Content deleted Content added
→ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message: new section Tag: |
|||
| (15 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
Line 526:
::If you still don't agree with me you can always put that in the talk of the article and see what other editors think. Again this is not to discredit your photo which I find quite valuable. [[User:Average Portuguese Joe|Average Portuguese Joe]] ([[User talk:Average Portuguese Joe#top|talk]]) 23:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
{{
:{{replyto|Average Portuguese Joe}}Neat, thanks! I will leave it to your judgment on this, as with the other. - [[User:Kzirkel|Kzirkel]] ([[User talk:Kzirkel|talk]]) 01:13, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Line 724:
What do you think about this? It would be a separated and smaller chart from the main weather box. To put an example, it would be like the average sea temperatures charts. If IPMA offers this, put them as well. --[[User:TechnicianGB|TechnicianGB]] ([[User talk:TechnicianGB|talk]]) 20:53, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
:{{
{{Weather box
Line 773:
I won't revert your latest changes as I won't either delete the 2020 box (although I could, but I won't, it's your work) but I'd really recommend you to better move that inside your Wiki sandbox. --[[User:TechnicianGB|TechnicianGB]] ([[User talk:TechnicianGB|talk]]) 16:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
:{{
:About the other subject of the talk... that mean extremes thing. Can we agree on the weather box I wrote above? In my opinion those values shouldn't even be there in the first place. Even the 2020 [[Lugar de Baixo]] weather box I wrote has more meaning to be there than values with no parameter. And I believe I have more reason to delete them, than you to keep them. Still, as I also believe in consensus and I'm no maniac in deleting things, I propose that Weather Box, so I hope we can agree on that. [[User:Average Portuguese Joe|Average Portuguese Joe]] ([[User talk:Average Portuguese Joe#top|talk]]) 18:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Line 781:
As for the Portimao averages, all of these numbers are still different from the source. But since I'm not picky I won't delete them. I have tried finding an archived URL of the source but I didn't find it either. --[[User:TechnicianGB|TechnicianGB]] ([[User talk:TechnicianGB|talk]]) 19:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
:{{
:I think it would be better collapsed as it occupies too much space and it's not that relevant for a climate section. But you do you. So, can we agree on this example below with lower width instead of collapsed? I've also changed "mean temperature extremes" to "highest and lowest mean temperatures" to further avoid confusion. [[User:Average Portuguese Joe|Average Portuguese Joe]] ([[User talk:Average Portuguese Joe#top|talk]]) 23:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Line 840:
The example of Dubai wasn't good because it fails in January but also because it's way too extreme during the summer, that's obviously an extreme desertic climate. But look what I found, [[Saint Helena]], albeit being much closer to the tropics, their coastal climate is virtually identical to the southern parts of the Canary Islands. It says the climate is "tropical, marine and mild" albeit being all BWh hot desert. Take a look at [[Jamestown,_Saint_Helena#Climate|Jamestown]] where the climate is basically the same as in [[Tenerife#Climate|Tenerife South]] with slightly warmer winters and slightly cooler summers. It says that the climate is a tropical hot desert BWh climate. Because heck, it really is. As long as a place is tropical temp-wise is not incorrect to say it's tropical by Köppen standards. --[[User:TechnicianGB|TechnicianGB]] ([[User talk:TechnicianGB|talk]]) 01:16, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
:{{
:Lets take your example on Saint Helena. First and foremost, this island is located in the Tropics so it would naturally have a wet Tropical climate if it weren't for the cool Benguela Current. The sources cited on Wikipedia include cia.gov which says "tropical marine; mild, tempered by trade winds"; [https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/saint-helena-ascension-and-tristan-da-cunha/] and the St Helena News Media Services which says "Despite the island's locality within the tropics, its climate is kept mild and equable by the south-cast trade winds" [https://web.archive.org/web/20120320211035/http://www.news.co.sh/about_st_helena.htm]. Aditionally I have found 3 other notable sources: The Economist describes it has "mild" [https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-1-349-16437-0_82.pdf]; Maunder et al. says "The island has a remarkably stable sub-tropical climate; this is due to the influence of the South East Trade Wind belt and the Benguela