User talk:Cs california

Click here to leave a new message

Discussion

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]

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]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 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) 00:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Afromorus has been nominated for deletion

Category:Afromorus has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. House Blaster^talk 17:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cleistocactus sepium and Borzicactus sepium

Hi @Cs california: Over at Wikidata - specifically https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q41793352 - the deprecated genus Cleistocactus for this species is still used.

Most likely created by bots - in this context, please see Lsjbot - are:

de:Borzicactus sepium appears to be ok

I would appreciate your thoughts about this.

Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:46, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Shirt58 I don't really edit wikidata everything here is based on the Kew Powo list for Cleistocactus, Borzicactus, and Loxanthocereus. You can see which plants go where on Trichocereinae or the separate genus pages. This is the same issue for separating out everything in Echinopsis to Trichocereus, Leucostele, and Lobivia--Cs california (talk) 10:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Shirt58: Wikidata has entries for both Borzicactus sepium (Q41793352) and Cleistocactus sepium (Q1099781); correctly because although these are said to be instances of "taxon", they are actually instances of "taxon name". By design Wikidata should have items for every published taxon name. See User:Peter coxhead/Wikidata issues for a more detailed discussion. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pelecyphora lloydii - which German wiki article?

Hi, I happened to see that you recently created the article Pelecyphora lloydii, with a note that it was a translation from the German wiki. However, no article under that title seems to exist. As per the translation rules, could you please add a null edit linking the original document? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 05:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, from the looks of it, you're going to need to do similar edits on Pelecyphora emskoetteriana, Pelecyphora_zilziana, Echinocereus spinigemmatus, Gymnocalycium capillense, Gymnocalycium gibbosum, Echinocereus cinerascens, and many others. Translation is important work, and everybody makes mistakes, but I see you've had numerous other warnings about copying between different Wikipedias. Please, start fixing them. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 05:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenLipstickLesbian Please check the synonyms for the scientific names. There is no mistakes there is citation for the new name under the taxonomy section. All the cactus names use Kew's Plants of the World Online to be consistent. Pelecyphora lloydii is Escobaria lloydii; Pelecyphora emskoetteriana is Escobaria emskoetteriana; Pelecyphora zilziana is Escobaria zilziana, Echinocereus spinigemmatus is not any different de:Echinocereus spinigemmatus, Gymnocalycium capillense is not different de:Gymnocalycium capillense, Gymnocalycium gibbosum is no different de:Gymnocalycium gibbosum, Echinocereus cinerascens is no different de:Echinocereus cinerascens. If you want to add the links go right ahead. --Cs california (talk) 06:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fear you're misunderstanding the issue. You still need to link to the article in question in your edit summary. This is not optional- and nor do I particularly "want" to clean up after an editor who, after multiple warnings, still refuses to follow a basic rule. Please do this. I'm sorry if I'm coming across as harsh, but you've been told before. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 06:22, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is an optional Manual of Style guideline there is no mandatory requirement per WP:IAR. If you think it is in not in good faith you can report it. I am not going to muddy up an article with template tags when it translated and additional information is added to the article.--Cs california (talk) 06:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, WP:IAR has never, and will never, tell you that you're allowed to ignore the Text of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. That guide merely sums them up, and gives an example of how to follow them. Secondly- while I'm still assuming good faith, I have no problems going to the Copyvio notice board and asking for assistance there. I'd prefer not to have to do that, of course- but from the warnings on your page, this seems to be a long running issue that might be difficult for any one individual to fix. And, finally- nobody is asking you to add templates to the article. Literally, nobody- because that's not required. A comment in your edit summary is- but even if the template was required, aesthetics would not be a reason to leave it out. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 06:57, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it is not a template tag about the translation and the link, I am confused what you are asking for? It is referenced that it was taken from the german wikipedia so there is attribution second the citations are correctly inserted. --Cs california (talk) 07:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking you to please include a message in your edit summary- not just saying that you got the material from the german wiki, but some form of link to the actual individual article you translated. When I've translated articles, I've typically used the example

"Content in this edit is translated from the existing French Wikipedia article at [[:fr:Exact name of French article]]; see its history for attribution."

