User talk:Lfstevens/2015 Archive

strange edit on GMO controversies page

how did this happen I wonder? maybe you are editing from a phone or something? Jytdog (talk) 09:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it was something funky in the paste function. I copied it from the edit buffer before I saved, because it had taken me awhile and I expected an edit conflict, which I got. Various other cr's got mangled in the process. Didn't notice the bit you flagged. Weird. Lfstevens (talk) 19:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

funky! thx. Jytdog (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

note - I reverted David's change of the section header above from "strange edit on GMO controversies page" to "strange edit / humor on GMO controversies page". I never considered the post as "humor" or a "joke" and the change made it appear that I did, when I created the section. I reverted, and set up a new subsection for David's questions/statements below. (David feel free to rename that subsection whatever you like or even just to remove it) but per WP:TPG, don't change what another editor writes in a way that changes the meaning of what they wrote. Jytdog (talk) 12:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

statements from David

Copied from GMO controversy page: David Tornheim (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

When will the anti-GMO folks produce an unimpeachable study that supports their fears? Lfstevens (talk) 09:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

That's easy to answer: That will happen concurrently with the announcement of the Japanese Nuclear Safety Commission: "Come on! You didn't really expect us to do our job, look into the safety issues at Fukushima and force TEPCO to make appropriate modifications, did you? Honesty, what were you thinking? Did your parents not instruct you: 'buyer beware'? That said, our scientists have studies proving that all future power plants will be 'safe'. You have nothing to fear."  :-) David Tornheim (talk) 14:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk about a strange comparison! The dangers of nuclear power are supremely well-documented. Although, despite the three big accidents, a lot fewer people have died from nuclear power than from conventional fuels. Just sayin' Lfstevens (talk) 19:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog scolded me (for meeting your joke with a joke). Now I see why. I assumed you would laugh as you should have. There's nothing worse that having to explain a joke. (I think you should have been scolded for making your joke too; seems like a double-standard to me.) You know as well as I do that GMO critics do not want to produce a study that shows that all the people who have been exposed to any particular GMO can look forward to long-term unexpected health impacts because of insufficient study prior to widespread approval. After all, many of the GMO critics have been exposed to GMO's without knowledge or consent, because the FDA gave a green stamp of approval to a doctrine of "substantial equivalence" that meant the kind of additional study that the E.U. correctly requires does not happen here. And that is because of their lobbying Congress and Presidents (both Democrat and Republican). And anyone in the U.S. (unlike Europe) who would like to avoid them because of possible unintended side effects cannot because of industry lobbying, massive campaigning with false claims like "scientific consensus" regarding "safety", etc. are all used to mislead and confuse and prevent any requirement of labeling, ultimately, not because the industry is concerned about how health, but instead is concerned about PROFIT. (The same company that introduced DDT, which I'm sure they said was safe as well, is the lead culprit.) The parallel with Fukishima regulators should be obvious. I really can't imagine why it is not. The regulators in Japan didn't do their job for all the same reasons the FDA will not do its job, and if anyone in Japan said otherwise they were likely shot down with the same bogus distractions. Those who were concerned about the reactor or opposed nuclear certainly did not want that disaster--they wanted to AVOID it--and neither do GMO critics want any major negative consequences for human health, animals and other living beings or the environment. GMO critics want sufficient study and labeling, and certainly not a widespread release of products that have not be sufficiently studied. It's called the Precautionary Principle. David Tornheim (talk) 21:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

David, as i told you on your talk page, i found lfstevens' comment to be too fragmented to interpret and didn't take it as a joke - i took it as uninterpretable. I didn't take it as a joke; there was no double standard in what I actually did. The Talk Page Guidelines describe Behavior that is not acceptable on Talk pages. One of those behaviors is misrepresenting other people. Please do not do that going forward. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog: What are you talking about? Do either of you honestly believe that his statement was a NOT a sarcastic joke? That's unbelievable. Are we really THAT far from understanding each other? If that is really the assertion, that's far worse. And I don't even know where to begin dealing with that. I would appreciate it if you re-read this section of the talk page from the start to finish. If either of you are truly asserting that GMO critics hope humans will be irreparably harmed by GMO's, because of inadequate study, I find that deeply offensive, far worse than making some off color joke. All the more why I think the person who should have been scolded is Lfstevens, not me. All right. I'm taking a break. Your response really makes me angry. David Tornheim (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

