User talk:Zeamays

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Hi there! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions, keep up the good work! I hope you like it here and stick around. If you want, you can drop us a note at Wikipedia:New user log to introduce yourself.

A few tips before you start doing a lot of editing:

  • When you post something on a talk/discussion page, you can sign your name by using three tildes (" ~~~ ") for your username and four (" ~~~~ ") for your username and a timestamp.
  • If you ever find yourself with nothing to do on Wikipedia, have a look at the Community Portal, you'll find that there's always something happening.

If you have any questions, comments, or just want to say hi, don't hesitate to write to me on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can.

Happy editing! - Akamad 04:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of famous experiments

I assume that you are the anonymous user who previously debated with Raul about three additions to this article. Let me begin by appologizing for Raul's terseness, there are lots of people who wish wikipedia ill and dealing with them can make people unpleasant. May I also suggest, humbly, that you try to turn the other cheek and try not to be so confrontational. This may go very far to encouraging active dialog. I agree with your regarding two of the three additions, and I have added my comments to Talk:List of famous experiments. I have invited Raul to engage in a discussion amongst the three of us regarding the appropriate status for those three contributions. Will you please contribute? Thank you and welcome to wikipedia! --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 23:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Response: This Raul person deleted my additions with spurious reasons, and his statements were consistently insulting, right from the start. I would not describe Mr. Raul's statements as "debate". He just writes that I don't "comprehend" and deletes may prose. He needs to learn some manners.

I am glad to respond to a serious debate, but will not agree to be insulted by this person. I am glad to not be anonymous individually to serious and polite individuals, but I don't want the entire world to know who I am. Is there a way to have private communications?

Mr. Raul has now deleted my request for mediation. He should not be vandalizing reasonable additions.

I'm sorry that you got off on the wrong foot with Raul. I have asked him to be less terse and more engaging. As I can see from your contributions, you are reasonably intellegent. I'm sure that you realize that responding to him in kind will not acheive our goal of building an encyclopedia. I agree with him that mediation in this matter is probably unnecessary at this point. We can probably work out our differences ourselves. He has agreed that one of the three experiments you added should be added back in. He and I are currently discussing one other. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 06:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
My pleasure, I think that I will reinsert two of your additions if Raul doesn't respond to my most recent rejoinder. Raul is not doing anything that any editor cannot do. Every person who uses wikipedia is entitled to remove whatever they like from an article, so long as they don't violate the 3 revert rule and are doing it with good cause. Every change is kept in the "history" so that if a removal is deemed inappropriate the old version can be quickly restored. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 09:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Araceae

I just reverted your recent edit to Araceae, since its only effect was to disorder the list of Subfamily Lemnoideae (they're supposed to be in alphabetical order).

You didn't include an edit summary, so I have no idea what you intended: if there was a good reason for the change, please redo it and explain the reason in the edit summary. Ideally you should include an edit summary for every change, no less for minor edits than for major ones. Hv 17:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:Column_l.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Column_l.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your delisting of Organic food

Hi there Zeamays. I just wanted to comment that it would have been nice if you had posted your disagreements with statements made in Organic food before delisting it - just so other editors could get their comments in and suggestions for improvement.

In any case, I've added comments to your postings, and am interested to hear more. JabberWok 02:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I was actually hoping you could expand on your statements made at Talk:Organic_food#Delisting, specifically:
"most farmers have rejected 'organic' production methods"
"independent agricultural scientists find its scientific basis lacking"
And also, you made the comment "It is suggested that this section be re-written by the authors" - but you can write sections too, and add information from verifiable sources to help create the balance you feel is necessary. JabberWok 03:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It would be a total wast of time to try to re-write an article so thoroughly biased in the first place. Nearly every line needs caveats added.

It is well known that "organic" practices are a minority and that most agricultural scientists reject the claimed scientific basis. I suggest you go and ask a a few. It doesn't need erudite citations. --Zeamays 13:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, "It is well known that 'organic' practices are a minority." But organic food business is growing much faster than the rest of the food industry and has been for years. So while in total sales it can seem insignificant, the growth is catching the eye of many companies who have moved into the organic food business and have begun selling organic product.
(On a side note: "most agricultural scientists reject the claimed scientific basis. I suggest you go and ask a a few" sounds a little hostile and is close to an attack on my character rather than my words and ideas. We should try and remain a little more positive and constructive here.)
And if you must know, I have talked to (and been taught by) toxicologists and professors, some of who feel - and have shown me evidence - that the standards for which pesticides are deemed safe are lacking. And in addition, that those who are around and use pesticides - farm workers specifically - have been found to have to have various health problems (some of which can be found in the Organic food article). JabberWok 23:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Jabber: I used to work for a government regulatory agency regulating pesticides. I agree strongly that the hazards of pesticides are to the applicators and nearby farm families, but not to consumers. I have no criticism of the part of the "organic" food website dealing with hazards to pesticide applicators, maybe its even mild. My main criticism of the "organic" movement is not the food itself, but the pseudo science and illogical and untrue statements that are made in its behalf. If someone wants to grow foods with old-timey methods, great, but don't tell me that they're better. My second criticism is that they have decided to disallow genetically engineered foods, which I think is a big mistake. You need a thick skin to edit Wickipedia articles, believe me its a tough world out there, no personal offense intended! I have not yet met a single independent agricultural scientist who thought that "organic" methods yielded better produce or were more sustainable. --Zeamays 12:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

