User talk:Lfstevens/2014 Archive

Obeticholic acid
Thanks for adding to the new page on this drug I started as it has hit the news this week. I combined the Invention and discovery sections as the 2002 paper is the first mention of this compound. I see you added more links -- would you like to start the page on Intercept Pharmaceuticals -- currently a dead link as this was to be my next task! Their corporate site and recent news articles look as if they are the starting points.Jrfw51 (talk) 16:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for noticing! I'm a little busy on Supercapacitor, Clinical trial and other stuff at the moment. If you haven't gotten to it when I come up for air, I'll give it a shot. Lfstevens (talk) 18:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Supercapacitor/Pseudocapacitance
Hi Lfstevens, please have a look at User:Elcap/Pseudocapacitance Continue my work with "Double-layer capacitance" in the next weeks. This will surely shorten the Supercapacitor article, greetings --Elcap (talk) 11:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I will. Lfstevens (talk) 16:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

War in Afghanistan (2001–present)
We were editing War in Afghanistan (2001–present) at the same time. When I saved my changes, I attempted to preserve all of your changes. Please forgive me if I unintentionally reverted any of your changes. —Anomalocaris (talk) 09:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Pesticide research
Hello, Lfstevens,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Pesticide research should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Articles for deletion/Pesticide research.

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, DivaNtrainin (talk) 23:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It will need more secondary sources to pass notability here. Its been imported to Pesticide research where its not up for deletion, and where you may continue working on it if you wish. - Sidelight 12 Talk 03:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As evidence of notability, I have linked a (very expensive) book on the subject and linked to an institute dedicated to the topic. Are we done with notability? Also, where should comments be added. The discussion now lives on three (more?) pages. Thanks for guiding me through the process. Lfstevens (talk) 05:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * yw. See wp:n and wp:rs. This is a hard subject to keep, because it is more a verb, but its been done. Try to add peer reviewed journals, and have as many sources as you can possibly get. - Sidelight 12 Talk 18:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. (I had to check to learn that yw was not "you wish"!) I have now added multiple secondary sources to the piece. If that is still insufficient, I am at a loss. WP has so many articles with no external references...E.g., Showa Aircraft Industry, Export Promotion Bureau, Bangladesh or Anmar, to pick several that came up when I searched for shorties. I will check out your finds! Lfstevens (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It'll be no surprise if those articles get challenged. An article can also have a lot of reliable secondary sources and someone may still try to challenge it. Become familiar with WP:OR too. - Sidelight 12 Talk 04:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah. The surprises are the reasonable articles that get challenged, not the pitiful ones that don't. As a membmer of the Copyeditor's guild, I sometimes work on hundreds of the latter in a given month. I generally don't challenge them. Maybe I should. Lfstevens (talk) 05:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Here are some potential sources. When doing a pubmed search click review. You may add your own comments to this list. Discuss them where its relevant before you start working, or it may waste your time.

-Secondary sources for notability:


 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23184103 -
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23975709 -
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23777200 -

-these may be less so related.


 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24106643 -
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23690744 -
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23202677 -

-Primary sources, may be used but not to establish notability:


 * http://phys.org/news/2013-07-legacy-pesticides-difficult.html
 * http://phys.org/news/2014-01-highlight-differences-pesticides.html

- Sidelight 12 Talk 18:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Induced stem cells
Please, when you edit do not pervert into stupidity headlines and article content as you have done in induced stem cells

Dmitry Dzhagarov (talk) 13:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the kind words. I'll continue to do my best. Lfstevens (talk) 13:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)



Dmitry Dzhagarov (talk) 13:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I should have mentioned that I am happy to fix any defects that I introduce if you point them out to me. Cheers. Lfstevens (talk) 14:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

