Sorry to revert you, but there has been a bitter battle for several years about this issue that came to a conclusion last year, where the community voted that we don't do capitalisation of bird names. I was (am) an advocate of capitalisation myself, but now several thousand bird articles have all been lowercased....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pagliaccious! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Lightbreather (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pagliaccious! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 23:41, Tuesday, March 31, 2015 (UTC)

I thought I'd reply here so the links are on your talk page and you don't have to navigate back to mine to revisit them. There are many different ways to contribute to Wikipedia. I do a lot of behind the scenes stuff, organization and standardization of articles. I don't really do much to work expanding article content or adding new articles. I could suggest some tasks along the lines of what I do if you'd like. However, from what I've seen you like adding new articles and expanding content, and you do a good job while doing so. So, some suggestions for places to look for major content creation.

1. There are various lists of missing plant articles in Category:Missing_encyclopedic_articles_(plants). The most useful of these is User:Pengo/missing_plants. Pengo did a search of the literature corpus represented by Google Books, and compiled a list of the plants most frequently mentioned in books that don't yet have an article. Some of the red links in Pengo's will be synonyms where there is an article about that plant already under a different name. Some synonyms are explicitly noted in the list, but many are not, and sometimes there's a mistake in the explicitly noted ones. Double check the names in Pengo's list, but it's good place to find some badly needed articles on plants.

2. You'd have the biggest impact in terms of readers if you worked on expanding the articles they view the most; Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Popular pages. Many of these are in terrible shape. I find them difficult to work on, as there is often quite a lot of content, but it is in need of a complete overhaul. The quality ratings aren't necessarily up to date, but there are many highly viewed Start class articles that could use some attention.

3. There's a report of plant articles that have been tagged with various cleanup banners. The articles that entirely lack sources are mostly 1-sentence stubs and really need expansion and sourcing.

I hope this helps you find some valuable work to do. I've been assuming you're particularly interested in plants based on your contributions so far (and my own interests). If there are other subjects you'd like to work on as well, there are equivalent missing encyclopedic article categories, popular page reports and cleanup banner reports for many other topics.

EDIT: Oh, I should mention, I have User:AlexNewArtBot/PlantsSearchResult on my watchlist and check it on a near-daily basis. That's probably mostly why you see me all over your watchlist. If you want to check over new plant articles, I'd appreciate the help.

Plantdrew (talk) 02:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Plantdrew: I can't thank you enough, these suggestions are amazing. I will have no shortage of work to do now, which is pretty great. Also, I just put User:AlexNewArtBot/PlantsSearchResult a couple of hours ago because I assumed that's what you used, funnily enough.

Hi, I thought you might want to read this. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: I actually was looking at that no more than five minutes ago when I was rereading the RfA page, but thanks for the advice. User:Pagliaccious 05:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Dissotis rotundifolia, Pagliaccious!

Wikipedia editor Blythwood just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

I've added a taxonbar and an extra book source, also linked to Wikipedia articles in other languages. Hope that's OK.

To reply, leave a comment on Blythwood's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Blythwood (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Heteronympha cordace, Pagliaccious!

Wikipedia editor Animalparty just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thanks for contributing this! You might consolidate the short sections in "Ecology" section, so that this reads less like a field guide and more like an encyclopedia article.

