User talk:HalfGig

Asa Gray

Superb job and QUICK. THANK YOU!!! HalfGig talk 12:27, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Three Sisters (agriculture) into History of agriculture. 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. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Dodger67 and "double standards"

It's interesting to read your comment about "double standards" after you referred to my comment in opposition to Dodger67's RfA. Actually I think it is the lack of tiered standards that makes me reluctant to support him. He seems to apply the high standards we expect from an editor with 5000+ edits upon a walk-in newcomer. I wouldn't say we should strive for "double standard", but I would say the crux of the problem here is an ill-formed "one size fits all" approach. Deryck C. 22:21, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

That's not exactly the type of double standard I was talking about, even though I agree you can't expect a newbie to know what an admin knows. I was thinking more along cliques ("don't post facts that mess with the status quo") and the fact that some admins will smack a newbie for minor incivility when they'll let a vested contributor (as in someone who writes great articles but is grossly uncivil) slide and do nothing to them. Roger seems he may be prone more toward the latter, even to the point of lacking common courtesy at times. HalfGig talk 22:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi HalfGig. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! – Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much! HalfGig talk 17:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

William T. Stearn (GA)

Thank you - I will keep a close eye on it and look forward to working with you. Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Thyridia repens

Okay, made a start on that page. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 03:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Very nice! Thanks! HalfGig talk 03:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Mimulus, Diplacus Erythranthe, Mimetanthe

At least nineteen of the species you have already moved from Mimulus to Erythranthe have never been placed there and have actually been reclassified into either Diplacus or Mimetanthe. Also, Erythranthe and Mimetanthe are feminine and adjectival species epithets must also be changed to feminine gender. Nomen ambiguum (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Reference errors on 18 February

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Erythranthe page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)