with the appropriate substitutions. That allows anybody to easily go to the German wiki and check its history and see who wrote the content. Do you understand now? Tomorrow, I can help you add those summaries back in under dummy edits, if you'd like- but I'm probably a bit too sleepy to do it now. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 07:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to add it back in but it is not a direct translation of the German. I think they can find it on the sidebar. There are lots of imported pages I have done from different wikipedia projects and combinations of multiple languages too so I don't think it is a good use of your time to add the attribution by edits. Please let me know if you have a tool for this as it is not worth doing by hand one by one--Cs california (talk) 08:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the required edit summary. Please start doing this yourself in the future, as you are wasting the time of multiple editors who are cleaning up after you. See the section below for more details. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 14:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pelecyphora duncanii

Is this a machine translation of w:de:Escobaria duncanii? The edit flagged on copypatrol as being a duplicate of this webpage, but the German-language article appears to pre-date the webpage's indexing by over a decade. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correct that site does the same thing they just translate the page and paste it. The difference is on Pelecyphora duncanii I updated the name in the taxonomy section and add the citations. That earth.com is prone to getting flag on copypatrol and they sometimes use the incorrect picture for the plant. That is why I included a edit note that it was translated so there is no confusion. The earth.com looks like it just uses a bot to grab the text and then dump it on the page.-Cs california (talk) 06:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution is required under the terms of the CC-by-SA license. Attribution is done by stating what you did in your edit summary at the time you add the content. It can also be done in a subsequent edit summary if you forget. Please have a look at this edit summary as an example of how it is done. Copying licensed material without doing this is a violation of our licensing terms. It doesn't matter if its not an exact copy/reranslation; do it every time you copy/translate an article from the German Wikipedia. Please let me know if you still don't understand what to do or why we have to do it. Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 13:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an adequate edit summary, because it does not provide a wikilink to the article from which you copied. This particular one is impossible for people to trace, because the German article is at a different title, and is not listed in the sidebar. Regardless, attribution is not provided via the sidebar; you are required to do it via your edit summary. — Diannaa (talk) 14:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Providing the attribution required under the terms of the license is not optional

Since I last posted here, you have added content the articles Pediocactus and Pediocactus bradyi that you copied/translated from the corresponding articles at the German Wikipedia. Providing the attribution required under the terms of the license is not optional. Please start doing this properly, immediately, or I will block you from editing.

~~While I was checking your recent edits, you created the artice Pediocactus paradinei. Did you copy/translate it from the German Wikipedia? If so, which article?~~ I found it. — Diannaa (talk) 21:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I am sorry am I not allowed to save the page when I am not finish editing them?--Cs california (talk) 01:00, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When you create a new page, you have the opportunity to use an edit summary. This is the time to provide attribution. Or if the page is already created when you add the copied content, provide the edit summary when you add the copied content. In either case, if you forget to do it, make a small edit and add the attribution in your edit summary.

Also, note when creating a wikilink to a page on the German Wiki, please use a colon between the de and the title. Like this: de:Escobaria robbinsorum not this: de Escobaria robbinsorum — Diannaa (talk) 01:25, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bring you here, @Diannaa, but today's edits:

[1] contains an unattributed translation from the corresponding deWiki article as well as unattributed text from this source. (CC-BY-SA 3.0 thankfully)

[2] is an unattributed translation, again from the deWiki source. I haven't gone any further back, but it looks like they've had more copyright issues in April.

I'll go ahead and fix the attributions myself-but this is still an issue, apparently, 4 months down the line.

GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 01:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Mycobacterium marinum

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Mycobacterium marinum, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

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, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 09:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Aquarium granuloma

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Aquarium granuloma, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

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, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 06:25, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unattributed copying from November

Hello again. Can you please tell us which articles you copied/translated from for these two articles? Harrisia caymanensis and Loxanthocereus faustianus? Please add the required attribution, or let me know which articles you translated and I will do it for you. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 15:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They are sourced in the article. Please send me the article you are claiming them to be translated from so we can add more information that is not present.--Cs california (talk) 21:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not claiming anything. I am asking if these two articles were copied/translated from another Wikipedia; for example the German Wikipedia or the Spanish Wikipedia. Do you remember if this is what happened? — Diannaa (talk) 14:32, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above they are sourced in the article. Not translated. Please do not falsely assume the edits are translated from another wikipedia.-Cs california (talk) 06:53, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary questions

Sorry, it's me again. On Pelecyphora alversonii, I saw you left the edit summary "import from german wikipedia and jepsons". Assuming Jepsons is the source listed in the article, I just need to know if you copied information from that source or not. The edit summary is making it sound like that's what happened- but the site is no longer availible, and I haven't found an archived version to compare to. Also, I might be back later with a few articles that I believe are translations from other Wikis, but that I haven't yet found a source for.GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 18:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you click on the source you can see a search bar and put in the name. Then you can see the measurements are updated from Jepsons.--Cs california (talk) 21:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the source link to the correct one. I'll go ahead and fix the cross-wiki attributions now. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 21:39, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was just fixing the attributions ofLoxanthocereus xylorhizus. You might want to give WP:MACHINE a read. "In Peru Loxanthocereus xylorhizus is botanically considered named after the flowers are oblique and zygomorphic, very open at the end and not tubular and actinomorphic, closed at the apex as in Cleistocactus. '" felt like it was written by a machine, not a human. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 21:58, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will go over them slowly. There are other minor issues that has to be addressed that were not noticed during the initial edits. --Cs california (talk) 22:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Aquarium granuloma

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Aquarium granuloma, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

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, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 15:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested a history merge

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Cirrhopetalum a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Bulbophyllum sect. Cirrhopetalum. 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. — Diannaa (talk) 12:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stubs

I keep coming across your articles in the feed, so I just wanted to inform you that Plants of the World Online is a wikilink that you can use in the url= parameter of your citations. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 23:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am using the citation tool --Cs california (talk) 00:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Cs california. Thank you for your work on Brassica macrocarpa. SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Hello my friend! Good day to you. Thanks for creating the article, I have marked it as reviewed. Have a blessed day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 07:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charts

Hello. I don't think your chart edits are very constructive. The zebra chart became more smushed and the beaver subspecies list is uncited. Can you at least stay away from featured articles please? Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 23:32, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is it not constructive? It makes the information on the page easier to find just like Infoboxes. The beaver subspecies was from the species page. There is a way to unsmush it see Template:Species table Cs california (talk) 00:54, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The chart was put there for information that isn't in the rest of the article. LittleJerry (talk) 14:58, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Heliaster

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Heliaster, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

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, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 05:55, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Flat white article

Hello there You recently changed the info box for this article and added the unsourced and incorrect statement that the drink originated in France. Would you please read the article and revert this? Thank you. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 11:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I corrected it myself. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 11:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aemilius Adolphin Thanks for the catch --Cs california (talk) 07:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit on Imleria

Hi, on your edit on Imleria of 10 February 2024 you've added the taxon Imleria obscurebrunnea (H.Engel & W.Härtl 1996) C.Hahn 2020 to the table of Imleria species. But I couldn't find any entry in Mycobank or Indexfungorum. I wondered because there was still a such named taxon from other autors: Imleria obscurebrunnea (Hongo 1979) Xue T. Zhu & Zhu L. Yang 2014. Could you give me more background information about that please? Ak ccm (talk) 11:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the date was wrong It should be 2014 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279035305_The_genus_Imleria_Boletaceae_in_East_Asia -Cs california (talk) 18:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if we are talking about the same thing. My problem is that I could not find anything about Imleria obscurebrunnea (H.Engel & W.Härtl 1996) C.Hahn 2020, neither about the basionym nor about the re-combined taxon. In "Heinz Engel et al. (1996) Schmier- und Filzröhrlinge s.l. in Europa. The genera: Boletellus, Boletinus, Phylloporus, Suillus, Xerocomus." only Xerocomus obscurebrunneus Hongo 1979 is mentioned. The only anew desribed species of Engel & Härtl (1996) is Xerocomus spadiceomaculans. It seems that you mean this taxon? Ak ccm (talk) 20:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that one was copied wrong or a typo. It does not show up it the publication please remove it if you have not yet.--Cs california (talk) 03:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024

Your edit to Ferocactus tiburonensis 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 information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. 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. you may not copy text from other sources into Wikipedia. Doing so is a copyright violation. Always write the articles in your own words and cite the sources of the article. Copyright violations are often speedily deleted. Dcotos (talk) 05:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am still editing the page the source is cc by sa. There was an edit conflict that reverted the content--Cs california (talk) 06:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Script?

