User talk:Keimzelle/Archives/2022/June

saprobic system
Hi, I just wanted to say thank you for creating the saprobic system article. It's really interesting! Can you recommend anything about the mathematical background behind what I'd call the log(N)-weighted average? It seems an interesting choice... IpseCustos (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm an epidemiologist, not an ecologist... I'm a bit puzzled myself. I might have to find the Pantle & Buck or the Zelinka & Marvan paper, and I have to re-check the Jerry Wihlm paper to see whether I can see a justification of the log(N) thing. (You can download it through the The Wikipedia Library.) Part of the explanation might be that the tolerance weighting factor g is a n² thing. One can assume that a narrow tolerance - meaning that the species *really* indicates something - is much more important than the number of individuals found. Also, it might be more important that dozens of different species are found, and the number of individuals per species is then scaled down. That you find 600 or 50 individuals might be down to chance, after all - the weather might have been bad during the past month, a flood might have carried away juveniles or eggs... But at least you found a species.--Keimzelle (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks again! The weird thing about the log(N) choice is that it's, obviously, not linear in N, so finding twice as many individuals of each species may result in a (slightly) different saprobic index. It may just be a random choice that turned out not to be a problem, I suppose. IpseCustos (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ...aaaand, of course, if a species is hyper-abundant, it will not drown out all your other observations - especially if they're the more valuable ones. It's basically an emergency stop built in. Now I think I've written so much about the saprobic things that I need a beer or two. :-P --Keimzelle (talk) 21:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Illgraben
Your GF attempt to cleanup actually created an issue. Are you not familiar with how to cite sources; inline citatations and reflist?  Atsme 💬 📧 13:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * which issue exists now? I know how to use citations... see my previous article, Saprobic system.--Keimzelle (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * In that article, you did use them correctly, so what changed? Look at this article, and the References section. See MOS:REF – where are the inline citations?  What in this article do you believe is compliant with MOS, or that even comes close to the style of referencing you used for Saprobic system?  Atsme  💬 📧 18:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Nothing changed. You added an inline citation that actually duplicated content that already was in the article. That's why I got rid of them.--Keimzelle (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The material in the article is not properly sourced with inline citations. If you want to fix that issue, then please do, otherwise the article needs to be rewritten. WP:V is a core content policy, as is NOR, and that is one of the reasons we use inline citations. The material must be supported as written in a RS, so generalizing information without providing a way to verify it (page #, name of book, date, author, normal citation info) is unacceptable. That's why we use inline citations. The article also needs more secondary sources along with those inline citations.  Atsme 💬 📧 20:47, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * To be frank: I'm annoyed. I've put in my work and my time and now somebody I don't know at all is threatening a re-write of the article? That's what everybody wants to hear.--Keimzelle (talk) 23:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but annoyed doesn't fix the issues with the article. You're not the only one putting time into the work. It has been a long day for me, too. FYI, I'm not threatening a re-write, I'm simply informing you that the article must be made compliant or it will be rewritten and properly cited. I noticed in your TP archives that this sourcing issue is not new to you per the following: User talk:Keimzelle/Archives/2022/February, User talk:Keimzelle/Archives/2021/August, User_ talk:Keimzelle/Archives/2021/July, User talk:Keimzelle/Archives/2021/May, User talk:Keimzelle/Archives/2020/December, and User talk:Keimzelle/Archives/2020/November. Your past behavior wouldn't have mattered to me had you not been repeating it here now. Both and  have apparently had similar situations involving your sourcing issues. As it turns out, all 3 of us work as volunteers at WP:NPP, and we are inundated with a huge backlog because so many other editors fail to follow MOS and PAGs, which is what brought me to this article, and why it is still in the NPP queue. You can either work collaboratively and help get these issues resolved, or move along to another project, hopefully one you will cite properly.  Atsme  💬 📧 02:18, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I know. On the technical side, you are 100% right. When an article doesn't feature inline citations, then updating it gets much, much more difficult - even when each of us knows that nobody actually checks the citations. (Except for academics who are researching a matter for their own course papers, research articles, or whatever.) Articles for deletion/FIS Alpine World Ski Championships 2027 got deleted, and my objection was ignored. If Wikipedia has taught me anything, it's not respecting the fellow collaborator - but being actively afraid of him. One never knows when the next "... moved to draft space" or deletion request occurs. What sets me apart from a lot of Wikipedians is that I respect their work. To my memory, I have never requested an article to be deleted, and I have never supported a deletion request. As a general rule, I never edit articles moved to the draft space, or ones under the threat of deletion. I just want to let other people work in peace, and they let me work in peace. But when people annoy me I never do what they want. It might only reinforce their behavior.--Keimzelle (talk) 07:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand your frustration – it's something we've all experienced at one point or another as editors of a crowd sourced bank of knowledge. I have learned how to deal with it over the past decade by simply growing thicker skin. en.WP leads the way (as most read with the most articles) so that may explain why we tend to be the most insistent on adherence to WP:MOS and WP:PAG - the latter serves to maintain consistency throughout this ever-expanding encyclopedia. I try to keep my article creation patterns consistent with WP:MOS and what our readers expect to see in an encyclopedia. Researchers, professionals and students all utilize WP, in big part because of our citations (most teachers don't allow students to use WP as a source but they use it anyway and simply provide the citations).  Editors who want to expand an article, or who may be reviewing it as a DYK/GA/FA candidate require inline citations. None of us want WP to look like or become an online hodgepodge of what appears to be unverifiable information, and I doubt any of us want to do the work for WP:UPE who typically don't follow PAGs and tend to write promotional garbage, and it does happen more often than not.  On the other hand, most of us understand and appreciate the benefits of collaboration to make an article the best it can be. Happy editing!  Atsme  💬 📧 13:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)