David, this is exactly why it is a bad idea to be anything other than simple and direct when you write things and why it is a good idea to ask for interpretation if you do not understand what other people write. what i wrote to you about lfstevens' comment was exactly what i meant, which was: "I found that comment/set of comments confusingly formatted and so i wrote him a note on his talk page about it, yes. it was so fragmented/strange that i hesitated to react to it at all and still have not." If you read that as meaning that I took it as a joke, you are not taking what I write plainly and simply.Jytdog (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog: I might have overreacted (on a feeling level) and misinterpreted the misinterpretation of the misinterpretation...ad infinitum. (LOL. Sorry I know you don't want more humor but it helps me!) I am taking a self-imposed cooling off period on this, and may just let the disagreement we have about this drop, and focus on common ground. I think that's what you want too.David Tornheim (talk) 04:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

A few points from a decidedly non-SME:

• David, please don't be offended. I mean no offense and am sure that applies to Jytdog.

• I apologize for my garbled editing. See above, although there may be some brain damage in there as well. Working on it.

• I do not think that GMO critics want anything bad to happen (except maybe to the seed companies).

• I do not find profit to be evil, or worth upcasing for emphasis. It's a tool. I won't divert into arguing the merits of economic systems, except to say that I prefer what we have to what other folks have tried.
• Regulators get captured by the folks they regulate, everywhere and always. See Deepwater Horizon, the 2007 crisis, etc. We have to struggle forward despite that, first by attempting to find other mechanisms to govern behavior (competition is one such mechanism) and then by calling out abuses as we encounter them.
• I don't understand the labeling brouhaha. Consumers already have ways to avoid GM food. It's called "organic". If we label GM foods then we'll have three categories: GM, non-organic/non-GM and organic. What's the point of the middle category?
• The EU indeed has different standards than the US. Those standards have also not produced non-controversial work that documents the harm of the GM ecosystem.
• It will be an age before we reach the level of understanding to be able to confidently claim that any given food is "safe". We should be able to say (as we now claim) that something is "safe enough" or "as safe as this other food". As GM broadens and deepens, any remaining justification for the similarity criterion is likely to evaporate. We should do more testing.
• I am now going through Groupuscule's truly prodigious effort to document the controversy. Nuclear plants aren't the only thing that can have meltdowns. My brain is about there. I am doing so because I don't want to throw the critical baby out with the hysterical bathwater, of which there is much.
• The number and variety of health effects alleged by critics is so large and diverse that it boggles my mind. If the RoundupReady trait + RoundUp is so toxic, teratogenic, etc., I don't understand why we don't have a vast amount of otherwise unexplained pathology after twenty years. It's not enough to say "just you wait...hell is on the way". US lifespans are continuing to rapidly increase as are QALY. We are finding causes for many heretofore unexplained conditions. Do any of those relate to GMOs?
• It may be correct safety-wise to ban glyphosate or possibly its current configuration(s) in RoundUp, but we should also consider what will replace it. Pesticides long antedate glyphosate and many were highly dangerous. We need some way to feed the folks and that likely means some form of plant protection or other. We should be careful what we wish for.
• The debate would make a lot more sense to me if we (regulators, too) would consider GMOs trait by trait. Pesticide resistance is very different from vitamin enrichment. GM per se should not be seen as the mark of the devil.
• We have gone way beyond simple transgenics in food, while our technology for GM has vastly improved (a la CRISPR). Our understanding of the genome and the other -omes is exploding. GM is going to be an increasing part of our lives from here on out. GM T-cells have now cured multiple cancer types. And we ain't seen nothing yet.
• The Precautionary Principle is a very powerful concept. If applied rigorously, I'm guessing the rate of change of every human activity would collapse, which is why I think it should be used only when we have good reason to think that something is dangerous. (We're about to enter the age of Virtual Reality. Who knows what its long-term effects will be? Launch the PP missile?) I don't currently see a good reason to think that GMOs are obviously dangerous. That doesn't mean we give the seed companies carte blanche.
• I'm deeply skeptical of "scientific consensus". We had scientific consensus about the dangers of dietary cholesterol - until we didn't, decades later. But, I see a consensus on vaccines. Etc. If a bunch of respected scientists say something, even if as Groupuscule documents, they don't appear to have reviewed the science themselves, that can stand as a consensus. My mind (what little still works) remains open on this question.

