Colonel William A. Phillips

Because you are a member of WikiProject Categories, your input is invited on some proposed changes to the design of the {{Category redirect}} template. Please feel free to view the proposals and comment on the template talk page. --Russ (talk) 21:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paleorthid,

you asked, "Do you have an opinion on the term lunar soil? Is it useful only in a popular context, or is it potentially acceptable in scientific circles?"

I'm a lunar soil scientist (I work for NASA and that's what I mainly work on). We use "lunar soil" as our main terminology. "Soil" tends to imply the finer material, not including rocks or boulders, whereas "regolith" includes rocks and boulders. So the two terms are not exactly interchangeable.

There were a couple of published journal articles several decades ago that argued whether or not "soil" is a valid term in the lunar case because the Moon has no organic content. Generally on Earth "soil" refers only to material that has organic content; otherwise, we use "sand" or "mud" or some such term when there is no organic content. However, the consensus among **lunar** scientists is to use "lunar soil" even though it has no organic content, so that is the correct term. All the best scientific publications use that term.Sanddune777 (talk) 04:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You asked questions that are outside my area of competence! I'm a physicist (not a chemist) and so I am interested in the physical propoerties of soil -- particle size distribution, mineral strengths, etc. I really don't know about the energetics of diurnal insolation. What I do know is that there is a "gardening" effect on the Moon in that micrometeroids, too small the get through Earth's atmosphere, constantly pulverize the soil breaking particles into smaller particles and creating significant melt-glass that glues smaller particles back together again. This is the predominant process on the Moon, but I don't know much about the chemical effects. Sorry I can't be more help! Sanddune777 (talk) 00:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for raising the question in the WP:REF arena, and for your kind note to me on my talk page. I was fearing that u and i could only agree to disagree; this is better. As I develop in my posting in the WP:REF talk, I have tried to raise this issue in several ways including in two wikiprojects mentioned there. It has also been discussed in WP:NRHP where I have done most of my wikipedia work (specializing in National Historic Landmarks of the U.S.), having come up in regards to the Bathhouse Row article that SEWilco and I have had a row about. In WP:NRHP there have been few intrusions of the PD copying, and I hope that it stays that way. One recent instance brought me to the "USGovernment" template. Again I appreciate you elevated the issue constructively; I am unfamiliar with Request For Comment procedure which you seem to have started up.

BTW, it appears to me that an edit you made on the WP:REF talk page should have placed the question on the "RFCstyle list", but when i click on the RFCstyle list at the top of that page I am brought to a list of RFCs that does not include this question. Perhaps you can verify the question is raised as you meant it to be.

Sincerely, doncram (talk) 22:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We share a fundamental concern: supporting the ability of future generations to verify specific elements of evolved PD content. Your approach has merit, however it is not viable in its present incarnation. About the RFC, I think we are waiting on User:RFC_bot. --Paleorthid (talk) 23:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC bot visited, then revisited and indicated an error. Something needs to be fixed for it to work. doncram (talk) 01:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I'm on my 3rd attempt. I could use your help if you are so inclined. So far I've compared mine with the successful RFCstyle tags and the only difference I have found so far is with the section header format: the successful ones have no space between == and the header text. I've edited accordingly. If that turns out to be the issue, I'll add it to the template documentation. If that's not it, I am tapped out so I'll post for help. Just a matter of time... --Paleorthid (talk) 01:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 40 has been released!

.mp3 and .ogg versions can be found at http://wikipediaweekly.org/2008/01/24/episode-40-wikipedias-genetic-makeup/, and, as always, you can download past episodes and leave comments at http://wikipediaweekly.com/.

For Wikipedia Weekly — WODUP 05:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery.
If you do not wish to receive such notifications, please remove yourself from the list.

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 41 has been released!

.mp3 and .ogg versions can be found at http://wikipediaweekly.org/2008/02/04/episode-41-setting-the-record-straight/, and, as always, you can download past episodes and leave comments at http://wikipediaweekly.com/.

For Wikipedia Weekly — WODUP 23:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery.
If you do not wish to receive such notifications, please remove yourself from the list.

Hey there. Just this note that Wikipedia Weekly Episode 42 is out.

You can download the episode or listen to the streaming audio at http://wikipediaweekly.org/2008/03/03/episode-42-the-question-of-muhammad-the-wikiand-everything/, and you can hear past episodes and leave comments at http://wikipediaweekly.com/ too.