To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

--Animalparty! (talk) 18:40, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		The Blazing Star Barnstar
		Many thanks for stepping up and rewriting the Pit (botany) page; even an ignnoramus like me who doesn't know an angiosperm from an abaxial can understand it now. Yunshui 雲水 14:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Carex novae-angliae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peduncle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Link disambiguated, Peduncle → Peduncle. Thanks, Pagliaccious (talk) 13:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Gene Wolfe Citadel.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I saw you added your name to the list of participants for the bats work group. Let me know if you'd be interested in collaborating on an article some time! Enwebb (talk) 15:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Enwebb, absolutely! I'm working on improving the Indian Flying Fox article right now if you'd like to help. Pagliaccious (talk) 15:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, that's consistently one of the most popular bat pages. I'll see what I can add. Enwebb (talk) 16:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, usually when I edit, I'll make an article passable and then move on. The Indian flying fox is coming along so nicely, though, I think we could shoot for GA. Probably just needs more attention to the first 3 sections. What do you think? Enwebb (talk) 05:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's just what I was thinking! I think we can get the article to GA pretty soon at this rate, and I completely agree that those first few sections need a bit more attention. I'll get on it tomorrow. Pagliaccious (talk) 07:14, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, clearly you've seen that the article got some feedback on the mammals talk page. Nice work expanding the description more. I was thinking about adding more to the Distribution and habitat section, but other than that, I'm not sure what else could be done. One person pointed out that the longevity info seemed out of place in the description section, but I'm not sure where else it could logically go. Thoughts? Other ideas on what's left to do? Enwebb (talk) 02:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah the distribution and habitat section is definitely lacking, but other than that I don't have many ideas for what we could work on. Maybe more on culture? I suppose besides distribution and habitat I'll just do some general spelling and punctuation checking. I'm not sure where else the age stuff could go to be honest, so I think it's fine where it is. Great work! Pagliaccious (talk) 13:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you saw, but it passed GA review today! Enwebb (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Sorry for not being there to help, I've been really busy with schoolwork lately. I'm back in business now though! Pagliaccious (talk) 18:53, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the Oedera capensis article is too technical, you'd better have a look at the 1000 articles I have substantially contributed to thus far. You will see that all of them are at least as technical. One of them is GA and another FA. You'd be wanting to put your template with all of them. And a template like this basically says: do not attempt to read this, you will not be able to understand it. In that case, I would be tempted to reduce all of them to the level that no one puts a template there any more. It is so easy to discredit an article and let someone else guess what exactly should be improved. Dwergenpaartje (talk) 09:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dwergenpaartje Geez, calm down. I'm sorry for putting that template on the article. This isn't Simple English Wikipedia I suppose. I'll take it off and I shouldn't have put it there in the first place. But please don't be so angry towards me! I just made a mistake. Pagliaccious (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these words. I did overreact, too much stress at work and some private troubles with my mom loosing it at her old age. Everything can be improved, please help me by being specific which words or phrases are too difficult for the average reader. I guess I may have gotten used so much to the jargon, I may sometimes not be aware that it is jargon. Sorry, I hope I did not disturb your inner balance too much.

By the way, the over referencing in many Iris articles is horrible, and if you read Dutch, perhaps you may enjoy the bee orchid article in that language. Dwergenpaartje (talk) 02:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the easiest way to make a plant article more readable is to explain some of the vocabulary. The plant itself isn't hard to understand but I find that most of my friends don't know what a peduncle is. But I don't think my technical cleanup box was really needed in the first place. I hope things calm down at work for you and I hope things with your mother improve! Best wishes Pagliaccious (talk) 07:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Hypericum punctatum, Pagliaccious!

Wikipedia editor Nick Moyes just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Nice article. Just a couple of observations for you to consider fixing: Firstly, mixing dm, cm and mm in measurements i a bit confusing. Perhaps convert 5-10 dm to 50-100cm in the convert template, as the former is rarely used as a unit in this context. Then perhaps remove the capital letters from common names (which I personally like, but Wikipedia MOS doesn't) as well as from Syrphid and Halctid as these are not generic names, but adjectives describing the genera. (Again, I personally like to see caps there, but it's not a MOS convention to use them as far as I'm aware). This article could be a good candidate for a DYK if you're interested in putting in the work to take it there. Cheers.

To reply, leave a comment on Nick Moyes's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Nick Moyes (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pagliaccious,

Thanks for fixing the mistakes I've been making on plant pages lately (for example on Habenaria propinquior). I'm a bit of a perfectionist and hate having even the smallest spelling/punctuation/syntax blunder. Your work is much appreciated. Gderrin (talk) 23:08, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gderrin: I quite enjoy making these minor improvements on plant articles. I've noticed that you often have wikilinks to disamb pages, and what I do to easily spot the disambiguation links is to turn on the orange display feature in "preferences". If you go to preferences, then to gadgets, then appearance, fifth from the bottom is the feature "Display links to disambiguation pages in orange". If you turn this on, disamb wikilinks will be orange rather than blue, and stand out clearly in articles.

