User talk:Fritzflohrreynolds

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Fritzflohrreynolds!
Afrikaans | Alemannisch | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Euskara | Estremeñu | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Frysk | Galego | עברית | हिन्दी | Hrvatski | Magyar | Հայերեն | Interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | Latina | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Bahasa Melayu | Plattdüütsch | नेपाली | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Scots | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Kiswahili | தமிழ் | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Vèneto | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | 中文(台灣)‎ | +/−

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 03:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Mertensia virginica[edit]

Hi. Thanks for trying to restore category:Mertensia virginica. I think I got it back to normal with the category:Mertensia pulmonarioides now a "Synonym taxon category redirect" page pointing back to M. virginica. If there's something I missed, let me know. It looks like user:Biopics based his change on ThePlantList, which isn't always that reliable. All the other sources I could find agree with you. He/she should have gotten a consensus of both sources and other users before making a change like that. If you need help with anything else, let me know. Nonenmac (talk) 04:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks user:Nonenmac. It looks like you did a good job restoring category:Mertensia virginica. I still have a lot to learn about the technical aspect of how to write wiki stuff, so I really appreciate your help. It looks like two experienced users, user:Biopics and user:Zhuyifei1999 were responsible for the confusion, but it seems that they may have been allowing a robot to edit for them. I sort of panicked when I saw it, and I wasn't sure the right way to fix it. I'm really glad you came along when you did. I wasn't sure how to ask for help, and I was worried that people would be upset with me for trying to fix things. It's good to know that there are other people on here who have some knowledge of plants, as well as good editing skills.

One of the great things about the internet is that so much information is available for free. Unfortunately, it really takes critical reading skills to be able to separate the valid current information from material that might be out of date or otherwise faulty. When it comes to plant taxonomy, there can be literally dozens of obsolete names for a species, some of which may suddenly appear online when someone digitizes old materials, some of which may still be used as common names in the horticultural trade, but are no longer scientifically valid. I am not a professional, but I try to stay as up to date as possible.

My favorite resource right now is the Digital Atlas of the Virginia Flora http://vaplantatlas.org/ I have found that it is frequently more up to date than the USDA Plants Guide http://plants.usda.gov/java/ but that is also useful.

Recently, in keeping with the latest angiosperm phylogeny research, some familiar species have changed names, or even been moved to a different genera. In some cases, the changes are controversial and might not stick. Different authorities can propose two or more new names simultaneously. I have not gotten around to editing anything related to any of these species, such as Micranthes virginiensis or Hepatica americana, yet. It seems that in cases like this, it will be important to briefly explain the recent taxonomic change or current taxonomic controversy, and be sure to keep up to date.

I was surprised to see confusion occurring with Mertensia virginica, however, because it is so well known, and not a species that has been the subject of any recent taxonomic controversy or change. It just shows that you can never be too vigilant. It's a little scary to think that a robot could go through and automatically change everything back to the names that were in use in the 18th century. Thanks again for your assistance. Fritzflohrreynolds (talk) 05:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Message tied up in Ribbon.jpg Hello, Fritzflohrreynolds. You have new messages at Zhuyifei1999's talk page.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Asturianu | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | Español | Suomi | Français | Galego | हिन्दी | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | +/−

Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 07:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Autopatrol given[edit]

Commons Autopatrolled.svg

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically sighted. This will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to help users watching Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones. Thank you. INeverCry 01:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Stylosanthes biflora - Pencil Flower.jpg[edit]

I hope you don't mind, but I made a cropped version of your pencil-flower picture to fit in a table requiring a 4x3 format. (File:Stylosanthes biflora - Pencil Flower 4x3.jpg) The cropped iPhone picture seemed better than the 2 Canon Power-Shot pictures in the category, even though they already had the right aspect ratio for the table. -- Nonenmac (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Cypripedium acaule - Pink Lady's Slipper 2.jpg[edit]

български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Cypripedium acaule - Pink Lady's Slipper 2.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. (You can get a list of all your uploaded files using the Gallery tool.) Thank you.

Steinsplitter (talk) 18:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)