How to send you the file of your violations? There are too many of them. My e-mail: ipsc-lab@mail.ru Dmitry Dzhagarov (talk) 15:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to your efforts, induced stem cells now is a member of 8 hidden categories: Category:All articles with dead external links Category:All articles with unsourced statements Category:Articles with dead external links from February 2014 Category:Articles with unsourced statements from February 2014 Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters Category:Pages with DOIs inactive since 2014 Category:Pages with broken reference names Category:Pages with citations lacking titles Dmitry Dzhagarov (talk) 16:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll watch those more closely. I fixed the ones I found. The dead links and necessary citations are not my issue. They need other eyes than mine. I do have many more edits teed up, but they will take some time. I'm curious about your comment that this is a "new kind of article". It certainly seems to violate WP's "secondary source" principle. Have you discussed this approach with others at WP? Lfstevens (talk) 15:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

CRISPR
Hi Lfstevens, please have a look at the CRISPR Talk page I edited. Thank you. Jamesikim (talk) 18:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions 2013 review: Draft v3
Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK  [•] 00:22, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

C/E
You, sir, are a monster!Onel5969 (talk) 01:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for noticing! Cheers. Lfstevens (talk) 01:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Copy edit on History of Malaria: section title 'Quinine'
Thanks a bunch for your careful attention to this article. I'm trying to recruit editors to help me out.

I noticed you changed the title of a section from 'Discovery of quinine' to 'Quinine' creating the fourth pair of identically named sections in this article (I'm merging 'Methylene blue' and 'Methylene blue stain' sections right now). And there's another section titled 'Synthesis of quinine'.... I just think identically named sections are unnecessarily confusing; at the least, they could may indicate more specific or relevant titles are needed. The level 2 section names in the article (like 'Classical age') are sort of intended to indicate time periods, since the article is in general in chronologial order. I originally titled the section 'Age of Discovery', but that term conventionally indicates 15th-16th century precolonial period. The period covered by the instant section is ~1630 discovery of cinchona/quinine to 1800 (i.e. covered by section '19th century'). I considered 'Age of quinine', but that would cover 1630-1930, the synthesis of the first non-quinine anti-malarial (and quinine is still an important anti-malarial today, for chloroquine resistant cases). A title like 'Late renaissance' doesn't capture the relevance for THIS article of what happened then. Quinine extract wasn't actually available until 1825 or so; how about 'Age of cinchona' (but that name wasn't used until Linnaeus assigned it to the tree in 1753) or 'Age of Jesuit's Bark'? Or 'Age of quinquina' (Peruvian indian name for the tree)? The period wasn't just about discovery; it was also about use - for 200 years, that's the only treatment there was.Sbalfour (talk) 17:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for noticing. I have a long way to go on the article. I haven't formed an opinion on the overall organization at this point. I'll be fixing little stuff for awhile. I usually hit org stuff on the second pass. Generally, I like specific section names that require as little reader context as possible. Stay tuned. I'd also suggest that we keep things on the talk page, so others can participate. Cheers! Lfstevens (talk) 19:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:93rd Indiana Infantry Regiment
Can I just remove the GOCE reviewed tag from Talk:93rd Indiana Infantry Regiment, or is there something else to be done?--DThomsen8 (talk) 15:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Go for it! Lfstevens (talk) 16:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Bioretrosynthesis
It is really great to have a newish editor who knows a lot of chemistry. I am a finicky editor who is skeptical of notability, "usefulness", and sourcing (i.,e adherence to WP:SECONDARY). My intentions are basically good ones, although my comments can seem picky, even accusatory. Try not to take them that way.


 * That article on Bioretrosynthesis seems a bit specialized (see WP:NOTNEWS). So hopefully some secondary citation can be found, a review or book proclaiming this field or approach is notable.
 * Your citation, I think, on the Raman spectra of MoS2. As was indicated here, about 3 papers appear every day on moly sulfide. Each is considered precious and notable by its authors.  People have been flogging this material (and the selenide and the W and the Ti etc analogs) for decades.

My comments aside, I looking forward to your future contributions. Cheers, --Smokefoot (talk) 13:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for noticing. On your specific points, I always make sure to cite secondary sources for my science stuff. I used two for bio, and one for moly. The latter had many primaries when I arrived. Primary sources are so abundantly used across the wiki that I sometimes wonder why I bother.