And thank you for your tremendous contributions and creation of orchid articles. You're the one editor I see most constantly and consistently creating great plant articles. Pagliaccious (talk) 13:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks for the advice - will do. And great to get a message from "her" - Vesti la giubba!!! Gderrin (talk) 05:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear friend,

First of all, let me extend my thanks to you for showing interest in an article created by me on an Indian tree and helping it extensively to become close to perfect.

My friend, I am a B. Tech in Comp. Sc. Engineer and not a Botany expert, but decided to give my 100% to this article because I am a tree and plant lover. I first got info about this tree during my general walk through of Ficus genus Wikipedia page. I started to find info about this tree on Google, but it came out that this tree didn't have too many studies published on internet. So, with whatever 7-8 websites I found, I tried to collect, join, modify and merge info from those websites to create and build a decent article on Wikipedia. Honestly, finding info about this tree on internet was an utterly tough task. I spent 3 days specifically finding that info itself. Then, I spent 4 days by combining and writing this article.

When you started editing this page by placing "copypaste" template on the top of it, my task had not finished yet friend. I had just taken break due to a scheduled interview and I would have edited this page extensively during the coming days. But all thanks to you, you made my task a lot easier.

Regarding the copy and paste edits, those edits were copied from a website where the content was available to be reused as it is under CC BY NC 3.0, with a condition to add a proper citation, which I did infact in every single line that I copied. That's why I had to copy same references every single time.

Lastly, I deeply feel that my task of writing a complete article on a tree about which too little info is available to be cited and used and considering the fact that I am not a Botany expert but just a tree lover, should have been at least appreciated and applauded once.

Anyway, Thank you for reading such a long paragraph with patience.

With Regards Deepanshu M. (talk) 05:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepanshu1707: I am sorry for putting the copy/paste box on the top of the page. I was unaware that the content you used was under that Creative Commons license and I should have done more research before putting the cleanup box on the page. The article you've written so far is fantastic though, and I hope you keep it up! If you need to find more resources or references on topics like Ficus amplissima, you could look on Google Books, Google Scholar, or perhaps the Biodiversity Heritage Library. Pagliaccious (talk) 13:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Pagliaccious,

Thanks once again for recognizing my efforts, and I will write more articles on trees of Ficus genus in forthcoming days. There was no need of sorry, as you were also doing your work. I honestly didn't talk to you here for a "sorry", but I thought that I should clarify my point of view to you regarding this article and its edits.

Cheers! Deepanshu M. (talk) 14:21, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Pagliaccious! I recently responded to your query at WikiProject Plants, and noticed the very well-written plant articles- and specifically Hypericum articles- you wrote or improved. My main line of the work in the wiki has been in that genus with most of it being focused on the creation of List of Hypericum species and I never thought I would find another editor who also worked a good deal in the genus.

Anyways, what I'm getting at is that I have wanted to spearhead a new WikiProject on the Hypericaceae family, the St. John's Wort family, which Hypericum is the main constituent of, following closely off of the structure and scope of the Banksia WikiProject. However, I wasn't confident in my abilities to "properly" create a WikiProject, and really was unsure if anyone would even want to join (and getting editors to collaborate is the main reason we have WikiProjects in the first place) so I never got around to doing it. But seeing another editor working in the same little niche as I do inspired me, and I think I will create that WikiProject after all. So what I'm asking is:

• Are you at all interested in helping me start it?
• Do you have any ideas or tips for it?
• Or is this something I've totally overstepped my bounds on and that you want no part of?