Current" [https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-78963-2_16]; the Guardian says "St Helena has a very mild, oceanic climate" [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jun/01/weatherwatch-the-mild-climate-of-st-helena-napoleons-last-place-of-exile]. So, as you see, all in all, the climate of Saint Helena, despite being located on the Tropics is mostly described as mild, oceanic and subtropical which further strengthens my point, and I didn't cherry pick sources, these were all I could find from actual research papers and notable news sources. Even [[Bermuda]] which has a transitioning Tropical climate is described by the first source I've found as subtropical [https://seagrass.fiu.edu/resources/publications/Reprints/Coates%20et%20al%202013%20Sheppard%20book%20.pdf]
Line 967:
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|proposed deletion process]], but other [[Wikipedia:deletion process|deletion process]]es exist. In particular, the [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|speedy deletion]] process can result in deletion without discussion, and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|articles for deletion]] allows discussion to reach [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> [[User:Neocon1|Neocon1]] ([[User talk:Neocon1|talk]]) 23:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
:{{
::[[User:Average Portugese Joe]], I just removed the prod for you. --[[User:Neocon1|Neocon1]] ([[User talk:Neocon1|talk]]) 23:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Line 1,021:
{{replyto|Average Portuguese Joe}} Why are you playing now? You have broken [[WP:NPA]] with your well known personal assumptions, you have exactly said in that Edit Summary: "again with your obsession" and then you have literally double personally attacked me here in your talk page after I wrote the first message. And you seriously don't expect any reply? Now I need to say sorry for defending myself against false fallacies? I'll leave it here. I see it's pointless to try to debate with you. --[[User:TechnicianGB|TechnicianGB]] ([[User talk:TechnicianGB|talk]]) 10:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
== Can you expand the new [[Laurisilva of Madeira]] article? And regarding [[laurel forest]] and the content dispute. ==
About the laurel forest thing, as the source implies, it's a small place where that happens, if you see inside the entire article, there are other places in the world far away from the tropics that are also mentioned there having only mixed laurel forests, Los Alcornocales has Los Llanos del Juncal which is a small laurel forest and another area with mixed laurel forest (the cloud forest exists as you can see, here you have an additional official [[Junta de Andalucía]] source in English that explains why the cloud forest also exists, mentioning the laurel forest: https://www.juntadeandalucia.es/medioambiente/portal/documents/20151/5108d0a2-46b0-f7c3-465a-f4288b017231) thing is that, even your sources say there are laurel species there, thus making it a mixed laurel forest, I am not a botanical like you to know where to find extensively scientific sources, yet I've found these other sources that are completely reliable. I don't think it should be just deleted from there since in Los Alcornocales there are clearly laurisilva species.
Maybe not forming a forest (albeit the sources say it does)? but forming a mixed laurel forest at least in that specifical place. Everything I've said above it's what is backed up by sources, we even have that scientifical research that was mentioning the existence of laurel plants and funghi that exist in that area, which I've deleted because it doesn't specifically mention it forms a laurel forest (as required by yourself few months ago) but this one does. Let's resolve this as it's [[WP:DR]] because it's not something unreferenced or eitherwise also delete all of the other places that are mentioned on that page without any kind of source. As you know [[Junta de Andalucía]] is an official federal governmental source, it's not a blog written by amateur members nor anything like that.
I've also made a new article called [[Laurisilva of Madeira]] thus moving that from the page [[laurel forest]] as the [[Laurisilva of Madeira]] deserves a separate page (being an [[UNESCO]] World Heritage Site) and it's actually found over many Wikipedias, I found really strange to not to find a separate article on the English Wikipedia. If you want, you can expand that article as right now is quite short and you have extended information about this topic. --[[User:TechnicianGB|TechnicianGB]] ([[User talk:TechnicianGB|talk]]) 19:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
:{{replyto|TechnicianGB}} I understand that you're not really knowledgeable on this topic, but you should have that knowledge before trying to debate and revert someone on Wikipedia who clearly knows more than you do about the topic.
