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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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

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 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

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]

All the key is gone now.

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]

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)

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.

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]

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 again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

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]

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). ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some of your edits appear to be copy pasted:

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

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

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

• 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]