Either way, I'd love to hear back from you and I hope to see more of your great work on the wiki! Respectfully, Fritzmann2002 ^{T, c, s, t} 20:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fritzmann2002: I'd love to join a Hypericaceae WikiProject. I'd be interested in helping start it and contributing to related articles, but I'm not entirely sure how to start or maintain a WikiProject. I'd probably be a better help with content creation than with leadership or WikiProject creation, so I would suggest perhaps asking another editor for assistance with creating the main WikiProject page.

As far as WikiProject-related tips, I think that taxon article guidelines and lists of resources with Hypericaceae information are the two things I would use the most. Besides that, two parts of WikiProject Bats that I'm fond of are the list of missing articles and the "random stub" button, both of which I believe help promote article creation and expansion.

If you need any help creating the article layout guide, compiling a list of resources, or anything else related to this future WikiProject, I'd love to help. Pagliaccious (talk) 23:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've created the first draft of the new WikiProject here if you'd like to check it out. Fritzmann2002 ^{T, c, s, t} 12:25, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fritzmann2002: Looks great! I've added my name to the participant's list. I have some suggestions as well:

1. Is there a WikiProject template box for the WikiProject yet? If so, we could advertise the WP box on the project page and begin adding the box to project-related pages. If not, a good example of one is the Banksia WikiProject's box, which can be seen on the Banksia talk page.

2. Perhaps a userbox could be created for the WikiProject. (I'm quite fond of userboxes)

3. I could help start an example taxon article or taxon article guidelines if you'd like. I often find myself checking the taxon guidelines for WikiProject Plants.

4. A comprehensive list of missing articles in redlinks could be useful for promoting article creation.

5. Lastly, here is an example "random stub" button that I've taken from WikiProject Bats that we could add to the project page if you'd like. It only shows stubs from the Hypericum genus currently but with a little more work I could probably expand its scope.

[[?site=en.wikipedia.org Random Hypericum stub |?site=en.wikipedia.org Random Hypericum stub]]

Best regards, Pagliaccious (talk) 16:47, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pagliaccious:

1. There is a template box, here is the link: Template:WikiProject Hypericaceae. There are no quality or importance categories yet, so that is definitely a priority so we can start sorting out articles.

2. I just made a little userbox right here. It's very simple and if you want to change it or make a new one feel free.

3. Specified taxon guidelines would be great. Just make a new tab at the top of the WikiProject (make sure to add it on all the subpages). Basing it off WP Plants would work, but some specialization would be nice.

4. I will start an "articles to be created" tab soon and start working on prioritizing those as soon as I can

5. That random stub button is really cool. I will create a Hypericaceae-stubs category so we can have a randomizer for that. That button would go great at the Portal for the family once we get that up and running.

