as it implies that the Dictyonema are graptolites which I don't think was the intention. Also linking genus is overlinking, especially as it is contiguous with another link (not recommended per MOS:LINK)" Could yo please assist to clarify this and reword it in appropriate way. Thank you in advance. Beagel (talk) 14:46, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beagel. I commented on the talk page. Dictyonema is a graptolite. The confusion is likely because the same name is also used for a lichen.Wilson44691 (talk) 18:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! Beagel (talk) 20:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Mark, I saw the Crawford Cup myself in Leeds on Thursday: it's a wonderful object. But I believe it's incorrect to describe it as part of the Leeds City Museum collection: it's on display in a British Museum travelling exhibition, which was temporarily in Leeds when you, and I, saw it (and is only there till 4th Jan 2105) - see here. See this BM page about the cup as an item in the British Museum's collection. I've removed the image from Leeds City Museum, and amended the caption in Fluorite. I wonder if you could perhaps amend the image description in the Commons record for your image? (I'm not sure what the protocol is about amending the description an image maker has given to their image). Thanks, PamD 22:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Pam. I've amended the image description. Thanks for catching this! Best Wishes, Wilson44691 (talk) 04:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Beagel! And a Happy New Year to you as well. Keep up the excellent work. Wilson44691 (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Speeton Clay, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Belemnites. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I deleted parameter "oldest fossil" in Taxobox template in Sponge, because:

• it is superfluous: the fossil range showed in the box is automatically loaded from Wikidata
• it is incorrect: there's no such parameter defined (see Template:Taxobox), so it is not rendered in the page anyway - correct way would be e.g. fossil_range=Ediacaran-Recent

Prot D (talk) 07:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. I thought by "incorrect" you meant the information. Wilson44691 (talk) 20:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wilson44691! I was looking at your edit to Sedimentary rock and I was puzzled by something in the caption, so I left a question at User talk:Vsmith#Sedimentary rock. He made a few slight changes to the image size and the caption but wasn't able to add further information. I realized upon looking at the image again that probably all the rocks in the image are sedimentary, but I still think the middle layer should be identified, not just what appears "above" and what appears "below". I don't know if the very first phrase in the caption is identifying the middle layer or is identifying the entire cliff face. Is there anything you can do to clarify the caption (without making it unduly long)? Corinne (talk) 22:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Corinne: There are only two sets of rock types in the image with no middle layer. It is siltstones at the base of the cliff and limestones above. The talus slope at the bottom of the cliff is not counted as a rock unit. I modified the caption to make this (I hope) more clear. Note that VSmith worked on the caption of the image from Iran, which is not mine. Wilson44691 (talk) 23:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks for clarifying that. I thought "above" and "below" meant above a middle layer and below a middle layer. Thanks also for clarifying which caption Vsmith worked on; I hadn't looked closely at his edit; I know I should have. May I make a suggestion regarding the caption of the first image, the one you just modified? It's clearer than before, but would you mind using more normal vocabulary instead of "unit"? I was thinking of the following:

• Middle Triassic marginal marine sequence of siltstones (reddish layers at the cliff base) and limestones (brown rocks above), Virgin Formation, southwestern Utah, USA.

To a non-expert, "units" doesn't mean very much, and I think "layers" and "rocks" are more descriptive. Corinne (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Done. Wilson44691 (talk) 00:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested in your thoughts on the entry for George C. Weir. It seems notable enough to me, but it's been nominated for deletion and I would welcome your input. Thanks.--YHoshua (talk) 16:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry -- not an issue I need get involved with. Wilson44691 (talk) 19:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]