For Wikipedia Weekly — WODUP (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! Just a note that WikipediaWeekly Episode 45 has been released. Listen and comment at http://wikipediaweekly.org/2008/04/14/wikipedia-weekly-45-blps-revisited/. Cheers, WODUP 20:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you no longer wish to receive such notifications, please remove yourself from that list.

Just a quick note: Wikipedia Weekly Episodes 46 and 47 are out. A good listen as always. :) Cheers, WODUP 03:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

Hey there! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 48, Wikipedia Weekly's third talk with Jimmy Wales, is now available. Listen or download MP3 and OGG versions at the episode's page.

Have a comment about the episode? You can leave your comment right on the episode's page!

Miss an episode? Catch up in the Wikipedia Weekly archives at wikipediaweekly.org!

Know someone who would love Wikipedia Weekly? Tell them about it!

Care to participate in a podcast? Sign up here!

For the Wikipedia Weekly team, WODUPbot 23:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

Good news! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 49 is now available. Listen or download MP3 and OGG versions at the episode's page.

Have a comment about the episode? You can leave your comment right on the episode's page!

Miss an episode? Catch up in the Wikipedia Weekly archives at wikipediaweekly.org!

Know someone who would love Wikipedia Weekly? Tell them about it!

Care to participate in a podcast? Sign up here!

For the Wikipedia Weekly team, WODUPbot 23:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

It may not be weekly, but Wikipedia Weekly has finally reached Episode 50! Listen or download MP3 and OGG versions at the episode's page.

Have a comment about the episode? You can leave your comment right on the episode's page!

Miss an episode? Catch up in the Wikipedia Weekly archives at wikipediaweekly.org!

Know someone who would love Wikipedia Weekly? Tell them about it!

Care to participate in a podcast? Sign up here!

For the Wikipedia Weekly team, WODUPbot 00:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

Hey. Episode 51. Go. Listen. Comment. Enjoy. WODUPbot 04:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't want these notifications anymore? Remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery.

Talk:Organic matter#I propose a major reshuffle - what do you think? Anxietycello (talk) 03:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! New: Episode 58: Wikimania 2008, Jimbo and Reflections. Have a listen. Also, if you haven't heard, all of the other Wikimania episodes are up and accessible through the homepage at http://wikipediaweekly.org. Peace. WODUPbot 09:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

Hey there! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 59: An Interview with Sue Gardner at Wikimania 2008 has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page (at least one listener thought this could be the best interview ever), and as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org. Peace. WODUPbot 01:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

Hello! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 60: Diplopedia has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page, and as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org. WODUPbot 05:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

Hello! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 61: Corpus_Linguistics has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org. WODUPbot 06:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

Hello, I notice you're using one of the {{motd}} templates, run by Wikipedia:Motto of the day. You may have noticed that some of the mottos recently have been followed by a date from 2006, or on occasion simply "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". The reason for this is that Motto of the day is in some very serious need of help. Participation in the project, which has never been especially high, has dropped considerably over this past summer, to the point we have had several days where no motto was scheduled to appear at all. Over the past several weeks, I've been the only editor scheduling mottos at all, but there aren't enough comments on some of these mottos to justify their use. If we do not get some help - and soon - your daily mottos will stop. In order for us to continue updating these templates for you, we need your help.

When you get a chance between your normal editing, could you stop by our nominations page and leave a few comments on some of the mottos there, especially those that do not have any comments yet? This works very simply; you read a motto, decide whether or not you like it, and post your opinion just below the motto. That's it - no experience required, just an idea of what you personally like and what you feel reflects Wikipedia and its community. If you do have past experience with the project, then please close some of the older nominations once they've got a decent consensus going. There are directions on the nominations page on how to do this.