On notability, I saw the retro technique as broadly useful across many domains, in organic as the library of mutated enzymes grows, and possibly in other parts of chemical synthesis. Perhaps it's just my software background, which taught me the value of recursion and iteration!

On newishness, I wonder what it takes to escape that category. I've been at this for awhile! Cheers. Lfstevens (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Old mail
Hi

I just looked in an old email acc and saw a failed delivery notice from last year. I can't read it though, as the original account is closed and notice went to the cc. It was something along the lines of ...

"Nice! congrats on the hall of fame addition ... now I have two ppl to be jealous of :-)"

Nice to see you still at it, and still managing to get top places after all these years!

I do miss the drives and GOCE&mdash;I still remember Queenmomcat's epic score making me want to join the drives, especially after seeing the previous drive stats, how much work there was to do, and how many years backog there was (I think it was 2 or 3 in those days). I am hoping to have more free time by early summer, and it would be great to start editing properly again and join you all in the fight against bad prose and bad grammar lol.

Anyway, congrats again :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 10:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for noticing. The battle rages and the taggers are hard at it. Hope to see you in these musty halls again soon. We need more fingers to keep up! Lfstevens (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Leopoldo Lopez
Greetings Lfstevens,

I recently noticed an egregious BLP violation on the Czech page of Leopoldo López found here. The content violates Wikipedia's BLP policy and the source they are using is far from reliable. I tried fixing it but I was quickly reverted. Do you think you could help me out in trying to remove this information? I noticed you contributed significantly to Leopoldo Lopez's English page so I decided to come to you for help. Thank you in advance! 66.215.147.124 (talk) 23:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look. Lfstevens (talk) 00:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I have no Czech and so can't evaluate either claim. I do note that the English article is much more filled in. You might consider translating it and using its sources instead. Just a thought. Lfstevens (talk) 00:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Graphene
Hey, Lfstevens, I responded to you in the Talk:Graphene page. I actually wanted also your opinion/(help me)/feedback on 1 or 2 changes, I wanted to make to the graphene article. However, I wasn't sure if it would be ok for me to ask them (there embarrassing questions >0<;; ). Physics16 (talk) 02:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

OER inquiry
Hi, I'm sending you this message because you're one of about 300 users who have recently edited an article in the umbrella category of open educational resources (OER) (or open education). In evaluating several projects we've been working on (e.g. the WIKISOO course and WikiProject Open), my colleague Pete Forsyth and I have wondered who chooses to edit OER-related articles and why. Regardless of whether you've taken the WIKISOO course yourself - and/or never even heard the term OER before - we'd be extremely grateful for your participation in this brief, anonymous survey before 27 April. No personal data is being collected. If you have any ideas or questions, please get in touch. My talk page awaits. Thanks for your support! - Sara FB (talk) 20:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Repost of Double crossover merging interchange
A tag has been placed on requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion process. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion  tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit |the page's discussion directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please contact the administrator who deleted the page or use deletion review instead of recreating the page. Thank you. '' I am above others! Leave a message'' 02:51, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Research in lithium-ion batteries


