User talk:Cs california/Archive 2

Your account

Hi, this edit appears to suggest that your account is shared by more than one person. In case you are not aware, accounts must not be used by more than one person. Please could you explain what you meant by that edit. Thanks. GT5162 ^{(我的对话页)} 19:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why I should explain but I will anyways

The page states User accounts must only represent individuals.

Sharing an account – Not being violated

or the password to an account - Not being violated

Furthermore nowhere said that there are multiple editors either. Also I have been on since 2006 so I don't see what the problem is. Also why would you want to know when you are not an admin?--Cs california (talk) 02:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to make sure because the message appeared to suggest that. Sorry for bothering you. GT5162 ^{(我的对话页)} 12:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using wikimedia images on http://orchids.wikia.com/

Please, when you upload elsewhere images coming from Commons you have to specify the author of the image, inserting a link to the original file ! (see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Reusing_content_outside_Wikimedia)

I found some pictures of mine, licensed with CC-SA-BY license (see for example http://orchids.wikia.com/wiki/File:Ophrys_lutea_zingaro.jpg, http://orchids.wikia.com/wiki/File:Ophrys_tenthredinifera.jpg - http://orchids.wikia.com/wiki/File:Ophrys_lutea_minor.jpg ), without any indication about source and authorship !

Please, take more care ! --Esculapio (talk) 17:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops sorry about that -Cs california (talk) 10:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Battle Raper

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Battle Raper. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle Raper. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:BattleRaper.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:BattleRaper.jpg. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Brlogo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Brlogo.jpg. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!

Congratulations Cs california! Your image Image:Pacific Tree Frog.jpg was the Random Picture of the Day! It looked like this:

Random picture of the day

A Pacific Tree Frog, state amphibian of Washington

Image credit: [[User:Cs california (talk)|Cs california (talk)]] ([[User talk:Cs california (talk)|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/Cs california (talk)|contribs]])

. - Talk to you later, Presidentman (talk) Random Picture of the Day 22:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks-Cs california (talk) 08:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of A-ga

The article A-ga has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article fails to establish its Notability as required by Wikipedia General Notability Guideline, i.e. it does not cite significant coverage in reliable sources.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fleet Command (talk) 06:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Sociology Newsletter: II (April 2010)

Sociology Project • News • April 2010

Spreading the meme since August 2006

The Sociology WikiProject is conducting a roll call (or min-census, if you prefer). More then five years down the road, we have over 50 members, but we don't know how many of them are still active in the sociology area. If you are or want to become once again an active contributor to the sociology content on Wikipedia, please move your name from the inactive to the active list on our roll call (or add yourself to the list if you haven't joined yet!).

In other news, we have reactivated the newsletter :) At least, for this announcement. We also have a new, automated to do listing, an active tag and assess project (which has identified about 1,800 sociology articles on Wikipedia, and assessed about 1,3000 of them), and three new userboxes for your self-identification pleasure :) On a final note, I highly recommend watchlisting the Wikipedia:WikiProject Sociology page, so you can be aware of the ongoing discussions.

You have received this newsletter because you are listed as a recipient of WikiProject Sociology Newsletter (Opt-out). • signed

File source problem with File:Yingli Green Energy logo.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Yingli Green Energy logo.jpg. 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, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Shizhao (talk) 13:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Nod General Hassan.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Nod General Hassan.jpg. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hammersoft (talk) 18:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Sociology membership

You are listed in the Category:Wikipedians interested in sociology, probably due to the use of "This user is interested in sociology" userbox, but you have not added yourself to our official member list for WikiProject Sociology. This prevent you from, among other things, receiving our sociology newsletter, as that member list acts as our newsletter mailing list (you can find the latest issue of our sociology newsletter here). If you'd like to receive the newsletter and help us figure out how many members we really have, please consider joining our WikiProject and adding yourself to our official member list. Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 12:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

Hello, Cs california/Archive 2! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 03:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Campus Ambassador needed

Hi! My name is Annie Lin - I'm the Campus Team Coordinator at the Wikimedia Foundation. I'm contacting you because you're listed as a resident of San Francisco, and we're currently looking for a friendly Wikipedian to teach students in a University of San Francisco class how to use/edit Wikipedia. This is a role titled the "Wikipedia Campus Ambassador," and you'll basically be doing in-class presentations about Wikipedia, running Wikipedia labs/workshops, and in general providing face-to-face Wikipedia help for the professor and the students in the class. The time commitment is about 3-5 hours a week (with variations throughout the semester), and for this particular University of San Francisco class, most of the workload will be between March and May.

Please let me know if you're interested!

Thanks. Annie Lin (Campus Team Coordinator, Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 19:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Arroz con pollo 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:

| country = [Spain]],[[Colombia]], [[Cuba]], [[Costa Rica]], [[Nicaragua]], [[Venezuela]], [[Panama]], [[Peru]] and [[

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited White cut chicken, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Green onion (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thong yip, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eggs (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Romesco, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Nuts and Red pepper (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Nip Gamergate in the bud. Thank you. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 11, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For adding infoboxes to so many biographies. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

biology articles

Hi, sorry to revert you, but it makes sense to describe what something is before talking about where it is found. We've had this debate on a few wikiprojects and come to a consensus that this is a good way to lay things out....cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Calfornia towns: pushpin map redundant with existing map

Hello, Cs. I noticed that you reverted my edit at Mammoth Lakes, California. I think that adding a pushpin map to infoboxes for California towns does not help our readers. For example, at Mammoth Lakes, California, there is already a map that shows the location of the town in Mono County, and the location of Mono County within the State. Showing the location of the town in the United States simply takes up space and makes the main article more crowded. Hence, I removed the pushpin map.

I would not object to adding the pushpin map to infoboxes that do not already have county locator maps.