If you have any questions, please let me know, or post on the project's talk page. I'm looking forward to reading your comments on the suggested mottos, and any additional suggestions you'd like to make. Until then, happy editing! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 62 has been released. It's the first episode since Wikimania and it packs a lot of content! You can listen and comment at the episode's page and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org. WODUPbot 05:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

Hello! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 63, an interview with Florence Devouard, has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org. WODUPbot 07:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

Hello! Good news, Wikipedia Weekly Episode 64 has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org. WODUPbot 05:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

Hey! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 65: Censorship while you sleep has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org. WODUPbot 05:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

Hey! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 66: Searching High and Low has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org. WODUPbot 07:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

Hey! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 67: Fundraising Interview has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org. WODUPbot 06:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

Hi Paleorthid, I have not been logged into Wiki for quite some time. Just logged in and saw some info about some soil profiles (Narragansett and Paxton) I uploaded a while back being removed. Not sure how to get them approved but all my images are available to public, USDA soil survey staff images, etc. I will try to refresh on getting them back up but if you know how to approve them go for it. Got a bunch of soil profiles at: http://picasaweb.google.com/JimTurenne/SoilPhotos if interested. Jimjet (talk) 23:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

W00t w00t! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 68: Wikipedia's Nicotine High has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes and even subscribe to the RSS feed at wikipediaweekly.org. – wodupbot – 12:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

I have nominated Talk:List of Universities with Soil Science Curriculum, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talk:List of Universities with Soil Science Curriculum. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 22:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article you created, List_of_Universities_with_Soil_Science_Curriculum maybe deleted from Wikipedia.

There is an ongoing debate about whether your article should be deleted here:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List_of_Universities_with_Soil_Science_Curriculum.

The faster your respond, the better chance the article you created can be saved. There are several tools and other editors who can help you keep the page from being deleted forever:

1. List the page up for deletion on Article Rescue Squadron. You can get help listing your page on the .
2. You can request a mentor to help explain to you all of the complex rules that editors use to get a page deleted: Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. But don't wait for a mentor to respond to you before responding on the article for deletion page.
3. When trying to delete a page, veteran editors love to use a lot of rule acronyms. Don't let these acronyms intimidate you.
   Here is a list of your own acronyms you can use yourself: WP:Deletion debate acronyms which may support the page you created being kept. Acronyms in deletion debates are sometimes incorrectly used, or ignore rules or exceptions.
4. You can vote to merge the article into a larger or better established article on the same topic.

If your page is deleted, you still have many options available. Good luck! travb (talk) 03:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Weekly Episodes 69: Sixth Sense and 70: Under the Microscope have been released. You can listen and comment at their pages (69, 70) and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes and subscribe to the RSS feed at wikipediaweekly.org. – wodupbot – 06:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 71: We have no shame has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode page, and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes and subscribe to the RSS feed at wikipediaweekly.org. WODUPbot 05:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

Hello. I'm part of a research group at the University of Washington (Seattle campus), and my group is reaching out to Wikipedians in the Puget Sound area. We're hosting a focus group designed to gather information on what Wikipedians would like to know about each other when interacting on Wikipedia. Our end goal is to create an embedded application that helps people quickly know more about others' history and activity on Wikipedia, and we feel our design will be much more useful if it's based on insights of users like you.

I'm hoping that the chance to help out local researchers, to engage in lively face-to-face discussion with other Seattle Wikipedians, and to contribute to Wikipedia in a new way will entice you to join us. The session lasts 2 hours and snacks are provided. Sessions will be held on UW Seattle campus - directions will be sent after registration. Your contribution will be greatly appreciated!

Willing and able to help us out? RSVP here. Want to know more? Visit our user talk page . Please help us contact other local Wikipedians, too! Commprac01 (talk) 00:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Category:Soil stub candidates ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Soil stubs ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paleorthid

I am a postgraduate student, studying bio-chemistry. I saw that you edited the site on Osmosis and I am currently writing a report on the topic and need additional information/authenticity. So I was wondering if you could help me. What qualifications do you have and/or what were the sources you used? Email me on sam77maine@gmail.com

Thank you for your help Samantha Maine —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samantha Maine (talk • contribs) 11:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello: I've decided to try to spend some time editing the soils pages on Wikipedia; a lot of those have your name on them, altho dating from some years ago. Specifically, I wanted to try to expand the Pedology page, which references Edaphology and several other soils-related topics.

