User Talk: Jfponge

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

'''Welcome!'''

Hello, {{BASEPAGENAME}}, and welcome ↗ to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions ↗{{#if:|, especially what you did for {{{art}}} ↗|}}. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia ↗

Tutorial ↗

How to edit a page ↗

How to write a great article ↗

Manual of Style ↗

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian ↗! Please sign ↗ your messages on discussion page ↗s using four tilde ↗s (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions ↗, ask me on {{#if:|my talk page ↗|my talk page}}, or ask your question on this page and then place <code><nowiki>{{helpme}}</nowiki></code> before the question. Again, welcome! 
--Yerpo (talk) 15:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Springtails

I see you've been adding info about springtails to the article about them. Could you please take a look at the article's talk page ↗ and see if you have anything to say about the taxonomy issue? Thanks, --Yerpo (talk) 15:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Altschuler et al.

Hi. I see someone finally tried to insert that fraudulent paper by Altschuler et al. (J. New York Entomol. Soc. 112(1):87–95, 2004) into the Springtail ↗ article. Are you aware of anything other than Janssens' website that rebuts it in print, or a retraction by the JNYES editors? That paper was an embarrassment to the entire scientific community, but since most of the exposure and condemnation took place online, it's very difficult to satisfy Wikipedia's policy requiring citations for those criticisms. One dedicated crank is all it takes to push the issue to treat that paper as if it were true (by insisting that the criticisms are not from reliable sources, even if one of them was a co-author on the paper in question!), a mistake which would do irreparable damage. Everyone in the scientific community knows that springtails are not parasites, but no one has ever imagined that they would have to PUBLISH a statement to that effect in order to counteract a fabrication such as Altschuler's; thanks to the way Wikipedia operates, we may need to find and incorporate such a published statement, hopefully citing and refuting this nonsense. Either that or we may be forced to sit on our hands as thousands of readers who come to Wikipedia for statements of fact are treated instead to lies. Sincerely, Dyanega (talk) 05:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Machilid authority?

Hi again. I have a question: you seem to know everyone who works on collembolans, but do you know who there might be that works with Machilidae? A student here has a research project on montane machilids in Nevada and Utah, but she has not yet found either a person or a definitive reference work to help her identify her specimens. Any revisionary studies or contact person information you might have would be appreciated. Thanks,

Journal titles

Hi, just letting you know that you don't actually need to italicize journal names like you did here ↗. Using a {{tlx|Cite journal}} template automatically italicizes the text included within the <code>|journal=</code> field. By italicizing them, the result is actually that they are then wrongly ''not'' italicized.-- <small><span style="color: #000;">'''O'''</span><span style="color: gray;">BSIDIAN</span></small><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;" new roman>†</span><small><span style="color: #000;">'''S'''</span><span style="color: gray;">OUL</span></small> 12:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help. I will try to remember that for the next time
jfp 09:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open! ↗

Hi,<br>
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election ↗. The Arbitration Committee ↗ is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process ↗. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements ↗ and submit your choices on the voting page ↗. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016 ↗: Voting now open!

{{Ivmbox|Hello, Jfponge. Voting in the '''2016 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements ↗ and submit your choices on '''the voting page ↗'''. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}

OrphanReferenceFixer: Help on reversion

Hi there! I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting ↗ to try to fix reference errors. Recently, you <span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=776934166&diff=prev reverted]</span> my fix to :Soil ↗.

If you did this because the references should be removed from the article, you have misunderstood the situation. Most likely, the article originally contained both <code><nowiki><ref name="foo">...</ref></nowiki></code> and one or more <code><nowiki><ref name="foo"/></nowiki></code> referring to it. Someone then removed the <code><nowiki><ref name="foo">...</ref></nowiki></code> but left the <code><nowiki><ref name="foo"/></nowiki></code>, which results in a <strong class="error">big red error</strong> in the article. I replaced one of the remaining <code><nowiki><ref name="foo"/></nowiki></code> with a copy of the <code><nowiki><ref name="foo">...</ref></nowiki></code>; I ''did not'' re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, I just replaced one of the ''remaining'' instances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove '''all''' instances of the named reference so as to not leave any <strong class="error">big red error</strong>.