Hello, you created the Research in lithium-ion batteries article and it needed to be created. I question the organization of the article and made some comments here. Please leave your feedback. Thanks for the additions,--Wyn.junior (talk) 23:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I fixed it. Lfstevens (talk) 07:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The entire article should either be chart or paragraphs. I am leaning towards paragraphs become of the volume of info. Why are you grouping them with positive and negative electrodes? There is hardly any info on Wikipedia about pos and neg electrodes.....strange. Thanks for the edits. I'm going to keep at this article.--Wyn.junior (talk) 16:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Copying this to the talk page so others can contribute. Lfstevens (talk) 00:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Hawaii edit-a-thon!
Hello. I'm interested in attempting to put together an edit-a-thon for Hawaiian cultural topics something during the Makahiki festival perhaps around the month of November. The hope is that our lackluster coverage of Hawaiian mythology could be improved with help from the Bishop Museum, Hawaii Pacific University, and the Honolulu public library. I am in the process of making initial contacts with these organizations as well as Wikimedia DC's GLAM project. If this sounds like something you might be interested in participating in, or perhaps helping to coordinate, could you please add your name to 2014 Makahiki Edit-a-thon?--v/r - TP 07:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Paragraphs
If I change the Research in lithium-ion batteries articles to paragraphs, are you going to revert my edits?--Wyn.junior (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't do edit wars. I advise you not to make the change without a consensus in favor of doing so. I don't think you have a consensus. Instead of putting energy info formats, why not add content or refs to what's already there? Lfstevens (talk) 21:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I've asked for help with a consensus without any luck. I like to stay organized before doing anything.--Wyn.junior (talk) 19:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Potential applications of graphene
Hi, Lfstevens. Back when Potential applications of graphene was a section in the graphene article, you tagged it as being outdated. Can you tell me which passage or passages are outdated? I'd like to try to update those sections. Please respond on my talk page if possible. Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Can you specify which applications those are? Also, how do you propose we update them? Nightscream (talk) 22:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * All of those that rely on sources early than 2013 (most of them). Update them by looking for more recent source material. I don't think I'm adding much value to this discussion, stating only the obvious...Lfstevens (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

TemplateScript
Hello Lfstevens. I updated your common.js page to the latest version of TemplateScript. This is just to enable automatic updates, so you shouldn't see much difference. If you notice any problems or have questions, let me know! :) — Pathoschild 02:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Newspapers.com
You received a Wikipedia email about access to Newspapers.com about 2.5 weeks ago about access to WP:Newspapers.com access through the The Wikipedia Library. We currently don't have record of your response on the Google doc. Please make sure to follow the instructions in that email for obtaining access, Sadads (talk) 16:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't recall receiving that email. I remain very interested. Lfstevens (talk) 03:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Germanene
Hoi :) you made a prefect article for Germanane, maybe you feel like making one for Germanene ?, someone dropped the link on Silicene which is prob not the right spot. Thanks Mion (talk) 19:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * hmm, already done, it seems. sorry to bother you. Mion (talk) 19:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Borked things on Hui people
Could you please fix the problems that reference bot and bracket bot bring up. I'm getting tired of fixing them day after day. Bgwhite (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, Google books template does not inside the sfn template.
 * Sorry to trouble you. I'm continuing to fix them. I think I've found a way to blend the two. (Use title, but not plainurl). I've also requested a less ridiculous syntax on the cite talk page. It would have been faster, but I'm traveling and my web connection has been hideous.Lfstevens (talk) 22:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * And you added them all back in. Do not use templates inside any cite type templates.  This messes up the COinS data. Bgwhite (talk) 06:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * And you removed them without telling me why until after the fact. Your original objection was wrong and unintelligible to boot (like my broken edits!) Where is this problem with COinS documented? I took the approach originally to maintain page access from the original while eliminating all the gb spew. That does work (when I do it correctly). Lfstevens (talk) 13:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

October 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=628449729 your edit] to Research in lithium-ion batteries may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This room temperature process is water-based. Specific capacity of 7,340 mAh/ gc+catalyst of  specific energy at 0.4 A g−1c. [http://www.kurzweilai.net/better-batteries-

Check for BNA email
Hi Lfstevens, about two weeks ago, I sent an email with my personal account User:Sadads for eligibility for the WP:BNA partnership. It may have entered spam, please try to retrieve it and follow the instructions listed in the email, Astinson (WMF) (talk) 22:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Paraphrasing
This content is to close to the source text.

