User talk:Lfstevens/2020 Archive

"remove tag pending delete for no references"

Hello. I noticed you using the above edit summary while removing a copyedit template from an article, and I see you've used the same on other articles when removing copyedit/grammar/cleanup templates. What do you mean by it, and why are you removing these templates? --Lord Belbury (talk) 09:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing. These articles have no references and are subject to removal for that reason. Many of them are also stubs with little content. There is an enormous backlog of requests for copyediting. There is no reason for copyeditors to be distracted from working on reasonably sourced articles by these likely ephemera. Should their authors do the work of identifying appropriate sources, they are welcome to request copyediting. In that case, editors will happily work on them. Lfstevens (talk) 08:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Is this official Wikipedia policy? I don't quite follow the logic of it, particularly when you aren't adding {{notability}} or even {{unreferenced}} tags to these articles. I would have thought that an article tagged "notability/copyedit" would adequately communicate "this needs copyediting but might not be notable so don't consider it a priority" to any potential copyeditor. --Lord Belbury (talk) 12:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Generally, the articles have already been tagged with unrefererenced. Removing uncited material is WP policy. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability:

"Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." I don't address notability issues. Lfstevens (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Reading up a little on copyediting etiquette I see that Wikipedia:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/How_to#GOCEreviewed_tag recommends use of the {{GOCEreviewed}} template in these situations, which sounds like a good idea, and one that I'll keep in mind. --Lord Belbury (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I generally reserve that tag for articles that are either too volatile for copyediting, or that are so incoherent that no sense can be made of them. Lfstevens (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

As I read it, the WikiProject howto still recommends using it in the cases here. --Lord Belbury (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I saw this happen at Kako, Bihar, which I had just tagged with several cleanup tags. Then I went looking for the PROD/AfD and didn't find it. I don't object to a deletion of the article, but it should be one or the other (either tagged for cleanup or deleted), especially if there's an edit summary that says pending delete, no? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not a deletionist. I'm trying to encourage editors to clean up their articles, rather than see them deleted. WP has endless articles that fail notability or other constraints. Instead of deleting them, I try to encourage editors to upgrade them so that they become full "citizens" of the wiki. I'm just not willing to ask copyeditors or other uninvolved parties to pitch in until they get to that point. Lfstevens (talk) 05:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I guess what I don't get is how removing the maintenance tags accomplishes this. If you don't want to fix it, fine, I get that (I do plenty of cleanup – I just don't always have the time, patience, knowledge of sources, as with the case I mentioned). However, if they're not tagged, nobody else will know they need fixing. It seems like all it accomplishes is reducing the size of the backlog, hiding the problem of all these crap articles, instead of fixing it. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

The point is that copyediting is not the fix that they need. It's hard to tell whether these articles will get fixed or deleted. My concern is to not distract copyeditors from their real work, which is to fix wording. Asking them to fuss with articles that are massively deficient in other areas makes no sense. They have plenty of work to do on articles that don't have those deficiencies. I guess what I'm saying is that if you want our help, get your act together. Until that happens, we are very very busy working on pieces that are otherwise approaching our standards. Until your article is at least not subject to deletion, don't waste our precious hours. Note that copyeditors have no impact on the delete/keep question. The reason to flush the tags is to avoid wasting the time of the highly valuable copyeditors who already have endless work queues. We treat articles with respect. We ask that other editors reciprocate. Lfstevens (talk) 06:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I see. Wouldn't the same thing be accomplished if, before doing any copyediting, editors noticed that there were other problems with it and just chose not to copyedit it? That's what I do. If this issue needs to be (or has been) discussed somewhere, please point me to it. (Note that it's not "my article" and I haven't been involved in it except for noting the edit to it of a problem editor and then seeing and tagging the other problems with it.) —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

• I can see the logic in removing the "needs copy-edit" tag, as "formatting" is among the least of the article's problems, but it seems a wasted opportunity, while a careful editor is looking at the article, not to add other tags to point out some of the article's deficiencies. I've added {{no footnotes}}, {{notability}} and {{Overly detailed}} in the hopes that someone with an interest in the article will pick up on one of them and improve it. PamD 10:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