If you reverted because I made an actual mistake, please be sure to also correct any reference errors in the page so I won't come back and make the same mistake again. Also, please post an error report at User talk:AnomieBOT so my operator can fix me! If the error is so urgent that I need to be stopped, also post a message at User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer. Thanks! AnomieBOT <span style="color:#888800;">⚡</span> 09:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC) <small style="color:#888">If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add {{tlx|bots|2=optout=AnomieBOT-OrphanReferenceFixer}} to your talk page.</small>

jfp 14:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I understand. I apologize for the nuisance

Thanks, and a request

Hi - Thanks for your recent edits on the '''Soil''' page - some great references! I have recently worked on the '''Soil pH''' page, and have requested a review (Wikipedia:Peer_review/Soil_pH/archive1 ↗). I would appreciate any comments.
Regards, Alandmanson (talk) 12:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

jfp 14:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
The page looks fine, indeed. Great!

Thanks! --Alandmanson (talk) 12:26, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

{{Ivmbox|Hello, Jfponge. Voting in the '''2017 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''voting page ↗'''. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

{{Ivmbox|Hello, Jfponge. Voting in the '''2018 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''voting page ↗'''. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}

Predatory open access

See predatory open access ↗. These journals have no effective peer review, they publish based on payment not academic merit. Not all open access journals are predatory, but the ones I removed definitely are. It's an OMICS ↗ journal: not only have the FTC taken action against them for fraud, they are also banned form Wikipedia for citation spamming. <b>Guy ↗</b> <small>(Help!)</small> 08:18, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

<table class="messagebox " style="border: 1px solid #AAA; background: ivory; padding: 0.5em; width: 100%;">
<tr><td style="vertical-align:middle; padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">40px ↗</td><td>Hello! Voting in the '''2019 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2019|end}}-1 day}}. 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 '''2019|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
</td></tr>
</table>

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

<table class="messagebox " style="border: 1px solid #AAA; background: ivory; padding: 0.5em; width: 100%;">
<tr><td style="vertical-align:middle; padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">40px ↗</td><td>Hello! Voting in the '''2020 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2020|end}}-1 day}}. 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 '''2020|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
</td></tr>
</table>

Soil enzyme ↗s

Hi Jfponge. I have made a stub for this article. Not sure if you would have anything to add? I am a chemist and a keen gardener but this is far from my field of expertise! Meodipt (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Jfponge 09:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)It's OK for me

Would you like to nominate Soil ↗ to be a "good article"?

Hello Jfponge,

As you can see I have split soil moisture ↗ from soil ↗ - any problems let me know.

If you want to try and get soil ↗ rated as a good article ↗ I would be happy to co-nominate if you would like me to do the donkey work with you providing the subject expertise (of which I have none).

Regards
Chidgk1 (talk) 14:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

:It's OK for me, the key point being to see clear links to main articles dealing with detail soil topics. For the rest, do as you want. Even though I have some expertise about soil biology I must admit that I am not an expert in wikipedia affairs (votes and so). So, yes to help you. Just let me know what I have to do. Until now my purpose was just to check and seek for sources (preferably freely available) for the numerous assessments previously done by other contributors, and add some more information issued from my personal knowledge of soil. When something was doubtful I replaced it by safe information or I added "citation needed". Until now this is just what I did on this page (I more deeply contributed to other pages, in particular Collembola). I know that more illustrations would be desirable, and a clearer presentation, with more subtitles and so on, but this is out of my skills, unfortunately. Jfponge 15:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

::Hmm yes I think you are right that such a general article should be mostly summaries and links to main articles with more details. I have made one or 2 good articles before but never a general one like soil ↗. So perhaps I will stick to my speciality instead. Mostly I am doing stuff related to the climate change project. So on reflection I think I will take our project off the talk page of soil ↗ but mark soil carbon ↗ and soil organic matter ↗ as high importance for the project. I read the first sentence of Collembola and was surprised they are not insects - thanks for that interesting fact. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

<table class="messagebox " style="border: 1px solid #AAA; background: ivory; padding: 0.5em; width: 100%;">
<tr><td style="vertical-align:middle; padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">40px ↗</td><td>Hello! Voting in the '''2021 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2021|end}}-1 day}}. 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 '''2021|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)</small>
</td></tr>
</table>