If you don't agree, can we open this issue up to wider discussion? Thanks! —hike395 (talk) 04:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree Based on the following:

1. It takes up more space than most taxonboxes or the machine learning and data mining navbox.

2. Cross wikipedia support: This is pretty standard as it is done on the Polish wikipedia, Tagalog wikipedia, spanish wikipedia and for the mammoth lake article see(French, Polish, [1], Serbian) If it does not help readers they would not have it in so many other languages

3. Many articles on major cities that are separated into districts/provinces (eg. Manila, Paris,Guangzhou, Madrid, Barcelona).

4.Location infoboxes are designed to take up to 3 maps.

5. It gives context to where the place is in the US. You are not the only one looking this up on wikipedia, how would other people know where this is in context to the US?

--Cs california (talk) 10:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add the pushpin maps. They don't add anything to the encylopedia, and it is a big pain to remove them. Thank you. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 02:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I second what BeenAroundAWhile said. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chatter) @ 10:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any rebuttals to my points. If it is redundant why is it on large cities and other wikipedia projects?--Cs california (talk) 10:55, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page.I appreciate your interest in maps, but we don't need redundancy in the Information boxes. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 02:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry I used this template. I apologize, and I hope we can work together from now on. Sincerely, your friend, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 02:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of consensus for USA pushpin maps

Just a few weeks ago, as a result of this discussion, there was consensus among the participants at Wikipedia:WikiProject New Jersey that state-level pushpin maps are unneeded, as articles statewide already have maps showing the location within the county and of the county within the state. These state-level pushpin maps are being removed. I appreciate your efforts to add pushpin maps of the United States, but there appears to be no consensus at any level that they should be added. These maps add space to already large infoboxes, and provide context that is readily available at articles about the county, state or country. Nor is there any need to show pushpin maps of the hemisphere, Earth, our solar system or the the location of places within the Milky Way, all of which is available elsewhere.

Please stop and take stock. Before making further changes, reach out at any level and obtain consensus for your actions, huge numbers of which have been reverted by editors across the country. If there is no consensus, you can stop adding these maps once and for all and move on to other activities. If there is consensus, there are methods that will be far more effective to add these maps, such as using bots to do so. Until then, I'll be happy to do the reverts to restore the status quo. Alansohn (talk) 20:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the lack of consensus since many major cities already have these maps (eg. Manila, Paris,Guangzhou, Madrid, Barcelona, San Francisco). Also there is cross wiki support as shown here Polish wikipedia, Tagalog wikipedia, spanish wikipedia. Lets take one of your New Jersey article Asbury Park, New Jersey some of the articles such as italian,Dutch, Croatian, Azerbaijani, and French --Cs california (talk) 23:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus would be in the English Wikipedia. It might well make sense to provide the greater context in the Polish, Tagalog, Italian, Dutch, Croatian, Azerbaijani and French Wikipedias, and they may have even reached consensus on those pushpin maps. Sure there are some cities with the maps, but that's mostly because there are no local maps that could fit the bill. The overwhelming majority of articles in the English Wikipedia *DON'T* have these pushpin maps for the United States. Before making further changes, reach out at any level and obtain consensus for your actions, huge numbers of which have been reverted by editors across the country. If there is no consensus, you can stop adding these maps once and for all and move on to other activities. If there is consensus, there are methods that will be far more effective to add these maps, such as using bots to do so and I'll be happy to join you in this effort. Alansohn (talk) 01:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus to remove it from the template either. So I guess I will just stay away from Your New Jersey pages. As for huge numbers of which have been reverted by editors across the country that is only by you. far more effective to add these maps, such as using bots to do so No bots will not work for this since you would have to write multiple if statements to accommodate the different conditions for CDPs and different countries. Just because you discuss on your project page does not mean there is consensus. All examples I gave are large cities that are heavily edited not some small CDP. If they keep the map that means that there is consensus among editors. I do not see you requesting to remove the extra pushpins from the infobox template or asking for them to be removed from other wikipedias for consistency.--Cs california (talk) 06:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That reversion is not only by him, it's by me too. I agree with Alansohn, you must have consensus before proceeding. I do not think these maps add anything of value and thus I've already removed several. Stay away from New York pages as well.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 09:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the process of reverting the addition of US pushpin maps to Nebraska communities on my watchlist, for reasons stated by Alansohn et al. Unless and until consensus is reached in favor of adding the maps—and that's expressed consensus, not merely "consensus" in the qui-tacet-consentit sense—please don't add any more to articles on Nebraska municipalities. — Ammodramus (talk) 13:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how no consensus means removal and his argument was only for New Jersey Project and he made his case. You are moving the goal post and spamming my notifications so I am reverting your edits. --Cs california (talk) 22:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore I do not see any discussion linked from either of you guys showing there is the consensus is "No pushpin maps" only from Alansohn so I am respecting only his project since he actually keeps all his stuff consistent (eg. adding all census numbers and agreement to add those pink maps). Both of you make a very poor case. The New York Pages have various formats and none of you did any cleanup to make it consistent.--Cs california (talk) 22:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In this discussion topic, Alansohn has objected to location-in-US pushpin maps for NJ articles. Ɱ has objected to them in NY. I've objected to them in Nebraska. In an earlier discussion on this page, Hike395, BeenAroundAWhile, and Rcsprinter123 objected to them. This doesn't necessarily mean that consensus is solidly against them, since people who object to something are more likely to comment than people who approve of it; but it certainly indicates that there's nothing like uniform consensus in favor of them.

One of your edit summaries notes that not all Wikipedia readers are from the US, and presumably don't know where Nebraska is. However, I suspect that the great majority of people reading articles on Nebraska municipalities are American, and would know. Those who aren't and don't can easily find out by clicking on the "Nebraska" Wikilink. I've attempted to address the situation of non-US readers in some Nebraska articles by changing the lead to include a phrase like "...in the state of Nebraska in the Midwestern United States". This serves the purpose, and is far less obtrusive and space-filling than the location-within-US map.