Are you using a script or bot or other automatic creator to make your articles? The IUCN refs are wrong and both that and the Powo refs are named oddly. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No I am not I am using the citeforge tool and an template https://citer.toolforge.org/ . The tool had some citation errors in the past with IUCN which I have previously reported.--Cs california (talk) 06:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well... looks like it has more problems. Take a look at the various Melocactus species articles you created. I had to fix the IUCN ref on all of them, and the name on the IUCN and POWO refs look munged. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Might be a good idea to report it as a bug on the tool. --Cs california (talk) 05:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. But I'm not a user of the tool, so I suggest you would be better suited for the task. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UtherSRG I made a the request to format the tool see here. I think they will consider it in a future version unfortunately. I like how clean the cite is. --Cs california (talk) 09:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The IUCN ref was the bigger issue. Please report that one, too. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your IUCN refs are still/again messed up on the Echinocereus articles you are creating. Please make another report or consider using another method to generate the reference. {{make cite iucn}} is very easy to use. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, {{taxonbar}} does nothing on its own. It requires either that the Wikidata have a pointer back to the article, or that a parameter is used. We prefer both the use of the parameter and link back. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for failure to provide attribution when copying licensed material, in spite of at least five warnings to do so. Your account will remain blocked until you make a commitment to always provide the required attributrion when copying licensed material.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — Diannaa (talk) 18:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Cs california (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I said in the past that I would add attribution but I was on slow internet and wanted to make sure I had all the material in from the main sources first. I didn't realize I forgot the attribution on three recent pages- Cs california (talk) 18:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This does not provide a commitment to alwayhs providing the required attribution going forward (even if you are on slow internet). Yamla (talk) 19:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Cs california (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

@User:Yamla Thanks for replying. I will commit to always providing the required attribution going forward. But this issue happens mainly when I am importing pages from another wikipedia project if you check all the copyright issues it is the same. The issue is caused by human mistake because there are lots of moving parts (eg. create and fill template boxes, translate and rewrite information, add original citation ) and citations or references to the import is missed. I am not making malicious copy and paste or verbatim copy and paste. I am willing to work to resolve the issue. Is it possible to put the articles in a sandbox and then have them checked before being added? --Cs california (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I am unblocking your account, as you have made a commitment to provide the required attribution via edit summary when translating articles from other Wikipedias, and will make yourself a checklist to ensure that this happens. — Diannaa (talk) 13:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to support the unblocking of Cs california, who generally does excellent work on cactus articles in particular. Yes, attribution must be added in future, but over a number of years of working on cactus articles myself and seeing Cs california's edits, I've never seen any deliberately malicious editing.

Cs california: one solution is to start an article at "User:Cs california/Draft/ARTICLE-TITLE" and then only move it to mainspace when it's genuinely complete. I'd be sad to see you continue to be blocked. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is an acceptable manner that Cs can use to move forward. @Cs california: Can you abide by this process? - UtherSRG (talk) 14:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that other similar namings are possible, such as "User:Cs california/ARTICLE-TITLE" or "Draft:ARTICLE-TITLE", both of which are generally more preferrable. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What has to happen when copying from other-language Wikipedias is that the attribution is provided in an edit summary. See WP:TFOLWP for complete details and a sample edit summary. How does starting articles in a sandbox ensure that this legal requirement is met? Adding: The same requirement to provide attribution in an edit summary exists, whether you start the article in mainspace, in a sandbox, or as a draft. — Diannaa (talk) 22:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am willing to start articles in the draft and have them move it, but I don't think that resolves the issue. It is only on the cactus articles created so it is more standardized so it is consistent without too many synonym pages. The issue is when you are making lots of edits sometimes things are missed. Users using the copyright tool are pulls up false positives where translated material is marked as copyright.