"Three longitudinal U.S. studies have followed children since the late 1990s to investigate the impact of ambient chemicals on their brains. One focuses on an agricultural area in California; two others study multiethnic, low-income, inner city New York families. The studies suggest that organophosphates hamper the development of some parts of the brain in children, leading to lower IQs and attention deficits. Preliminary evidence also suggests that pesticide exposure may affect sex-based differentiation in certain brain regions during early childhood development. A Dow Chemical pesticide in one New York study, chlorpyrifos (Lorsban), was phased out in 2001 for most residential use and urban exposure in the United States dropped dramatically. Chlorpyrifos is still widely used in agriculture, although at declining levels. Research in lab animals and farm workers showed that chronic exposure to high doses of pesticides is associated with neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson's disease and cognitive deficits. More recently, researchers analyzed effects on exposure of fetuses and infants affects the developing brain. Subjects received pre-natal environmental exposure to the pesticides and were tested at various intervals as they grew. All three studies recruited hundreds of pregnant mothers in the late 1990s, measured their exposure to environmental chemicals, and gave their kids a battery of tests at various intervals. Researchers obtained umbilical cord blood samples directly after birth, allowing them to directly measure fetal exposure. They found measurable levels in 71% of the mothers. Another study analyzed urine samples taken during pregnancy and early childhood for pesticide breakdown products. The researchers compared intellectual development and pesticide exposure, controlling for confounding variables. Infants with high fetal exposures showed abnormal reflexes. At age 2, the highly exposed children had reduced mental development and at age 5, an increase in attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) behaviors, while at age 7, they scored 7 IQ points lower. This translates to about a 6-month developmental lag. Infants with high exposures to chlorpyrifos and another commonly used organophosphate called diazinon had lower birth weight and birth length, abnormal newborn reflexes, and IQ deficits and behavioral problems as the children matured. MRI studies revealed that the volumes of brain regions that are important in emotion, social cognition, and inhibition were altered in highly exposed children. Some normal sex-specific size differences of certain brain regions were not seen in children—findings consistent with effects seen in animals. The outcomes have been questioned by the pesticide industry. Dow Chemical attacked the imaging study, claiming that the scans "provide only a single snap-shot in time, that confounding factors were controlled "only imperfectly or not at all" and that "no mechanism of action has been determined". Others noted that the results have not yet been reproduced. "

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I think I just copy-edited what was already there, but I'll take a look. Lfstevens (talk) 12:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

November copy editing
Quiet as you may be, some of us can easily guess who is responsible for the giant drop in the GOCE backlog this past month. Thanks for your tireless work! Tdslk (talk) 04:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for noticing. Lfstevens (talk) 20:13, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Hawaii edit-a-thon
Hi, I just wanted to let you know that the Hawaii edit-a-thon is moving forward and will be held on Jan 24, 2015. The meetup page is: http://www.meetup.com/2014-Hawaii-Wikipedia-Edit-a-thon/events/219029700/ .--v/r - TP 23:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Russell Welch for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Russell Welch is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Russell Welch until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article..

—BarrelProof (talk) 05:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Agriculture in Brazil
 * added links pointing to Silos and Orchidarium


 * Dupuytren's contracture
 * added a link pointing to Diathesis


 * Joe Z. Tsien
 * added a link pointing to Cortex

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

MoS2
According to Chemical Abstracts, 1578 reports have appeared thus far in 2014 on molybdenum disulfide. One can be sure that the authors of each of these reports think that their contribution is vital or should be included in Wikipedia. So I am curious about what think qualifies your recent addition to the article? Sorry to come across as accusatory, with best wishes. --Smokefoot (talk) 03:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't check Chemical Abstracts. I added it to WP because another source had picked it up and it seemed interesting. That doesn't happen 1578 times per year. Lfstevens (talk) 17:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Graphene, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phosphoric. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Sodium-ion battery
 * added a link pointing to Interstitial


 * Thermoelectric materials
 * added a link pointing to Czochralski

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:37, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

