User talk:Cottonapple4
2
Image copyright problem with Image:Lindleya mespiloides.png
[edit]Thanks for uploading Image:Lindleya mespiloides.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 15:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Docynia, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.pfaf.org/database/plants.php?Docynia+indica. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 22:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Plant moves
[edit]Why are you moving plant articles to their common names in contravention to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora)?--Curtis Clark (talk) 01:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Plant Starts
[edit]Im starting articles about plant in simple text. You can add to them later if you can.--Cottonapple4 (talk) 22:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Please stop immediately
[edit]You are probably using a bot to create a string of new stubs about plants with no content. Please do not do this, as it diminishes the quality of the average article, and these types of articles will not likely be very relevant to the project anyway. You should attempt to determine if there is consensus before continuing further. « D. Trebbien (talk) 01:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Categories
[edit]Hi! Just wanted to pop by and let you know that edits like this aren't necessary. The article is already in the genus category, Category:Sorbus. If it belongs to subfamily Maloideae, all you need to do is change the category at Category:Sorbus from Category:Rosaceae to Category:Maloideae. There's no need for overcategorization (one article in more than one taxonomic category). I also wanted to reiterate Curtis's point above about WP:NC (flora); please read it over if you haven't already and feel free to ask me any questions if you have them. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 14:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'd like to note the existence of Category:Crataegus, even though it is currently sparsely populated. To keep Category:Maloideae im bounds it would be sensible to move all the other Crataegus articles to the former. Lavateraguy (talk) 21:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Image source problem with Image:Lindleya mespiloides.png
[edit]Thanks for uploading Image:Lindleya mespiloides.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rkitko (talk) 17:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- A follow-up: Re this edit, I highly doubt that you're the original artist of this print. Please add the appropriate source information or the image will be deleted. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 21:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- Another follow-up: Re this edit, the information still doesn't seem right. Thanks for pointing to a link! It appears as if the image was first published sometime between 1815 and 1825, per the bibliographic information given on the website. That makes it in the public domain, so the {{self}} template is incorrect. Try {{PD-old}}. Additionally, that would make "Author= Me." and "Date=2007" inaccurate. Going over the information available on the website, I'm a little fuzzy as to who the author of the illustrator is, but "Author= Me." is misleading. Listing the authors of the volume, e.g. Kunth, Bonpland, and Humbolt, would be acceptable.
- Likewise, the information for Image:Prinsepia sinensis.jpg is still incorrect. What is the source of this image?
- The same goes for Image:Stephanandra incisa.png. If you do not provide proper sources for this and Image:Prinsepia sinensis.jpg, I will delete them on Sunday per the original no-source deletion notice.
- You may want to check out Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for more information. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 01:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Image tagging for Image:Prinsepia sinensis.jpg
[edit]Thanks for uploading Image:Prinsepia sinensis.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Image tagging for Image:Stephanandra incisa.png
[edit]Thanks for uploading Image:Stephanandra incisa.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm having trouble finding an authority for this name (it's not in IPNI, and I can't find anything on the web that isn't just a mirror of Wikipedia). Can you provide a reference? Gdr 21:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see now, it's a misspelling of C. putnamiana. You also misspelled C. coccinioides, C. jonesae, C. marshallii, and Pyracantha atalantioides. It might be worth checking over your other contributions to see if any other misspellings have crept in.
Also, can you comment on Crataegus apiifolia? What's your reference for this? IPNI says it's a synonym of C. monogyna.
Can you comment on this species? What reference did you use? IPNI has it as a variety of P. serratifolia with the reference (Gamble) Vivek. & B.V.Shetty (Bull. Bot. Surv. India 23(3–4): 256 (1981 publ. 1983). Gdr 19:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Also Photinia oblanceolata. Where did you get this? Gdr 19:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)