This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
i would say the saskatchewan field is nice and good enough . isnt it better to have an offline version of wikipedia fitting on the mobile phone storage capacity ?--Konfressor (talk) 21:10, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain from removing content cited in respectable scientific journals
Do not remove pubmed-sourced and Nature-sourced information (in the section "Possible adverse effects") from the article on the grounds that the sources seem "predatory" to you (whatever that could mean). Take it to the discussion page first where you should have good reasons to lay out explaining what you meant by "predatory" and why these articles should be removed.
The bias from people with undisclosed harmful intentions here in this article is extreme and that needs to stop immediately. The current version reads like an all-positive fairytale with all valid criticism simply removed for reasons not even ever discussed. Should also be noted is the fact, that the standing for "absolute harmlessness" is very unscientific in its essence.
I am calling out User:Zefr and User:Psychologist Guy for the conflict of interest edits they have been pushing to this article. You should explain why citing two articles published in well-respected scientific journals is vandalism and removal of those articles is neutral and right. I am going to notify third-party administrators to intervene, via the Administrators Noticeboard -- 178.121.2.8 (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
