Talk:Milorganite

Organic certification

Is the use of this product permitted under organic certification requirements? I do not know, but it is something occurring to me as I read this article.

Victorsteelballs (talk) 08:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

While the product bills itself as "organic" (which is true), its use is not permitted in a U.S.D.A. certified organic farm.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:42, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

"Unbalanced opinion"

The following is supported by WP:RS. "The recycled product, high nitrogen fertilizer, is sold throughout the world, reduces the need for manufactured nutrients, and after more than 75 years is one of the largest and most continuous example of such programs."

This is not opinion but fact. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Milorganite. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140611220706/http://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/water.nsf/NPDES+Permits/Sewage+S825/$FILE/503-032007.pdf to http://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/water.nsf/NPDES%2BPermits/Sewage%2BS825/$FILE/503-032007.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

"Advert" template

I disagree with the template that was placed here. The tone and content is factual, neutral, historical and in accord with the cited sources. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:38, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll give you some examples of sentences that are overly glowing: "Even as it balances such conflicting goals and successfully navigates the fluctuations and vagaries of a changing waste stream,[A]Milorganite has been at the forefront of the industry.[11]"

• "Milorganite contains virtually no salts, so it never burns plants – even in the hottest temperatures and driest conditions."
• "The sale of product does not entirely generate sufficient funds to cover the costs of manufacture, but the organization suggests the environmental benefits are a legitimate offsetting consideration."

Furthermore, up until I copied that new content on environmental concerns into the article, it had not a single mention of potential drawbacks of this product. EMsmile (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

EMsmile And you apparently have corrected those oversights? Reword so your concerns are assuaged. Thank you. Now remove the template. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

A couple of the citations you added are to dead links. Suggest that you also read and apply WP:Copying within Wikipedia, as an attribution in the article's talk page would be considered helpful. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I haven't made corrections to those sentences that I found as sounding like advertising. I'll leave that to someone else to do who knows the subject better than I do. After that, the template can be removed. Sorry about the dead links, I didn't check through those. I put in the edit summary that the paragraph had been moved from the article on biosolids and thought that would be sufficient for the purposes here. If you feel strongly about it, you can either try and find updated sources for that content or delete it. Also feel free to remove the template if you honestly think this is a balanced article about milorganite that is not trying to hide any issues. I'll stay away from this article (only came to it from the biosolids article). Good luck with it. EMsmile (talk) 19:51, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I was not trying to drive you off the article. Your thoughts and refinements are welcome. So please don't just do a drive-by tag. I only know what I've read; only got involved with this article as an article rescue from the deletion, which I thought was totally unwarranted. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:38, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Removed {{advert|date=July 2017}} 7&6=thirteen (☎) 03:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, I've done a bit more work, but the more I look at the article the more I see wrong with it. By the way your initial statement "Now remove the template." was not very inviting to get involved here! :-( Even after you removed the tag there was still a lot of "advertising" in the article, e.g. in the lead. An article about a biosolids product that avoids using the terms sewage and sewage sludge says to me, people are trying to cover up that the product is made from sewage... Anyway, perhaps this Milorganite is important for the U.S. but at a global level it is not an important term and I'd rather put some more energy into improving the articles on biosolids and sewage sludge treatment. But overall it is looking a bit better now, also thanks to User:Velella.EMsmile (talk) 13:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to change it. It is historically important because it was the first in the world. Nobody says they sell the brand outside the western hemisphere; and your perspective does not render it insignificant. Nor does the article gloss over that its origins are sewage. The latest source is quite clear on its origin. See Tanzilo, Bobby (May 12, 2017). "In Milwaukee History: Milorganite is made! Made in Milwaukee: Milorganite". Made in Milwaukee. House of Harley-Davidson. Retrieved July 4, 2017. It is made from sewage fed microbes that have digested "shit"; but I did not choose to use those words. Nevertheless, nobody is soft pedaling the issue. I am not squeamish about the terms or origins. See Shit Museum which I authored. I was under the impression that the edits by User:Velella overcame your criticism. In any event, changing the text works better than drive-by tagging, IMO. Best regards. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