I've used this site alot, but am new to editing; I've left a comment on Pedology, and wanted to give you a heads up. Not many soils people seem to edit this site; I dont know your background, and would like to coordinate on updating some of these pages. --Soilguy71 (talk) 23:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed your thoughts on edaphology. As a UC-educated pedologist steeped in soil taxonomy, I can appreciate this line of thinking, and even subscribed to it until about 10 years ago. I believe strongly that a grounding in pedology is the most prized skill set to have for practicing edaphology. Pedology is integrative of the other disciplines of soil science, including edaphology. However, this integrative relationship doesn't require edaphology to abdicate equal branch standing. The integrative position is the same logic that is used to dismiss soil science's equal standing with geology, or to characterize the pedosphere as a layer of the lithosphere.

Pedology is the study of soil in a natural setting.

Edaphology is the study of soil effects on (and from) plants, animals and man. Edaphic effects are not predicated on a natural setting.

There is considerable overlap between the two disciplines, but it is not complete. Equal branch standing is necessary to allow soil science to cover the study of soil that exists outside of a natural context. Without this standing, the core of agricultural soil science becomes solely a subdiscipline of the agricultural sciences, with a parallel fate for environmental soil science. That was certainly the situation with Wikipedia in 2004. Soil science articles were categorized as agriculture, engineering, geography, and/or geology. Now both soil and soil science enjoy their own categorical hierarchies. The soil science hierarchy enjoys equal standing with geology as one of the earth science.

It has been particularly useful to maintain edaphology as a sister of pedology within the categorization structure of Wikipedia. Pedology, as distinct from edaphology, is categorized as a sub-discipline of both soil science and physical geography, a placement that has a long and substantial history to it. It is also a placement that edaphology does not share.

Vasily Dokuchaev, the father of modern soil science, was a geographer. What existed before Dokuchaev was soil science sans pedology, and was termed agricultural geology. Soil-science-sans-pedology continues to thrive, especially outside of the United State. It will not conform to sub-discipline standing under pedology. --Paleorthid (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You asked about sulfur creation. I got my info from the Silicon Burning page of wikipedia, which referenced the following link:

• Origin of Heavy Elements, by Tufts University

I added that link to external references for Sulfur —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gurps npc (talk • contribs) 17:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated List of universities with soil science curriculum, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of universities with soil science curriculum. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

• Gazetteers. Per WP:5, Wikipedia incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. This list is the type of information that one would expect to find in a specialized gazetteer.
• List. This list fits the general purpose of a list per WP:List. Like categories, lists can be used for keeping track of changes in the listed pages, using the Related Changes feature. Unlike a category, a list also allows detection of deletion of its entries, and, more generally, a history of its contents is available; lists also permit a large number of entries to appear on a single page. Normally, identifying universities with specific program emphasis is handled by categorization, and I have considered using list of universities with soil science curriculum as the main article for a Category. I'd prefer to keep the article list because soil science seldom shows at the college or even department level. In the absence of that prominence, the article's references support notability and allow verification in a way not achievable with a category listing. As stated in the guideline Wikipedia:Categories,_lists,_and_series_boxes#Advantages_of_lists an advantage of a list over categorization is that "lists can be referenced to justify the inclusion of listed articles". That advantage is certainly in play in list of universities with soil science curriculum, and it certainly fits the stated purpose of a list:
  • Information. This list fits the specific purpose of an informational list per Wikipedia:List#Information. It is a "valuable information source" both because of its structure, the notability of its content, and the notability of soil science program listings.
  • Navigation. This list fits the specific purpose of a navigational list per Wikipedia:List#Navigation. Lists contains internally linked terms and thus in aggregate serve as natural table of contents and index of Wikipedia information.
  • Development. This list is available for the purpose of identifying and developing articles for notable universities per Wikipedia:List#Development. As noted in the essay Wikipedia:Categories_vs_lists, "Categories can't include page names that don't exist yet. Lists can." Listed soil science programs are useful as gap indicators and as task reminders to create those articles once notability can be sourced.
• Directory. The basis for nomination is WP Policy: Wikipedia is not a directory. Taken literally, this is a problem - every list on Wikipedia is a defacto directory to Wikipedia content. To avoid the conundrum inherent in taking the policy literally, WP:NOTDIR provides 7 distinct situations that should be excluded from Wikipedia. None compel deletion of the list in question, but subsections 3, 4, 6, and 7 seem the most likely to have been considered in this nomination.
  • 3 - Wikipedia articles are not the white or yellow pages. A listing that includes contact information such as phone numbers, fax numbers and email addresses is inappropriate. This list does not violate this principle.
  • 4 - Wikipedia articles are not directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. A listing whose primary purpose is to attract participants, tourists, contributors, clients, students, site traffic, and such, is inappropriate. In the case of this list, the primary purpose is to index notable universities that provide education in a notable field: soil science.
  • 6 - Wikipedia articles are not non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations. However, this list is an encyclopedic cross characterization because both categories, universities, and soil science, are notable.
  • 7 - Wikipedia articles are not a complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge. Verifiable and sourced statements are important. The list is largely based on information provided by the Natural Resources Conservation Service and PSSAC but each entry not sourced from NRCS or PSSAC generally has a link verifying the soil science curriculum. In one case WikiProject Soil participants removed a listing that we could not independently verify. This is consistent with an article intended to achieve a summary of accepted knowledge.

