User talk:Jfponge

Welcome!

Hello, Jfponge, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Yerpo (talk) 15:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 {{Cite journal}} template automatically italicizes the text included within the |journal= field. By italicizing them, the result is actually that they are then wrongly not italicized.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 12:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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,
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)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

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)[reply]

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 reverted 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 <ref name="foo">...</ref> and one or more <ref name="foo"/> referring to it. Someone then removed the <ref name="foo">...</ref> but left the <ref name="foo"/>, which results in a big red error in the article. I replaced one of the remaining <ref name="foo"/> with a copy of the <ref name="foo">...</ref>; 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 big red error.

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 ⚡ 09:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add {{bots|optout=AnomieBOT-OrphanReferenceFixer}} to your talk page.[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

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)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

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)[reply]

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. Guy (Help!) 08:18, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

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) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

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) 01:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soil enzymes

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

Thank you! -- Paleorthid (talk) 22:02, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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) 00:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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) 00:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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, Sandstein 18:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 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, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Humus form moved to draftspace.

Please note that I have moved Draft:Humus form back to draftspace per WP:DRAFTREASON: 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. 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. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I will move the draft back into draftspace. However, I wanted to address the comment 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, 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 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]