User talk:Agong1

Comments

Hello, Agong1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! mgiganteus1 (talk) 11:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for welcome. Agong1 14:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions on editing protocol

Hi Agong1, nice to find your contributions here. I'm in UK too, mostly. Just thought I'd offer a couple of suggestions as we may well end up working on some articles in common – I'm interested in botany too. WP:Preview and WP:Edit_summary both offer advice that works well particularly when several editors are working on same article. Best, Trev M ~ 11:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks Trev M I didn't know that. Much better than checking for every small edit! Now that the microscope is up and running I am going to photograph whatever I can. Love botany. Love science. Love Wiki. Time consuming! agong1

Plant identification

Hi, Agong1. I saw your plant identification work (and subsequent articles) and wondered if you were aware of WP:NOTGUIDE. While the information you have produced is interesting, Wikipedia is not a guide and should not itself contain a key. However, we can be descriptive and describe the history of dichotomous keys (which probably belongs in the article dichotomous key) and notable issues, problems, criticism, famous keys, etc. The place for a guide would either be Wikiversity or Wikibooks. The series of articles you've produced could be described as a WP:WALL, which are discouraged. Do you think you could help me to correct the problem by consolidating all of the descriptive information and dispensing with the guide? Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 01:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you already deleted the key information. I appreciate your understanding of the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I'll go through and do a bit of clean up if that's ok. I had a question about plant identification - do you have the Morse (1974) reference listed in text? It's referred to vaguely without any full citation. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 16:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Polypetalae article, I think it would be important for context to specify that it effectively included all angiosperms minus monocots and "sympetalae" (practically asterids). Not doing it myself because I believe you could phrase it better and since it's your article. Thanks for your attention. --Draco ignoramus sophomoricus (talk) 15:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plant identification

All the key is gone now.

Logging in

Hi. I've noticed that some contributions to articles you have edited (or relating to those articles) are logged to several different (but very similar) IP addresses. For example, one comment ([1]) was left by User:117.201.48.170 on my talk page. This comment appears to be a direct response to an edit I had done ([2]) which reverted edits logged to you ([3]).

I wonder if these IPs might be you, having forgotten to log in? If so, I think you should be very careful indeed not to appear to be indulging in sock puppetry, one of the most heinous sins of Wikidom. I am sure this was not your intention, but if similar things are said in a discussion by one person who appears to be several different people, it can easily give the impression of deliberately trying to mislead other editors into believing that a point of view has more support than it really has.

If you do find you've forgotten to log in, I suggest you make it clear in your IP edits that you are also User:Agong1.

If these IPs are not you, please accept my apologies for unfounded suspicions. Best regards, Richard New Forest (talk) 10:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit concerned that you have not responded to this message, and in the meanwhile you seem to have represented yourself as two different users at Domestic pig. Can you explain what you're up to please? I am loth to start using the various sock-puppet warnings, as they are quite heavy-handed and you may have a perfectly honest explanation. Richard New Forest (talk) 21:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any sign of sock puppetry. Sock puppetry is abuse, not use of multiple logins. 69.3.72.9 (talk) 16:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "lead article" idea

Hi Agong1. I share your concern with bloated articles that overlap heavily with other articles. Such articles breed content forking. Your (?) comment on Talk:Domestic pig has sparked a small discussion about this. I just came by to let you know about it. 69.3.72.9 (talk) 17:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 69.3.72.9 Have followed it with some interest. Trouble is Wikipedians have so many different ideas and tend to think that the article is 'their' article and defend it with a vengeance! I just hope Wiki has some big computers with huge memory! Agong1 07:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of Lacrymaria (fungus) species

The article List of Lacrymaria (fungus) species has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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.

Proposed deletion of List of Rhizopus species

The article List of Rhizopus species has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

already merged into rhizopus article

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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. serioushat 10:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ilish may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 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:

Puja (Hinduism)|puja]]days like for the Hindu Goddess of music , art and knowledge [Saraswati Puja]], which takes place in the beginning of Spring or on the day of [[Lakshmi Puja]] (The Goddess of
even more over fishing. The advent of finer [[fishing nets]] and advanced [[trawling]] techniques), and environmental degradation of the rivers, has worsened the situation. Fishermen have been

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 23 June

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 Starch Analysis page, your edit caused a cite 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) 00:23, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some of your edits

Some of your edits appear to be copy pasted:

Your addition to Wikipedia: [4]
Source: [5]

This is an old edit from 2011 and it has since been updated. The script was referenced.

Your addition to Wikipedia: [6]
Source: [7]

This was from a blog and was fully referenced. Now updated

Your addition to Wikipedia: [8]
Source: [9]

This is an old edit from 2011 and it has since been updated. The script was referenced.

Your addition to Wikipedia: [10]
Source: [11]

Do you have any comment on this? Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not really the same is it? It was referenced. As far as I understand you can use others work if it is fully referenced and acknowledged. In any case you can change them if you are not happy. Regards

Indeed the same. Much of the content is exactly the same as the source. We must write in our own words. We cannot copy and paste from other websites, even if it is fully acknowledged and referenced. Please, please check your contributions and remove any copyright violations that you've added in the past.

Many thanks for your understanding and help with undoing this. For further information, please read Wikipedia:Copyright violations. If you have questions, please ask. Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anna all the article on slime mold is changed. My edits are 3 years old! There is no use in changing anything now. I will look at the starch thing again. It is very easy to criticize work isn't it? but not so easy to do the work yourself though. Best wishes

Do the work myself? Why should I? Why not you? Why should others clean up your mess and be criticized if they don't want to?

And if you're saying I don't like to do work myself, take a look at my contribs and the bottom of User:Anna Frodesiak where it says "Pages started". I do plenty of work myself -- 75,340 edits worth to be exact.

As for you doing work, you added edit summaries like "rewritten for clarity" for edits which cost you no work at all. You just copy pasted someone else's work.

Now, please understand that copyright violations are a serious matter here. Persistent offenders are blocked indefinitely. I will look into whatever copy pasting is still remains, and remove it because you won't. In the future, please ensure that there is no copy pasting or even close paraphrasing. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! 75,000 edits. Well done. Seriously, - that is a tremendous effort. Anna I am sorry to upset you, truly, but I -like you, have seen loads of stuff where it is just quicker to change it than have a big discussion with the writer on a talk page. Sometimes they don't respond for ages! Also edits very rarely stay because sooner or later someone else changes everything and that's fine by me.

Anyway, I have changed the starch article and used other words as you suggested based on several sources.Actually I had a need to find out about starch and found the Wikipedia article was just not good enough, so I quickly added what I found out for my research. Please see it and advise me if its OK now. Best wishes.

Thank you for your understanding. Please forgive my hostility. I've spent a good deal of time over the years digging through the edits of many a user to remove copyvios. It's no fun. Plus, it's a job that the offender can more easily do, as he knows what is copy pasted. Anyway, all's well that ends well. Happy editing. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Anna. There was a conflict error or something - you must have had a look at the article at the same time as I did. Will check back later. Now I have to rush off to a meeting, See you! Mike.

You're welcome. Actually, as you can see by the history, another editor also removed some copyvio content. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:20, 1 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) 14:03, 24 November 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) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]