Moder humus

Hello! As a fellow soil-science content editor, I am hoping you can help me. I am working on the lead paragraph for Draft:Moder_humus ↗, trying to achieve a WP:NOTATEXTBOOK ↗ goal here. But I am stymied by my lack of working familiarity with the subject matter. I am excited by the comparatively higher zoological activity in particular with moders, I want to communicate that to the reader. Also hoping to use the article to connect moders to biodiversity, ecosystem health, endangered plant species, invasive earthworms, and whatever else are the popular issues that moders participate in. But I am getting lost in the L-F-H structure: Do we call out the zoo-active F layer in the lead paragraph? Is moder a humus type (not really, that's what F-L-H layers are, types of humus), or is it a floor cover type made up of several types of humus? I am confusing myself and it is keeping me from crafting the simple lead statement this article needs. Trolling for your thoughts. I will continue reading scientific articles until I can see a clear path through the terminology. I am probably closer than I think. -- Paleorthid (talk) 17:30, 3 September 2022 (UTC).

:Hello! I am not surprised to see that you are afraid with terminology problems about moder. This was a hard task to tackle with that. Mull, moder, mor, and also amphi and tangel are the main humus systems (or humus types) we have described with several colleagues for terrestrial environments, trying to define them better than in former times. I suggest the following articles that will help you for creating the moder humus wikipage:
:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46419751_Terrestrial_humus_forms_ecological_relevance_and_classification
:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320848305_Humusica_1_article_1_Essential_bases_-_Vocabulary
:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318658907_Humusica_1_article_4_Terrestrial_humus_systems_and_forms_-_Specific_terms_and_diagnostic_horizons
:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247161342_Plant-soil_feedbacks_mediated_by_humus_forms_a_review
:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222567430_Humus_forms_in_terrestrial_ecosystems_a_framework_to_biodiversity
:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335751017_An_improved_classification_of_the_humus_systems_linking_concepts_and_field_practice
:The best would be that you create the page at your convenience. Then I will improve it or correct it if needed. Is it OK for you?
:Best wishes. JF Jfponge 07:28, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
::Thank you! -- Paleorthid (talk) 22:02, 4 September 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;">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''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 '''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 '''2022|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>

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">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''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 '''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 '''2023|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>

Linking to copyright violations

Prof. Ponge, please do not change references to add links to a shadow library ↗. Per our policy WP:COPYLINK ↗, "if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of copyright, do not link to that copy of the work without the permission of the copyright holder." Thanks, <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;"><span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</span></span></small> 18:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

:I fully understand. I apologize for the nuisance to the copyright holder, although I am still convinced that Wikipedia should only refer to freely available sources, not those protected by a copyright. I personally think that Wikipedia is not prone to freely make the promotion of books or persons. Jfponge 08:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2024 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. 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 2024 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2024|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>

Humus form moved to draftspace.

Please note that I have moved Draft:Humus form ↗ back to draftspace per WP:DRAFTREASON ↗: {{tq|The article was created by an editor who appears to have a conflict of interest, but it did not go through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process}}. Editors with a conflict of interest are asked to use AfC in Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § COI editing ↗ and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § Paid editing ↗. The article also needs additional work before it should be moved to mainspace, such as the addition of sections (Help:Section ↗). See Permafrost ↗ or Deep biosphere ↗ for examples of good articles ↗ within the scope of WikiProject Soil ↗. Please submit the article through the Articles for Creation ↗ process so that the article can be reviewed, rather than moving it to mainspace yourself. Thank you. - Aoidh (talk) 02:31, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