The same except that multiple copyeditors would waste their time visiting the article, assessing it and rejecting it. It's perfectly easy for the editor who fixes the big stuff to readd the tag at the appropriate time. I encourage editors to tag or to do whatever else they see fit to help an article. Lfstevens (talk) 05:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• I've just found the same edit summary at Judy Blank. It is very confusing for other editors, as there is no active deletion proposal in place, nor any tagging regarding references. It didn't have "no references" as you state in the edit summary, but I've added {{BLP sources}} to show that it needs more than the one ref it has. Please find a less confusing edit summary to use when you are, quite reasonably, deciding that the time of a copy-editor would be wasted on an article which has other more serious problems, and please add a tag to flag up the most important problem(s). Thanks. PamD 21:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Oops. I usually see or add an unreferenced tag to such articles. Sorry for the omission. I'm open to suggestions for a better edit comment. Lfstevens (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd recommend making it clear that you are removing a template to save the work of the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors, if that's what's happening here, perhaps providing a link that explains why it's appropriate to reject the template's request. If your concern is that as you say these articles "fail notability or other constraints", then say what the failure is, and add a template highlighting those constraints. If you aren't confident enough to add a {{notability}} template or even to say "unlikely to be notable" in the edit summary, I don't think it's appropriate to reject a copyediting request on the grounds of notability.--Lord Belbury (talk) 09:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Please at least stop saying "pending delete" in your edit summaries when no delete is pending, and saying "no references" when the article has references. (I can't tell from this "remove tag pending delete for no references" biography edit if you're rejecting the six links in the final section as unreliable, or overlooking the five that weren't in ref tags.) --Lord Belbury (talk) 09:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• The {{GOCEreviewed}} template seems to be designed for just this situation, with its message a major copy edit was inappropriate at that time because of the issues specified below, or the other tags now found on this article. Once these issues have been addressed, and any related tags have been cleared, please tag the article once again for copyedit. Adding this has the added virtue that it will prevent the article from going round the same loop again, as without it someone else might come across the article later and add the {{copy edit}} template again, not knowing that a GOCE editor has already considered the article and decided it is currently inappropriate for copyediting. Add the template, mention the problems if not already tagged, and everyone will be happy. I note that you say above that you only use this template in very limited circumstances, but it seems thoroughly useful in any situation where you have decided against copyediting an article which someone has tagged for copyediting. (If the article is literally so incoherent that no sense can be made of [it], then surely it is a candidate for speedy deletion G1; if that is too extreme then there are useful tags such as {{confusing}} or {{incomprehensible}}). Please either add the template, or add extra tags to the article, or just ignore the article and move on. Thanks. PamD 16:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

To Lord Belbury - Thanks for your feedback. The claims in the piece are supposed to be cited. They weren't. Lfstevens (talk) 17:48, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

The Anna Katharina Valayil article has six references listed at the bottom. These might be low quality references and the article could definitely use some footnotes, but it does not have "no references". --Lord Belbury (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what we're arguing about here. The WP policy is that uncited content should be removed. Lfstevens (talk) 07:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand what you mean when you say that an article like Anna Katharina Valayil is "pending delete for no references". Are you talking about the text itself rather than the article, and how it's not a good use of copyeditors' time to copyedit individual unsourced paragraphs of text? It's sounding to other editors here as if you mean that the entire article is due to be deleted soon, which isn't the case. If your angle here is that you see no point in copyediting text which lacks inline footnotes (even when the article as a whole could possibly meet WP:N), that should be your edit summary. --Lord Belbury (talk) 09:24, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate your thoughts. I will endeavor to be more precise in my summaries. Lfstevens (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

To PamD. Thanks for the feedback. I do use that tag for substantial articles that are not going away. I haven't for the shorties that are truly at risk of deletion. Often, one gets deleted just as I'm about to start working on it. I don't tag articles for deletion, optimistically hoping that something can be made of them. In that sense, I'm attempting to encourage the relevant authors to complete the job of sourcing the material. I leave the article tagged with the problem (no refs) if it wasn't already tagged. I edit enormous numbers of these stubs that do have cites (>150 so far this month) and need to make every keystroke count. Lfstevens (talk) 17:48, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello again. I just noticed you on my watchlist leaving an edit summary of "remove copyedit tag pending delete for no references" on Gururajulu Naidu again, when no deletion is pending for the article. I've added the {{notability}} tag, which is possibly your actual concern here: that the article may qualify for deletion or merging in the future, through its lack of referencing. Telling other editors that a deletion is already "pending" may deter them from working on it, if they read that (as I did originally) as meaning its deletion has somehow been scheduled in a discussion elsewhere. --Lord Belbury (talk) 09:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, I have the same objection. I interpret that summary to mean that the article has been nominated for deletion. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 11:17, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

