Talk:Plastic mulch

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Polymers, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.PolymersWikipedia:WikiProject PolymersTemplate:WikiProject PolymersPolymers articles

Agriculture Low‑importance

	Agriculture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Dear Alex,

If:

SCEhardt edited this article in Dec. 2005 to include that "diposal of plastic mulch is cited as an environmental problem" (which it is)

I edited the article to include the last sentence, "However, technologies exist to provide for the recycling of used/disposed plastic mulch into viable plastic resins for re-use in the plastics manufacturing industry." (which they do)

No one has disputed these statements or deleted them (which they haven't)

A process exists which can address/solve the problem of disposal being an environmental problem (which it does)

A page in a website exists that features the process (which it does)

would it make sense to edit the last sentence re: "technologies exist" to include a reference to this page < http://www.rkoindustries.com/id26.html > of our website?

Would this be similar to the "Israel" sentence/reference in the "Plastic recycling" article?

Regards,

Recycledagplastic 20:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive the intrusion into what seems a personal discussion......but I believe that the answer is that there are a number of commercial links in Plastic recycling that should be deleted as linkspam - sorry but Wikipedia does not exist to promote individual commercial interests no matter how worthwhile they may be. Velela 16:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Velela,Do you have any similar thoughts regarding the external (or any other) links within the Drip tape article?

Regards, Recycledagplastic 11:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From a quick scan ~~many (most?)~~ all of the links in Drip tape seem to be commercial linkspam. There are areas of Wikipedia where there has been relatively little attention paid to managing linkspam and this seems to be one of those areas. Velela 12:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite new to editing inside Wikipedia, therefore I am under quite a learning curve. Communications such as this one with you (as well as Wikipedia info. articles) are helping me to understand some of the normal operating procedures of administrators. In regard to standards being fairly/judiciously/uniformly (take your pick) applied by credible "seasoned" administrators/editors, has it been your experience to witness the removal of certain links in an article (being cited as commercial spam, however containing no promotional language) only to realize that several other links (using promotional language like "pioneer of drip irrigation since 1968," "DRTS is the leading manufacturer of drip tape production lines" or "World's Largest Selection") are passed over and allowed to remain? If this is, typically, what one should expect of the editing efforts of administrators, it would seem quite a daunting task to exercise an expectation of objective uniformity in administration's editing habits. My points and questions aren't of a malicious nature, and I'm not seeking the re-inclusion of my removed link. However, the fact that this is the current situation begs the question of (conversation regarding) "is this a double standard in an administrator(s) editing practice(s), and if so, is this often experienced?" Sincerely, Recycledagplastic 14:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that this is an admin issue, very few edits are made by admins. Either you or I can delete these commercial links and probably either of us should do so but I thought it prudent to have a reasoned discussion first. I think that all of them should deleted and I would be happy to do so if we can all agree. The fact that they remain here but are promptly removed elsewhere probably has more to do with the relatively few Wikipedians who are interested in what may be regarded as rather obscure topics. Velela 16:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]