:I must admit that the article is still in construction. Each day I add more information on this page, until it will embrace the whole subjet but this is a lengthy process. Whether it would be better to have it as a draft or a mainpage is a matter of discussion. For my part, I suggest to let it as a mainpage in order that everybody could contribute to its improvement and that the information still present in it could be known publicly. Sure, I will add sections as required, this was my purpose. This will be achieved within a few days. I apologize for the trouble. Jfponge 08:24, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
::You have a strong conflict of interest with regards to this topic, having directly citing yourself no less than eleven times out of the thirty total references. Per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest ↗, the article (which is still unfinished and unsuitable for publication in its current state) should be submitted via AfC, not moved directly into mainspace by editors with a COI. In this edit summary ↗ that says {{tq|Given that no good reasons have been given to move the page' Humus form' to 'Daft:Humus form' I decided to reject the move, awaiting for better arguments by the person having decided the move by his(her)self.}} I'm assuming you did not see this talk page explanation when you reverted the move. Editors are still able to see and edit the draft, moving it to mainspace is a solution to a problem that does not exist. - Aoidh (talk) 21:12, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
:::OK, but what to do? I want to discuss the conflict of interest. It is true that I participated to most recent studies on humus forms. So what? Humus forms are studied by a few people around the world, and nearly all of them participated to the HUMUSICA classification project started by Augusto Zanella, and to which I am associated. What I suggest is to let the page as it stands and will be increased by me in the following weeks and let other people to contribute, making additions or deletions as for all wikipages. We are in a first step of creation. It is normal that the person in charge of this creation starts with his(her) own contribution to the subject then waits that other contributors improve it. What could be more normal? If the page is moved to a draftpage, then nobody will be able to read it and improve it, which is not my purpose. Jfponge 08:33, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
::::{{tq|It is true that I participated to most recent studies on humus forms. So what?}} I highly suggest you read Wikipedia's conflict of interest ↗ guideline, particularly Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#What is conflict of interest? ↗, as it answers that question. {{tq|What could be more normal?}} Following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines is normal, ignoring them and unilaterally moving an unfinished draft to mainspace several times with a strong COI is not normal nor is it appropriate. {{tq|nobody will be able to read it and improve it}} that is inaccurate. The reasons you've given for moving it to mainspace are not valid reasons, and do not surmount the inappropriateness of ignoring Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. This draft is far from ready and with your strong conflict of interest, you should not be the one that moves it without it being vetted by another editor. Editors with a strong COI may not write a neutral article, and may promote themselves in inappropriate ways. As the person with the COI, you are not in a position to determine if that is the case, which is why an AfC reviewer should be the one to make that determination when the draft is ready. I understand that you may find this process inconvenient, but it is in place for a very good reason. - Aoidh (talk) 12:51, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::May I discuss with another person in charge of the Soil project? I think that we are in a state of mutual incomprehension, since I do not want to promote myself, just to promote one of my several research areas. If this is not possible, do what you want, I will compel with that. Jfponge 14:30, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
::::::This subject is at least mid-level importance to the Soil project; most of this project's articles are of low importance. Let's make this work. Aoidh's points are well-grounded; this article is tripping the red flags that are there to protect content objectivity. Your professional knowledge of the subject matter is of tremendous value. However, the criteria for bringing the article into Mainspace ultimately relate to the end product, not the COI status of the article creator. The quality of the prose has to stand up to objective review, and that means review by not-soil-scientists. Crazy, but trust me, Jfponge, it works. When I started editing Wikipedia, the soil-related topics were scattered across Geology, Geography, Agriculture, and Engineering directories. I authored the soil-topic directory structure, but it was an involved group process to approve my structure and reclassify the articles—a process I came to value highly by the end, one that resolved many issues. It produced a better organizational structure than I could have devised on my own. It uniquely enriched my understanding of the natural sciences and their interrelationships. Coming from that experience, it is clear that your article belongs in Draftspace for now. When it is ready for the main space, an AfC reviewer should be the one to make that determination. That AfC reviewer won't be me, because I will be one of the Humus form article editors. I will work on article improvements while it is in Draftspace. --Paleorthid (talk) 18:38, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::::OK I see. The two main points of disagreement with Aoidh were, first, that he(she) told me that there was a conflict of interest. This is not true at all. Is it my fault if most recent studies on humus forms were done by me or those people with whom I collaborate? As customary to me, I try to remain objective, citing as sources the papers which support the best each presented scientific fact. Second, he(she) claimed that the page I created did not fit with quality standards of Wikipedia, an opinion which I contest, being well-trained in writing or improving wikipages, and that from 2011 on. Anyhow, I agree that the page is still in incipient stage. I planned to achieve it within a couple of weeks. Just, I would have been glad to see as many people as possible reading, improving and discussing it in the meantime. I you think this is not the best strategy, so move it to draftpage. I fully understand. Jfponge 08:19, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I will move the draft back into draftspace. However, I wanted to address the comment {{tq|Is it my fault if most recent studies on humus forms were done by me or those people with whom I collaborate?