I've never researched how WP contributions & monitoring of posted material works. Several times I've heard it disparaged as a reference source when used in debate, with the comment "anyone can post, I can change that page right now" or "WP is compiled by 15 yr olds" etc. So I read through the entire talk/history of the My Jewel article out of curiosity. Here is what my read found: You added My Jewel to this of cultivars. It's possible this in itself would've stayed in place. Because you created a short article to link from the cultivar list, it generated attention. Someone "patrolled" it immediately and found it was OK (not blatant vandalism). But one criteria for new articles (vs. reference in existing articles) is that it meet "notability" standards, as not just anything should have it's own page in an encyclopedia! A few hours later, it was tagged for speedy deletion with a fairly "low priority" reason code of A7. Another editor corrected that editor for using the wrong code. You also pleaded with the initial editor -- he removed it. A few minutes later a different editor again tags it for deletion with an even higher reason code and also adds a COI code to it! Because My Jewel is obscure, you referenced a specific company in a fairly unknown city, which sounded like you were affiliated or pushing the tree for personal benefit, the reason they tagged you with the Conflict of Interest. At this point I was LOL. When you defended it to the editor stating you don't have any interest in the company and only grow the tree yourself for personal consumption they said "well, if you're the only one growing it, then you want others to grow it" you now have a conflict of interest! I was rolling my eyes on that one, too! You corrected these two editors, by quoting them the WP guidelines for COI and notability and received "oh you're right, let's put it all back". Those conversations happened on three editors individual Talk pages. But meanwhile, two more editors get involved and agree between themselves it wasn't notable enough in a Google search, and posted such on the new page "Marked for Deletion -- My Jewel" (not sure if you were even aware of this at the time). That's a grand total of 6 editors involved a mere few hours after posting it, 5 of which originally wanted it deleted (not revised, deleted). A couple days later, admin drops by, looks only at the two comments on the Marked for Deletion page (by editors you hadn't conversed with yet) and voila, it's gone. The editors you previously convinced had moved on without updating a thing. It was obvious to me there wasn't any specific bias towards you or the apple, but rather they treat you like doctors treat walk-in patients with pain. You're a drug seeker unless you absolutely prove it different (with 3rd party proof of the pain or condition, otherwise it's a conflict of interest if you describe it). Because as stated in prior posts, the WP editors expect either you don't know what you're doing, have your own interests in mind, or are there to flat out vandalize. You must be glutton for punishment as a newbie posting an article; otherwise you must be previously respected, ie. WP-credentialed, to avoid this initial wall. From browsing the other points on those editors talk pages, I can understand why. A few days in doctor shoes, seeing real drug-seekers come in and repeated saying "my pain ia a 10!" numbs you quickly. It's unfortunate on both sides.

One would think that reliable applied to a soil test would mean that the information from a retest of the same sample would give the same results. Nope. "reliable" means that you can rely on the fact that the test is being performed according to widely accepted methodology by qualified people. You'll never test the same sample twice and get exactly the same numbers. There is always going to be variability even within a small sample, regardless of methods and reagents. (If you ever did run the same test twice on a sample and get exactly the same numbers, something went wrong)

FlowerLady- Great post! I really like that watercolor :)

and link it to Seed Savers Exchange.