Jump to content

User talk:FloraWilde/Archive

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

moving pages rather than creating new redirects.

[edit]

Hi! Thanks for your many recent contributions. I'd just like to let you know that, as opposed to creating new articles de novo for new names of existing articles (e.g. Hilaria rigida for existing Pleuraphis rigida), it is much preferred to simply move an existing article to a new title, and edit the text of the article appropriately. For more details, please read Wikipedia:Moving a page or Help:How to move a page, and heed the advice: "Do not move or rename a page by copying/pasting its content, because doing so fragments the edit history". During a move, redirects are automatically created to the new title, and any pre-existing Talk pages and edit history is kept visible. Conversely, when new Talk pages are created outside of moves, any Project Banners must be re-assessed, and any previous discussion of the subject (regardless of taxonomic name) is effectively hidden. If you haven't already, check out the resources and info at Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants, and Wikipedia:Redirect. Cheers! --Animalparty-- (talk) 06:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Before giving a plant a new name, you might want to verify that proper botanical nomenclaturial acts have taken place for the new name. --Bejnar (talk) 05:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Escobaria vivipara

[edit]
Hello, FloraWilde. You have new messages at Talk:Escobaria vivipara.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Bejnar (talk) 05:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Logfia filaginoides (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Petiole, Sessile and Pappus
Deinandra arida (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Entire and Red Rock Canyon State Park
Aliciella latifolia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Corolla
Ambrosia salsola (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Filiform
Eriophyllum mohavense (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Annual
Funastrum cynanchoides (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Opposite
Hilaria rigida (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Node
Syntrichopappus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Pappus

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delphinium denudatum

[edit]

Hi Flora, my name's Lord Roem. I see you've made some major edits to the page Delphinium denudatum that another editor disagreed with, but reverted it to your preferred version nonetheless. It's always preferable to discuss content disputes on the article's talk page first. Continuing to revert to your version simply because you disagree with the existing one (i.e. not removing clear vandalism) could be considered edit warring. -- Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-paste move

[edit]

Information icon Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Pleuraphis rigida a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Hilaria rigida. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

[edit]

Stop icon Your addition to Hilaria rigida has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, User:Justlettersandnumbers, for fixing my sloppy editing. FloraWilde (talk) 13:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Units

[edit]

Hi! I see that you are fairly new here, and so not necessarily familiar with all the endless details of how we do things. One thing we do not do is copy anything from copyright sources; please make sure that doesn't happen again. Apart from that, may I suggest that you read our guideline at WP:UNIT? Our articles on scientific topics use scientific units, not customary units (which are are, after all, only understandable to a tiny proportion of people). Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:28, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

US plant field guides are often in inches and feet, not metric. Is there a Wikipedia function available where I can take the inches and feet numbers, and plug them in to produce number in metric (then follow this by putting inches and feet in parentheses)? I could not quickly find it on the WP:Unit page you cited, but maybe I did not read carefully enough. If you can point me to an article where this is done, I can follow it as an example for how its done there. FloraWilde (talk) 15:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Convert is very helpful for this sort of thing. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks. FloraWilde (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pinkbeast has pointed you in the right direction there; if you need help using it please let me know (I will see if you ask here). However, you might also like to read WP:UNIT, which makes clear that SI units are – in theory at least – all that is needed in scientific articles. I don't know if the Botany wikiproject has reached any particular consensus on units; it might be worth asking. Of course, if you consult reliable academic sources rather than field guides, values will already be given in scientific units so the problem won't arise.
I'll take this opportunity to apologise for not replying individually to each one of the various objections you've raised about copyright (all or any of which may be perfectly valid). I was satisfied that some of what you had written was unacceptably close to the original; but I don't think it would be appropriate for me take any more action on that until someone else who works in that area has had a chance to look at it and give an opinion. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Syntrichopappus fremontii, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from Mojave Desert Wildflowers, by Pam MacKay, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

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

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

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

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:05, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but this sort of copying from sources is not acceptable here; and I'm seeing indications that you have done a lot of it, though of course I hope to find that I am wrong about that. There may be some sorting-out to be done. Syntrichopappus fremontii is now listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2014 June 29 so that someone other than me can look at it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:05, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What are some examples of "this sort of copying from sources" and "I'm seeing indications that you have done a lot of it"? For example, the first sentence in the article you deleted is based on content in three different books. Which clause of this sentence is a copyright violation? I also commented here[1] FloraWilde (talk) 02:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Replied at Talk:Hilaria rigida. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your reply did not cite any example of "your contributions, such as Syntrichopappus fremontii... material copied from Mojave Desert Wildflowers... The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted." The entire Syntrichopappus fremontii article was deleted, without any examples cited (or any response at all in the deletion discussion for that particular article). FloraWilde (talk) 20:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone help me by looking at the discussion of possible copyright violations here and here?