Lfstevens (talk)

Thank you for the response! Apology accepted. My frustration was more with Jytdog's response to our jokes (I'm cooling off now). I think we have much common ground here and this will be a productive discussion, so we can definitely get something positive out this! I will respond to your points where you made them rather than below. And I likely won't do it in sequential order and my responses may show up a bit piecemeal and be revised, so chronology might be somewhat muddled--I hope that won't be too confusing. I hope you are able to use diff to see/note any changes I make to any of these particular responses to avoid confusion. David Tornheim (talk) 05:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Question #1: Was this statement "When will the anti-GMO folks produce an unimpeachable study that supports their fears?" intended as a joke? If not, can you explain it. I assumed it was a joke and am happy to explain why, and why I thought it was funny. David Tornheim (talk) 09:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Not a joke. I had/have not seen such a study. If I had, I would have fought to include it in the article.

Question #2: Are you familiar with the controversial Séralini rat study that received wide spread press and/or the Monarch Butterfly study published in Nature Magazine both related to GMO's? I would appreciate your assessment of what happened with these studies without doing any further research. I am familiar with both sides of the issue, and I often only hear one side. I suspect many people editing and commenting on the GMO Controversy page don't really understand the full story and have only heard one side. If after commenting, you do further research that changes your initial assessment, I would like to hear that as well. I plan to give you my assessment of both when I have heard what you have to say. This directly relates to what I think you were saying in the sentence that caused all the "ruckus." I equally welcome Jytdog's or anyone else's assessment of these two studies. Because, I am not familiar with the "Pusztai affair" and have read neither's position on what I am sure is a "discredited" study, I would prefer not to discuss it at this time. However, I am not opposed to discussing it and doing my homework, if necessary and important to this discussion. David Tornheim (talk) 10:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Seralini's tribe's stuff has been strongly attacked. It doesn't meet my criteria. Haven't seen the butterfly thing. I am not competent to review either one, only to see how others do. Is there a credible review that credits them? Lfstevens (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• comment - fwiw, lfstevens, thanks for this dif where you removed part of the set of comments that are under discussion here, with edit note "rem my own gibberish"; in that dif you left the part of those comments that are under discussion here. respectfully. what would be better under WP:REDACT, would be to undo that deletion, and go back and strike the comments you removed (like this) (and it may be better to just strike the whole set of comments) with an edit note like "strike garbled comments". (if it were me, i would also include in the edit note something like "that were more general commentary than discussion of article content" or the like - I think that is what they were) - and again if I were you I would just back out of this discussion drilling down on what you meant or didn't mean, as it is not about article content and whatever was going on in your mind and fingers, ~i think~ it is not what you wanted to communicate. That's what i would do in your shoes - you are of course free to do whatever you wish, and the deletion of part of your comments is OK in my view since no one had responded to the parts you deleted. And of course, you guys are of free to continue discussing your personal views on GMOs here. Please do discuss article content on the article Talk page. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Noted. Lfstevens (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Invitation

Thank you for using VisualEditor and sharing your ideas with the developers.

Hello, Lfstevens,

The Editing team is asking very experienced editors like you for your help with VisualEditor. The team has a list of top-priority problems, but they also want to hear about small problems. These problems may make editing less fun, take too much of your time, or be as annoying as a paper cut. The Editing team wants to hear about and fix these small things, too. 

You can share your thoughts by clicking this link. You may respond to this quick, simple, anonymous survey in your own language. If you take the survey, then you agree your responses may be used in accordance with these terms. This survey is powered by Qualtrics and their use of your information is governed by their privacy policy.

More information (including a translateable list of the questions) is posted on wiki at mw:VisualEditor/Survey 2015. If you have questions, or prefer to respond on-wiki, then please leave a message on the survey's talk page.