"Obtrusive and space-filling" is the problem with the inclusion of the maps. First, they create compositional problems by extending the infobox further down the page. If there are graphics or tables, they get pushed down below the bottom of the infobox. If there are graphics on the left side of the page, extending the infobox can lead to the sandwiching of text between the graphic and the infobox, which is contrary to MOS:IMAGELOCATION.

In MOS:INFOBOX, under the "Purpose of an infobox" heading, a general principle of parsimony is laid out:

"[K]eep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts that appear in the article. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance... [E]xclude any unnecessary content".

Adding a map that'd be unnecessary for the great majority of readers seems contrary to this principle. When I look at an article with the within-the-US map, I have to scroll down to see most of the data in the infobox. This seems inconstent with the MOS's at-a-glance standard.

To reprise: the within-the-US map is unnecessary for most likely readers of articles on small cities in Nebraska. It extends infoboxes down the page, creating potential problems with placement of graphics and tables, compelling readers to scroll down to see the "key facts" in the infobox, and generally violating the MOS's parsimony principle for infoboxes. The number of editors who've come to this page to ask you not to include such maps suggests that there might be a consensus against their inclusion. I think that the onus is now on you to show consensus in favor of them before adding them to any further articles, or reverting their removal from articles to which you've already added them. — Ammodramus (talk) 01:56, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK I am happy to discuss this further but where? I do not want my page full of discussion stuff. But here it goes:

Pushpin maps are introduced in Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps/Conventions/Pushpin maps and use only one svg file so they save more space by not having multiple files. Maps use CIA World Factbook maps 2008 style consistency as as shown Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps/Conventions/Location maps. Pushpin maps are in this style The infobox for cities allows 3 maps. If people did not want this many maps they would have removed it from the infobox settings directy or not have it the settings implemented when it was created.

Note that you are not the only one using wikipedia, so not everyone will know where your State/province/region is in reference to the country. So claiming that we only need the city location inside Nebraska and assuming people know where Nebraska is within the US is a miss attribution since wikipedia is used worldwide. So given a country at random, you living in the United States, would likely not be able determine where a city is given the state/province/region without navigating to another page or using a map.

Large cities mostly have pushpin maps for examples:

Barcelona will show where Barcelona within Catalonia and Barcelona within Spain.
Toronto shows where it is inside it's province Ontario and where it is with respect to Canada
Guangzhou shows where it is inside it's province Guangdong and where it is with respect to China
São Paulo show where it is within the state of São Paulo and where it is with respect to Brazil

These examples show that the pushpin maps provides good context of where the city is within the county. As a bonus the map helps people who use wikipedia that have Dyslexia to easily gain context through the map. Those who say "why not have a map of the world and milky way" argument is moving the goal post. The scope of the Template:Infobox settlement is within the country, hence country is usually the default on the part which is filled in as subdivision_type, with 3 additional subdivision types. Having a map of country fits within this scope as country is a parameter in the text. Support

Consensus is shown by a silent majority that have been editing for years and has not had problems with the maps. Wikipedia is a made of a community of users, pages with more edits shows more engagement and refinement to a standard. Most large city in the US has had this for several years

New York City has had the pushpin map since February of 2010
Los Angeles has had the pushpin map since February 2010#
San Jose has had the push pin map since Feb 2010 and User:Alansohn did not have any problems with it back then eithersource
Houston source
Chicago source

We can look at this and think of it as testing for if there is agreement for these types of map since there are several thousands of edits since the maps are put in indicating that there is some consensus among users since they still have not remove the maps. There is also support cross wiki that I have shown in above arguments. As for your MOS's parsimony principle many template boxes are longer than these infoboxes (especially for plants with many synonyms) that is why there is a simple english wikipedia for that and also you can limit the size of the maps and pictures.

As for your MOS:INFOBOX the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance and short form, and exclude any unnecessary contentthe map does both.

Secondly you apparently miss the fact on MOS:INFOBOX that Readers greatly outnumber editors . Your claim of Adding a map that'd be unnecessary for the great majority of readers seems contrary to this principle is false about 18% is from the US that is one out of every five visitors you cannot just not say I am designing wikipedia just for that one person and ignore the other four. Just because a couple editors got mad means nothing, you guys only apply the edits to the pages you like instead of making everything consistent. I do not see any actions keeping pushpin maps suppressed on every US city, cdp, and suburb or propagated to all pages so it is meaningless. Also I got more thanks on the notification for adding the maps than I got people telling me to not add them.

Hope this explains my point.

-Cs california (talk) 02:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You say "Consensus is shown by a silent majority". Wikipedia:Consensus explains that it is not.

I think there is general agreement that pushpin maps showing the whole of the U.S. are not required in infoboxes apart from on the articles of major cities. This status quo should remain. Rcsprinter¹²³ (prattle) @ 10:25, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am copying this discussion to the City Wikiproject talk page to get community consensus. I'll also leave a pointer at Template talk:Infobox settlement. —hike395 (talk) 18:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you hike395 --Cs california (talk) 22:15, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted these pushpin maps on the California pages where I keep watch. There is only one editor who is arguing in favor of them, and he (or she) makes the same remarks over and over again. Is there any way to simply halt the discussion, block the editor and move on to making the encyclopedia a better place to do research? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

US Pushpin Maps

I recently noticed you added US pushpin maps to several places in Mississippi. Thanks! These maps are really helpful, especially for my friends who are not long-time US residents. Your work is greatly appreciated! Jacona (talk) 11:44, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a US resident I also sometimes get confused if I do not see a country map. For example if I show you Colorado and Wyoming without context how do you know which is which? --Cs california (talk) 11:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I too am a fan of pushpin maps, but like infobox flags, they are a matter of personal preference. In articles where the only map is a state pushpin map, such as Artonish, Mississippi, please leave the state map (which you seem to have done), as it seems more useful as a stand-alone pushpin map. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing my mind after looking at your enormous USA pushpin maps all afternoon. I love pushpin maps, as they are clean and easy to figure out by readers, but the USA map is too big. State pushpin maps would be way better. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For which ones? CDP's or Cities?--Cs california (talk) 23:25, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop

May I suggest you stop adding the USA pushpin until a consensus has been reached at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities? I just noticed your edit to Bethel, Vermont, and you added a USA pushpin to an article that already had a USA map in the infobox. As I've stated, I'm a big fan of pushpin maps, but I'm not a fan of sloppy editing, and your Ninja edits are starting to look kinda pointy. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops thanks for catching that. Sure I will stick to large cities and not CDPs, Villages, and Towns. I think that is a good compromise. I am going to recheck the vermont edits now --Cs california (talk) 23:42, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know you mean well, but I don't believe your continuing to add maps to articles which perhaps do not have anybody watching over them is a "compromise." It borders on WP:Ownership of pushpin maps, or maybe ownership of infoboxes of small geographic areas. In my opinion this is simply taking advantage of your interest in adding maps wherever you can, whether or not the articles call for them. Sincerely, 03:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I do not see how you can claim WP:Ownership when I immediately stopped when User:Magnolia677 suggested. Did you check the edits or timestamps??? No one mentioned that I should stop and you guys didn't even bother to tell me for several hours. I only stopped when I was notified and respect the discussion processes. If I were to take advantage I can simply call out Wikipedia:Consensus#Level_of_consensus and start editing again.--Cs california (talk) 05:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Permission to collapse sub-discussion?

Would it be all right if we collapsed Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cities#Wikipedia:WikiProject_USA_civility_and_ownership_issues? I think we're feeling our way slowly toward consensus in the overall discussion of maps in US city infoboxes, and a discussion of who's being uncivil to whom doesn't advance that process. Moreover, we've got discussion going on both above and below the civility-and-ownership subsection; collapsing the ssn. would make it easier to follow that discussion. Thanks for considering this—Ammodramus (talk) 21:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Use of edit summaries

Hi there! 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)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinates in infoboxes

When you added an infobox to Sichuan Science and Technology Museum, you used a deprecated format for the coordinates which is incompatible with location maps. This caused an error message to display in place of the map. In the future, can you use the new format for coordinates in infoboxes? Thanks, Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that I got the coordinates from google maps and did not know how to convert it -Cs california (talk) 02:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus for mass changes

Moved from my talk. Montanabw ^(talk) 04:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting edits on montana towns

Why did you revert my edits on the Montana towns including the addition of template boxes on towns like Anaconda, Montana?-Cs california (talk) 04:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because I saw at Wikiproject Cities that your pushpin maps of the USA are being added to massive numbers of articles without consensus. Further I did restore the Anaconda infobox, and will look at others, but I am deleting your USA pushpin maps because there is no consensus for adding them, and frankly, they are vague and useless, the maps in articles such as Kalispell, Montana that have the county and cite within the state are better; anyone who doesn't understand where Montana is can click on the Montana link (most non-Americans know USA maps better than Americans anyway, only we Americans are so totally geographically ignorant as to need such a map anyway!). Montanabw ^(talk) 04:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to revert your edits but you are aware of this: Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus".--Cs california (talk) 04:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been editing here for nine years. Yes, I am aware of that. What I'm also aware of is this. Which was why I reverted; you appear to be making mass edits of dozens and dozens of articles about smaller towns across the USA, absent consensus (which is mostly going against you) to add a USA pushpin map, which really adds little to the article other than to bloat the infobox (I like infoboxes but I know that bloat is one thing the anti-infobox crowd points to). If you think it ought to be done, bring it to wikiproject Montana (and other state projects) and discuss there. Montanabw ^(talk) 05:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Adding a pushpin map of the US to the infoboxes in these articles is not an improvement, which should be evident from wide-scale practice across Wikipedia. I noticed that Cs california has done this for Florida as well and I will be reverting these. I suggest that Cs california stop adding these maps and perhaps make a proposal at the appropriate Wikiprojects or the village pump.- Mr X 11:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: I am using rollback to revert all of these edits to Florida geo articles per WP:ROLLBACK: "To revert widespread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) which are judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia, provided that an explanation is supplied in an appropriate location, such as at the relevant talk page".- Mr X 13:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I support the removal as well. These maps are vague and don't add any value to the articles. Where a city is located in relation to the state or county is valuable, a fat red dot on a US map is not. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with these guys. No fat red dots on USA maps. GroveGuy (talk) 14:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Concurrence with the above. If I'd realized that's what was being done to all the Florida cities articles, I'd have reverted them myself. Thanks MrX. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Inspector General ‖ 16:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal was made here and I even gave concessions and there was no consensus. As no consensus and NO discussion the default is Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus". Can we settle the case at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard instead? If I am wrong I will remove them and change it all to whatever is agreed upon. But so far NONE of you do anything to achieve consensus hence there is no solid editing guide. --Cs california (talk) 20:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Essays are not policy, not do they necessarily represent best practices. Numerous editors, many experienced in writing and editing geography articles, have roundly objected to your mass additions of the US pushpin map to hundreds of articles. My reading of the Wikiprojects cities discussion is that there is no consensus for adding the US pushpin map to these articles, so WP:NOCONSENSUS applies. You need to STOP until you have established that there is broad consensus for adding such maps. I don't view DRN as being applicable, since you seem to be the sole editor adding this content on a massive, and (in my opinion) disruptive, scale. Also, please use edit summaries.- Mr X 21:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any guidelines for these maps or the census maps. So can you add some CLEAR rules? So where is a good place to discuss it with a third party neutral moderator? can you open a Wikipedia:Third opinion or WP:RFM case? There are no hard guidelines for any of these and we should probably include these issues as well issues as well:Flags on city boxes, census maps. Discussing on a wikiproject is a waste of time as there is a lack of participants and there are solid cases of WP:Ownership issues there(3 people dictating consensus.) I do not see why you are trying to avoid getting a consensus with the aid of a neutral party. --Cs california (talk) 01:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no single guideline. There are widely accepted practices, or standards, that editors typically follow when creating or editing geographic articles. For example, you can look at similar articles that have risen to good article status to get a sense of best practices. Generally, US city articles have a map graphic depicting the settlement as a filled in area or push pin on a county map, often with the county represented as a filled in area on a state county outline map. Readers who puzzle over the location of a state within the US, can click on the wikilink to the state article to learn more. They can also click on the settlement coordinates to be taken to the WMF labs goehack page where they can launch Google Earth, or any number of other geography resources. This is a logical approach. Showing a fat red dot on a map that encompasses 3.8 million square miles is fairly useless.