If you know anyone who could help with this, especially someone who is good with making portals, it would be great to see if they want to help collaborate. Here's to the Saint johns-worts! Fritzmann2002 ^{T, c, s, t} 01:09, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fritzmann2002: I'll get started on the taxon guidelines on Monday; I won't have much time to work on anything until then. I'm not very good with portals and I don't know anyone who is, but I think that it would be a good idea to ask at WikiProject Plants or somewhere in the Community Portal both for help with the portal and also to advertise the new WikiProject. Pagliaccious (talk) 01:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for assessing Mimetes capitulatus and M. hottentoticus. Perhaps I could tempt you to have a look at the articles on the genus Mimetes, Mimetes cucullatus and Mimetes fimbriifolius, which I extended, but still are classified as stubs. Thank you in advance, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 15:37, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dwergenpaartje: These articles are certainly no longer stubs. I am somewhat unfamiliar with what distinguishes a B-class article from a C-class, so from only a quick read of the two species articles you listed I assessed them as C but someone more experienced with assessment may have a different idea. As for the genus article, it seems to be mostly comprehensive and complete, so I would suggest perhaps nominating the article for GA or something similar. Glad to help, Pagliaccious (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Dwergenpaartje (talk) 07:42, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pagliaccious - thank you for you edits. In my opinion, there are too many "stub class" articles that are in fact start class (and difficult to improve upon at the moment). I wonder if you would like to contribute to the discussion at criteria before making any more reverts. Brgds. Roy Bateman (talk) 19:52, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Roy Bateman: Thank you for explaining. I was under the impression that stub, start, and C class were primarily distinguished by their length, where stub articles are one to two sentences, start is a paragraph or more, and C has substantial length. Of course, the information within the articles is also an indicator of the article's class; paragraphs of meaningless information hold as much weight as a sentence of important information. I agree with your idea that a description, a range, vernacular names, and so on constitute a start class article, but I now wonder if the amount of content provided has anything to do with an article's class. For example, the example you gave in the link, Stellaria graminea, has a paragraph of description and a few sentences of habitat and distribution, whereas Globba albiflora has no description and only a distribution given. Regardless, I agree that Globba albiflora perhaps deserves a "start" assessment. Thanks, Pagliaccious (talk) 20:06, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pagliaccious: Many thanks for reconsidering ... I don't want to labour this too much, but I think it is worth clarifying the actual guidelines themselves. To date, only Peter coxhead and I have commented there: I was hoping to get a wider consensus on this inevitably subjective matter before doing making changes. We both agree that Stellaria graminea is clearly not a stub, so I have just upgraded it to C class and mid importance (being a widespread weed sp.). I could put forward one of mine - e.g. Swintonia pierrei - where I haven't been able to improve much on the robotic page at SV:WP, as an "acceptable stub" (as opposed to one that "risks being dropped from being an article altogether"). What do you think? Roy Bateman (talk) 21:27, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Roy Bateman: I'll comment on the guidelines thread soon and I'll see if I can improve on that stub article. In my opinion every species deserves an article, even there is very little literature on the species. Pagliaccious (talk) 21:39, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Fossil Grove at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pagliaccious, perhaps you may be willing to have a look at the classification of Mimetes arboreus and Mimetes chrysanthus. Thank you in advance! Dwergenpaartje (talk) 16:52, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dwergenpaartje: Both articles are certainly C-class at the least. M. chrysanthus could quite well be a B-class but I'm unsure of what exactly distinguishes C from B. Glad to help, Pagliaccious (talk) 17:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is fine. Thank you so much! Dwergenpaartje (talk) 17:11, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I was initially happy you'd assessed the article I made about Butia archeri, but going through your edits I'm actually rather disappointed. I feel it would be best to revert your changes. Let me elucidate:

1.) You de-italicised the Portuguese vernacular names. This is wrong; the correct typography for all non-English words should be italics. See here. Some people don't like non-English words in these articles pro forma, but I feel it could be relevant in the case of plants otherwise largely unknown in the English world, as it might be handy should one try to visit these plants in situ. About putting these words in bold, I'm not sure about that; I just thought it looks better considering I put the (doubtful) English common name in bold.

2.) You exchanged 3 semicolons for commas. I checked up on this, but I believe my usage is largely correct. See here. I looked it over carefully again; one of my admittedly overly long sentence is rendered less comprehensible by switching punctuation marks (also particularly see using semicolons in a list-type sentence), although it would indeed be more correct in this case if I remove the conjunction 'and'. In the other two cases, and the three semicolons I just used here, I am putting two independent clauses in one sentence. In the case of the two sentences in the article I also omitted "parallel wording": 'it is', ' Butia archeri is', or 'this plant is'. One could rewrite the entire sentence to separate the independent clauses, but I feel the prose looks more childish that way.

3.) You want me to name a commercial vendor in the article? That seems grossly un-encyclopaedic, and also redundant, as the reference makes it clear which nursery is saying this. The only reason I added the clause "according to a nursery" was so that discerning readers might realise that the information needs to be taken with a grain of salt: obviously a nursery trying to market this plant as a 'hardy palm' might exaggerate its hardiness. It seems stupid to specifically mention one potential vendor of this plant among dozens (and not a particularly good one), and I doubt it is relevant to the plant.