The lead did not even mention the word "sewage" or "sewage sludge" even once before I changed it recently. See e.g. this previous version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Milorganite&oldid=789016834 It's not Western hemisphere we are talking, it is U.S. and Canada only. Yes, of course it is better for the article when someone spends a couple of hours on it. But sometimes you don't have the time. So I think it is also fair enough to tag an article as a drive-by activity to alert those who are watching the article that they should do work on it; and to alert those who are reading the article to take it with more caution than usual. Anyway, in the end I did spend a bit of time on it, so it's a bit better now (still not great but let's see if other editors have time to work on it further). EMsmile (talk) 16:04, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I've re-tagged it. Multiple parts sound like a press release. There are extensive claims of how great this product/company is, sourced to...often itself or other non-WP:RS sources. DMacks (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

DMacks This has been discussed and resolved before.

You could fix it. Or you could just post your template.

However, I appreciate your drive by templating. Apparently that makes you feel better. You could fix it. Or not.

You can curse the darkness, or light a candle. Your choice. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Working on it. Obviously I don't care how you feel about my feelings, but do appreciate that I have more to do in my life than just edit this one article at any given time...you should know better than to comment on editors. DMacks (talk) 20:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I was commenting on the edit, not the editor. I WP:AGF; and I am pleased that you are improving the article. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying how you intended your message. DMacks (talk) 20:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I have a bad reaction to templates on the top of articles. Even though it isn't, it looks like vandalism; or a least a defacement. I went to a lot of trouble to rescue this from a deletionist attack. I improved the article a lot (I know, nobody knows, and nobody cares, and that's inconsequential). I know also I don't own it, but the reality is that I have an investment in it. {p.s., I don't literally have an investment in the company, assuming you can buy stock.) My only concern is that it be improved. You are working on that. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good. It's definitely a worthwhile topic for an article and I'm glad there are enough eyes going around. DMacks (talk) 20:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

IMO, the best article are the product of a collaboration. Especially between diverse editors. It is not a zero sum game; nor is about 'winning' and 'losing.' And the synergy of diverse editors is often the strength of Wikipedia. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

"not poop"

I have reverted the edit that talked about Milorganite not being "poop". First of all "poop" is a silly euphemism that doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Faeces (or feces if you prefer) is what is being discussed. For my sins, this is an area of operational science that I do know a little about. All sewage processes rely on a variety of organisms from bacteria up to annelid worms and includes very many protozoa, rotifers, nematodes etc. etc. The proportions of these vary from process to process with very few annelids in package aeration plants and many in trickling filters, but at the end of the day, all process encourage both aerobic and aerobic organisms to feed on the soluble and insoluble organic matter in sewage. The ecological interactions are complex and even more so when the sludge produced by these organisms is then anaerobically digested and dried. However, any competent analysis of a well digested sludge will show much evidence of bacteria and, perhaps surprisingly even more phage, but also micro fragments of lignin and cellulose. These fragments are often important part of the substrate that the biota in the oxidative phase colonise. These fragments are derived mostly from toilet paper (toilet tissue) together with xylem fibres from vegetables and salad crops. These remain and can be oxidised in the COD test but not in the BOD(5) text. They are still present because the only effective organisms that can break down lignified material are fungi which are almost absent. So dried sewage sludge does indeed contain actual faecal material, and a reference from an unreliable and biased source cannot be used to assert the contrary.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   16:57, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Ah yes. WP:Verifiability, not WP:Truth. Sounds like you know Shit from Shinola. You've got sources for that? Your assertion that the sources is unreliable is unsupported and undocumented. Just sayin... 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:02, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I absolutely agree - which is why I haven't put any of that in the article. I am long retired and have no access to the technical libraries that once supported my work. I can tell you what I know but I can't put it in a Wikipedia article because I have no access to the sources, most of which were written long before the internet and digital media. I can however point out things which are palpably wrong and sources which are clearly biased!  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   17:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with everything user:Velella said and commend him/her for taking so much time to spell all this out in detail. Of course milorganite contains the organic content of fecal matter! And there is nothing wrong with that either. See reuse of excreta. The problematic part of feces would be the pathogens but they are killed through heat drying. Much more problematic than fecal matter is actually chemical pollutants from industrual effluent that is part of the sewage... I am actually shocked that someone wanted to add this sentence into the article (even into the lead!) which is so factually wrong and just a PR and sales blurb: "This is a product of sewage and water treatment, wherein microbes are fed poop and grown in a rich aerobic environment. It is a product resulting from digestion of excrement, but it is not true that it directly contains feces." - glad that Velella removed that again. If anyone wants to know more references about the topic of sewage sludge treatment and biosolids, simply go to the Wikipedia articles on those two topics. I don't think we need to re-iterate all that in this article. This article should be about the specific situation in Milwaukee and not about biosolids in general. EMsmile (talk) 21:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

