User talk:Marco Schmidt

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Marco Schmidt! I am Abce2 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Abce2|AccessDenied 15:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfricanPlants template

Because {{AfricanPlants}} uses Citation Style 1 (full stops between items and at the end) and doesn't have an option to use Citation Style 2 (commas between items and nothing at the end), it's inappropriate in an article which uses CS2, like Scadoxus multiflorus (see e.g. WP:CITEVAR). I'm not quite sure what the best solution is at present; the template should really expand out into either {{cite book}} or {{citation}} as appropriate to the article's style. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, the first step is to generate the CS1 style, since this is the most common. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to have the most common style as a default and others as an option after the taxon name? --Marco Schmidt (talk) 07:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that's probably the best solution. I'll look at the template again.

By the way, my apologies: I should have begun by saying that adding this site as an external link is an excellent idea. Keep up the good work! I was only concerned with consistency of style, very much a second order issue. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for improving the template! --Marco Schmidt (talk) 10:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No trouble. I've now added an optional second parameter to adjust the style. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ELNO

I have concerns about the external links you have been adding to a large number of pages. According to WP:EL, a site which "does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article" should not normally be included. Where the African Plants page only contains a few images, that would appear to be the case, and the link should not be included. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for most of these species there are not many reliable image sources around and field guides with images (print or online) are often crucial in identifying plants and then, African plants also provides further links to nomenclature, distribution, plant use, other floras... --Marco Schmidt (talk) 08:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless, I don't think it's an appropriate link, following the guidance at WP:EL. Lists of links to other sites are explicitly discouraged, and a featured article would certainly contain images. Please stop adding them immediately. If you can demonstrate consensus to add them, then things might be different. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The links are perfectly in line with WP:ELYES, Point 3: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues". The criterium "does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article" (I must admit, that I did not know about this) may well be a point for better-known species, but for the majority of species from tropical areas, would you ever expect articles to reach featured-article level? Would you please stop being destructive by reverting all this??? --Marco Schmidt (talk) 08:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All the links I've checked contained only a few photos, and no other information. Photographs can be easily incorporated into Wikipedia articles, so that argument does not apply. The fact that almost all your edits have been to add this particular external link suggests that you are here more to promote that website than to build a generalist encyclopaedia. Where resources are already available (esp. Commons), such links are not at all helpful. You cannot really argue that particular criteria do not apply to particular articles; they apply just as much to African plants as to any others. Please do not continue to add these external links until you can demonstrate consensus to do so. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As an author of the linked work you have a conflict of interest in this issue and should not be directly editing the articles yourself. Instead, you are strongly advised to restrict yourself to making suggestions on the article talk pages. If you are really here to improve the encyclpaedia rather than promote your own work then you could upload images for which you own the copyright to Commons: where they can be used in the articles directly. SpinningSpark 09:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the WP:COI article, it clearly says under WP:CURATOR:"Museum curators, librarians, archivists, and similar are encouraged to help improve Wikipedia, or to share their information in the form of links to their resources. If a link cannot be used as a reliable source, it may be placed under further reading or external links if it complies with the external links guideline. Bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files." (I am well aware of the last part, which is why I don't place links, where they don't provide any useful additional information.) Concerning the Commons option, many photographers (including me) are fine with non-profit or educational use of their photos, but since Wiki Commons won't let you choose CC-NC licences, that is in many cases not an option. --Marco Schmidt (talk) 10:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I had not realised that you are acting in the role of a curator. Nevertheless, I think you would be wise to gain consensus for your actions before proceeding, as Stemonitis has already suggested. Those who come here to do nothing else but add links are always treated with great suspicion. A good place to raise the issue would be at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants. Most, if not all, the articles you have edited are within the scope of that Wikiproject and I believe Stemonitis is active within it. As for the licencing issue, the whole foundation of Wikimedia is that it is free content. If you don't want to play by those rules, that's fine, we respect that, but you cannot then expect Wikipedia to help drive traffic to the place where you do want to play. SpinningSpark 15:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I copied our discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants, as suggested. I did not enter any new links in the meantime, I would consider it fair to stop reverting as well until a consensus is reached in the appropriate forum. I hope that is a good solution to all of us. --Marco Schmidt (talk) 21:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Parkland

Hi Marco. I was looking at the article on agroforesty and noticed one of your photos labelled ["parkland"]. Why "parkland"? Thanks, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 16:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The West African agroforestry landscapes with cereal crops under scattered fruit trees look a bit like a landscape park, that's why this is often called parkland. See, e.g., J.M. Boffa's FAO publication [1]--Marco Schmidt (talk) 06:04, 24 June 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) 13:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Marco Schmidt. 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]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Marco Schmidt. 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 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]