So in conclusion I will rewrite that last part to make it a more complete sentence as per your edit, and remove the word 'and', but revert everything else. Sorry, but thanks for looking at it anyway. If you feel I am wrong -or, to use another foreign word, a mierenneuker, please let me know. Cheers, Leo 86.83.56.115 (talk) 11:32, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in retrospect, I see that the omitted word(s) could be 'being' instead of 'it is', as such I removed the semicolon in those two cases, but still retained the one in the very long sentence. Regards, and thanks again, Leo 86.83.56.115 (talk) 11:44, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@86.83.56.115: Thank you for your pointing out these mistakes. In response:

1.) Typically the reason I de-italicize common names of plants is that it appears that editors fail to distinguish the syntax between bolding Latin names and common names, leading to both being italicized. In this case, you are completely correct. I'm not very familiar with foreign common names and per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC they need to be italicized. I probably need to fix a lot of articles I've started now! On the subject of bolding, per MOS:BOLDSYN alternative names also need to be bolded at their first occurrence, so I believe that it is correct to bold the foreign common names.

2.) For the one sentence I changed that still has a semicolon:

" According to Glassman in 1979, this taxon can easily be distinguished from other acaulescent species of Butia, such as B. arenicola and (sometimes) B. paraguayensis, by its petiole margins lacking teeth; and from B. microspadix, which also lacks teeth, by the hairless spathes, which are covered in dark brown hairs in B. microspadix. "

This sentence begins with a prepositional phrase followed by a comma, then the main subject/predicate of the sentence, then an appositive phrase beginning and ending with commas, and followed by the completion of the sentence. If the semicolon were to be placed here at the end, then we have separated the dependent clause from the independent incorrectly with a semicolon. In order for the semicolon to be correct here the sentence would read ";and, it may be distinguished from B. microspadix", which sounds unwieldy. In the state I changed it in the comma would most easily be interchanged with the semicolon.

In the state the sentence is in now, the conjunction "and" has been completely removed and now a dependent clause is linked with an independent clause. This is simply incorrect. I understand that it may be viewed as separating two terms in a list, but two terms do not make a list. I may be incorrect in some part of this analysis however, so please correct me if I am mistaken.

3.) You are certainly correct here. I was under the impression that weasel words were being used, creating unsupported attributions, but I did not perform my due diligence and review the sources referenced. Also per WP:WEASEL, "views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions". Thank you for correcting me here.

So in closing, I'd like to thank you for pointing out my mistakes of de-italicizing and adding the {by whom} template, but I'm still unsure of if the semicolons are used in the correct fashion. More important than this minor grammatical matter, thank you for creating these high quality articles for Wikipedia! Best regards, Pagliaccious (talk) 17:29, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, dude; I'm completely happy with your response. Indeed, usage of semicolons is challenging, and that was an unwieldy sentence. I must concede your analysis of the sentence in question is spot on, and you are frankly correct. I will adjust accordingly. I've written plant articles for years elsewhere and it's very nice someone is attempting to edit me -I'm just very used to being right all the time. Now I can improve. I plan to complete writing English synopses of what is known of the genus Butia as there is much ignorance and online nonsense out there, and the taxonomy is, attractively, somewhat involved. I will welcome your input. Regards, Leo 86.83.56.115 (talk) 19:53, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@86.83.56.115: Glad to clear things up then. I think that we've both learned some things to help us improve. Thank you for pointing out my mistakes and I hope you keep up the great work! Pagliaccious (talk) 23:23, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed NGC 136 doesn't have an info box. I am not at adding info boxes so could you help me. I helped add a stub box but that was pretty much it. AdrianWikiEditor (talk) 03:56, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AdrianWikiEditor: I'll do my best to help create an infobox, but I'm not very familiar with Astronomy-related infoboxes. Perhaps you could ask for more help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy. In addition to the infobox, I've noticed some other things in the article that need to be fixed. Typically when a stub box like {{star-cluster-stub}} is placed on an article, it should be placed below the references but above any collapsible boxes, where I have moved it. Additionally, you linked New General Catalogue in the bolded article title term. According to the Manual of Style, the style guidelines for Wikipedia, links typically shouldn't be placed in the bolded article title reiteration. Hope I could help! Pagliaccious (talk) 13:48, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Actually, a stub template, when present, should be the very last thing on the page; see MOS:ORDER. Plantdrew (talk) 16:07, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Plantdrew: Thank you for pointing that out! I have been looking for that layout template for a while now. I've changed the article back to what you had originally, User:AdrianWikiEditor. Best regards, Pagliaccious (talk) 16:11, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help! AdrianWikiEditor (talk) 02:04, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pagliaccious,