When I was notified of the situation I made attempts to fix the issue in good faith attempts to fix the issues and added the attribution on articles which I copied such as here. WP:TFOLWP also says

While technically licensing violations are copyright violations, pages that contain unattributed text do not normally need to be deleted.

I don't see why this cannot be resolved by using the the Unattributed translation template or collaborative editing such as a talk page message or reminder. If this is not the use case for the tag I am not sure the purpose of the tag if it is not being used for these instances. I don't see how this is different than a Missing citation issue where the tag is used for unsourced material, which I have gone back to fix on several instances.

Instead of asking me that Diannaa and her friend suspect a page is translated and added falsified attribution to the German wikipedia as a blank edit. Here is one of the examples: Thelocactus bicolor and the German wikipedia entry de:Thelocactus bicolor.

First if you read it and try putting it through a translator it is not a one to one translation, the content is not even a verbatim translation. There was no copying from another wikipedia here.

Second I own and read some of the sources that overlap and wrote my own description. Some of the sources are the same but I own this book which the descriptions come from and I used the LLIFE site for the distribution, third the two Bulletin sources here and here for the taxonomy are the same as the German site because they are on sources where the user can view the original manuscript both of which are in the public domain. :::I could have used a jstor link but users will not be able to validate the data easily. The subspecies data is from Kew POWO not the [doi:10.3372/wi.51.51208 doi link] in the German wiki, this is why there are distribution locations on each subspecies.

Third there are sources in the German article that is not in the one I wrote.

We are using the same set of facts, because of that there might be some similar use of words, but other than that how does this count as a copy within Wikipedia?

Example 2: On the page Fuchsia jimenezii the content was blanked out when it was where the content was 7% similar without a copyright investigation despite the content also being Creative Common Zero.

Also I forgot to ask Diannaa what is the licensed material being copied?

--Cs california (talk) 09:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In your example #2, it does appear that GreenLipstickLesbian made a mistake. Sorry about that.
The licensed material that is being copied is the German Wikipedia. In your initial unblock request you note that you had forgotten to include the required attribution on three recent articles. Another case where you yourself stated that the source is cc-by-sa was on April 21 (Ferocactus tiburonensis).
It's not realistic to expect copyright patrollers to clean up after you, adding the required attribution or repeatedly having to remind you to do so, when there's currently around 90 cases per day at CopyPatrol that need to be assessed. Many days there are only two people working at CopyPatrol, investing many hours of volunteer time in copyright cleanup. It's a big problem when these hardworking people are feeling obligated to clean up after you in addition to assessing all these reports while still trying to find time for their ordinary activities of daily living.
I am aware that "The issue is when you are making lots of edits sometimes things are missed." How about you make a checklist to follow when creating new pages? "Create and fill template boxes, translate and rewrite information, add original citation, make sure licensed or public domain material is properly attributed via both edit summary and by inclusion of an attribution template if appropriate" for example. If you use the attribution templates listed at Template:Creative Commons text attribution notice for licensed material or use the template {{source-attribution}} for public domain material, these templates are noticed by Earwig's tool so patrollers are alerted to check for properly attributed copying (here's a recent example).
Again I emphasize that the attribution edit summary is not optional. Experienced patrollers know to look for it and will not mark such cases as copyvio. Experienced patrollers are also aware that compatibly licensed content and public domain material is often mirrored in multiple places online, and will hopefully not mark it as copyvio. I can't guarantee that mistakes will never happen though.
So how about trying out the checklist idea? Would that work for you?

— Diannaa (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cs california: Sorry about that- for future reference, where is the page's [3] CC0 label? I looked, but I couldn't find it- and nor could I find it on the two parent pages [4] or [5]. As you know, on the Smithsonian page you linked, it says:

"All other Content is subject to usage conditions due to copyright and/or other restrictions and may only be used for personal, educational, and other non-commercial uses consistent with the principles of fair use under Section 108 of the U.S. Copyright Act. All rights not expressly granted herein by the Smithsonian are reserved, unless the Content is marked with the [CC0] icon."