}} No one is assigning blame, and per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest ↗, {{tq|Someone having a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgment about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith. }} That guideline also notes that {{tq|Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships.}} Your editing at that article, particularly the inclusion of yourself in roughly 39% of all of the references in that article, is unquestionably editing with a conflict of interest. Even if an editor believes they are capable of editing without any bias whatsoever and with absolute objectivity, the appearance of bias that a conflict of interest creates is why its best to have a disinterested editor with no COI review the article before it's published to mainspace. - Aoidh (talk) 23:31, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::OK, I understand. So, what I have to do? I will fulfill the page as it stands, i.e. as a draft. OK, but what else? Who will be the disinterested editor? You? Somebody else? And once the page has been completed, how to move it to mainpage? I must admit that this is quite new to me. Jfponge 07:13, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::: The "who" of it: The review works through an established '''Articles for Creation (AfC) process''', where any qualified Wikipedia editor can review your submission of the article for AfC. The main signup page to be an AfC reviewer is: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants. This is where prospective AfC reviewers make their requests to join the review team. Reviewers must have accounts at least 90 days old with 500 or more article edits. Multiple editors may provide feedback during the process. Editors whose usernames are not on the official list are strongly cautioned not to review AfC submissions. There’s also an AfC Academy training program for those interested in learning the review process systematically. There’s currently a backlog of over 2,300 drafts awaiting review, highlighting the need for more qualified reviewers. It can take several weeks for the AfC community to work through the backlog and reach review. - - - - - - - - - As to '''completing the page before submission for AfC''': It makes sense first to tune up the article (and your user talk page). The most important element is to deal with the appearance of a conflict of interest. When we have a professional, academic, or personal connection to the subject matter, we disclose this. For the humus form article, I expect you will need to disclose that you are a soil scientist who has published research on humus forms, that you are affiliated with the institutions mentioned in the article, and how you are connected to the HUMUSICA classification system. Disclosures should be posted on both the article talk page and your user talk page. There are other steps needed, but Disclosures are the most urgent first step here. In a world where self-promotion seems to be baked into most endeavors, you have to take this as an opportunity to communicate to your fellow editors that an interest in self-promotion doesn't drive this article. -- Paleorthid (talk) 18:54, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::This seems to me a very complicated process, indeed. Concerning disclosure. I thik that it is clear on my user's page that I am a spacialist of soil biology. I paste here the short text of my presntation:
:::::::::::Jean-François Ponge, professor emeritus at the National Museum of Natural History in Paris (Brunoy laboratory): research and teaching in ecology, more particularly in soil ecology (temperate and tropical environments). Personal webpage:
:::::::::::https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jean-Francois-Ponge
:::::::::::Wikipedia tasks: many additions on pages devoted to soil biology, in particular Collembola (in French and in English), many corrections of mistakes and addition of reliable sources on pages related to ecology, soil science and forest science.
:::::::::::So, what else? OK, I will add something in the talk page about the postulated (by you) conflict of interest, but I am not sure it will be clearer whether I am or not in a position of conflict of interest, giving that I am a specialist of humus forms asking to creat a wikipage dealing with humus forms. I must admit that all that is obscure to me. Wikipipedia has changed, and, to my opinion, not in the best direction. At its beginning (when I started to work with Wikipedia), freedom and transparency were the two main concepts prevailing. Now we are in s step to a Big Brother's world where obscurity and control prevails. Sorry for the trouble... Jfponge 07:03, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::COI in Wikipedia is fundamentally different than the COI in your academic publishing. They are not in competition for the crown of COI definition; each works well within its own context. These fundamental differences reflect the distinct missions of each domain: Wikipedia's goal of creating neutral, collaborative knowledge versus academic publishing's aim of advancing scientific understanding through expert research. I want to acknowledge your observation that the "Big Brother element where obscurity and control prevail" is not a new one within the community. Throttling productivity due to obscure requirements is a legitimate concern, openly recognized and discussed, and I have seen consequential policy changes made in recognition of the counterproductive effect the policies guiding collaboration have on new article creation and editing by folks unfamiliar with the policies. It has been a while since I was immersed in those policies, but to advance this article to the main space, I will immerse myself. I will include links to the policies in my edit summaries. I am looking forward to collaborating with you. -- Paleorthid (talk) 19:06, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Thanks a lot for these enlightening details about wikipedia policies. I am OK to collaborate with you until compeltion of the process. Jfponge 08:55, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your edit