Unsubscribe from this list • Sign up for VisualEditor's multilingual newsletter • Translate the user guide

Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Seralini Article

Please see my comments on your revision to the Seralini article here.David Tornheim (talk) 11:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Continuous Liquid Interface Production

Allen3 ^talk 12:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Abdul Ghafar al-Akhras

Thanks for this. I kept thinking I ought to do something with it myself, but I didn't have the patience or the time. Or the knowledge of the source language, for that matter. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Lfstevens. You have new messages at WP:RIPM.
Message added 02:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nikkimaria (talk) 02:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Newspapers.com

Hi Lfstevens,

You were approved for a free Newspapers.com account through the Wikipedia Library last year, but it was never activated. On April 15 of this year I sent you a Wikipedia email message containing links to a very short Google form and the registration page at Newspapers.com. If you still want an account, please respond as requested in the email message. If you are no longer interested please let me know. Thanks! HazelAB (talk) 18:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

If you still want a Newspapers.com account, please respond to the email message as requested above. Otherwise I'll assume you are no longer interested. Thanks, HazelAB (talk) 12:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@HazelAB: I seem to have misplaced the email message. Sorry for the trouble, but could you resend? Thanks. Lfstevens (talk) 02:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I've just resent it. HazelAB (talk) 11:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I followed the links and I think I'm signed up. Let me know if there's more to it. Lfstevens (talk) 17:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

GM Food RfC

Note about this RfC where you !voted. I tweaked the statement to make it more clear that it is about eating GM food and health. I'm notifying each person who !voted, in case that matters to you. Sorry for the trouble. Jytdog (talk) 21:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Questions regarding regions of Madagascar, specifically Anosy

I've been working on and off for several years now on the "Anosy" region where I grew up and later worked. My assumption was the more the better, in part given how complex this little part of the country is both in terms of its history (500 years of vazaha (foreigners) ÷and some of its current realities (Rio Tinto mining), but I just today saw you requested I shorten this article as it was too long (and it's quite a bit longer now). So my questions for you are:
- is there anything like either a standard format for a Madagascar region or if not, a region already done that is felt to be quite good?
- if I were to I assume significantly shorten the Anosy region, what do I do with all the other info I've collected?
- Could/should I create a portal for the Anosy region as has been done for Madagascar? If so, how do I do that?
- Misaotra mialoha (thanking you in advance)! Tberkas (talk) 00:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Tberkas. Great to see you working on this. I don't know much about the articles on Madagascar, therefore my comments here are generic. Generally, I try to keep articles below 5k in size. That's just a rule of thumb. When things get longer, consider taking the detailed content out of the longest section and creating a separate article for it, leaving a summary in the main article. I see that Anosy already has a number of such articles, so that phase appears to be underway. FYI, I cleaned up a bunch of the bare urls in the article, using refLinks. Howevever, many of the refs appear to be dead links, according to Webchecklinks. You might consider replacing the dead ones with stuff that's still out there. Good luck! Lfstevens (talk) 04:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Looking for editors to help with an Asian Pacific American edit-a-thon in Honolulu

On Oahu? Edit Wikipedia or Wikimedia sister projects? You are invited to help the Smithsonian Asian Pacific American Center with an Asian Pacific American edit-a-thon in Honolulu this September.

Aloha!

Last summer I moved to the Seattle area after 14 years in Kailua on Oahu. I immediately fell in with the Cascadia Wikimedians User Group as it formed, joined its board and became its first president as well as the GLAM representative for Washington State.

Recently, Adriel Luis, Curator (Digital & Emerging Media) at the Smithsonian Asian Pacific American Center, contacted me about setting up an edit-a-thon like the previous Wikipedia APA edit-a-thon. In addition to discussing one for Seattle, he wrote:

“ It's awesome to learn about your past in Honolulu - I'm actually going to be there for another SmithsonianAPA project mid September, and thinking that this could be an opportunity to do an event there as well! I have lots of contacts with UH and the museums, but do you know of any contacts on the Wikimedia side out there? ”

As I was working two jobs while I lived on Oahu, I did not have the opportunity to meet your or any other Wikipedians at the time. Hence, the reason why I am contacting you now.

If you would like to help, please contact me through one of these methods:

• Email me directly at peaceray@cascadia.wiki
• Use Special:EmailUser/Peaceray to email me
• Leave a message for me on my talk page.

Mahalo,
Peaceray

To unsubscribe from future messages from Wikipedia:WikiProject Hawaii, please remove your name from this list.

Solar cycle and Visual editor

Visual editor made some really goofy edits with respect to a table and several images. I've noticed the same pattern on tables from your VE edits in the past.

