Atkinsok

Welcome!

Hello, Atkinsok, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  McSly (talk) 21:19, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

U.S.V.I.

Any chance you could help improve West Indian Company? --Orange Mike | Talk 21:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

"Minor" edits

Hi Atkinsok

I have the article imidacloprid on my watchlist and note that you made an edit yesterday that you marked as "minor". Looking at your edit history, you seem to mark lots of your edits that way. Please read WP:Minor which has Wikipedia's policy on this. In particular, such edits are supposed to be where the editor believes [the change] requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute.. Many of your cases don't comply. For example, I might feel that the one on imidacloprid is in contravention of WP:Crystal as it discusses something that hasn't happened yet. (In fact, I won't make that argument but you get the point). One reason for the policy is that some editors use their watchlist in such a way that they don't see "minor" edits at all, whereas I'm sure they would like to be aware of more of yours. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:38, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Dear Mike,

This was listed as minor because it was simply the addition of a brief fact that brings a subject that requires a major revision and update from bordering on untruthful. The regulation section is woefully outdated.

Your comment that this has not happened yet is not correct, as the law was passed and is on the books; the effective date in July is to give time to consumers and vendors to prepare for the change that is now law. Whether it can be disputed... well, one hopes an official Commonwealth link explaining the law and date it was passed is sufficient.

Since this is on your watchlist, may I encourage you to undertake the major revision required? You will be receiving many more hits, and I believe more recent research data from scientific journals would also be strengthening. I'm glad this small fact addition has generated your response, so that a more effective article can be created. It does not need to take any stand, just report the controversies and actions that are going on. When I trained for certification in Invasives Management at University of Massachusetts, appropriate use on pesticides hinged on knowing the chemistry, environmental effect, need, alternatives, application hazards, and the law. Indeed, it was their newsletter that brought the new law to our attention.

In the past I served as a copyeditor for New England Journal of Medicine's online Journal Watch; I assure you that correcting incorrect or misleading information that comes to my attention is deeply ingrained, a professional hazard! My busy schedule doesn't permit more at this time. And I doubt you'll want us all to have the option of a checkbox saying, "This piece needs more work"!

Sincerely, Kristine H. Atkinson, Ph.D. Atkinsok (talk) 03:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I'm aware that the article is out of date especially in the area of regulation but I'm no expert in that aspect and I don't want to stray into the controversy around the neonicotinoids. The article is on my watchlist because I recently added the latest USGS usage figures and bar chart, something I've done for several pesticides. My background is as a PhD research chemist with ICI/Zeneca/Syngenta but I'm now long retired. Sadly, all Wikipedia articles on pesticides "need more work" but I can only make a tiny dent in that! Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:24, 11 April 2022 (UTC)