I feel a bit silly for missing that the page has that icon, and even sillier for still not being able to find it! @Diannaa, you seem to have spotted it. Could you let me know where? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 17:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see the CC0 icon on https://naturalhistory2.si.edu/botany/onagraceae/speciesdescr.cfm?myID=3651. You are correct; only webpages they have specifically marked as CC0 are released as CC0. So I perhaps assumed that all Smithsonian webpages are CC0; this is obviously incorrect. Sorry I can't find where I might have said that. — Diannaa (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm sorry @Diannaa- I just had just requested a revdel for few other times they'd really closely paraphrased from that source, and was about to have a serious eating crow moment if it had turned out to be CC0. Thank you for double checking for me! GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 00:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to try doing your checklist idea. Can I use the Template:Translated page on the talk page instead? because it adds proper attribution with the proper history, it is the same way moved articles are attributed. Also why are images from commons exempt from this attribution rule despite having the same licensing that requires attribution?

But please address the other issue: as mention before facts are not copyrightable. The material presented in the article are facts. The facts are ordered in Classic Morphology which are traditionally used and ordered by stem, leaves, flowers, fruit, and seed. This order is not copyrighable because it is a established convention and commonly used. There is not much differences you can change in the text I tried to rewrite so there is not a verbatim paraphrase but you guys don't like it. The information encyclopedic for identification so it is notable enough to include. Do you have any guides to incorporate this information? Is there a table to put it in? -Cs california (talk) 07:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot use the {{translated page}} template on talk pages in lieu of the attribution edit summary. The edit summary is mandatory; the the talk page template is optional.
When a page is moved, the page history, which lists all the contributors, is moved too and is the attribution. Thus they get credit for their work.
I don't know why images from the Commons do not require attribution. This question might be better asked at the Commons.
I don't think we currently have a table that people use, but you might ask at the relevant wikiproject.
Things like scientific terminology are difficult to paraphrase or re-write. Scientific terminology is often precise and does not necessarily have to be altered or even re-ordered to comply with our copyright policy. But you were not blocked for copyright violations of that sort; you were blocked for failure to provide attribution when copying other peoples' work from the German Wikipedia.
Since you have made a commitment in the unblock request above to provide the attribution edit summary each time, and are willing to trying out the checklist idea, I will unblock your account. Please be aware that if the problem resumes after your unblock, you will likely be re-blocked, and might have trouble convincing anyone to unblock you a second time. I will be monitoring your contributions.

— Diannaa (talk) 13:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons images aren't exempt- it's just impossible to put a file from Commons on Wikipedia without linking to the entry on Commons. Every time you click on a image, a little box pops up that will take you straight to commons. I don't know why you'd think they were exempt. Trust me, if you started harvesting commons images and taking them offsite without linking to the original, you'd get told off....GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not too concerned about the translation issue because it was addressed and I know what you want. Please let me know how you want the other pages done so I don't waste time rewriting work and then you guys just blank it with a copyvivo issue.--Cs california (talk) 03:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Courtesy link: conversation continued by Cs california on my talk page GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 04:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

citations and {{cvt}}

When are you going to start putting them into your edits instead of waiting for me to put in the cvt's and tag things with {{cn}}? UtherSRG (talk) 22:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is necessary to cite every sentence. That is not even done on most featured articles see: Giraffe,Banksia caleyi. I will see what I can do about the cvt issue. --Cs california (talk) 22:37, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to a point.... but something more is needed. At the very least, every paragraph should, if everything in the paragraph can be sourced to a single reference. If multiple references are needed, then each sentence in the paragraph should be tagged. But you have whole sections that are not referenced in some of your articles, or whole paragraphs that are unreferenced, or a single paragraph with multiple refs at the end. None of these meet any reasonable rule of thumb. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok don't bother with the cvt for now I will do them all when I finish a group of them. It is easier to focus on multiple pages just for that. Maybe just flag the pages if I miss them. --Cs california (talk) 23:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requests in drafting