Notability. Lack of notability has been implied as important to the deletion nomination. [1] In the case of Not a Directory #3, the inference required to trigger deletion is that "a list of soil science universities is not notable, therefore its primary purpose in the absence of notability must be self serving, that is, for conducting business". Notability is a guideline, thus less compelling than policy, but it clearly affects how WP:NOTDIR policy is applied. Guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability state: "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself." and policy at Wikipedia:BEFORE#Before_nominating_an_article_for_deletion is "When nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist." In this case, links to sources that demonstrate notability were present in the article at the time it was nominated. In the case of the NRCS source, it was improperly placed under a further reading heading, but a good faith attempt should have revealed it and triggered the recognition that this article meets the spirit of what we editors want to retain within Wikipedia.

See also

• Wikipedia:Categories_vs_lists
• Wikipedia:Categories,_lists,_and_series_boxes

Related AfD or Deletion Discussion, sorted by result

No consensus

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_academic_computer_science_departments

There was no consensus that the list was OR, and no consensus that the nature of the information was indiscriminate. The keep arguments specifically addressed those allegations and, while its likely that they did not to so to everybody's satisfaction, it's enough to keep the article. April 2008.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of institutions granting degrees in cognitive science

The result of the debate was no consensus tending towards keep. Addressed listcruft and WP:NOTDIR. June 2006.

Discussed, never nominated for deletion

• Talk:List_of_systems_engineering_at_universities

July 2007

Redirect

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Polytechnics_In_Malaysia

The result was redirect to Education in Malaysia#Vocational Programmes and Polytechnics Schools. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of info so the collection of schools should be notable within itself. The list is already given in this article, where it mentioned within the context of education in Malaysia. I think this is a better place to present the material and this article should redirect to the one with the broader scope." September 2009

Delete

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Universities_offering_Engineering_Programs_in_Pakistan

The result was delete. "Wikipedia is not a directory: this is just a list of universities sharing two important characteristics, but is not an article (or a list that is acceptable on Wikipedia)." and "Wikipedia is not a substitute for a college catalogue." August 2009

Similar AfD, sorted by result

Withdrawn

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Educational_Institutions_in_Karaikal

The result was Withdrawn. Concern was list vs category. December 2009.

Keep

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lists_of_institutions_of_higher_education_by_endowment

The result was keep. August 2007

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_unaccredited_institutions_of_higher_learning_(second_nomination)

The result was keep. June 2007

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_unaccredited_institutions_of_higher_learning

The result of the debate was consensus to keep. November 2005.

No Consensus

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_education_articles_by_country

The result was no consensus. A fair contingent of editors seem to believe that a list is a viable option here, and as such deletion does not seem the optimal outcome: lists and categories can co-exist, and particularly if improved this one may provide additional useful information. I would strongly advise that some thought is put into how this list can be made into more than a duplicate of a category - most of the keep arguments are rather theoretical in nature, and if this is to be kept in the long term the theoretical arguments need to be turned into actual improvements. Ultimately, this debate has been dragging on for a long, long time and it has to end somewhere: there is no sign of a consensus forming either way. November 2009

Lists are encyclopedia articles, which have to abide by our policies and guidelines while categories are just collections of information that we use to organize material, the bar for the ways categories tie information together is much lower than it is for lists, as categories don't have to abide by policies like WP:N or WP:IINFO.

WP:CLS states, "Accordingly, these methods should not be considered in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others. For example, since editors differ in style, some favor building lists while others favor building categories ... Many users prefer to browse Wikipedia through its lists, while others prefer to navigate by category; and lists are more obvious to beginners, who may not discover the category system right away. Therefore, the "category camp" should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists..."

