User talk:Lfstevens

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Obeticholic acid[edit]

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)


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)[edit]

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[edit]

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 Wikipedia: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 v:Pesticide research where its not up for deletion, and where you may continue working on it if you wish. - Sidelight12 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. - Sidelight12 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. - Sidelight12 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:

-these may be less so related.

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

- Sidelight12 Talk 18:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Induced stem cells[edit]

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)
A demotivational poster concerning Wikipedia

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: 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)


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[edit]

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)


Copyeditor Barnstar Hires.png The Copyeditor's Barnstar
message Onel5969 (talk) 01:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

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'[edit]

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[edit]

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)


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[edit]


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—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[edit]

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! (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)


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[edit]

Hi Lfstevens, 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[edit]

Information icon A tag has been placed on Double crossover merging interchange 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: Speedy delete contest button.svg which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) 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)

GOCE May drive[edit]

SuperiorContentReviewScribe.png The Order of the Superior Scribe of Wikipedia   
Many thanks for copyediting a total of 85,902 words (give or take :-)) during the Guild of Copy Editors drive, and for making such a huge dent in the backlog. We really appreciate your efforts! All the best, Miniapolis 22:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Goce barnstar.png The Guild of Copy Editors' Award
Congratulations on copyediting 602 articles and 84,441 words during the Guild of Copy Editors backlog-reduction drive, topping both categories. Many thanks for your help! All the best, Miniapolis 23:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Research in lithium-ion batteries[edit]

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)

GOCE June 2014 newsletter[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors May 2014 backlog elimination drive wrap-up
Writing Magnifying.PNG

Participation: Thanks to all who participated! Out of 51 people who signed up this drive, 33 copy edited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Progress report: We reduced our article backlog from 2,987 articles to 2,236 articles in May, the lowest backlog total since we began keeping records in 2009! Since at least 300 new articles were tagged during May, that means we copy edited over 1,000 articles in a single month. Amazing work, everyone!

Blitz: The June blitz will run from June 15–21. This blitz's theme is Politics. Sign up here.

Election: You can nominate yourself or others for the role of Coordinator for the second half of 2014 here. Nominations will be accepted until June 14. Voting will begin on June 15 and will conclude on June 28.

Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, and Miniapolis.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Hawaii edit-a-thon![edit]

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)


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)

GOCE July 2014 newsletter[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors July 2014 newsletter is now ready for review. Highlights:

– Your project coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978 and Miniapolis.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Editors Barnstar Hires.png The Editor's Barnstar
Nice start to Ethanol research. Bearian (talk) 22:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)