User talk:Franz Xaver

Hi Franz,

nice image, definitely needs to go somewhere in the article - the underparts look a different colour to the existing pic, so it might be male/female or, less likely, adult/young. I'll chech it out.

No reason not to keep both for the time being. jimfbleak 12:25 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I agree with your comment, no reason to assume M/F as far as I can see

With regards to the taxobox pheasant pics, I agree that the bill looks a bit odd. I doubt if anyone will object, since I don't think the contributor who put that one on is active now. Realistically, I think this colourful and easily photographed species is going to have changes of image fairly regularly anyway. Thanks for your help with the motmot too, jimfbleak

Well spotted with the teals, thanks - jimfbleak

ranunculus vs. anemone

Hello! Indeed, I was suspicious about the picture, since both plants grow in Israel and bear some similarity. I will look it up in the printed identifier once the Passover holiday is over. Meanwhile I will revert the picture. Iorsh 06:59, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I had doubts myself, having seen a photo of grey-headed crane recently that looked just the same. I'll knock the image out. jimfbleak

Bird of Paradise

I actually found the photograph on a website with no apparent copyright notice a while ago, before it was mandatory to state the copyright information of images. And I'm afraid I'm not 100% sure about the species, nor do I have a larger photo. But feel free to use the image in de:Paradiesvögel if you want. DO'Neil 00:12, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I agree, you are right
regards
Aftab Banoori (Talk) 04:45, 12 July 2014 (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) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robinsonia (Grote) on WS

Franz, I have no particular objection to the renaming of the page, but the content is now ruined! The "primary reference" is the wrong reference! The red linked species names are subspecies or synonyms (also intermedia is a synonym). The Name section is a mess (it should not show the disambiguation term, and both genus name and type species date from the same publication, so need the same date!) PeterR has removed the doi of one of the references here, in favour of a non-persistent link! The Name section is nonsense here! Good job, man! I can see you are a big ass-et to WS! Eves Pair (talk) 21:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great! If I still had doubt, you may not be identical with User:Stho002, now I am sure you are. Thanks for confirmation! I don't feel responsible for any mistakes, which may happen to other users under hard pressure. You gave PeterR a big task this morning. He is not young any more. I am concerned, that maybe in some situation he may suffer a heart attack. Would you be prepared, that maybe you will have to feel responsible, in such case? You would not call this a good job, would you? --Franz Xaver (talk) 21:36, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If PeterR suffers a heart attack as a direct result of his activity on WS, then it would be entirely his own fault, and would not be without its positive benefits for WS. He is editing well out of his depth and protecting his mistakes, foisting said mistakes on present and future generations who might be silly enough to look to WS for information. I didn't give PeterR any task at all. I merely corrected his mistakes and improved his edits, which is what Wikimedia is supposed to be all about. It is not supposed to be about mutual masturbation by sysop mobs getting off on excluding others from the community. It wouldn't be so bad if they knew what they were doing, but they are just making a big mess. Of course I understand that you do good work on WS botany, but if the overall site is too badly infected by PeterR (or AndyBoorman) style garbage, nobody is going to take WS seriously, so your own efforts will be largely ignored. However, I also understand that you are far too bullheaded to take good advice, so good luck to you ... Eves Pair (talk) 21:50, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you admit, that I do good work on WS botany, this could make me happy. Anyway, I don't do it for my personal fame. Have a nice day. --Franz Xaver (talk) 22:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Eves Pair and Stho002: If you still are editor on ZooBank, you may want to correct the ZooBank entry – for correct date of publication see species:Template:Grote, 1866 or JSTOR. Concerning reliability of information, you should not throw stones, when sitting in a glass house. --Franz Xaver (talk) 11:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am still an editor on ZooBank, but I do not want to "correct" that, and my house is not made of glass! ZooBank records have very limited scope for annotation. I have simply reported the date of publication as stated in the original reference. It is best left at that for now. There is no way on ZooBank to specify a source for the actual publication date, so people will just think that I put the date in wrong if I don't report the date as specified in the original publication! Luv ya ... Apricia oh so jovialis (talk) 05:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You know, that ICZN in Recommendation 22A is distinguishing between actual date and imprint date, which might differ. I am wondering, that ZooBank is not able to present information on both. It seems to be a heavy deficiency of ZooBank, if this should be true. It is certainly not too rare, that a difference of weeks can be deciding, if the one or the other name has to be used. Maybe you should contact the ZooBank Committee concerning this issue. --Franz Xaver (talk) 09:21, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, yeah, ZooBank is imperfect ... aren't we all, except for you of course! But that is a small problem in a sea of much bigger problems, and they don't have enough funding to do much more. Oh well, we can only do our best in the face of adversity and imperfection ... sweety dreams, Apricia oh so jovialis (talk) 23:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apricia jovialis on WS

Franzy baby! Looking at species:Apricia jovialis, I see that Mariusm has also put it in the wrong genus, in addition to the errors that you have noted! Luv ya ... Apricia oh so jovialis (talk) 05:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Des konnst da spoan. --Franz Xaver (talk) 09:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PeterR

Hey Franzy babes, I don't know about a heart attack, but something very odd is happening to PeterR! Check out his recent edit history on WS! Wot's goin' on??? Apricia oh so jovialis (talk) 23:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Franz Xaver. 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. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Franz Xaver. 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]

Stephania capitata

Hi, Franz, thanks for the quick response. I will try to find the resources on JSTOR. Adeuss (talk) 07:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Franz Xaver. 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]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Franz Xaver. 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]