Thank you for your many corrections to my blunders in plant articles. I've reverted your last but I want you to know I originally had the same Verner Hawsbrook Rowland as the author of this species (or its synonym). I also want to share with you this story:

The WCSP has the author as "F.Muell. ex. Rchb.f." but there is no mention of F.Muell. in the article published by Heinrich Gustav Reichenbach.[1] I wrote to Kew asking for an explanation for why there was no mention of Verner Hawsbrook Rowland. (The name given is "Rowl.") Rafaël Govaerts answered my question with "Verner Hawsbrook Rowland was not yet born when it was published so it cannot be him. The most information I can find is “Veitch through his friend Dr. Rowland, of Malvern, who was at first accredited as its sponsor. Mr. Bernays”".

So, I still do not know who wrote the original (manuscript) description. I have now written to the publishers of the APNI asking "who was Rowland?". They give "Rowland" as the original author. I will let you know when I have an answer. In the meantime, all the best to you. Gderrin (talk) 23:55, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response! I've already written to you on your own talk page on the matter. I'm quite an amateur at abbreviations it seems; I referenced Wikipedia's list of abbreviations and didn't even view the source. Best regards and thank you for explaining the matter, Pagliaccious (talk) 00:15, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As promised, here are the main points in the response from the very kind, helpful Anna Munro at the ANBG re the APNI page for Phaius bernaysii.

• Anna has changed the APNI page, giving the author's name as Rchb.f. and added a link to Bernays.
• She believes (with very good evidence) that 1. Bernays collected specimens and sent them to Mueller and also to Dr Rowland, of Malvern; 2. Dr Rowland sent the specimens to the nurseries of Veitch & Son; 3. Messrs. Veitch sent some specimens to Reichenbach; 4. Reichenbasch published, mentioning Dr Rowland (Rowl.), unaware that the name had been given by Ferdinand von Mueller. This article (top left hand corner) is revealing.
• Anna has done some research and says "Dr Rowland" is probably Hugh Mortimer Rowland.
• Since the rules of nomenclature only allow for internal evidence (ie. "evidence within the publication") is to be used, there should be no reference to an author of this name other than Rchb.f.

All of which means that we no longer have to worry about who "Dr Rowland" was. (I will make the necessary changes to the original article. All the best to you! Gderrin (talk) 09:16, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I went through the little brown bat and added hidden text to the sections I haven't gotten around to doing much with yet, if you're interested in collab-ing for another GA. The biology and ecology section is fairly rough still (the only subsection I've done there so far is the reproduction subsection). It could definitely use some restructuring, too...But of course, feel free to add to or edit the content I've put in so far in other sections! Enwebb (talk) 21:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P. S. edited to add that there's basically no lead as well, though I think it's easiest to do that last once all the pieces are there to summarize. Enwebb (talk) 22:00, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Enwebb: I'd love to help! I haven't been as active as I would like to be for the Bats WikiProject, as plant articles are much easier to edit than bat articles, but I would enjoy helping out with this article. I could get started with some major editing by Wednesday and I have some things in mind for a hibernation subsection. I agree that a lead should probably be done last; that's the way I prefer it to be done. Thanks for reaching out. Best regards, Pagliaccious (talk) 02:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's totally fine! I won't be editing very much at all for the next week (final thesis deadline is next Monday, eek!) Enwebb (talk) 03:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want to change this on the article and put it in the description, but
1. The other authors of the paper all have ResearchGate IDs and have published other papers. They're well known enough as herpetologists or photographers for that at least.
2. The two papers are the same. They have the same authors, titles, and abstracts. starsandwhales (talk) 19:22, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Starsandwhales:: Hey there, thanks for reaching out. The reason I felt those authors are not notable enough to warrant their own articles is based on Wikipedia's notability guidelines on academics such as the authors in question. Having ID's or publishing papers doesn't necessarily warrant the creation of an author's page. The guidelines can be found here: WP:ACADEMIC. If one of these authors is indeed notable I welcome the creation of the redlink; however, through a quick google search I couldn't find anything that indicated notability. I do admit I haven't been too thorough though, so perhaps one or more is notable.