GOCE holiday 2014 newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pesticide resistance, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Waterhemp and Fruit flies. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

checking in
back a few years ago when we reorganized the GM material, that was done with a lot of discussion and in a friendly spirit. we didn't always agree, but we discussed stuff and reached consensus and moved. it was really great. You have interacted with most (but not all) of the folks who were involved in that. i think your efforts have been great so far and it is great that you want to continue fleshing out the description of contemporary ag in WP. however, your last few remarks to me have been increasingly... unhappy. There is no reason things have to turn ugly... I do hope you will consider talking and working collaboratively. I am happy to point you to things, like I did with the intensive crop farming, and to discuss issues like coverage and scope in good faith. It can be really fun to work in WP and to collaborate. i still haven't fully figured out where you are coming from, but my sense is that you are stretching and trying to really learn about all the issues, much as I started doing a few years ago myself. There is a lot that i have learned and much i still have to learn. Anyway... looking at the big picture... i have long wondered why project agriculture is so bad (compared to Project Medicine which is really great and where i have spent most of my energy). There seems to be no effort in  Project Ag to really take the lead to think though coverage and scope and inter-relations among articles. Instead, most of the ag-related articles seem to have arisen from editors unhappy with some given aspect of ag, who basically have loaded WP with concerns about X or Y, and the actual coverage of what X or Y actually is and how it fits into ag more generally is basically shitty. I and others did the heavy lifting on the GM suite of things but there is tons and tons left to do. In my view the intensive crop framing article is basically a stub. it would be amazing if you went to work on really fleshing that out, in a way what integrates and also lifts up the subtopics under it ( I recently wikilinked them in the Intensive Crop Farming article... anyway, i hope you have a great new years eve, and that we can work happily together going forward. Jytdog (talk) 19:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm unahppy, because I'm not used to getting reverted without discussion when I make good-faith edits. Or to being patronized: "do you see it now?". I'm not sure what you mean about "where you're coming from". I don't know what I've done to put that into question. Ag is a fascinating area because it is changing so fast and has become so infected with emotion. I have spent most of my hours there on just improving the writing, but as I find relevant subject matter, I add that in, too, e.g., Korean natural farming. I'm working through Intensive agriculture now, and then will switch over to reducing the copyedit backlog in January. I'm happy to work collaboratively, as I do in the Guild of Copy Editors. I just don't feel very collaborated with in this instance. HNY. Lfstevens (talk) 22:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * i see. to me that is just BRD.  when I get reverted i am happy to open a discussion - i see it as my burden to engage with others in good faith and win agreement for the new material i want to add.  With regard to "do you see it now" i am sorry you took that as patronizing.  The changes you made to the consensus statement were very obvious and your one word answer meant either "fuck you" or that you really didn't see the difference.  i delayed responding for a long time while trying to decide what to do.   i chose to believe the latter and responded accordingly.   i would like to have good relations and to be responsive. Jytdog (talk) 23:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Is the presumption that the existing content is somehow elevated over new content? And I did open a discussion, both times. I don't see through your eyes (or I wouldn't have made a change you objected to.) I didn't think I should guess at your meaning, and was disappointed that you didn't actually explain what your problem was. I answered your question directly and got nothing for it. I am happy to fix any flawed edits that I make, but I can't do so unless I know what the issue is. And I much prefer that to getting reverted, because babies get thrown out with bathwater...I change wording all the time, while deliberately changing its sense much less often. Lfstevens (talk) 23:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * in my view, content that exists has a certain amount of consensus already, yes... and new content may get consensus or not.  but an edit is fragile when it is first posted - it may be deleted or changed or moved right away... and eventually a new consensus state settles in.  (that said, lots of shit edits are made and stick and should never have been allowed to)   whenever i hit "save" with new content i always do that with some curiosity as to how others will react.  this is a community with all kinds of people.  some better editors than me, some not.   (i have been reflecting on my editing assumptions a bunch lately and there is a very long answer to your question that i won't bore you with).   To the point... after your long review of the Controversies article i assumed (wrongly, clearly!) that you are well aware of how contentious the GM articles are and especially the scientific consensus statement... that single sentence, in its several iterations, has been the focus on intense attack and accusations.  It is battle-seared - just about every word of it.  I thought you knew that.   Sorry. Jytdog (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)