You're still saying "remove tag pending delete for no references" about articles which aren't marked for deletion. Would an edit summary of "remove tag, subject may not be notable" be a clearer summary of your concerns? You could even replace the copyedit template with a {{notability}} one. --Lord Belbury (talk) 09:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

My concern isn't about notability. It's about the lack of references. You might as well ask me to simply remove the uncited content per WP policy, but that would leave the article blank... I'm not insisting about the wording of the edit comment. If you have any other proposals, please offer them. Lfstevens (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

If it's about the lack of references, something like "remove copyedit tag, an article which has no references is not worth copyediting" would work. If you can save and reuse edit summaries it'd be worth going the extra mile and adding a link to GOCE: something like "remove copyedit tag per GOCEreview, article has no references". --Lord Belbury (talk) 18:24, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

• It still looks to me as if the {{GOCEreviewed}} template is the thing to use in these situations, and is designed for just this sort of case: it conveys the right message and tells other editors just what is going on. Please reconsider your decision not to use it. Thanks. PamD 00:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm kind of befuddled that such a minor thing has engendered so much comment. These are stubs at best. I would be following WP policy to blank them for their lack of cites. I also do not want to offer my opinion about them or to delete them. Therefore, I just cite policy in the hope that they will move to comply. Again, much thanks for giving me your time and attention. I do not want to drag the guild into this (my whole point is to let them maintain focus.) Lfstevens (talk) 04:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Edit summaries are how we interact with most other editors on Wikipedia, and the only feedback an article creator might get, so it's a big deal when those summaries are confusing or misleading. "remove tag pending delete for no references" isn't a clear cite of any policy, and this thread shows that it's confusing other (experienced!) editors. The Guild of Copy Editors explicitly recommends the use of their {{GOCEreviewed}} template in this exact situation, so it must serve some useful purpose to them (perhaps they're notified if an article has both {{copyedit}} and {{GOCEreviewed}} templates, and can check the latter before considering the former?). I don't think they'd see it as being dragged in. --Lord Belbury (talk) 09:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Please stop using the edit summary "remove tag pending delete for no references" when no deletion is pending. I've just seen you untag a Chaplin film that was on my watchlist, with this summary. I'd reiterate my suggestion of "remove copyedit tag, an article which has no references is not worth copyediting" as a clearer message to use in these cases: it might prompt other editors to add references, rather than to mistakenly give up on the article because a deletion is somehow somewhere already pending. If that suggestion doesn't fit your intention, more discussion or thought could find a better wording, but please stop using misleading edit summaries until then. --Lord Belbury (talk) 09:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi again. You're still doing this? You've just "remove tag pending delete for no references"-ed an article on my watchlist; an article that is not up for deletion, which has three references, and which - as an article about a city - is typically presumed to be notable. --Lord Belbury (talk) 08:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Squirrel AI

The article Squirrel AI has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:NCORP, only one reliable, verifiable, independent source is provided. The other, globenewswire.com, is a corporate press release.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Cabayi (talk) 07:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Picky picky. WP has endless unsourced articles. I added a second independent source. Lfstevens (talk) 05:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Neurotology article

I restored the "Multiple issues" tag to Neurotology, although I removed the "Copy edit" part (diff). I had previously started Talk:Neurotology#Multiple issues cleanup, and I posted a note on the WP:MED talk page. Let's discuss on Talk:Neurotology if you believe further edits are needed in this regard. Thanks.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 03:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for noticing! I will leave it to your careful observations. Lfstevens (talk) 06:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you as well. :0) ¶ Btw, I read your reasoning re: being judicious adding the "Copy edit" tag to articles. I agree with your rationale, which is why I removed the tag. And I'll be more careful about adding the "Copy edit" tag to articles in the future, as a result of what I learned from you. All the best   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 17:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

February 2020

Your addition to Intermittent fasting has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 23:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, I recently undid one of your edit on Cabinet Dufaure II (France)‎. Now don't panic, I have nothing against you ^^ In fact, I would like to request a new copy edit. The reason I undid it is because sentences were removed and some were changed in their sense, and they didn't reflect the sources attached any longer.

I am perfectly fine with the rest of the grammar correction, I just undid the whole stuff because there was too much. I hope you understand.

