Taxus Baccata

Need help and don't know where to find it? Help!

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55 Archive 56 Archive 57 Archive 58 Archive 59 Archive 60 Archive 61 Archive 62

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

I came across this award reviewing a draft and it appears to be a notable award mentioned in several articles. Thought you might be interested in creating an article. See also es:Gourmand World Cookbook Awards. S0091 (talk) 16:09, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, it has an entry in 8 language wikis. Definitely seems worth investigating, thanks! Valereee (talk) 17:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking wave Hello, Valereee. The article for improvement of the week is: Breaking wave Please be bold and help improve it! Previous selections: Sports equipment • National economy (Turkey) Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • [reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 22:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 26 June 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Russell Morash, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 01:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you would express an opinion on whether I am free to make some edits on a subject. There is an open complaint against me at [7]. It seems the comments seem to split between (a) "both sides need to step back and (b) sort this out one article at a time" and the original complainant having some level of fault. (Difficult for me to give a fair summary, of course.) I don't detect any admin making any comment on the matter.

I have sought the advice of an experienced editor on one of the subjects at [8]. The advice (paraphrasing) is that I should go ahead and make the edits that I feel fairly represent the sources. Is that something that I should do with the ANI matter still open?

The original complainant seems to have ceased to be active on Wikipedia. It is anyone's guess when they will come back. (They could be reading this now.)

As it happens, I will be away for two days from tomorrow, so already have little time for anything other than the briefest editing until I am back. But I need to understand if rules, custom etc. allow me to address some of the deficiencies that I perceive to be the outcome of the original complainant's editing. In the first instance, this would probably be clarifying what we know about Austronesian involvement in the translocation of the banana to Africa.

Thanks, ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 14:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez, that wall of text and all the diffs...I'm not going to try to speak to whether you're "free to". Certainly you aren't forbidden from doing so. But I'd certainly recommend in general staying out of the subject articles until an ANI is resolved. Valereee (talk) 13:35, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It’s all heated up again so I will leave alone for a while once I have finished the trip I am on. How do these things get closed off eventually? ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 17:01, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A number of ways. Someone may assess consensus at ANI for a community action, someone may take individual action, or sometimes discussions get archived unactioned. Valereee (talk) 21:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am steadily learning more about this issue. It seems we have an editor who, deliberately or accidentally, erroneously takes their own POV from sources. The result is Wikipedia articles that do not represent the academic consensus. I have even gone so far as to contact a prominent author of papers on one subject to confirm my understanding (just to check it isn't me that's wrong). The answer did confirm my take from the literature – perhaps in stronger terms than I would have used. The catch is that an uninvolved editor would need to do several days' reading to discover that. So I don't see a minority subject in Wikipedia getting this resolved easily – we do not seem to have the mechanisms to deal with this type of article content issue. Unless I am missing something about how Wikipedia works... ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 07:58, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]