Jump to content

User talk:Cedarwood7500

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your submission at Articles for creation: Euceraea sleumeriana has been accepted

[edit]
Euceraea sleumeriana, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Dan arndt (talk) 05:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Euceraea nitida has been accepted

[edit]
Euceraea nitida, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

qcne (talk) 11:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

[edit]

Hi Cedarwood7500. Thank you for your work on Euceraea nitida. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for creating the article! Have a blessed day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A little delayed, sorry, but it is no problem! Cedarwood7500 (talk) 03:13, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I need help on editing

[edit]

@Alyo: How do I source a pdf properly? Is there a specific format I have to follow? I'm asking you since I cannot find much on citations for pdfs in help.

Here's the pdf in question: https://sciencepress.mnhn.fr/sites/default/files/articles/pdf/a2014n1a8.pdf

I'm specifically looking to source pages 87-91, on C. cerasifolia.

I apologize for any inconvenience, I'm still adjusting to Wikipedia. Cedarwood7500 (talk) 00:17, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Cedarwood7500, you generally cite to it not based on it being a PDF, but based on whatever type of source it is saved from. In this case, it's just an academic journal, so you could use {{cite journal}} with a link in the reference to the PDF. In this case that would be: {{cite journal |last1=LASTNAME |first1=FIRSTNAME |last2=LASTNAME OF SECOND AUTHOR |first2=ETC |date= |title=A synoptic revision of the Malagasy endemic :genus Calantica Jaub. ex Tul. (Salicaceae) |url=https://sciencepress.mnhn.fr/sites/default/files/articles/pdf/a2014n1a8.pdf |journal=Adansonia |volume= |issue= |publisher= |pages= |doi= |access-date=}} with more fields filled in. Let me know if that makes sense. Alyo (chat·edits) 00:30, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask if you could find the doi, issue, and publisher? I have trouble finding those, but I'll do the rest of it. And yes, you made sense, thank you. I hope that doesn't take too much time for you. Cedarwood7500 (talk) 00:38, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note, I'll be back to check either in a few hours or tomorrow, I'll be sure to use this in the article, thank you again. Cedarwood7500 (talk) 00:40, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, I realize asking for a favor is a bit rude of me, sorry. I can do it myself, and thanks for the help! Cedarwood7500 (talk) 02:10, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Prunus arborea, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bitterness. 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) 07:56, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Xylosma ovata

[edit]

Hello Cedarwood7500. Thanks for creating the article Xylosma ovata, it is well written and well researched. The only criticism, if one need be given, is that it was too technical. Your original article would be well understood by botanic professionals, but a plant article on Wikipedia attracts readers from a huge range of backgrounds including well-informed naturalists, casual gardeners, simple plant lovers, herbologists and many others, and we need to accommodate as many of them as possible. I have made quite a few edits to the article today and I've added what I hope are explanatory edit summaries, mainly focused on avoiding jargon where possible and overall readability, but also about linking directly to pages that provide more info, rather than relying on redirect pages. Feel free to discuss any of these edits with me. Cheers, Steve 🌳 Junglenut · Talk 09:20, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Junglenut: I was observing your edits yesterday, and I am very relieved that you are so well mannered. I am currently working on Xylosma as a whole, as a passion project of mine. If you look into my user page, you can see the pages so far. Although, I have many concerns primarily about my format. Can you give some advice on how to improve my work, and may you potentially look into my other work to find mistakes maybe? I'm asking because I am still very new to editing, and I feel a little insecure about certain aspects of my work. I apologize if this message seems a little inexperienced as well. Sincerely, Cedar. Cedarwood7500 (talk) 17:04, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can offer a few tips - I remember how overwhelming it was for me when I first started creating pages a few years back. I'll put something together and add it here. Cheers 🌳 Junglenut · Talk 00:56, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have a few further questions, though they are pretty specific. I hope they are not too hard, if so, I can try and find the answers through research myself. Firstly, I noticed you said Plants of the World Online is the preferred database in the edit history on Xylosma ovata, but I am wondering if Australian Tropical Rainforest Plants is a valid source for taxonomic synonyms? Secondly, how do I upload an image specifically from iNaturalist onto Wikimedia Commons, and how to deal with the copyright? Again, thank you for kindness. Sorry again for my inexperience. Sincerely, Cedar. Cedarwood7500 (talk) 02:16, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Australian Tropical Rainforest Plants (often referred to as RFK for 'rainforest key') does not present itself as a taxonomic authority, but it is very useful for descriptions, distributions, etc. Note that it only deals with Australian rainforest taxa. POWO is the go-to for global taxonomic data, but other sources include World Flora Online (WFO), World Plants, the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF), and the Catalogue of Life (COL). There are many other databases that are specific to certain regions/countries, you can find a list of them at the Wikipedia Plants Project. There's a lot of other useful information on those pages too.
Regarding your second question, on each Commons category page there should be a large button at the top of the page labelled 'iNaturalist import'. Clicking that will show you all images of that taxon on iNat that have a free licence, and you can upload them with just a couple more clicks.
If the button isn't there then either the iNat ID hasn't been entered on the relevant Wikidata page, or the taxon isn't yet listed on iNat. If it's the latter and you're an iNat user, you can ask the iNat curators to add the taxon to their database, then once that's done add the new ID to the Wikidata page. 🌳 Junglenut · Talk 04:07, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, I appreciate it. I am going to come back to this after I rest. Sincerely, Cedar. Cedarwood7500 (talk) 05:11, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The content you write is good, I think you just need to modify your style along the same lines as the edits I made at Xylosma ovata. Basically, resist the temptation to link everything you can, and avoid jargon wherever possible. Wikipedia has a Manual of Style at WP:MOS that is a rather large collection of pages, but its worth working your way through it over the coming weeks. Here are some starting points for you:
And here are some useful pages:
And if you're a lazy typist like me, you might take advantage of these c&p links that I've compiled
Cheers 🌳 Junglenut · Talk 21:11, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I will read through this content when I am preparing for the next page. (I am thinking of either Xylosma luzonensis, Xylosma reticulata, or Xylosma terrae-reginae.) You have done a great job clarifying things for me, and I value that greatly. In the future, I might ask more minor questions if I do not have a readily available answer, but for now, I think I am all set. I wish you nice travels! Sincerely, Cedar. Cedarwood7500 (talk) 01:13, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Plantae Barnstar
Great job on Xylosma koghiensis. You are working at quite an impressive rate to make many well-researched articles! Zzz plant (talk) 16:16, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I'm trying my best to work on these articles! Cedarwood7500 (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cedarwood7500&oldid=1304048261"