Best regards, CocoricoPolynesien (talk) 13:25, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I am happy to fix any problems I cause, if I know what they are. Reverting my work is not the best approach in my view, unless the changes are not done in good faith. In any event, I do not edit war and will move on. Cheers. Lfstevens (talk) 05:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Cast and characters - nuisance created by you.

Do you know what have you done ? You have ruined the "Cast and characters" section. I don't know where to start with. Firstly you named the section, "Characters" which is not legal. Either it is to be "List of characters" or "Cast and characters" thus your edit didn't match any of the above choices. Secondly, you have made the section such which don't give any information about the characters which is therefore a waste. Thirdly, I know that you're more experienced than me but if you are wrong, that means you are wrong. Abhishek Kasaudhan 123 (talk) 14:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing! Always happy to fix any problems I cause. I actually checked the WP:MOS/Film#Cast page to see how to handle that section. The std is to call it Cast and to list the cast and character name. Instead, I left it mostly the way it was. On the text, many of the individual items described both that character and that character's love interest (under A it said A loves B, but B sees A as a friend and under B it said B sees A as a friend, but A loves B.) I eliminated the duplication. Many items also recapitulated plot points related to the character. I eliminated that stuff. Lfstevens (talk) 23:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:33, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Gerda. Thanks for noticing!

Regarding St Joseph’s College Allahabad page

Hi, greetings! I’m Harsh. I would like you to look into a possible case of vandalism going on at St. Joseph’s College Allahabad page. There’s a unnamed person with an IP 2409:4063:4107:49C8:0:0:113C:E8AD or other similar IP addresses in the past, who’s constantly reverting edits and adding disruptive, irrelevant content on the page. I’ve earlier told him to add necessary references to support his claim else refrain from making the changes, he has still gone further ahead and reverted the changes twice. I’ve given him a warning for the same on his talk page. Kindly look into this! Thanks! Harshv7777 (talk) 22:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Harshv7777: Here is how to report abuse: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_administrator_attention

Your edits to COVID-19 testing

Greetings Lfstevens. On June 7, you removed a significant portion of the lead of COVID-19 testing with the edit summaries that you would restore the information when you figured out where it goes. I am writing to object to the removal by this edit of reliably sourced material on the world's limited testing. May I ask why you left this critical article without important information for so long? Would you please look into restoring it now? Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:16, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Just saw this. Thanks for pointing it out. I'll take a look. Lfstevens (talk) 17:27, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Thank you. Wikipedia is a huge place but somehow we were both on Palmyra Atoll two days ago. Nice to meet you. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I was watching the new documentary on Palmyra and Midway, so I gave the article a once over. I put back some bits in the history and antibody testing sections. Cheers! Lfstevens (talk) 18:51, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I wandered into the talk page from Territories of the United States after staring at the map. NASA photos from space of reefs threw me off, but they make sense now. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Turtle FA

Hello, would you like to work with me to bring the turtle article to FA? LittleJerry (talk) 22:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite. Busy until October. If you still need help then, LMK. Lfstevens (talk) 00:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

We can start then. LittleJerry (talk) 18:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Are you ready? LittleJerry (talk) 18:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I'll be adding some finishing touches to beaver before I spend it to FAC. I think I'll be able to work more on turtle at the beginning of next week. LittleJerry (talk) 20:41, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I've started editing. Takes awhile. Lfstevens (talk) 07:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I think I'll see how the beaver FAC goes before I get into turtle. LittleJerry (talk) 20:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

In the meantime, can you please copyedit the beaver article? LittleJerry (talk) 15:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Adding CRISPR content to a Physician-Scientist's article

Hello Lfstevens, I noticed you have done a lot of work on the CRISPR Wikipedia article and wanted to run a concept by you. I have a WP:COI with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and its faculties, so I always ask for help for COI edits. In my sandbox(linked below), I have a proposed the additions to Scott W. Lowe's article. He uses CRISPR in his research. Would you be open to verifying the content and references for this proposed addition?

• Proposed Additions: Scott W. Lowe, Edit Number 8

What is your level of interest to collaborate on a project like this?--Chefmikesf (talk) 18:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

CRISPR is indeed an important topic. I can take a look, but not until October. Lfstevens (talk) 04:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Help

Dear, Thank you so much for your copy editing on Diting. That's great. However, there are some misunderstandings, so more info has been added. Please kindly fix again. Best regards VocalIndia (talk) 19:00, 8 November 2020 (UTC)