Do you construct them with VE or copy paste somehow? It would be helpful on the bug ticket (T108506) that was filed. Bgwhite (talk) 07:36, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Updated the bug. I did use copy paste. Also, I still have trouble using the cursor keys and extend-select with VE, while the ref-maker is a lovely feature. Cheers!

Articles was used again for another VE bug that was supposedly fixed. T101768 Bgwhite (talk) 04:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

MIT Press Journals

Hello! I sent you an email with regards to MIT access - can you please either fill out the linked form or let me know if you didn't receive it? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't seem to have received it. Sorry for the trouble. Lfstevens (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Reorganization of solar... articles

I noticed that you're reorganizing the series of solar... articles, which is great and thanks for doing it. I do want to let you know that we can't just cut and paste text from one article title to another like you did from solar activity to solar phenomena because we have to keep the editing history with the text. WP:MERGE describes what steps you need to take if you're moving sections of text from one article to another. I would flag down an admin like Moonriddengirl that specializes in this sort of thing if you have any questions. Thanks, shoy (reactions) 12:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I moved (and edited) text all over the place as part of the reorg. If the history needs to follow, I'm not sure how to figure that out. An admin already made the move you suggest. I'm about to merge one more article. I'll let the admin know about the whole mess. Thanks for the tip. Lfstevens (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, can you please link where you asked an admin about your merging activities? Since you merged Insolation with Solar irradiance on August 5, you had lots of time since, to at least leave some sort of notice on the talk pages, which you should have known, since the WP rule is linked above. You asked at Insolation about both articles, without response you went and manually merged, but a quick google search brings up this http://sargosis.com/articles/science/intro-guide/irradiance-vs-insolation/

In this edit you changed the lede entirely and added sources which are considered unreliable. I am sorry but i think we have to revert the entire list of your edits, since there are many other issues with your selection of content and content deletion, besides the merger. prokaryotes (talk) 05:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.prokaryotes (talk) 11:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Please do participate in that thread. I'm concerned that you have evidently been working with an administrator on this and want to be sure that the legal requirements are understood and followed uniformly. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Legal requirements for using Wikipedia content

Hello, Lfstevens. :)

With respect to the ANI notice, I wanted to let you know that there are certain legally mandatory steps required to move substantial material from one Wikipedia page to another. Wikipedia's content is not public domain; the people who add the content to our articles own the copyright to the content they add. The license under which they grant the world the right to use the content does allow it to be reused elsewhere and modified, but only if the licensing conditions are met. If the licensing conditions are not met, it is legally the same as using fully copyrighted content without permission at all.

Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia explains how to meet the terms of the license. While there are alternatives, the best practice on Wikipedia - and the minimal requirement - is that you put a direct link in your edit summary to the source article. So, if you copy content from the article apple to the article on orange, your edit summary might say, Content copied from [[apple]], which see for attribution. (A direct link or URL is required, in accordance with our Terms of Use. Just naming the article is legally insufficient, although I do appreciate your effort to attribute here. Within Wikipedia, you should use direct link.) Because we are, when we copy content, legally required to retain the list of contributors to that content, it is requested that when you copy substantial content from an article, you make a note on the talk page of that article so that it is never deleted by an administrator who is unaware of the need to retain it. Even if there is little risk of such deletion, it's good practice to do this. We have a template - {{copied}} - for this purpose, which can be used on the talk pages of both articles.

Again, this attribution is legally required. To comply with our copyright policy, you must do this every time you copy content from one page to another. (An exception: if you are quoting, say from a Wikipedia policy, in a discussion, you can simply format that as an attributed quote - Wikipedia:Verifiability says "....". In that case, attribution is given in the attribution and the text is marked by quotation marks. If you are quoting from a talk page thread, the attribution of the author in the signature is sufficient to comply legally with the license.)

I have not yet had an opportunity to look to see how extensive the issue of copying is here - how many pages have been copied from and to where. But any past instances of unattributed copying from one page to another must be addressed. Until they are addressed, they are a violation of our copyright policy and our Terms of Use. For instance, in this edit you seem to have copied content from Solar cycle 23 into Solar cycle. I have provided the mandatory attribution retroactively with this "null" edit. Once I have determined how liberally you have copied content between articles, I will look to see if we need to generate a list of your edits so that issues may be repaired.