Requiring a list to be verifiable doesn't mean the list itself should already have appeared elsewhere—it means that it has to be verifiable that each item included on the list belongs there. This is clear from the context of the statement in WP:LIST, and from the further explanation later on in that page: "Inclusion of material on a list should be based on what reliable sources say, not on what the editor interprets the source to be saying." (Emphasis added.) In this case, there's certainly no question that each item on the list is, in fact, an article about education. WP:LIST concurs with WP:CLS in that "Redundancy of lists and categories is beneficial because the two categories work together".

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_colleges_and_universities_named_after_people

The result was No consensus - there doesn't really appear to be consensus here, so the article is kept But Please take action to cleanup and improve the list. September 2007

Delete

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_LSAT_Instruction_Providers

The result was delete. June 2009.

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Open_Education_Institution

The result was delete. Linkfarm. April 2009.

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Colleges_with_online_degree_programs

The result was delete. February 2009

Hi. I merged Gas diffusion in soil into Soil gas. You appear on whatlinkshere, so I'm letting you know so you can update anything project related. Didactylos (talk) 17:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Soil crust, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://www.soilcrust.org/, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Soil crust and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Soil crust, in your email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0, or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Soil crust with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Soil crust. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at . Leave a note at Talk:Soil crust saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! This notice is a courtesy to inform your contrib has been hidden and presumably will be removed. Jerzy•t 21:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 18:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 20:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion, guidelines for use at WP:MINOR). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and all users will still be able to manually mark their edits as being minor in the usual way.

For well-established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 20:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may have noticed over the past few days that the MOTD that you link to on your user page has simply displayed a red link. This is due to the fact that not enough people are reviewing pending MOTDs here. Please help us keep the MOTD template alive and simply go and review a few of the MOTDs in the list. That way we can have a real MOTD in the future rather than re-using (This space for rent). Any help would be appreciated! ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 14:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Motto of the Day (WP:MOTD) is in a state of emergency and really needs your help! There are not enough editors who are reviewing or nominating mottos at Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/In review, and this probably means that you will notice a red link or “This space for rent” as our mottos for the next weeks and months.

Please take a moment to review the nominations and nominate your own new mottos at Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/In review and Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/'Specials. Any help would be appreciated! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This message has been sent by pjoef on behalf of Motto of the Day to all editors of the English Wikipedia who are showing MOTD's templates on their pages, and to all the participants to MOTD: (page, template, and category).

Hi,
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) 12:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peleoorthid, I notice that you promoted the article, Cryoturbation to "high importance based on score >600". I don't know what that means. It seems that this is a fairly narrow topic to which i would have ascribed low importance. Perhaps you can elaborate. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 22:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

-- Hey Hops, thanks for the interest. It prompted me to reconsider. I am now thinking this is a mid-importance class article within our soil project. As to the score, obviously not helpful to the reviewer, sorry, won't be doing that again. The calculation and purpose of the scoring is explained here: Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Article_selection#Importance_score and came from the data available at [Assessment Data - Article List]. I used the score as another way to validate the relative importance of the subject, but the primary consideration in the assessment is importance specific to WikiProject Soil. WikiProjects get importance assessment guidance from Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Release_Version_Criteria#Importance_of_topic and {{Importance scheme}}. What do you think, makes sense? -- Paleorthid (talk) 01:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your involvement and for being part of a team effort in thinking about this topic area! User:HopsonRoad 04:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a narrow topic. It is very important to engineering geologists and engineers in the designing of safe and stable infrastructure anywhere in the world that it gets cold enough for the ground to freeze. In many parts of the world, if cryoturbation is ignored in design, roads will break up and bridges will collapse. In building safe and permanent infrastructure, it can be a life or death factor if ignored. Paul H. (talk) 19:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Using flickr2commons today: I need to figure out why my upload fail is a "Flinfo issue 1". No joy for solving this at Talk:Flickr2commons -- -- Paleorthid (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to keep an eye the Lake Missoula article. User talk:87.146.174.232 is also making unsourced changes to it as he or she has done to the Missoula Flood article. He or she seems intent on changing articles, without providing reliable sources, to state that there has been only one Missoula Flood as recently claimed by Graham Hancock and his colleague Randal Carlson. Paul H. (talk) 19:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Plant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Respiration. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

yep. Got lost in my edits on that one. --Paleorthid (talk) 16:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pedogenesis may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• moisture content and water flow through the [[soil profile]] support [Leaching (pedology)|leaching]] of [[solute|soluble constituents]], and eluviation [[eluvium|Eluviation]]is the translocation of [[