That seems well on the way to being resolved already, with Stan commenting at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2014 June 29 and Dunditschia commenting on Talk:Hilaria rigida. I don't have access to the book myself, so I'd prefer to let someone else close the copyright problem discussion, but I expect that will happen in a few days at most. Huon (talk) 19:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it looks like my edits will likely be restored. But Justlettersandnumbers has a point. In botany, topic sections, their content, and even the words (nomenclature), are pretty much standardized, so Wiki articles may appear to plagiarize the sources, and sources may appear to plagiarize each other, when this is not the case. In botany articles, this does not violate copyright policy at Wiki. But in other fields, e.g., biographies of presidents, this would be a clear violation of the Wiki copyright policy. Without knowing about a field having standardized topics, content, and language, how can an editor from outside a field know when it is, and is not, a violation? The Wiki policy does not make this clear. Justlettersandnumbers raises a good question, even if my edits end up being restored. (I put this same comment on two other pages with similar discussions.) FloraWilde (talk) 13:20, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A photo would help

[edit]

Hi FloraWilde: your suggestion for photographs for the botanical glossary is an excellent one. If you could add some that would be great.Granitethighs 23:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll get to it sooner or later. It will be a good exercise for me to use each term to try to find the best archetypical example. FloraWilde (talk) 03:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes to the plant article template

[edit]

Hi, I reverted all your changes and then added back some I thought would be useful and uncontroversial. Changing the recommended order of sections, an order used in a very large number of plant articles, including featured articles, needs consensus among WikiProject Plants members. Please discuss at WT:PLANTS before making changes like this. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Decker - Why did you delete my history of editing?

[edit]

@Joe Decker - Why did you delete my history of editing?[2] Was there notice or discussion of this somewhere that I was not aware of? FloraWilde (talk) 03:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was a notice on top of the article, which is what I was responding to. You edited the article quite a number of times while the notice was present, and it called for the hiding of revisions that included material copied from another, copyrighted source.
The notice read, in part:
It has been requested that certain historical revisions of this page be redacted under criterion RD1 (Blatant copyright violations) by an administrator, because the article history contains significant copyright violations of Mojave Desert Wildflowers, by Pam MacKay, that have been removed in the meantime. The revisions requested to be deleted are: 613071899 to 614845046 (inclusive)
So I'm a bit confused--did you not see the notice, or, instead, did you not understand what it meant, or? I'd be happy to try and explain, but I'm a bit confused about why you are confused. --j⚛e deckertalk 03:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, and you were apparently warned about this precise issue at User_talk:FloraWilde#June_2014. More or less, once you have inserted other copyrighted material into the encyclopedia, we have to remove from public view every version that the copyrighted material touches. Does that explain the issue? --j⚛e deckertalk 03:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, because admin Stan Shebs and other editors specializing on botany articles determined these were not copyright violations.[3] The editor who made the accusation did so in good faith because he did not know that the sections in the source were the same as those in the pre-existing article section structure at the Wikiproject:Plants template (which I use on all articles I edit). This created the appearance of copying the structure of the source when it did not. Then inside each section, simple facts are stated using standardized botanical terminology (which is in the Wikipedia glossary of plant terminology). I did not use the exact language of the source. I used slightly different (but similar since its all standardized) wording, that of the corresponding titles of Wiki articles that I linked to. When the editor making the accusation (in good faith) saw this repeated in many articles (since Wiki:Plants template has the same structure as that particular source), and standardized nomenclature, not knowing that the nomenclature was standardized and apparently not knowing of the Wiki template, the made the accusation general to all articles I edited. This has already been hashed out in the link with Stan Shebs, and in other talk pages, where my edits were reinserted and were not challenged again. Again, the editor who made the accusations did so in clear good faith. FloraWilde (talk) 14:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is rather odd that the notice was never removed from the article, if there was consensus that there was no violation. I shall look into this further. --j⚛e deckertalk 15:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that was interesting. Let's make sure we're on the same page, because we clearly weren't above. This is what I understand from having read the various talk pages and looked a the currently hidden revisions:
  • On June 29, an editor reverted back to a June 15 revision of the text and noted a copyright concern. Both were addition and the deletion were done in good faith, I'm sure.
  • The material was not restored in that form following the June 29 removal. Topically similar material, more clearly reworded, was added, in particular on July 4. I don't see any concern about those additions, from other editors in the discussion.
  • The discussion you linked (in particular the close of the last hatted section) seems to indicate some rewriting is something you're doing, and that Moonriddengirl is suggesting, and in fact, making suggestions about how to do it. Moonriddengirl is probably the Wikipedia community's go-to expert on copyright matters, and she seems to be abstaining from saying whether the earlier text involved was a problem.
  • You are asking me to restore the visibility of the text of the 15-29 June revisions, despite there seeming to be an agreement (between at least you and Moonriddengirl) to rewrite them.
Before I answer the request, I'd ask: would you say that's a fair summary of the situation? Where have I gone astray? I'm sorry this is so frustrating. --j⚛e deckertalk 16:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about it. The problem seems to have gone away as to any other articles, and there is only a single sentence that the deleting editor seems to now be contesting. I will go back and rewrite that sentence, and rewrite the entire article with additional info additional sources. FloraWilde (talk) 00:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages of articles