On the topic of the papers, they do share similarities but are separate articles from what I see. This is the link to your article, and this is the link to the article I referenced, based on your edit. From what I see, the first article describes the two species Boophis baetkei and Boophis lilianae, whereas the article I referenced describes the two species Boophis popi and Boophis fayi. Unless I'm missing something I believe these are separate articles.

Again, thank you for reaching out for a discussion over this. Regards, Pagliaccious (talk) 19:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. I have the PDF of the [2], but I guess VE's citation feature didn't get the right one or something. starsandwhales (talk) 21:33, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pagliaccious, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. However, you should consider adding relevant wikiproject talk-page templates, stub-tags and categories to new articles that you create if you aren't already in the habit of doing so, since your articles will no longer be systematically checked by other editors (User:Evad37/rater and User:SD0001/StubSorter.js are useful scripts which can help). Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Chetsford (talk) 21:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pagliaccious. I hope you are doing well and staying safe during these times! Apologize to bother and posting a random request. I have just started to work on a stub (Fontainea Venosa)and had added some sections. Knowing your expertise, I would love if you can help me to review and left a comment on what I can do to improve my edits. I hope that this is okay, but no pressure if you are busy. That is completely fine and understandable :) Hope to hear from you soon. The article is Fontainea Venosa

Thank you so much :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparklingkull (talk • contribs) 02:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sparklingkull: sure, I'll take a look at it. I'm not sure who J Milbourne is though! Pagliaccious (talk) 15:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thank you so much for replying! Sorry about that Pagliaccious, that was my mistake hahaha. Alright, I look forward to your feedback. Have a good day!. Sparklingkull (talk) 02:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your work on Bromus racemosus. As an aside, please feel free to change any text of mine in these stubs I'm creating. I'm never really sure that they're correct, plus I'm grammar-challenged. Abductive (reasoning) 00:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Pagliaccious! It's been a while since we've worked together, but I wanted to reach out to see if you were interested in tackling an article I've been eyeing for a long time in a collaborative effort. Hypericum got listed as a level-4 Vital Article, and the shape of the article is really rough right now. I'm wrapping up my second species Good Article in the genus, and once that's finished I'm really hoping to start working on Hypericum, but I could really use some help. I haven't attempted to bring a genus article to GA yet, and there's a lot of work to be done. I just wanted to see if you were interested in working on the project with me (and hopefully a few other editors) in a collaborative effort. Please let me know your thoughts! Very respectfully, Fritzmann (message me) 03:07, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fritzmann, thanks for reaching out. I haven't been active here lately (as you may be able to tell) since my University work has gotten a lot more time intensive, but I appreciate your note since I do try to keep up with things here. I'd love to see what I can do to help; I've actually been trying to find a nice, large article to get me back into editing. I can try to be active working on the article whenever you'd like to start, just please excuse any periods where I may not be able to respond quickly. Regards, Pagliaccious (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, there is an ongoing Featured Article Candidacy for Hypericum sechmenii at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hypericum sechmenii/archive1. If you're interested in commenting I would love to have your knowledgeable input! Fritzmann (message me) 20:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's looking tough to contribute in any meaningful way — any more changes seem to involve grammar pedantry or a trip to Turkey with a camera. Great work and good luck with the FA review! Pagliaccious (talk) 21:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]