User talk:Lfstevens/2009 Archive

Wailea-Makena, Hawaii

Thanks for your edits to Wailea-Makena, Hawaii. There are several issues with the new material you have added, and I will attempt to address them on the talk page in the next day or so. Thanks. Viriditas(talk) 09:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I see that Nyttend removed your new material. If you are interested in helping me restore your edits, then contact me. I have the sources that you need, as well as images and content. Viriditas (talk) 09:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm interested. I'm also interested in learning how to stay in my lane, editorially speaking. Thanks for any tips.Lfstevens (talk) 22:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem, we will work on this together. I would not have removed the material like Nyttend did, but editors have different ways of dealing with content. I'm going to create a subpage in your user space where we can brainstorm some ideas. SeeUser:Lfstevens/Wailea-Makena, Hawaii. You may also be interested in a larger article concerning the same subtopic:User:Viriditas/South Maui Coastal Heritage Corridor. Viriditas (talk) 22:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Print it! (Or I can if you prefer.)Lfstevens (talk) 03:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

We still need to add inline references and either expand a bit or tighten it up. Can you think of anything off the top of your head we should add? Viriditas (talk) 08:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

We could put in something about the historic church and Makena landing...

Good idea. Can you think of any sources you would like to add? Viriditas (talk) 07:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Aloha from Hawaii, aquaponics page edits

Aloha Lfstevens

Thanks for the reply to my edits discussion on the aquaponics page. I am pleased to meet you and pleased that you have a great attitude. From my vantage point, there is a ton of not-quite accurate technical information on that page that direly needs to be fixed to reflect current knowledge and to help users wade the murky waters of modern aquaponics safely.

There are also many good historical references on aquaponics on the page that are vague, and don't give you any way to find the original source; these could easily be fleshed out with appropriate links to online versions of the research and related papers.

I'm way too busy running our farm with my wife Susanne, and teaching aquaponics courses, to engage in much Wiki editing, even though I would enjoy it. I've got six kids and don't spend enough time with them as it is. But I understand you are one of the volunteers who are cleaning up Wiki so it is more relevant and concise. E. B. White has been of my heroes since I was sixteen and first read "The Elements of Style", so I absolutely understand the desire to fix messy writing. If you are interested in a collaboration to edit this particular page, I would be happy to work with you on it, and offer to research the technical information and sources while you do the writing. There is a lot of good aquaponics information out there that hasn't even been referred to or fleshed out on this page. For instance, Will Allen, of Growing Power, TBMK a non-profit (although his systems are rather primitive), is doing fantastic things with aquaponics, worms, and inner-city food production.

And of course, when you're on the Big Island, you must come eat with us. As they say "Small world, Big Island". Just email us at training@friendlyaquaponics.com to let us know your arrival. KaimanaOMaunaKea (talk) 06:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Tim Mann, kaimana@hawaiiantel.net 12-16-09

Removing information

Hi Lfstevens. For some time I have noticed the much needed copyedits you have been making to articles on marine life. This is good. You say you enjoy editing articles where you can learn about the subject matter as you go along. However, you also seem to remove information without giving explanations. Unless you know the subject matter very well, you should be careful about removing material you think doesn't contribute anything. For example, looking at this recent edit to bigeye tuna, you replaced "Bigeye mature at a later age than other commercially important tuna species, such as skipjack and yellowfin tuna, and the removal of large numbers of juvenile bigeye before they reach breeding age is a major concern to fisheries managers..." with "The removal of large numbers of juvenile bigeye before they reach breeding age is a major concern to fisheries managers,...". The later maturing of bigeye is an important factor here. Why would you remove it? Your previous editinvolved a lot of reorganising, and it is very difficult to see if you removed information there. I'm somewhat nervous about trying to unravel your recent edits to fish, since I notice you have removed information there as well. And I must say this goes back a long way.

When you remove information, would you please make it a separate edit and explain in the edit summary why you think it should be removed. If you think information should be removed, but are not absolutely clear, you can always discuss it on the talk page. Apologies for being a bit of a Christmas grinch. --Geronimo20 (talk) 06:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

My intent is to never reduce the info content of an article. Sometimes, however, the info is horribly vague, and also unsourced. In those situations, removing it seems warranted. Whether bigeye mature at a later age than others might be interesting, but shouldn't we know what the relevant ages are? And isn't the real point that we're taking bigeyes too young, whatever the maturation age of some other species may be?

I break my edits into discrete pieces to make it easier for you and other to see what I'm doing (I got admonished on that point early on!)

Finally, Merry Xmas, and please be as fierce as you want in defending Wikintegrity.Lfstevens (talk) 15:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

You should not remove information from marine life articles merely because it is unsourced. These are not BLPs. Unsourced material could be removed if it is POV or outright wrong. Otherwise, a better approach, if you really think it should be sourced, is to see if you can find a source yourself. It is not "vague" to state that other commercial species mature earlier. That is precise information. Giving the ages would just be additional information.

Looking at your latest edit, you have replaced "This can be at the surface (pelagic), or at the bottom (demersal)" with "This can be at the surface or at the bottom". The first version should stand. This is stating what is happening in a very straightforward way, and at the same time introducing the terms used in fisheries. This is as it should be. In a fishery, it would be expressed as "This can be pelagic or demersal". You have wiped out the didactic interlacing, and considerably reduced the value of the sentence as an encyclopedic entry.

Further down in the same edit, you have replaced "compared to... bottom trawling, longline fishing results in relatively little destructive impact on bottom habitats" with "compared to... bottom trawling, longline fishing is less destructive to bottom habitats." This has changed the meaning. Longlining is not just "less destructive", it is hardly destructive at all. Now this may be a somewhat subtle shift in logic, but I notice you doing this a lot. You are subtly shifting meanings in ways that can be detrimental to the quality of the article.

While I agree that that "relatively little" and "less" are not semantically identical, neither is "hardly destructive", and I'd argue that my relative comparison is closer than your absolute one. But my habit is to give in on such questions, and I do so here, since quantifying the matter is beyond my ken, and you certainly don't know less about the subject than I do. And thanks for adding "encyclopediac" to my vocabulary.Lfstevens (talk) 15:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking at this newer edit you made while I was writing this, you have replaced "Digestion and absorption of food occur in the intestine" with "Digestion occurs in the intestine". Now digestion is not the same as absorption. Why have you removed absorption?

I removed it because I didn't see the distinction as material to the sentence, and I also didn't see digestion as being interestingly different from absorption. I stand corrected.Lfstevens (talk) 15:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Copyediting is concerned with matters such as grammar, style, and removing the superfluous. It should never result in the removal of information or in the shifting of meaning or logic. That line should not be crossed unless you really know the subject matter. (talk) 07:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I appreciate your careful scrutiny, and your prolific editing as well.Lfstevens (talk) 15:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Individually, these specific points may be somewhat trivial, but the cumulative effects of many such edits is not. --Geronimo20 (talk) 22:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)