[edit]

I would urge caution in altering talk pages of articles. Marking things as resolved, manually moving content to archives and especially any kind of refactoring of comments (while you are free to alter your own comments in general posting a clarification or using strikethrough is preferable). To make a change to an article six hours after discussion started with the input of only two other editors (one of whom was not supportive of the change) on a very contested article and then mark the thread resolved is not really a good idea. You are free to edit boldly, but declaring consensus by fiat is pretty frowned upon. The archive bots will move things into the archives in chronological order and in due time (and with indexing). To move discussions there manually when they are less than 15 days old is not something supported by the consensus on the talk page. Archiving like all else is subject to consensus. Moving discussions to the archive prematurely esp. when the bot is set to so brief a period as 15 days with declarations of resolution is again declaring consensus by fiat. The guidelines for archiving don't support your actions either.

I am not raising a specific objection that I am asking to be corrected just giving a word of warning/caution. As you edit boldly it would be best to prevent behavior issues from disadvantaging you, as content disagreements will surely arise. Someone hostile to you would probably find grounds for an ANI report. I'd rather see editors discussing content than tied up on drama boards. Best wishes and happy editing. - - MrBill3 (talk) 16:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Looking back at my refactoring and its timing shows me you are correct. I will go more slowly on articles that may have controversy and restore the archived sections to the active talk page. FloraWilde (talk) 16:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. I don't know that I would worry about what has been done so far unless someone raises a specific objection. It was more or less just a heads up so far as I am concerned. Glad to see you are receptive, thoughtful and willing to consider your actions that will carry you quite a ways on WP. I am guessing/hoping you are aware that you are now editing in a highly contentious area. Good luck. BTW I am going to post the discretionary sanctions notice here. Might as well have it out of the way and of course it does show that you have been informed. Please note it is an informative notice only and does not imply you have done anything wrong nor should it be interpreted as a discouragement to edit in any article. Best wishes and happy editing. - - MrBill3 (talk) 16:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. Re ""editing in a highly contentious area"", I got into this because of two discussions related to alt med in WikiProject:Plants, here, and here. The traditional and alternative medicine topic did not seem to be a contentious in those discussions, since many editors made comments, and there appeared to be unanimous agreement and consensus. I can see that editing outside plant articles based on botany or anthropological sources, might lead to talk page discussions that have non-science-oriented editors participating, and might be like getting into a religious debate, which for me always ended up being a waste of time. FloraWilde (talk) 17:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OOOH alt med, fringe and pseudoscience are hotbeds of contention. You'll find debate that points toward science some of it pseudoscience, some science, some spiritual, much nonsense I don't even know how to describe it all. Often it does get steered firmly towards academic and scientific debate. Unanimous agreement based on science wow maybe I need to edit in botany. Consensus in alt/fringe topics is usually the tenuous result of heated battle. The drama boards are lit up, discretionary sanctions invoked and not infrequently topic bans sometimes blocks. Well I don't want to discourage you as the area needs all the thoughtful editors who base their contentions on scholarly work it can get so I'll stop and just wish you well. - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions notice

