User talk:Cs california: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 21:28, 24 November 2023

Click here to leave a new message

Discussion

Saint Petersburg or San Francisco?

Quick note about your recent edit on Museum of the History of Religion: it seems that in the infobox you inserted San Francisco as in the map caption rather than Saint Petersburg. I'm guessing that was a mistake? Best, Eccekevin (talk) 21:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes just fix it --Cs california (talk) 06:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Fantastic summary at Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., thank you! DrawWikiped^(talk) 23:14, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Bambi does not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits a summary may be quite brief.

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Telefocus (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You know there is a button to compare history if you want to know what people did instead of spam their talk pages for small edits --Cs california (talk) 04:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into Mineral deficiency. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 16:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to add that go ahead no one is stopping you.-Cs california (talk) 05:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ranks in taxonomy templates

Hi, just to note that if the rank that will be displayed is shaded red, as it is here, it means that it's not a rank that is accepted by the automated taxonomy system. It's meant to be a helpful clue, as I didn't want to generate a big red error message. Anyway, such errors will be picked up and corrected as they add the taxonomy template to an error-tracking category, so it's not something to be too concerned about. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:18, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Illusion logo.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Illusion logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Giffords Law Center article

Hi Cs_california. I see you’re a member of WikiProject Politics. I’ve made a number of proposals to substantially improve the article about Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, posted on the Talk page here: Talk:Giffords_Law_Center_to_Prevent_Gun_Violence#Updates_to_Improve_Article_-_June_14,_2022. Since I have a conflict of interest, I can’t implement the changes myself. Would you possibly have time to look at these and weigh in? Thank you very much.Brooklyn1576 (talk) 17:43, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:INFOBOXFLAG

Hiya. You may want to give the MOS:INFOBOXFLAG guideline a quick review. (In short, "Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes [..because..] they could be unnecessarily distracting and might give undue prominence to one field among many".) Guliolopez (talk) 14:32, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Guliolopez: No one really follows that and it depends on the Project too. There are lots of examples of these left on over 10 years old prior to that rule being made and they are not cleaned up. If you want to go and manually take them off be my guest. -Cs california (talk) 04:58, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Avoiding cut-and-paste moves

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Cintia a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Rebutia cintia. 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 for registered users, 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:Requests for history merge. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 03:31, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DanCherek: You know my account is older than your account and auto confirmed. Second the move is because the taxonomy is out of date if you don't believe it Please make a discussion on the talk page instead of spamming my talk page --Cs california (talk) 03:40, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, someone who has been around for as long as you have should be aware of the licensing requirements that are in place. I don't have an issue with your new article title, but you can't just cut and paste the text like that – it's a violation of our attribution requirements and it creates extra work for other editors to clean up after you. You can brush this off as "spam" if you want, but consider it a warning, given that you have received countless previous other warnings related to copyright and attribution. It's disruptive and in contravention of our policies and guidelines. DanCherek (talk) 03:44, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cs california: I appreciate the good work you do on plant articles. The issue is not changing the article title and content to keep up with changes of taxonomy, which is necessary, but how it's done. There are two main cases:

Species transferred to a new genus. As DanCherek says above, use the Move tab. There's a tool which makes swaps if the move can't be made; I'm always happy to help if asked (I've been making a large number of moves of Bromeliaceae species recently).
Genus sunk into another genus. Here you do have to copy and paste any useful information from the old page, before converting it to a redirect. Your edit summary should make this clear.

Peter coxhead (talk) 13:03, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead Yeah I am not up to date with the tools. Prior to this it was just a redirect to move the page.

Cs california (talk) 17:53, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 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) 00:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bulbophyllum sect. Furvescens

Hi, as you have made the article I'm contacting you. The correct spelling of the section is Furvescentia. The authors published it in the wrong way. Check these databases for more information: https://www.tropicos.org/name/100374098 https://www.ipni.org/n/77114299-1 Best wishes Badlydrawnboy22 (talk) 22:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to move it because you looked into it. But the phylogeny article list it as Furvescens --Cs california (talk) 07:05, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for moving it. At Tropicos you can find the explanation why the correct form is Furvescentia. Best wishes Badlydrawnboy22 (talk) 08:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

species list boxes

Check out Pantherinae for a better way to do that. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@UtherSRG you are free to change it if you want Cs california (talk) 18:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was giving you first opportunity, but more than that it's information for future such tables you make. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not too familiar with Species table template. For the larger tables not sure how you put in the collapsible or the sort. I tried it here but It has some issues: Episynlestes -- Cs california (talk) 05:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've put a note requesting collapse on the template's talk page. Looking at Episynlestes, are you worried about the width not fitting in? I agree it's clunky there. I suggest leaving a note on the template's talk page, too, to work on it. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:30, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you respond at Template talk:Species table‎‎ with a species list table you put in that is collapsible? I was looking through your recent tables and couldn't find one. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bulbophyllum categories

Hi, at Bulbophyllum macranthoides, for example, we wouldn't normally have both Category:Bulbophyllum and Category:Bulbophyllum sect. Sestochilos because the latter is a subcategory of the former. I think two changes are needed:

remove Category:Bulbophyllum from all articles where a Bulbophyllum section category is present.
add the species epithet as the category key to the Bulbophyllum section categories (e.g. [[Category:Bulbophyllum sect. Sestochilos|macranthoides]]) to set out the species in alphabetical groups as is usual.