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:05, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Bearcat was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Friedrich Albert Fallou and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the or on the .
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Bearcat (talk) 02:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pedogenesis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pedology. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:54, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear sir I am Sokkalingam from madurai. 9994351696 I am farming in my native village Kuruvikkondanpatti, Thirumayam taluk, Pudukkottai district, Tamil Nadu. Your post on humic acid was good Can you give some more information regarding the humic acid

With warm regards Sokkalingam

Dear sir I am Sokkalingam from madurai. 9994351696 I am farming in my native village Kuruvikkondanpatti, Thirumayam taluk, Pudukkottai district, Tamil Nadu. Your post on humic acid was good Can you give some more information regarding the humic acid

With warm regards Sokkalingam

Hello, Paleorthid. 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)[reply]

Hi, I have requeste peer review for the Soil pH page (Wikipedia:Peer_review/Soil_pH/archive1). It would be great if you could have a look at it. Regards --Alandmanson (talk) 12:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Paleorthid. 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)[reply]

Hello, Paleorthid. 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)[reply]

Hi. For you wikiproject soil bot request, do you want it to include all pages in the subcategories of the categories listed, or just the pages in the categories themselves? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just the pages in the categories themselves. Thanks! -- Paleorthid (talk) 20:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Regarding these links, drafts are not supposed to be linked to from mainspace (see MOS:LINKSTYLE). It's also extra work to fix the wikilinks once you bring your draft to mainspace. Thanks, Prolog (talk) 06:04, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article List of state soil science associations has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No real refrences, pretty trivial. WP:Listcruft.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Remagoxer (talk) 12:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Wishing you a Happy Mole Day on the behalf of WikiProject Science.

What is this? Mole Day is an unofficial holiday celebrated among chemists, chemistry students and chemistry enthusiasts on October 23, between 6:02 a.m. and 6:02 p.m. This date is derived from the Avogadro number, which is approximately 6.022×1023, and the day is named after scientist Amedeo Avogadro. What you can do! Participate in our and our sister WikiProjects Expand articles listed here Improve science articles Sign the guestbook or place {{User WikiProject Science}} on your user page. Add this page to your watchlist to see what's occurring here

Similar events Pi day DNA day Evolution Day Yuri's Night Square Root Day See also Observances about science Observances in October

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Boothsift. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Deserts and xeric shrublands have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks. BoothSift 02:25, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I tried to rollback a series of 3 edits authored by two different users using TW. My attempt resulted in a partial solution - I should have checked my work! -- Paleorthid (talk) 03:02, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it seems, you left the message about BAITSSS article. I significantly worked on it to improve the quality scale. Not sure, what are your concerns. Thank you again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IDKANS (talk • contribs) 02:20, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paleorthid, perhaps this can be discussed over at WP:COIN? SPI just confirms they are connected accounts but hard to tell if they are used to evade any policies. I'm still leaving the COI tag on here as apparent COI. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. The article content is in pretty good shape. -- 17:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Paleorthid. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Desert formation".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Soil PR-instructions has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Tom (LT) (talk) 23:43, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you made changes to this page? I am a publisher in the news business and what you have done is quite serious by removing my correction on this page.

Who are you, and what is your affiliation and or authority to make these deletions. I will certainly change it back until you demonstrate your acumen and or your reasons for deleting my edit.

@Pierrelittle: I am an editor, one of the tens and tens of thousands working together to improve Wikipedia content. I assume you are the same as me in this. Toxin is on my watchlist. When notified of your changes, I arrived at toxin and recognized that your addition to toxin was placed with inappropriate prominence in the introduction. I reviewed your edits in the page history then I moved (not the same as deleting) your addition deeper in the article. Separately, I restored the previous wording, as supported by Brade 1999, that Brieger was the first to use the term "toxin". These were two separate edits and I indicated the nature of each edit in an edit summary. Does this explanation help you understand why I made changes to the page? -- Paleorthid (talk) 22:41, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]