Can you please fix the attribution issue with the article Solar activity and climate? It needs to be edited so that the link can be added to the edit summary, and the talk page of both that article and the article from which you copied, solar phenomena, needs a note on the talk page cautioning of the action. Again, {{copied}} serves nicely. If you have any questions about how this is done, I am happy to assist. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy to make any additional changes necessary. I'm holding off at the moment, pending the conclusions of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Many problems with cut and paste merger without discussion (several articles) Lfstevens (talk) 17:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Hero of the week

Thanks for the great edits on LVT.Whomyl (talk) 09:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing! Lfstevens (talk) 01:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Kalpavriksha

It has been suggested that Kalpavriksha be merged with Wish Tree which is not desirable as Kalpavriksha is specific to Indian religious cosmology of Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism. Wish tree also covers many other aspects like wells etc. Pl record your views on the talk page of the two articles. Thanks.--Nvvchar. 07:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Copy edits

I noticed that you often edit out people's first names, even on first mention. What is your reason for doing this? Also, some of your edits are more substantial than usual copy edits, and it might be helpful to include a more detailed edit summary. Thanks. --Amble (talk) 17:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! I omit first names because I don't think they add value. Many articles mention some firsts but not others, so I make them consistent. I will try to be more detailed in my logs. Cheers !Lfstevens (talk) 17:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree about first names not adding value, and it's usually good style to include them at least on first mention. I do agree there are times where they could be dropped on subsequent mentions -- usually because different people have written different sections at different times. Thanks. --Amble (talk) 18:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The guideline WP:FULLNAME may shed some light on this conversation. I don't see any links to the edits in question, but I always find it helpful to look at WP guidelines when I have a question about editing style. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

A quick persual didn't tell me anything. I see naming as a matter of distinguishing this one from that one. In many cases, even that is not necessary ("researchers" can replace "Smith"). If an article is about a person, then certainly the whole name is warranted. In a science piece, as long as the cite is there, the name is mostly vanity. The first names is extra vanity. I exclude Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton and a few others from this rule. Lfstevens (talk) 07:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Although WP:FULLNAME primarily talks about the subjects of biographical articles, you can see examples there following the same rule for people who are not the subject of the article: full name on first mention and surname on subsequent mentions. This is in any case the usual rule in any sort of writing and often recommended in style guides or advice [1][2][3][4]. Of course given names are omitted in Harvard or MLA citation style, but those are seldom used in Wikipedia and are not the same thing as mentioning a person in running text. I suggest following the usual rule (full name on first mention) unless there's a clear consensus for last names only (preferably expressed in the manual of style). --Amble (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Curious what you think about the "Jones, et. al." case, which is all over WP. Lfstevens (talk) 19:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with it. Do you mean citations where there's not enough info to find the source? --Amble (talk) 20:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Or do you mean articles that use parenthetical referencing style to cite a source as "Jones et al."? An inline citation is not the same thing as mentioning a person in running text. --Amble (talk) 21:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I meant in the article text. As in Giant retinal ganglion cells. Lfstevens (talk) 23:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that looks slightly odd, especially when "So-and-so et al." keeps being repeated. It can be OK in a scientific paper, but not sure what the purpose is here. Either we want to know who they are, and need more information, or else we don't care who they are, and we can just state the finding with a citation afterward. --Amble (talk) 01:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

My rule for now is to leave (last) names in if they're already there. If they're not and they're world famous, I leave them out. Lfstevens (talk) 05:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Just a heads up, I noticed some odd pipelinks in some of your edits. For example:

• Saudi special forces to Special Forces of India [5]
• Isentropic perturbations to Magnetic refrigeration [6]
• Vesicle to Philip K. Dick [7]

I see that each of these targets comes up if you put the original term into the search bar and let it auto-complete. (Isentropic Demagnetization -> magnetic refrigeration and vesicle pisces -> Philip K. Dick.) --Amble (talk) 20:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing. I'll fix them. Lfstevens (talk) 21:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I expect the link drop-down in visual editor makes it easy to accidentally get an unintended target. If this happens often, you might leave feedback for the visual editor devs. --Amble (talk) 21:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Genetically modified organisms arbitration case opened

You may opt-out of future notification regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 12, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC) on behalf of L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration temporary injunction for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case

You are receiving this message because you are on the notification list for this case. You may opt-out at any time The Arbitration Committee has enacted the following temporary injunction, to expire at the closure of the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case:

1. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to to genetically modified organisms and agricultural biotechnology, including glyphosate, broadly interpreted, for as long as this arbitration case remains open. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.
2. Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per page per day within the topic area found in part 1 of this injunction, subject to the usual exemptions.