We were getting criticisms that the fecal/sewage origins weren't discussed. And indeed, the actual technical details are pretty much glossed over. Was trying to address those concerns. But you are "shocked" and it is now deleted. Bon appetit! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I am shocked that you as an experienced Wikipedia editor honestly thought that a sentence such as this one adds any encyclopedic value!: "wherein microbes are fed poop ". That is so not encyclopedic. The way I have written it in the lead is correct: "The sewage sludge remaining after the sewage has been treated at the Jones Island sewage treatment plant (also called "Water Reclamation Facility") in Milwaukee, Wisconsin is heat-dried to remove pathogens. " (although the sentence is perhaps too long) etc. And what is the "Bon appetit!" for? Is the topic of sanitation/sewage/feces one that cannot be discussed without making strange jokes about it? sorry if my sense of humor is not sufficient here but it's not the first time that I find your comments strange. Like "Sounds like you know Shit from Shinola". Can we keep this purely factual please, thanks. EMsmile (talk) 09:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I was not maligning you or your edits. I think the article has been improved by you and them. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:00, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

In reviewing this thread, I realise that I had made several assumptions that should, perhaps, have been better explained. First, that, after water, the greatest component by weight of human faeces in the developed world are bacteria, both dead and alive - saying that biosolids are just bacteria with the inference that that they are not faecal in origin, is simply illogical. This is a very complex area, but research demonstrates that the majority of bacteria in activated sludge plants derive from the sewage stream with the remainder coming from air-born sources. So, if faeces are mostly bacteria, sludge treatment systems are mostly bacteria derived from faeces and bio-solids are dried activated (and primary) sludge, how is it possible to assert that bio-solids are not faecal in origin?  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   11:18, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Milorganite. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140407075609/http://www.milorganite.com/en/Retailers/Product-Information/MSDS.aspx to http://www.milorganite.com/en/Retailers/Product-Information/MSDS.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150423124151/http://www.biosolids.com.au/what-are-biosolids.php to http://www.biosolids.com.au/what-are-biosolids.php
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.nviro.com/files/Biosolids_Facts.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Milorganite. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140326164445/http://www.milorganite.com/en/Header-Links/About-Us/History.aspx to http://www.milorganite.com/en/Header-Links/About-Us/History.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v412/n6843/abs/412140a0.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/29423464.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/29473719.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Bad links *Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/29423464.html *Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/29473719.html 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:11, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Milorganite. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140407095944/http://lcweb2.loc.gov/pnp/habshaer/wi/wi0100/wi0154/data/wi0154data.pdf to http://lcweb2.loc.gov/pnp/habshaer/wi/wi0100/wi0154/data/wi0154data.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:05, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Attribution

Text and references copied from Wisconsin Golf Hall of Fame to Milorganite. See former article's history for a list of contributors. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)