Welcome!

Hello, MarkWKidd, 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:Questions, 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!  - CobaltBlueTony 19:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Brett Ratliff (Musician) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding ((hangon)) to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. ukexpat (talk) 21:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you read over MOS:HEADINGS...should be fix for the big day so section anchors work.

Longest Continuous Observance of Memorial Day

Longest continuous observance of Memorial Day 👍

• --Moxy 🍁 03:35, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Moxy I have done this. I have also restored the Liberian section and tried to edit the copy to better explain why it should be included given that "Decoration Day" has been merged into the "Memorial Day" article. I am looking for high quality primary and secondary sources about Liberian Decoration Day to add, which has not been as easy as for Appalachian Decoration Day.

Once there is more information it should be clearer why Liberian Decoration Day should be described separately, but next to Appalachian Decoration Day.

What do you think about splitting off a new article along the lines of "Decoration Day (Appalachia and Liberia)" for the living ongoing traditions in those places. That would leave the precedents for Memorial Day/Decoration Day content where it is now, just moving the living Decoration Day traditions to their own space.

MarkWKidd (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The more I think about this the more it seems like the Appalachian and Liberian Decoration Day content should be its own article, so I have submitted a draft Decoration Day (Appalachia and Liberia) for approval based on what is currently in Memorial Day. If approved, I would propose only leaving one paragraph for each in the Memorial Day article along with a link to the new one.

MarkWKidd (talk) 03:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decoration Day (Appalachia and Liberia), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can 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.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Bkissin (talk) 19:52, 4 September 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) 00:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited All Souls' Day, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Epiphany (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) 07:11, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from All Saints' Day into All Souls' Day. 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 copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (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) 01:29, 24 November 2020 (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) 00:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sichuan pepper, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Sanshō and Chopi.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MarkWKidd

Thank you for creating Physalis grisea.

User:Hughesdarren, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Nice work and thanks for creating the page, I added a bit of stuff, could you please check my work. Cheers

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with ((Re|Hughesdarren)). Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Hughesdarren (talk) 11:43, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for enhancing the Physalis grisea article, the additions look good! MarkWKidd (talk) 15:30, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"at least one subgenus": a genus with one subgenus is not possible - it either has zero, or two or more. Having looked into the literature a little, the former subgenus Physalis has become Alkekengii (+Calliphysalis?), and subgenus Quincula segregated as Quincula, but it wasn't immediately obvious what has happened to subgenus Physalodendron. If the genus is divided into subgenera one of them has to be the type subgenus Physalis. I haven't tracked down what the new type species is, but I suspect that it is in subgenus Rydbergis, which would become subgenus Physalis. POWO still includes P. arborescens, P. campechiana and P. melanocystis within Physalis, and I haven't found any source that reclassifies them.

conservation of Physalis to the exclusion of Alkekengi - https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1002/tax.615019 publication of generic name Calliphysalis - https://meridian.allenpress.com/rhodora/article-abstract/114/958/133/110150/Calliphysalis-Solanaceae-A-New-Genus-from-the Lavateraguy (talk) 10:24, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest in this! I am not experienced with the Wikipedia standards for botanical articles, thank you for your suggestions. I have just myself discovered that there is some valuable content in the German language article which I think might help here: https://de-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Blasenkirschen?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc

Many of the recent scholarly articles on Physalis also mention that they are using an as-yet unpublished taxonomy by Sullivan which will be published by Oxford. It seems that even before publication it is guiding the way Physalis taxonomy is being described in the literature.

I realize this message doesn't address all the points you raised, but I hope it might continue the discussion. MarkWKidd (talk) 02:27, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above points aren't specific to Wikipedia - they relate to the rules of plant nomenclature.

You are allowed to incorporate translated material from other Wikipedias - you've been pointed at the rules for the process previously in your talk page, which will be a better source for the procedure than I am. Google Translate's grammar and word choice (e.g. bloated should be inflated) aren't perfect, but the material looks pretty good. Ideally one would append material on the segregation of Alkekengi and Calliphysalis to the end of the taxonomic history.