If you wish to propose a new guideline, then probably the best place to do so would be at the village pump.- Mr X 03:25, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I already know that. So if it is NOT useful why then is it in Featured Articles chosen for qualtiy has pushpin maps and reference guide and the example Minneapolis also has pushpin maps. --Cs california (talk) 05:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Minneapolis was a featured article on June 28, 2007, more than eight years ago. It did not have a US pushpin map at that time. It was added more than two and a half years later.- Mr X 11:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying that Mr X. You seem to be the only editor that is able to ground your arguments and address the points more direct. Can you attempt addressing the other points in the same manner as well? --Cs california (talk) 20:25, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you are asking why these US pushpin maps existing in other featured articles, it seems to be that Dr. Blofeld added them well after the articles became featured articles in at least a couple of cases. The edit summary he used was "for non anglo centric purposes needs indicator of where in the US it is". Were there other points that you wanted me to address?- Mr X 20:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was my main concern: Inclusivity for Non-US individuals(almost 2/3 users), per MOS:INFOBOXReaders greatly outnumber editors, and to summarize key facts

and People with disabilities: dyslexia and some illiteracy. per MOS:INFOBOX supported by The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance and Wikipedia:Make_technical_articles_understandable#Add_a_picture. Is there some other way to address this. Basically it is easier to look where the place is in reference to the US with the trade off of space. And for Large cities (where more there are more visits and edits) and Non US cities provide pushpin maps and have some have pushpin maps for about 5 years[2][3][4] [5] does this count as consensus? if not can it be removed without consequences or editwars? --Cs california (talk) 07:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm a huge fan of state-level pushpin maps, but the full US map looks terrible. I've edited hundreds of articles you've added them to over the past month, and they just look silly. State-level pushpin maps tell a story; US pushpin maps tell nothing, especially when they hang right below a state pushpin map, as they often do. I appreciate your effort, but I don't believe it has improved the project, and I'm going to start removing them when I find them. I will also start a discussion someplace to have "infobox settlements" limited to one pushpin. Just being honest. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will help you remove all the Mississippi ones and change it to whatever is agreed upon when I get a clear answer of what to do. Sorry for the trouble. --Cs california (talk) 01:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fauna of the San Francisco Bay Area

Hi Cs california: Just saw the many articles you've posted this new category to, and have to admit I'm a bit concerned. Wouldn't this work better as a list? If everybody in every county/state/country tags every article of every bird that's in their area (and more will, as soon as they see this), we'll have category lists that are larger than the articles! MeegsC (talk) 16:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not make the category if you want to make a list go ahead --Cs california (talk) 00:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Cs california. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of a discussion that you may be interested in

A discussion is taking place about templates that you may be interested in. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants#Massive navigation templates on species articles. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Location maps

Please stop including "USA" as a map option in New York City infoboxes. Instead, simply do "Manhattan#New York City". It is not necessary to show where NYC is in relation to New York State or in the United States, as New York City is a world-class city, and any sentient person should already know where it is. It's the map equivalent of overlinking. Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, please point to the centralized consensus in which you were authorized to make these changes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just copied from one template what is wrong with adding a map?? the USA map just adds one extra line and the map is hidden by javascript. --Cs california (talk) 03:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you're making a very large number of changes to articles without first having gotten a consensus to do so, and I presume that you are using a semi-automated program to do so. It's generally held by the community that making changes to a large number of articles requires prior agreement by the community that the changes are acceptable. Please stop until you have opened a centralized discussion and received a consensus to make these changes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:08, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where is your proof of this semi automated program?? --Cs california (talk) 05:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note tht I'll be rolling back your edits per the consensus at this earlier discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah include past resolved out of context issues that were two years old to attack me that will really help your case --Cs california (talk) 04:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Such a large number of changes ought to have been preceded by a discussion. However, in many cases I like the changes that my usually wise friend @Beyond My Ken: has reverted. The good ones are the changes that added a map to an infobox that didn't have one, or that replaced the NYC map with the Lower Manhattan one. I agree that, by default, these boxes ought not show the outline map of the USA, and it's not important even that it be offered as a click option since most of these buildings are of little interest to readers not already familiar with the relevant geography. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then remove the #USA at the end and be done with it or ask not to put it on your project. If the building is not notable nominate it for deletion per Wikipedia:Notability. There was no reason for putting anything this minor on WP:AN/I. --Cs california (talk) 02:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

The following thread on WP:AN/I concerns your editing: [6]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hibernia Bank article

The changes that you made to the map on the Hibernia Bank (San Francisco) article make what information was provided there by the map much more accessible, and thus, makes the information in the article more meaningful to the people who read it. From what I understand, other editors have not appreciated changes such as this. I am not one of those editors. Unlike them, I believe that these little details which help to ensure accessibility are just as important as anything else we do here. I thank you for that change. —— Spintendo^Talk 01:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not vandalism

This [7] isn't an acceptable way to engage other editors. Acroterion (talk) 11:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And this is? I will stop because you asked. Any Idea how to undo it??--Cs california (talk) 12:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Statue in front of legion of honor.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Statue in front of legion of honor.jpg.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the image description page states the source and copyright status of the derivative work, it only names the creator of the original work without specifying the status of their copyright over the work.

Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the original image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. Thanks again for your cooperation. Kelly ^hi! 14:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kelly see section Licensing Photos were uploaded in 2006 before Wikicommons was used -Cs california (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I'm afraid it has nothing to do with Commons. Wikipedia requires a license tag for the depicted artwork as well as for your photograph. Please read the message above. The same applies to File:Holocaust Memmorial Legion of Honor.JPG as well. Kelly ^hi! 20:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kelly still do not understand what it is about. The author is dead what is wrong with my photo when other works of the author do not get the same tags? (eg. File:The Holy Family Resting 2.jpg, File:Abe-Lincoln-on-Horseback.jpg). Also other photos on commons of the same work which also have been featured pictures are not tagged. What makes mine different? and what do you want done? --Cs california (talk) 20:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kelly: Cs california has a point. The statue was made in 1921 [8], and therefore is no longer protected by U.S. copyright, like all works which predate 1923. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: Thanks for researching that - it appears that this statue was cast in 1927 and put on public display at the museum in 1937. In that case the license tag for the statue would likely be either {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-not renewed}}. Kelly ^hi! 07:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the statue is a copy. It was originally made in 1921, and the version in San Francisco was cast from the mold in 1927. That's no different from a book copyrighted in 1921 being reprinted in 1927: the copyright coverage has now expired because of the 1921 copyright date, and the printing date is not relevant. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. Any idea when/where the statue was originally publicly displayed? That's considered the date a 3D is "published". Kelly ^hi! 11:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to do a little research on that. Back to you later on today. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it seems as if I was wrong about the date. Aside from the one source I pointed you to, which gave 1921 as the year of creation, all other sources agree on 1927 as the date for the statue's first installation in Seville, Spain. The book Energy and Individuality in the Art of Anna Huntington, Sculptor and Amy Beach, Composer says specifically that she made the first sketches for the piece in 1923. [9]. So 1927 would be the copyright date, so the license tags you specified -- {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-not renewed}} -- would indeed appear to be the applicable ones. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cs california: Question - are you the photographer of the photos of the Legion of Honor that you uploaded? The image description pages don't say. Kelly ^hi! 06:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that was before wikipedia had usable templates for filling that stuff out -Cs california (talk) 09:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UCSF project

Hi! I am currently revamping the UCSF project. I created lots of pages and added a lot of content, but there is so much still to do. I saw that you are part of the SFBA task force, so I thought you might be interested and I wanted to invite you to collaborate once more. In particular, we need to add content, do maintenance, and we really would benefit from pictures, so if you are in SF and could help that would be great. Thanks!Eccekevin (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cs california/Archive 2! We are looking for editors to join WikiProject University of California, San Francisco, an outreach effort which aims to support development of UCSF related articles in Wikipedia. We thought you might be interested, and hope that you will join us. If you are interested in joining, please visit the project page, and add your name to the list of participants, check out our To Do list, and join the discussion on our talk page. Thanks!!!

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Cs california. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki Haley

Haley's birth name is already correctly listed in the infobox. Her "native name" is Nikki Haley; she is an American native. General Ization ^Talk 04:19, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I did not see that --Cs california (talk) 04:25, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, 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 that 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.

Jytdog (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Authority Control

The authority control is mainly used for books, as it provides links to library databases. It can be used for people who are authors, or sometimes for famous individuals who are likely to have a standard subject listing in library databases. For biological taxa, the equivalent template is {{Taxonbar}}. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:45, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accidentally copied the wrong tag--Cs california (talk) 00:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weight

They weigh 6 pounds or over when adults — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.17.155.30 (talk) 14:29, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about?--Cs california (talk) 22:52, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Ovenden

Hi, in this edit, you inserted the claim that Ovenden's citizenship is American. There is no mention of this claim in the article and it is not given a reference. in fact, the article mentions him growing up and spending his education and career in the UK. Why did you choose that citizenship? I've taken the precaution of removing the statement but do put it back if you have a reliable source. Thanks in advance for any clarification, MartinPoulter (talk) 10:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to change it go ahead--Cs california (talk) 02:15, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Cs california. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Cs california. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Phimenes flavopictus

Hi, quick request–I understand that this species has the (ambiguous?) synonym Phimenes flavopictum, which is what it's called on the Wikimedia Commons category. I don't know much about wasp phylogeny-would it be possible to get some explanation on the page of this and why/if flavopictus is preferable? Blythwood (talk) 03:45, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See the reference if you think the other name is correct just move the page and redirect it with an reference that is more up to date --Cs california (talk) 05:30, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Delta bicinctum

Hello, Cs california,

Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for creating Delta bicinctum! I edit here too, under the username Boleyn and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

Please add references to all articles you create.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Boleyn}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Boleyn (talk) 17:33, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

differences

I am not sure when an article has been designated specifically in lead sentences and other parts of the article you are adding a link that is not as specific as the article? Is there some reason? JarrahTree 05:15, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What are you even talking about?--Cs california (talk) 06:33, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

your edits - Buddhism on Tibetan Buddhist items - is like adding 'christian' to catholic info boxes. JarrahTree 07:37, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps if that is problematic -