:Now read carefully what I wrote, word by word. I'm giving you hours of reading in a small text
:It is obvious that it does not form a laurel forest. First you should read what I wrote in that paragraph of the article. Europe has one species in the family Lauraceae (''[[Laurus nobilis]]''). The Azores also have only one species in that family (''[[Laurus azorica]]''). So why do the Azores have laurel forests and Europe doesn't? Well, because a large part of its flora is subtropical and laurel-leaved in nature (though the Azores are temperate). Look at ''[[Vaccinium cylindraceum]]'' or ''[[Frangula azorica]]'', their temperate/cool climate relatives are all deciduous, yet they evolved into different species which are [[semi-deciduous]]/perennial. You could also say they retained those characteristics from m.y.a. when Europe (and the [[Tethys Sea]]) had a humid and warm climate. ''[[Smilax azorica]]'' and ''[[Hedera azorica]]'' have much broader leaves than their mainland relatives to improve water evaporation. ''[[Picconia]]'' (which is a member of the olive family even though it's leaves are laurel-like) doesn't even exist in Europe (though it existed before the ice ages).
:And so the term "laurel forest" is essentially the species that together fill the ecological niche of a laurel forest (continuous rain, mild temperatures) and have genetically evolved to do so. Locations in the Mediterranean can't simply have a laurel forest because the flora present there is not adapted to mild and humid tropical/subtropical environments anymore, instead, it has adapted to more extreme and drier climates, the ones that couldn't adapt went extinct. Others, such as ''[[Prunus lusitanica]]'' (which is not found in Los Alcornocales) survived and changed little since then, as it substituted the humidity of the warmer climate of millions of years ago with running water from watercourses. Yet, even in the few humid Iberian spots where it survived it is still very far from a laurel forest, as the cooler riparian European flora or water–affiliated Mediterranean plants (like the cork oak) colonized and make the great majority of species in that area. The thing with Los Llanos del Juncal (and Los Alcornocales) is that it is a very well preserved Mediterranean forest with some species that are rare elsewhere in Spain (the majority are ferns). The Los Alcornocales Nature Park is the only place in Spain where ''[[Rhododendron ponticum]]'' occurs (which is supposedly an archaic species of Europe when the climate was warmer and rainier), so I get why they're sensationalizing it. Even in Portugal where the forests are usually much more humid, that species only occurs in two mountain ranges: [[Serra do Caramulo]] and [[Serra de Monchique]]. You can find many articles which talk about these "[[Tertiary]] relics" (Like this one: [https://dspace.uevora.pt/rdpc/handle/10174/27367]), but to go as far as to say "these are laurel forests" is purely sensational and utterly stupid, or they're just mixing information which can easily be misunderstood.
:I gave you the explanation you needed, and I'm not here to further waste my time, so you either delete that or I'll talk to an admin about it. [[User:Average Portuguese Joe|Average Portuguese Joe]] ([[User talk:Average Portuguese Joe#top|talk]]) 22:43, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
{{replyto|Average Portuguese Joe}} Hello, well lets split this in 2 separate things. It's a clear cloud forest as you can see in several A-grade sources, maybe not a full laurel forest but a mixed laurel forest (albeit there are very reliable sources saying it's a laurel forest just in that small area, and of course cloud forest doesn't equal to laurel forest, I'm writing this just to solve your other issue regarding the existence of a cloud forest there) as you even know there are laurel species there, and species that are common in laurel forests. If you look at that article, there are lots of places in the world mentioned that are far from the tropics that get significantly cooler during winters (like the part of mainland South Korea which forms a mixed laurel forest, not a full laurel forest) this applies for other places of the world that are listed there as well. As for Los Alcornocales it's just in Los Llanos del Juncal (a small and special part where that microclimate exists, as you know already) you can see it's only mentioned inside the text, not listed as a place where laurel forests exist like other places from the world which actually don't form laurel forests but mixed laurel forests. Based on the sources, I firmly think Los Alcornocales is one of them, having a mixed laurel forest, obviously not the same category as the one in Madeira or the Canary Islands.