Thank you for your edit ↗ removing a cite book url= consistent with WP:COPYLINK ↗, a policy I ¿may have forgotten? about until I came across it on your talk page, prompting me to thank you for that particular edit. Always something to (re)learn here.-- Paleorthid (talk) 18:41, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello again @Jfponge

You are right that creating a completely new article is particularly difficult and can tend to bump up against tedious (but probably necessary) Wikipedia policies. I hope @Paleorthid and myself will eventually get Draft:Humus form ↗ into the encyclopedia, so I think your work on it will have been worthwhile.

As I live in Turkey I mostly write about that country, so if you have time and are interested I would really like to hear any suggestions you might have at Talk:Soil in Turkey ↗ Chidgk1 (talk) 12:16, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

CS1 error on Humus form ↗

25px|alt=|link= ↗ Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have '''automatically detected''' that this edit ↗ performed by you, on the page :Humus form ↗, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A missing title ↗ error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Humus_form&action=edit&minor=minor&summary=Fixing+reference+error+raised+by+%5B%5BUser%3AQwerfjkl%20(bot)%7CQwerfjkl%20(bot)%5D%5D Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:Qwerfjkl%20(bot)/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F1316083404%7CHumus%20form%5D%5D Ask for help])

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive ↗, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:Qwerfjkl/Botpreload&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20Jfponge&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d={{FULLPAGENAMEE:Humus form}}&preloadparams%5b%5d=1316083404 report it to my operator].
Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 10:51, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

DYK for Humus form

{{ivmbox
|image = Updated DYK query.svg
|imagesize=40px
|text = On 30 October 2025 ↗, '''Did you know ↗''' was updated with a fact from the article '''''Humus form ↗''''', which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ''... that mull ↗, mor ↗ and modor ↗ are '''humus form ↗s'''?'' The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Humus form ↗. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page <small>(here's how, Humus form ↗)</small>, and the hook may be added to the statistics page ↗ after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it ↗.
}} Gatoclass (talk) 00:04, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;flex-basis: 40px">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2025 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2025|end}}-1 day}}. 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 2025 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2025|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 18 November 2025 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>

Disambiguation link notification for February 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Soil contamination ↗, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Springer ↗ was added. Such links are usually incorrect ↗, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. <small>(Read the FAQ{{*}} Join us at the DPL WikiProject ↗.)</small>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

:I will try to retrieve the incorrect link. Thank you very much for your attention. Jfponge 11:06, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
::This has already been done by somebody else. Now it's OK Jfponge 11:10, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Soil contamination ↗, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mercury ↗ was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

:OK I will check that asap Jfponge 07:45, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
::Done by User Rodw Jfponge 08:12, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on Soil pH ↗

25px|alt=|link= ↗ Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have '''automatically detected''' that this edit ↗ performed by you, on the page :Soil pH ↗, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A dates ↗ error. References show this error when one of the date-containing parameters is incorrectly formatted. Please edit the article to correct the date and ensure it is formatted to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style's guidance on dates ↗. ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Soil_pH&action=edit&minor=minor&summary=Fixing+reference+error+raised+by+%5B%5BUser%3AQwerfjkl%20(bot)%7CQwerfjkl%20(bot)%5D%5D Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:Qwerfjkl%20(bot)/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F1340600441%7CSoil%20pH%5D%5D Ask for help])

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive ↗, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:Qwerfjkl/Botpreload&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/Boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20Jfponge&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d={{FULLPAGENAMEE:Soil pH}}&preloadparams%5b%5d=1340600441 report it to my operator].
Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 16:28, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

:It has been corrected. I apologize for the nuisance. Thank you very much for your attention. Regards. Jfponge 17:02, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

March 2026

30px|link=|alt=Copyright problem icon ↗ Your edit to :Soil microbiology ↗ has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted ↗ material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission ↗ from the copyright holder. If you {{em|are}} the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials ↗ for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate ↗ and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of {{em|information}}, but not as a source of {{em|content}}, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy '''will be blocked from editing ↗'''. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources ↗ for more information.  — Diannaa <span style="color:red">🍁</span> (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

:I understand. However, before improving the part which is involved in your comment, I want to retrieve what I had added in the section Ciliates. I remember I had wroten something essential about conjugation but I am unable to retrieve my words, because you blocked access to my previous versions dated on 17 and 18 March. Can you unblock them in order that I can rewrote the Ciliates section. I thank you in advance. Best regards. JF PONGE Jfponge 07:43, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
::I have sent you the removed material via email. — Diannaa <span style="color:red">🍁</span> (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
:::Thanks so much. I have already incorporated the matter in the wikipage, with another text (still improved and enlarged) and new references, with my own words. Jfponge 08:42, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Regarding humus

Hello. I have recently been attempting to improve the Humus ↗ article. I notice you have uploaded a pic of Mull humus to the commons, I don't suppose you have a pic of Mor humus as well?

