Archives

2008 2009 2009 2010 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

Hi Graham Beards. I've just finished a first pass at overhauling bladder cancer, and am hoping to bring it to FAC soon. Any chance you could spare some time to look it over? Any feedback is appreciated. Ajpolino (talk) 22:05, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course. Graham Beards (talk) 07:51, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I wanted to thank you again for your help on the Virgo interferometer, which has finally been promoted to FA. Your interventions really helped making this a reality! So, thank you, and I wish you happy holidays. Let me know if you are ever in need of a review. Thuiop (talk) 08:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and congratulations. Graham Beards (talk) 09:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!
	Have a great Christmas, and may 2025 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls or vandals! Cheers SchroCat (talk) 08:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks x Graham Beards (talk) 08:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2024).

Administrator changes

Sennecaster

• Daniel
• Hog Farm

• BozMo
• Ferret
• John M Wolfson
• MaxSem
• Panyd
• Tide rolls
• Titoxd

CheckUser changes

• Daniel
• Elli
• Liz
• ScottishFinnishRadish
• Theleekycauldron

Worm That Turned

Ferret

Oversight changes

• Daniel
• Elli
• Liz
• ScottishFinnishRadish
• Theleekycauldron

Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RFC, Wikipedia:Notability (species) was adopted as a subject-specific notability guideline.
• A request for comment is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space.

Technical news

• The Nuke feature also now provides links to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.

Arbitration

• Following the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: CaptainEek, Daniel, Elli, KrakatoaKatie, Liz, Primefac, ScottishFinnishRadish, Theleekycauldron, Worm That Turned.

Miscellaneous

• A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the new pages feed. Sign up here to participate!

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2025).

Administrator changes

• Arcticocean
• Wugapodes

Euryalus

CheckUser changes

• Firefly
• L235

Oversighter changes

• Firefly
• Guerillero
• L235
• Moneytrees

Technical news

• Administrators can now nuke pages created by a user or IP address from the last 90 days, up from the initial 30 days. T380846
• A 'Recreated' tag will now be added to pages that were created with the same title as a page which was previously deleted and it can be used as a filter in Special:RecentChanges and Special:NewPages. T56145

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Palestine-Israel articles 5 has been closed.

In March 2023, you told me to read Fungus#Taxonomy instead of taking the issue I posted seriously. I read it. Nope. No source for mycology not being part of botany, let alone since when or why. Not one of those dates was relevant to the reclassification of Fungi or Mycology. The 2008 source for fungi being related to animals says nothing about mycology or fungi being reclassified. Meanwhile, Mycology says the link between fungi and animals was proven in 1969. They cite Whittaker 1969 whose main point is that fungi are DIFFERENT. I mean, the paper says a lot of things I don't understand. Some of them are probably things that fungi and animals have in common. But the main idea is "fungi are different, give them their own Kingdom", and I think the "oh wow, they aren't that different after all" came later with genetic research. 1993? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8265589/ Wouldn't it be nice if the wiki article answered that question, proof read by actual biologists, in an easily accessible way? Instead we have one citation to a 2008 paper of followup research, no timeline, and the only person to ask "when?" gets told to "Read the article!" by Mr. 9 Wikipedia Gold Stars Hot Shot Graham Beards. Maybe if you hadn't injected so much needless negativity and apathy, someone else would have looked into it?

But that 1969 paper does seem to be a popular consensus for when Fungi got it's own kingdom. THAT is something we can easily put in an encyclopedia entry for Fungus that is clear, relevant and won't go out of date. How long it took for that idea to become popular and affect mycology in practice and text books can be handled elsewhere.

I'm breaking my freaking brain here reading biology papers that are way over my head because you shamed me into it and I realize: you didn't read them yourself. I just wanted to know WHEN mycology was no longer considered botany and/or have a link to a place that explains that. Basic wiki stuff. But I am in the lower 50% of people who should be fixing biology history/citation errors on wikipedia. That's why I made a topic for it. "Read the article!"?! Even if I had read through all the jargon and unrelated info down to taxonomy, due to ambiguous wording it says the Fungi Kingdom is from 2007! Out of a sentence with 5 claims in it, you found a citation for 2 of them somewhere else in the article, that still got the date wrong, and then called me lazy. Come on, even I knew that 2008 couldn't be right and found a paper 15 years older. You didn't even glance at the citation, did you? Did the genetic analysis even have anything to do with reclassifying mycology or fungi??? Those two things into ONE sentence as cause and effect TWICE in the same article and you didn't even notice that there is NO SOURCE for for a causal connection between the two or when it happened? Not even when someone specifically asked about it? I'm not lazy, ur lazy.

Anyway, I *think* I found correct information, and related errors on Mycology and Kingdom_(biology), and a good strategy to slightly narrow the scope of Fungus and link to other wikipages for related details that should increase readability and maintainability, and made it really clear that I want to solve multiple specific, but related, problems and I'm not just lazy. But I need someone to double check both the biology history and the wiki style/organization aspects of it, and you're an expert at both of those things, so I would appreciate it greatly if you could take a look: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fungus#When_was_Fungi_classified_as_separate_from_Plants?

Oh, the problem on Kingdom_(biology) is really similar where they don't have a source and use a euphemism for a time period instead of a date, right in the intro. Except more misleading, since it kinda gives the impression that baby boomers had 6 Kingdoms in their biology textbooks in high school, but later in the article it says 6 Kingdoms hadn't been invented by the time nearly all boomer had graduated high school. Did they even have 5 Kingdoms in their books so close on the heels of its invention in 1969? So much historical context totally misconstrued with a lazy "traditionally" instead of a date and a source. It doesn't even matter if it gets carefully explained later in the article if countless people have already been misinformed in the intro. Flasher702 (talk) 18:56, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]