[edit]
Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date. Purely informational! No implication of misconduct or discouragement of editing on any article intended.

MrBill3 (talk) 08:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. When you and the other editor suggested I put in some examples of disruptive editing by that editor, I looked into his/her edit history, and found a previous block for similar disruptive editing, right after their account was opened... as a sockpuppet for another disruptive editor... and worse. I asked the pervious blocking admin to look at the disruptive editor again, and the relevant article talk page section. Meanwhile, I am going back to writing content into plant articles, and will try to stay off these talk pages. :) FloraWilde (talk) 18:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Logfia filaginoides) has been reviewed!

[edit]

Thanks for creating Logfia filaginoides, FloraWilde!

Wikipedia editor Bfpage just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Nice job on the article. I encourage you to keep on editing because this article has the potential of being even better. Best regards

To reply, leave a comment on Bfpage's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Thanks. Nice to meet a fellow plant-obscurist. You might want to also review an even more obscure plant article that I asked to be peer reviewed. I started it, but User:Peter coxhead made it into a good article - Holmgrenanthe petrophila, and peer review request here. FloraWilde (talk) 01:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit notes

[edit]

Hi Flora. Please be a little more careful with your edit notes. Your edit note here was clearly misleading at best. You correctly reverted what was blatantly a POV push, but labling it as vandalism was not constructive. Thanks, LeadSongDog come howl! 18:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. I will try to be more careful (and less brash and hot-headed). FloraWilde (talk) 18:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Flora of the Sierra Nevada alpine zone for deletion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Flora of the Sierra Nevada alpine zone is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flora of the Sierra Nevada alpine zone until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 06:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aster alpigenus

[edit]

Why did you create the redirect Aster alpigenus? What is the connection between this title and Oreostemma alpigenum? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent scientific name change. FloraWilde (talk) 14:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

on using one source

[edit]

This section was moved to the article talk page here FloraWilde (talk) 22:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014

[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Vegetation type may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • refers to members of a group or aspect of plants that are often found growing in an area together (([[plant associates]]), or that share similar environmental conditions, characterized by the

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Polemonium eximium may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Flora of the Sierra Nevada alpine zone may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • [[Phyllis M. Faber]]|publisher=University of California Press|year=2003|ISBN=0520236351}}</ref>{{rp|17-18<ref name=SEARMC>{{cite book|title=Sierra East|chapter=Alpine Rock and Meadow Communities|

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Flora of the Sierra Nevada alpine zone may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • (''[[Penstemon|Penstemon spp.]]'', and Polemoniums (''[[Polemoniaceae|Polemoneaceae spp.]]'')))).<ref name=ICMW/>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Flora of the Sierra Nevada alpine zone may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Flora of the Sierra Nevada alpine zone may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Arabis platysperma may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • It can be found on dry, rocky flats and slopes, from {[convert|4000|to|12000|ft|m}}, in mountain ranges including the United States [[Sierra Nevada (US)|Sierra Nevada]] range,

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Flora of the Sierra Nevada alpine zone may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s and 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Flora of the Sierra Nevada alpine zone may have broken the syntax by modifying 5 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Flora of the Sonoran Desert may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • precipitation tend to have closer affinities to [[flora of the Mojave Desert]].<ref name=SDW/>{{rp|10}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Celtic rain forest may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Action Group: Kilmartin, UK, 2012</ref> There is an exceptional number of [[epiphytic]] plants (plants growing on or hanging from trees without being [[parasitic]].<ref name=SNH/> The ground is

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Chamaesyce may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • flower are in fact leaf-like structures that are below the head of reduced flowers ([cyathium]]).