Tsurphu_Monastery in the article - the lead sentence and the information box very specifically refer to Tibetan Buddhism - to add extra info in the info box with 'buddhism' is possibly over-stating the case with a wrong entry? Tibetan Buddhism items in most wikipedia entries make a distinction because of the general cultural differences from 'Buddhism' per se. JarrahTree 07:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add anything to the lead sentence at all. I am just basing my edits on the closest option in Template:Infobox religious building section Religious Affiliation. I did not see Tibetan Buddhism in the options. Adding something there is still better than nothing. If you want to change it go right ahead no one is stopping you. --Cs california (talk) 10:03, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have already, wow - trust your new year is ok for you - I still dont think you understand what I was trying to say - Editing inside tibetan buddhist articles with something just buddhist has nothing to do with options - simply a cultural misnomer. cheers JarrahTree 14:15, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understood you were trying to make them all tibetan buddhist because they are more specific and more prominent than a sect. Edits were not based on opinions I am working off the template to fill out the information since tibetan buddhism was not really implemented into the template when they merged the separate Tibetan Buddhist Monestary infobox over a year ago. So the closest thing in the documentation of the Religious building infobox was Buddhism. But I put in a request to have it added and properly colored automatically to the template here which would prevent this error from reoccuring --Cs california (talk) 01:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, from my observasion Cs california is not wrong in this case. If you type Template:Infobox Tibetan Buddhist monastery, it will redirect to Template:Infobox religious building. How and why did it happen? Well, we need to trace back to the discussion regarding such merger of the infobox, so probably that is for JarrahTree to look after if he/she thinks this should be done the other way around. Of course probably CS california is not really the 100% expert in this Tibetan Buddhism topic, but at least he/she has followed the appropriate steps in determining the infobox for the article (expanding/improving the article). If I were him also, I would firstly look into the Wikipedia:List of infoboxes page first and find the closest one to the article (basically the same). Since the Tibetan Buddhist monastery infobox is not there anymore, then I will chose the one step up (the 'parent' topic infobox of it), which is the Religious building infobox. Chongkian (talk) 08:04, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because several of the infoboxes were merged in a while ago. I refrained from editing anything in that category for at least a year before it got completed. Someone also needs to take a bot and rename the deprecated fields such as `location_country` and `pushpin_map` --Cs california (talk) 09:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thank you both for explaining all this all so civilly - thanks JarrahTree 10:59, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added a couple more comments on the issues with the templatebox merge here and did some proposed edits to the coloring to revert to what the previous colors were. Hopefully some of the points get fixed --Cs california (talk) 11:04, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wish

Hello. Help improve, copy edit and expand for article Maureen Wroblewitz. Thanks you. Tauthanhhuyen34 (talk) 03:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why? I don't know anything about that --Cs california (talk) 04:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cuban warbler edits

I removed the table you added to Cuban warblers, and wanted to explain why. I've noticed you adding these tables to lots of bird articles and I think they make sense where there are many species, but in this case there are only two and the specific details of where they live is actually covered in the text already. Also as there are only two species all the species are already illustrated in the article, so putting exactly the same images in the box makes little sense (and unfortunately there are other images of the species but they aren't very good). So, like, tables are good in most instances so keep up the good work, but in this case it doesn't really work. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 2019

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Pterostilbene, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. That was a careless group of edits, paying little attention to style and punctuation. Also, if you're going to edit medical content, read WP:MEDRS first for choosing review sources with high quality. Thanks. Zefr (talk) 21:55, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So why didn't you just re-write the text? PMID 23691264 is a review of all the activities form Pterostilbene. Based on the history of your edits on the article you blanked the pages so many time there is no context why pterostilbene is taken by humans. Even edits that gave context to the Wikipedia:DYK were removed Wikipedia:Recent additions/2006/December. Where is the context that this is even a clinically being use in the article? and for what purpose?--Cs california (talk) 22:57, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All the literature covered in PMID 23691264 is from primary research. We don't cite primary research to support medical content; see WP:MEDREV. Pterostilbene is not clinically used; if it were, it would be an FDA-approved drug, and it is not under development by any company as a unique drug candidate because it is from nature, so is non-patentable. See this. --Zefr (talk) 23:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no relevance if it is patent-able or not. PMID 23691264 is a secondary source as defined in WP:MEDREV "A secondary source in medicine summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources". The article still does not provide the readers any context on its use whether it is a dietary supplement or other uses for human consumption?--Cs california (talk) 01:27, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First, you could invite the opinion of any editor on pterostilbene or resveratrol, or post a discussion on WT:MED, to get another interpretation about that article. It covers a lot of research, but it's all from lab animals, in vitro, or early-stage clinical research, which collectively are not usable for the encyclopedia, in my opinion. This isn't a Discussion section for a research report or a term paper: it's an encyclopedia that is supposed to represent the best-established facts, which are sparse for pterostilbene. The only fact that could be stated from that review is that "pterostilbene is being studied in laboratory and preliminary clinical research". If you're ok with that statement, perhaps we could use it. Caveat: You should know that the journal, Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity, is on the WP:SOURCEWATCH list for journals the encyclopedia community would prefer not to use. --Zefr (talk) 01:41, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I am ok with using that didn't know that journal was on WP:SOURCEWATCH. Normally I don't edit these articles but this one looked strangely empty. --Cs california (talk) 01:49, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can try the edit in the Research section, but if other medical editors see it, it's likely to be reverted as too primary and from a predatory journal. --Zefr (talk) 02:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a citation tool to help put refs in usable format. PMID can be selected from the pick list. Remember to use WP:REFPUNCT to put the ref after punctuation. --Zefr (talk) 03:56, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!--Cs california (talk) 05:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Correct italics for supersection

Hi, I see that you were trying to get the italics right in the taxobox at Banana passionfruit. It's been on my to-do list for a few days; I finally got round to it. The italicization of taxon names is embedded in various bits of code, so it needed edits at Module:TaxonItalics and Template:Is italic taxon (among others) to fix. It works now. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks--Cs california (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References in section headings

Hi, MOS:HEADINGS is clear that references must not be placed in section headings. So when giving a list of species, at least for plants it's conventional to say something like "As of DATE, the following species are accepted:^[REF]". Giving a date is important, because species are constantly being named or moved around genera, and we should not give the impression that the circumscription of a genus is fixed. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations. (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them.) WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN.