Peter coxhead (talk) 10:03, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

Hello Cs california!

The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 10:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023

Your edit to Espostoopsis has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of 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 material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions 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 very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 12:51, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Monotypic genera

Hi, I admire the work you do on cacti. However, I don't understand why you moved Rauhocereus to Rauhocereus riosaniensis. As per WP:MONOTYPICFLORA, monotypic genera are treated at the genus name, not the species name. It's also normal to start an article with its title; as per MOS:FIRST: "If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence." There's no reason why it's not possible for a monotypic genus. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was not sure what to do and then I used Mila caespitosa as an example. Thanks for fixing the issue. --Cs california (talk) 01:32, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, this is an example of part of WP:MONOTYPICFLORA I don't agree with. When the the name of a monotypic genus needs disambiguating, like Mila, instead of putting the article at Mila (plant), the policy is to put it at the only species, Mila caespitosa in this case. To me this is bound to cause confusion, as it did to you, since many monotypic genera will be treated at the genus name but others at the species name. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:42, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah just change it. I just try to base my edits off of other examples when I am unsure. --Cs california (talk) 20:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moved

You moved Echinopsis eyriesii‎ to Echinopsis oxygona, i can see that eyriesii‎ page and oxygona page are very similar, but do you have a source that they are the same one? The two external links I gave, they are still different. Pfeiff is also marked in both pages. What if you kept both pages and mentioned that they could be the same plant? Webclouddat (talk) 13:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes right over here. They are synonyms. If you think they are different then keep them separate and make notes on how they are distinguished because I can't tell them apart myself when I looked at live plants.--Cs california (talk) 03:56, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, While I do see that they are listed as synonyms in the Royal Botanic Gardens website, and you do not have to keep them seperate, could you please:

Include the info that was in the pre-redirect version, such as the Echinopsis eyriesii var. cristata variant, included in the Echinopsis oxygona Website by POWO
- Move the further readings too?
- not include var. inermis, as that one is useless
Just address that there are synonyms in the page (Also in POWO website)
- ~~Probably under a ==names== section~~ Under synonyms in the taxobox
- PLEASE Include all pics from eyriesii‎ in oxygona, label them as eyriesii‎, as you probably addressed the synonyms

Webclouddat (talk) 04:28, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

World of Succulents, World floraonline, India Biodiversity, wikispecies, EOL, Tropicos and cactushabitat.org also list it as a synonym. As I mention above if you think they are different make your case on how they differ and we can figure out if it can be on its own page. But I don't see many taxonomy databases or cactus websites listing them as separate species, except for older ones--Cs california (talk) 04:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would not like you to have them be separate pages again! they are definitely synonyms!

Could you just move stuff from the Pre-redirect version to Echinopsis oxygona, and put the synonyms (from here) in the taxobox in Echinopsis oxygona Webclouddat (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Stetsonia

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:16, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Setiechinopsis

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:16, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023

Your edit to Cleistocactus pungens has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of 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 material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions 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 very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 13:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This has no copyright material all it is just translated from the German wikipedia. You can put it through the translator yourself. Second the site you are using is not accurate the photograph on it is not even a cleistocactus but an orchid --Cs california (talk) 16:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. It's also required under the terms of the license. I've added the attribution for this particular instance, via an edit summary and a template on the article talk page. Sorry for the mistake. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material in the future. — Diannaa (talk) 00:41, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You did it again, on Echinocereus coccineus. Attribution is required under the terms of our license. Please start doing this. — Diannaa (talk) 12:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Same article ?

Are Neobuxbaumia macrocephala and Cephalocereus macrocephalus referring to the same species? I'm pretty sure that the former is now a synonym for the latter. Should they be merged? 115.188.113.184 (talk) 07:56, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Plants of the World Online treats them as one species under the name Cephalocereus macrocephalus, so, yes, they should be merged. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now done; might need some more editing. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:43, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023

Your edit to Pelecyphora alversonii has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of 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 material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions 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 very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 21:28, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 181: / Line 181: @@
 :Well, Plants of the World Online treats them as one species under the name ''Cephalocereus macrocephalus'', so, yes, they should be merged. [[User:Peter coxhead|Peter coxhead]] ([[User talk:Peter coxhead|talk]]) 17:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 ::Now done; might need some more editing. [[User:Peter coxhead|Peter coxhead]] ([[User talk:Peter coxhead|talk]]) 17:43, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
+== November 2023 ==
+[[File:Copyright-problem.svg|30px|link=|alt=Copyright problem icon]] Your edit to [[:Pelecyphora alversonii]] has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added [[Wikipedia:Copyrights|copyrighted]] material to Wikipedia without evidence of [[Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission|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 material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions 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&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy '''will be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]]'''. See [[Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources]] for more information. <!-- Template:uw-copyright -->  — [[User:Diannaa|Diannaa]] ([[User talk:Diannaa|talk]]) 21:28, 24 November 2023 (UTC)