Having glanced at Google Scholar it looks as if the Sullivan work is unlikely to resolve all the issues - it's a treatment of the genus for the Flora of North America project, and as such won't need to address subgenus Physalodendron, or Physalis microphysa. But it might declare a new type for the genus, if this hasn't already been done. I'm having trouble accessing the floranorthamerica.org web site (expired certificate?) but a draft of Sullivan's treatment might be present there.

It looks to me as if Physalis will end up restricted to subgenus Rydbergis, at which point use of subgenera evaporates, but to assume this would be original research. Renaming subgenus Rydbergis as subgenus Physalis is in the same boat.

Kaderit et al, Which changes are needed to render all genera of the German flora monophyletic? Willdenowia 46(1): 39-61 (2016) write "Whitson & Manos (2005) demonstrated that the two species of Physalis L. listed for Germany, P. alkekengi L. and P. peruviana L., fall into two distantly related clades of Physalinae. The authors argued: “To correct the paraphyly of Physalis, nomenclatural changes are required. Options include restricting the name Physalis to P. alkekengi, the type, and renaming the 75+ species of New World Physalis, or broadening the circumscription of Physalis by uniting the majority of the Physalinae into a single genus. However, the least taxonomically disruptive approach for dealing with this problem is to re-typify Physalis using a Linnaean species that is a member of the morphologically typical Rydbergis clade, such as P. pubescens. The atypical species could then be recognized as four small genera (for P. carpenteri, P. alkekengi, P. microphysa, and subgenus Physalodendron), which would produce a morphologically homogeneous Physalis. A proposal to re-typify Physalis is currently in progress.” This proposal has been made by Whitson (2011), and conservation of Physalis L. with conserved type has been recommended (Applequist 2012). If accepted, P. alkekengi should be known as Alkekengi officinarum Moench."

What we are currently lacking are publications defining a new type for Physalis (Whitson (2011) in combination with Applequist (2012) might count, but I find the wording of the former rather tentative), raising Physalodendron to the rank of genus (stat. nov.) and giving new combinations (comb. nov.) for its species in that genus, and describing a new genus (gen. nov.) for Physalis microphysa and a new combination for the species. We don't seem to have a modern and coherent classification for Physalinae/Physalidinae (usage prefers the former, but I suspect that the latter is technically correct - compare Iridaceae from the genus Iris). Giving a taxonomic/research history may be the best we can do.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/tax.602047 Lavateraguy (talk) 13:47, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so grateful that you are also interested in this topic! I have added a few reference links to the Physalis Talk page, including the 2016 Whitson proposal to define a new type, which is P. pubescens. I have not been able to work much on this over the last few days but I will continue to respond to your points, and overall improve the articles. Cheers! MarkWKidd (talk) MarkWKidd (talk) 08:24, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to POWO Physalis minima is a synonym of Physalis angulata, which is a New World plant naturalised across much of Africa, tropical Asia and Australia, as well as in parts of Europe and temperate east Asia. POWO also treats Physalis clarionensis as a synonym of Physalis cordata. From the original description it seems likely that Physalis macrosperma belongs to section Lanceolatae, but an explicit statement seems to be lacking. Lavateraguy (talk) 11:32, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Standard Wikipedia practice is not to have separate genus and species articles for monotypic genera. See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(flora)#Monotypic_taxa.

If you ask at WT:PLANTS someone may be able to help sort this out. (The simplest solution would be to delete the genus article, and then move the species article to the genus article, but the process for deleting the genus article may not be easy.)

Would Alkekengi be in the same boat? Lavateraguy (talk) 19:52, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Arundinaria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Topknot.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cucurbita ficifolia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Malabar.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Landrace, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Maule.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Landrace, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Maruti.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Salvia tiliifolia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]