While editing any article or a wikipage, on the top of the edit window you will see a toolbar which has a button "Cite" click on it
Then click on "Automatic" or "Manual"
For Manual: Choose the most appropriate template and fill in the details, then click "Insert"
For Automatic: Paste the URL or PMID/PMC and click "Generate" and if the article is available on PubMed Central, Citoid will populate a citation which can be inserted by clicking "Insert"

We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Genome template

Hi, I saw you added {{Infobox genome}} to Clostridium tetani here. Two things: (1) Something seems to be wrong with the values you added to the table. You indicated that the genome is 3.91 Mb and described in 2007, but the text says it's described in 2003 and 2.8Mb. The NCBI link you provided also says it's 2.8 Mb. (2) I'm not convinced adding that template to a bunch of bacteria articles is really useful. The average reader probably isn't going to be perusing NCBI's site to find interesting genome information, and the {{Taxobar}} at the bottom of the page already has links to various databases for the more-familiar reader. Why add another infobox to the middle of the page with a link and a few tidbits? If you think all/most bacteria articles should have these templates, why don't we discuss it at WP:MICRO or WP:Molecular biology? If folks are in favor of adding the templates, we can probably do it in a bot run much more efficiently. Thanks and happy editing. Ajpolino (talk) 15:18, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The taxonbar does not link to the same thing. If you want to eliminate the genome template why don't you propose it? --Cs california (talk) 23:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Aloe harlana

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Aloe harlana requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. MNB9911 (talk) 08:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shark

Hello, could you add an image map for shark? Thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I will do it when I get some time --Cs california (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you add a Basking shark to the pic to even it out to 9 squares? it makes it easier to put in the map.--Cs california (talk) 09:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Line 3 of your user page

It should be "family Orchidaceae" not "Orchidaceae family" (the back story is here). WolfmanSF (talk) 08:21, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dexamethasone

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
The specific details of these sanctions are described here.

Broadly, general sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

In this edit you removed content from the lead and added it to the section in the article that it summarised, thus creating considerable duplication. You didn't leave an edit summary, which is really impolite to other editors, especially on an article under general sanctions. Was there a good reason why you made that edit? --RexxS (talk) 21:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was relevant to the section and out of place in the intro paragraph --Cs california (talk) 03:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:LEAD, the lead summarises the key content of the article, so if you considered it was "out of place" in the lead, that would be a matter for discussion – even more reason to leave an edit summary. Because the content you removed was a summary of the section you moved it to, you simply duplicated the information there. Did you even read the section after your move? --RexxS (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you thought it was needed you could have reverted the edit. But I am looking at the current version and it was removed anyways. No one is stopping you from fixing it --Cs california (talk) 23:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Rapelay.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Rapelay.jpg. 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) 17:51, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Oppai Slider2L.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Oppai Slider2L.jpg. 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) 17:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Requiem hurts.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Requiem hurts.jpg. 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) 17:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Chabot article

Hi CS california, It looks like you edited the Anthony Chabot article to include a caption on the photograph, but the caption indicates the photo is of someone else. I assume that's a mistake but didn't want to change it in case you know better than me. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anthony_Chabot&oldid=975941536 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zacacox (talk • contribs) 02:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You know you can just check the history for the picture and fix it --Cs california (talk) 01:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

famousbirthsdeaths.com as a source

Hi Cs california. I noticed that you recently used famousbirthsdeaths.com as a source for biographical information in IDubbbz. Please note that the general consensus as expressed at WP:RSN is that it does not meet the reliable sourcing criteria for the inclusion of personal information in such articles. I've gone ahead and removed it. If you disagree, let's discuss it. You may want to check WP:RSP and WP:RSN to help determine if a source is reliable. Thanks.--Hipal (talk) 21:24, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Sindee Jennings

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Sindee Jennings requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sindee Jennings. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Sindee Jennings for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sindee Jennings 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/Sindee Jennings (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

DGG ( talk ) 19:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cattleya mendelii

I had to do a lot of patching up of your stub Cattleya mendelii. I think that Plants of the World Online is a better source to base articles off of than Tropicos. Abductive (reasoning) 20:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fossil iguanas

Howdy - looks like you added these four vague genera mentions to Iguanidae a while ago. Was there anything specific that these were supposed to link/be sourced to? Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:41, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just took them from what was already on wikipedia with their authority reference. If you think they are not correct remove them and change the linked page also --Cs california (talk) 22:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thank you for adding pics to articles of places in Albania. Now those articles are more beautiful :) Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 02:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

False photo added to Pfeiffer BIg Sur State Park page

I believe you are the person responsible for adding the top photo on the current Pfeiffer Big Sur State Park wikipedia page, which is in a "protected" area. FYI photo is not of Big Sur State Park but of Pfeiffer Beach environs, which is USFS operated, not state parks. And photo is not of Big Sur River, which goes through Pfeiffer Big Sur SP but reaches ocean elsewhere, in a different state park, not at Pfeiffer Beach.

@JGlendening: Is there a reason why you cannot change it to another picture from the Commons media page with the edit button? --Cs california (talk) 23:42, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[1] no "edit" button on that section, internal text says "protected" [2] no idea how to find a specific location photo in that commons, not willing to spend hours trying to learn

@JGlendening: I don't know what you are doing but you did edit the page as shown in the historyhere--Cs california (talk) 07:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021

Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Monge v. Maya Magazines, Inc.. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 14:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Diannaa It is not plagiarism when you paraphrase parts of a case. The opinion is 13k+ word while the article only consist of 1042 words. If you think it is too similar to the Court's opinion you can change the wording of the work. If you make a claim of plagiarism please quote the part which YOU claim to be plagiarized so it can be fixed. --Cs california (talk) 00:32, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need to be paraphrased at all, as long as you make our readers aware that you copied some of the prose rather than wrote it all yourself, and that it's okay to copy. This is done by including the template {{PD-notice}} at the end of the citation. If you wish to view the amount of the overlap, you can do so using Earwig's tool.— Diannaa (talk) 01:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Kianna Dior

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Kianna Dior requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kianna Dior. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:55, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Kianna Dior for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kianna Dior 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/Kianna Dior (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]