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) (via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC))

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration temporary injunction for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case

Ludwig van Beethoven

You left multiple broken brackets. I fixed two, but not all. Search for {{sfn|Cooper|2008|p= 318}}349}} I don't know if 349 could be removed or it should be pp=319-349. It appears twice in the article. Bgwhite (talk) 05:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing. Lfstevens (talk) 05:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Also noticing more broken brackets... there was a bunch in The Beach Boys. Not sure if you are using a script that needs to be adjusted. Bgwhite (talk) 07:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, working on a script. I'll be more careful... Lfstevens (talk) 16:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Baba mateshwar nath temple

Hi, I see you added a {{merge}} tag to the Baba mateshwar nath temple page, but you proposed to merge it to Nagar, a disambiguation page, and I can't find which page you mean. Could you clarify which Nagar you wanted to merge to please? Thanks!  Seagull123  Φ  18:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I couldn't figure it out, either. It's such a mess, I almost recommended it for deletion, but I figured it might be worth a sentence on the page for whatever town or other geography it belongs to. Lfstevens (talk) 20:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

After a bit of googling, I think it may be in Uttar Pradesh (sidharthnagar.nic.in) but I can't be sure.  Seagull123  Φ  22:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

November copy edits

Thanks for the shorty edits, and keep up the great work! – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing! Lfstevens (talk) 06:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm working on the barnstar table today. If you want to put something into your official section on the drive page, please do so in the next few hours. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

No need. Spread the joy! Lfstevens (talk) 21:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)== Genetically modified organisms arbitration proposed decision posted ==

Hi Lfstevens. A proposed decision has been posted for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case, for which you are on the notification list. Comments about the proposed decision are welcome at the proposed decision talk page. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

AfD Minhaj al-karamah

Hi Lfstevens. There seems to be some confusion about your deletion rationale for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minhaj al-karamah. If you could explain some things, that would be great. Thanks! - HyperGaruda (talk) 18:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

JSTOR cleanup drive

Hello TWL users! We hope JSTOR has been a useful resource for your work. We're organizing a cleanup drive to correct dead links to JSTOR articles – these require JSTOR access and cannot easily be corrected by bot. We'd love for you to jump in and help out!

See the list

Sent of behalf of Nikkimaria for The Wikipedia Library's JSTOR using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Enrique de Olavide y Michelena

Hello Lfstevens (talk), I have reverted the changes that were made by Rmanojifs, as you can see here: [8]
I may in the process inadvertently reverted your changes too to Enrique de Olavide y Michelena.
My apology if that was the case! MarkYabloko 10:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Methanol production from carbon dioxide

Hi. I noticed that you added to the article Methanol a section about a new way to produce methanol from carbon dioxide using sunlight and catalyst. However, recently Smokefoot removed that section. See the talk page. ——Nikolas Ojala (talk) 17:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Its admirable to add all sorts of info on how one might make MeOH. My guess is that many thousands of publications describe routes to MeOH, so why not stick to secondary sources? Otherwise we risk cherry picking and violating WP:UNDUE. --Smokefoot (talk) 18:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't take material from journal articles, unless the popular press picks them up, signifying notability. And I don't apply that rule to controversial topics. However, I don't really have a dog in this fight. You folks figure it out. Lfstevens (talk) 19:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

AWB

I have enabled your AWB access. Biblioworm 18:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Lfstevens (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Careful with AWB

Hi, I have reverted two of your edits:

• [9] because "<1e-18" was correct
• [10] because "0th" was correct

I have not checked your other edits. Please be careful with this tool. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Lfstevens (talk) 18:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

No problem. I decided to leave you this message because that little character removal in the first edit in fact introduced a rather big error in the article . Cheers - DVdm (talk) 18:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

use edit summary plse

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to glyphosate does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list and
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! --Wuerzele (talk) 09:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. Lfstevens (talk) 16:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)