Hi @Cs california, aside from the citation issues @UtherSRG mentioned immediately above, I have some additional minor requests:

When adding {{taxonbar}}, add the Q parameter or link it in Wikidata. If it does not have a Wikidata entry (check synonyms), consider creating one.
Categories should not have a white space in them. You occasionally leave a space after the colon in a cat.
If possible/available could you Wikilink the authority name(s) in the infobox (and taxonomy section)? It could be useful to readers -- even if it is an appropriate redlink or an interwiki link to another language.
You might want to add the continent/country/state Wikiproject on the talk page when possible. You never know, maybe someone in that wikiproject(s) might be interested in expanding the article. Just a personal preference.
The categories: Plants described in XXXX(year) and Taxa named by X (authority) might be useful to add when it is easy to determine. Personally, I have issues with these categories, but I can see their minor value.
When a cactus species can be found in Mexico and the United States, you occasionally do not add the category Category:Cacti of the United States. This is a pattern I found in your previous batch as well.

I am sure I am missing some other details, but I think you will see a pattern in the edits of your recent articles. If you would consider taking some of these suggestions into your drafting process that would be much appreciated.

It has been fun learning about the different types of cactus. Thanks for taking on these species articles. Cheers,-- Classicwiki (talk) If you reply to me here, please ping me. 18:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Classicwiki: I am not changing the citation unless I am wrong about the rule on Wikipedia:Citing_sources but citing each line is not necessary neither is inline citations unless the information is challenged or likely to be challenged. If I find the Q parameter I will add it otherwise I am not going to add it. If it becomes a big issue I am not even adding the template at all and letting it get added the bot or someone else, as it is not required. I do not really use Wikidata so I am not going to mess with it. I am not using a tool to edit so there is white space that does not mean the code does not work, but I will eliminate them if I see them. I am not adding the description year and taxa name categories unless I am sure of them. The year does not mean when it was described it could have been transferred. As for the category. I did not find the Cacti of the United States category thanks for pointing that out. --Cs california (talk) 09:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your latest batch of articles are again missing the taxonbar parameters and have a space in the categories. Please check your process. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you are back to not including all the goodness again with Echinocereus bakeri.... Do we need to give you a temporary edit block so that you can rethink your process, or can you refine your process immediately? @Classicwiki: FYI. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UtherSRG: Please be clear what your issue is. I am guessing it is the citations and the unit conversion. The citations are in there, there are also no missing sources if you cross reference them.

as mentioned in Wikipedia:Citing_sources#When and why to cite sources#Consecutive cites of the same source: citations should be placed at the end of the text that they support. Material that is repeated multiple times in a paragraph does not require an inline citation for every mention. I do not know why you are trying to force me to cite each sentence. As mentioned above, featured articles eg. Banksia cuneata, Adiantum viridimontanum also do not have cites for every line. These are not featured articles and are at the lowest tier of importance, why do they have a higher standard for citations?

If you have an issue with me using inline citations I can change to general citations as in Wikipedia:Citing sources#Citation types since they are "underdeveloped articles, especially when all article content is supported by a single source."

Is the issue that you have the verifiability of the sources for the measurements? per Wikipedia:Citing sources ("Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged") If so please create a talk page and make your case why you think this book is unreliable and provide an alternate source for the measurements that I can add.

Second I don't believe there is a requirement to add the conversion of the measurements, despite this I mentioned I will do the measurements conversions all at once when I am finished with multiple pages you miss reading my response above? Unless you need the measurements right away please let me know why you can't wait for them to be done in a batch as there are many other articles that have issues with the convert issue or give me a list of the articles you wanted to to have the units converted on. I don't understand the reason why you are making vague allegations then threatening to block, what policy issue was violated here?. --Cs california (talk) 09:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, cite each paragraph. An uncited paragraph, despite the following paragraph being cited, is uncited. When I see an uncited paragraph, I will tag each sentence in the paragraph as uncited. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the confusion that is fine I will just make the description one paragraph. If you see an issue just erase the previous line. I just use it when translating the article as a placeholder so it read a lot easier. --Cs california (talk) 10:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]