If you see even the [[Junta de Andalucía]] source talks about the extinct species that existed there millions of years ago (not nowadays) like the scientifical sources do, and we both agree that there are even some kind of extinct species elsewhere in Europe that just exist there, such as [[Rhododendron ponticum]], if you see the scientifical sources don't really contradict this, neither does the other source I've presented you some months ago, neither the ones you've inserted 2 days ago (yes they talk about the extiction of such forests in Europe, which is a fact, but that doesn't directly contradict that Los Alcornocales has a +1000km2 area in Los Llanos were some laurel species coexist with other evergreen species) and the actual Junta source is reliable and valuable, not exactly promoting a Nature Park, but explaining for people interested in the topic what happens there, what grows there and for example as you could see above, they also explain why the cloud forest exists there (I didn't insert this in the laurel forest page as it's unrelated, but as you can see by the explanation and the hundreds of pics about that place, it's even explained why the extreme humidity and that big amount of fog is so common there, just in that small area) I don't think leaving it as a mixed laurel forest in that small area based on an accurate source is harming anyone. Look at the examples I said above about other places of the world listed as "laurel forests" which in fact are even mixed laurel evergreen forests. Thing is, I've properly referenced that, and I really doubt any admin would agree to delete it as no source is directly contradicting what I've wrote, since what I've wrote is based on reliable sources, as you knew it was there for so many years, previously the source was a simple blogspot but now it's a serious source. --[[User:TechnicianGB|TechnicianGB]] ([[User talk:TechnicianGB|talk]]) 00:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
== Temperate rainforests ==
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Temperate_rainforest&type=revision&diff=1079842991&oldid=1079682854]
Thank you for correcting my misunderstanding. [[Special:Contributions/49.198.51.54|49.198.51.54]] ([[User talk:49.198.51.54|talk]]) 09:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
:{{Replyto|49.198.51.54}} No problem! [[User:Average Portuguese Joe|Average Portuguese Joe]] ([[User talk:Average Portuguese Joe#top|talk]]) 20:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
== ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message ==
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px;">[[File:Scale of justice 2.svg|40px]]</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''[[WP:ACE2022|2022 Arbitration Committee elections]]''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2022|end}}-1 day}}. All '''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2022#Election timeline|eligible users]]''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The [[WP:ARBCOM|Arbitration Committee]] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration|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 [[WP:BAN|site bans]], [[WP:TBAN|topic bans]], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy|arbitration policy]] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2022/Candidates|the candidates]] and submit your choices on the '''[[Special:SecurePoll/vote/{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2022|poll}}|voting page]]'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>[[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 01:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)</small>
</div>
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Xaosflux@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2022/Coordination/MM/08&oldid=1124425185 -->
== Your edit to [[Echium tuberculatum]] ==
[[File:Information orange.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the [[Help:Edit summary|edit summary]]. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been [[Help:Reverting|reverted]]. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your [[User:Average Portuguese Joe/sandbox|sandbox]] for that. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-delete2 --> [[User:Justyouraveragelechuga|Justyouraveragelechuga]] <sup> [[User_Talk:Justyouraveragelechuga|talk]]</sup> 02:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
{{Replyto|Justyouraveragelechuga}} I'm sorry, what is exactly your problem with my edit? Do you want me to explain why I've changed the image? Well here you go: The "Echium tuberculatum" commonly sold in nurseries isn't the actual Echium tuberculatum found throughout the Mediterranean (which actually looks like this: [https://flora-on.pt/#1Echium+tuberculatum]), and whether or not you tell me "this photo was taken in the UC Berkeley Botanical Garden and has validity", there is no problem in switching to an image of an actual E. tuberculatum, it does not contradict anything the article just said and avoids controversy and confusion regarding the appearance of this species. Please don't start an edit-war because you think the image before was prettier... [[User:Average Portuguese Joe|Average Portuguese Joe]] ([[User talk:Average Portuguese Joe#top|talk]]) 02:59, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
:{{u|Average Portuguese Joe}} very sorry. The device I use only lets me edit in source mode, so your edit looked like vandalism because of the file name.
Many apologies about that mate. --[[User:Justyouraveragelechuga|Justyouraveragelechuga]] <sup> [[User_Talk:Justyouraveragelechuga|talk]]</sup> 03:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
== ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message ==
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px; max-width: 100px">[[File:Scale of justice 2.svg|40px]]</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''[[WP:ACE2023|2023 Arbitration Committee elections]]''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2023|end}}-1 day}}. All '''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023#Election timeline|eligible users]]''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The [[WP:ARBCOM|Arbitration Committee]] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration|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 [[WP:BAN|site bans]], [[WP:TBAN|topic bans]], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy|arbitration policy]] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023/Candidates|the candidates]] and submit your choices on the '''[[Special:SecurePoll/vote/{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2023|poll}}|voting page]]'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>[[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 00:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)</small>
</div>
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Illusion Flame@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2023/Coordination/MM/07&oldid=1187132415 -->
| |||