Since you appear to be educated on soil, I am curious what you think of the current state of the Humus article, and the Mull humus ↗ and Mor humus ↗ articles. Do they cover all bases and present the info in a clear way which doesn't give too much emphasis on agriculture rather than soil science?

Chattenoir (talk) 03:08, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

:Hi, I saw you made substantive modifications to the Humus wikipage. This is a good thing. Just, I disagreed with you about the moisture-retaining capacity of humus (or soil organic matter) which is attested by a wide range of soil studies. I replaced the previous citation (you judged not demonstrative) by another one, hoping it will chnge your opinion. Just as clay does, humuys is able to retain moisture as well as nutrients in a plant-avilable form. For the remainder of the article, you made substantial additions to the previous versions, which at first sight seem fully justified. I have no time at the moment to study in detail all changes you have done but I am sure that your contribution will be useful. Do not hesitate adding available sources to support each new point of knowledge, avoiding personal opinions not substantiated by scientific results. For your information, I am a soil biologist which has been interested by functional aspects of soil biology, in particular the contribution of soil animals to organic matter transformation (humus formation) and changes in the distribution of soil horizons (the humus form). My personal skills were microscopic observations on gut contents of soil animals and distribution of organic and mineral components along humus profiles, together with studies on soil animal communities. An account of what I have done in these fields is available at https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jean-Francois-Ponge/publications. Have a nice day. Jfponge 08:33, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
::Sorry. About pictures of Mor, I do not have something of enough quality to illustrate the Mor humus wikipage. If you have something from your side, do not hesitate to upload it to the commons. This would be more useful than the unrealistic diagram which is presented to illustrate a mor profile. Jfponge 08:50, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
::That source regarding moisture retention is of good quality. I was definitely too reckless in removing it. I also thought that it was unreflective of the articles body but I was wrong as I see it is covered in the agriculture section with another citation.
::As I say any assessment from your part on the quality of those three articles is very helpful.
::I suppose one area of the humus article that is perhaps undeveloped is on the role of various organisms in the humification process. Currently the article talks about microbial activity and fungi to a limited extent, but with little on earthworms, invertebrates. I don't know whether the role of those organisms should have more coverage in the article (in their role helping in the conversion detritus to humus).
::There's certainly no rush anyway. Thank-you Chattenoir (talk) 13:09, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
:::Yes, you are right, the role of soil animals in the humification process was underdeveloped, most probably because in soil science chemists and microbiologists considered for a long time that soil animals were just comminuters of plant debris. Do not hesitate to grasp the matter and make a fruitful contribution to this field of knowledge. And do not hesitate to discuss with me. Regards JF PONGE Jfponge 15:48, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
::::Absolutely, I keep some Woodlouse ↗ as pets in a terrarium, and I have observed how they turn brown leafs into what is quite literally soil (their faeces). From what I have read, by mechanically breaking down the detritus it both increases the surface area and adds moisture (fluids from their digestive system), allowing fungi and microbial activity to decompose the matter at a much faster rate.
::::Regarding the picture of Mor, I do live near heathland and acidic soil, so perhaps when it warms up and I am more likely to do this kind of thing, I might take my folding spade and try my best at digging a hole and getting a picture. If I do so I will upload to the commons and check it with you (that it is indeed Mor humus, and whether it's a good picture).
::::Thanks again. Chattenoir (talk) 15:58, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::Great ! Take your spade, or rather a sharp knife in order to have a neat profile. Jfponge 16:22, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Appreciation posted at WikiProject Soil

Deserved recognition for your steady hand at improving soil science content has been added today in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Soil ↗ news section. My sincere appreciation. -- Paleorthid (talk) 19:29, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

:Great ! I am indeed honoured of that appreciation and will continue to do my job in all areas of soil science for which i have some expertise. Hoping this will contribute to the recognition of soil science as a main scientific discipline... Jfponge 07:22, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

LumenLearning

Hi, first, thanks for helping fill in missing citations. Wanted to let you know for future reference that LumenLearning is not a reliable source-- its a collection of essays and copied textbooks, and also, unfortunately, copied wikipedia pages. Some of the individual pages may be copied from other reliable sources, but in that case you should find the original source, because Lumenlearning directly shouldn't be linked. Thanks! /ˌtiːoʊseɪˈæf.dʒə/ (talk) 06:15, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

:OK I will do my best to find another reference as soon as possible. Thanks for your scrutiny of cited sources. Jfponge 07:34, 20 April 2026 (UTC)