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 10 August

[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Draba lemmonii
added links pointing to Talus and Basal
Alternative medicine
added a link pointing to Botanica
Flora of the Sierra Nevada alpine zone
added a link pointing to Talus
Fritillaria recurva
added a link pointing to Capsule
Lupinus lepidus
added a link pointing to Basal
Upper montane forest
added a link pointing to White Mountains

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Syntrichopappus fremontii

[edit]

Hi! I had hoped that someone other than me would do something about this page. However, more than a month has passed, so I've now gone ahead and rewritten the parts that were in my view unacceptably close to the source. If I've introduced mistakes please feel free to fix them. Unless, as is your right, you disagree with the edits I've made, I'll go ahead and archive this soon if that's OK with you? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was going to get back to this article when I got back to the university library with more sources. I still will do so. (You were correct about my being sloppy in not checking my edits against the source for possible copyright violations. I have tried to be more careful since your notice.) FloraWilde (talk) 14:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New articles: check for synonymy first

[edit]

Hi, FloraWilde. Just a quick suggestion -- please check for existing articles titled at synonyms before creating a new article. I've just moved or merged several articles you created today to their correct titles. The Plant List is a good place for a first check on the appropriate name to use. If you're not certain, you may need to do more research before creating the article. You could always create draft articles in your userspace, see Help:Userspace draft, before moving them to article space once you're done. I'd also note that we don't capitalize plant common names, e.g. "Carrot Family" should be "carrot family" -- unless the name has a proper noun that refers to a person or place and even then only that word is capitalized. Would you mind taking some time to go back over your recent article creations to check for synonymy and move or merge content as appropriate? Thanks! Rkitko (talk) 01:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Did you mean to say don't capitalize plant family common names like Carrot Family, or don't capitalize either plant common names or plant family common names? Is there a guideline I can use regarding things like capitalization, or other things?FloraWilde (talk) 02:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Yes, both the word "family" and "carrot" should be in sentence case, not title case. Names commonly used to refer to species, vernacular names, such as small bladderwort, are also in sentence case except for words that are proper nouns, e.g. Kimberley bladderwort. See the guideline at MOS:CAPS#Animals, plants, and other organisms. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 02:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK.I just fixed it in the Flora of the Sierra Nevada alpine zone that I have been working on, then I will go back and review my edits when I finish going through a few more source books for that article. FloraWilde (talk) 03:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Flora of the Sierra Nevada alpine zone
added links pointing to Timber line and Basal
Lichens of the United States Sierra Nevada range
added links pointing to Aquatic and Native Americans
Leaf
added a link pointing to Lamina

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Celtic rain forest
added links pointing to Canopy and Substrate
Biological soil crust
added a link pointing to Aeolian
Koerberia sonomensis
added a link pointing to Rosettes

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Euphorbia
added links pointing to Morphology, Morphological, Spines and Thorns
Stem succulent
added links pointing to Spines and Thorns
Aristolochia watsonii
added a link pointing to Capsule
Chamaesyce
added a link pointing to Filament

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Penstemon

[edit]

Hi: I've been editing some of your wilflower articles and making some changes to update phylogeny. Not sure if that sort of thing interests you. Thanks for the contributions... " Penstemon /ˈpɛnstɨmən/,[1] the beardtongues, is a large genus of North American and East Asian flowering plants formerly placed in the Scrophulariaceae family (Cronquist system). Due to new genetic research, it has now been placed in the vastly expanded family Plantaginaceae. " —Gaff ταλκ 17:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. I was not thinking when I did the edit, since I was aware of the family change. Thanks, and thanks for your fine contribution history, too. FloraWilde (talk) 18:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cohen reference

[edit]

Hi FloraWilde. I see you made this addition, but that ref doesn't seem to work, not then or now. Please fix it. I have tried, but am not sure which ref to use. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it. I don't recall the particular edit, but I likely just pulled the content and ref off of the main qigong page, and likely did not check that the content is supported by the ref, assuming that verification was already done by whatever editor put it into the main qi gong page. FloraWilde (talk) 03:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That can happen pretty easily! One has to be sure to get the full ref and take it along to the other article. Then check the other article to see if that same ref is already used. If so, then use the short "name" ref format. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FloraWilde/Archive&oldid=1139690224"