hey let's get on the same page here. i feel you are running against a wall here. no need to get excited, i am not payed by the organic establishment. can you outline a bit more specific what your issues are. so far you came across wanting to put into the organics related articles that:

→organics is based on bogus science.

→organics is more harmful to the environment and to consumers then conventional agriculture.

these are quite surprising insights to most people i should think. so you have to come up with good arguments or tone down. i also don't feel that you respond to what i say, to my arguments ( or jabberwoks for that matter)

also the trewavas link does not work. and since the guy works in biotechnology you can claim that he is a likely objective observer. organics outlaws biotechnology so there is a conflict of interests here. --trueblood 16:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Trueblood:

  • You have not correctly expressed my position. It is that the article does not fairly counter the claims of the "organic" movement with the evidence that opposes it. The claims of its opponents are not fairly represented in the article. Further, the article is written using "organic" lingo. That means the article is biased.
  • Professor Trewavas is an independent scientist, a university professor. How would you think he got to be an expert on GMO's without working in the field? I suppose only the ignorant would be suitably independent? The articles cited in this page are writen largely by "organic" advocates, so why do you object to balance?

--Zeamays 16:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC) mostly i object to the link because i does not work. and then i just pointed out that he might not be the most objective observer. i think the thing i want to hint at is that you have a very strong point of view, which is strongly anti-organics. that is okay. everybody has a point of view, mine is much more on side of organics. but when editing you have to try to get over your point of view as much as possible. does not always work, i know that . we should all be aware of that. --trueblood 16:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] again

some of your statements:

independent agricultural scientists find its scientific basis lacking

the organic movement, which began as a cult philosophy

For example, most independent scientists regard organic practices as anachronistic and inspired by the philosophy of vitalism, not science-based

there are reasons to believe that organic farms are less environmentally sustainable than conventional farms

It is untrue that organic agriculture does not use pesticides, rather, they do not use modern biodegradable pesticides. Many organic farms use heavy applications of inorganic copper pesticides instead. Since copper is not biodegradable, this can lead to toxic copper accumulation in the soil. Other toxic pesticides that are approved for use by organic producers include...

these are some of your edits or commentaries. when i look at them again confirms to me what i said earlier: there are two things you want two bring into the articles:

organic farming is based on bogus science

organic farming is not as environmentally sound as conventional farming.

i put this a bit more direct, but that is what comes across. let me just say about the pesticide quote: in your quote you call conventional pesticedes: 'modern biodegradable pesticides' and organic pesticides 'toxic pesticides'. i now i should not use organic here, but i mean pesticides that are allowed to use in organic agriculture. you also insist on putting the copper thing back, although i pointed out that it is not something that is specific to organics but to fruit growing (mostly) and is used in conventional agriculture as well. if you have reason to believe (meaning can quote studies) that conventional fruit growing uses a lot less copper based pesticides and replaces them with less problematic 'modern' pesticides. that would be a different thing. but i think we both know that fruit growing is a highly intense business. --trueblood 12:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Trueblood: You are quibbling.

  • 1 What I want to bring into the articles is that most reputable independent scientists question the claims made by organic advocates that their techniques are better than conventional ones, and I want to be specific about which claims.
  • 2 The "organic" movements as originally based on vitalism and it is well-documented that many of the prominent early British members of that movement were closely associated with the extreme righ-wing of British politics, the British fascists: See: [1] and [2]
  • 3 The article is biased partly because the language it is written in is "organic" lingo, not standard English. When I added lists of "organic" pesticides, I just went to government prepared lists that one can find on the Internet. If you don't like what you find on the lists, then I suggest you lobby your government for changes. The real problem here is that "organic" farms would be impractical without the availability of some actual inorganic pesticides, like copper salts and sulfur. --Zeamays 02:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

although i pointed out that it is not something that is specific to organics but to fruit growing (mostly) and is used in conventional agriculture as well. if you have reason to believe (meaning can quote studies) that conventional fruit growing uses a lot less copper based pesticides and replaces them with less problematic 'modern' pesticides. that would be a different thing. but i think we both know that fruit growing is a highly intense business.

i just repeated this it always seem to escape your attention. hence your last sentence is too general, because, i risk to repeat myself here the mentioned copper and sulfur based pesticides are mostly used in fruitgrowing, organic as conventional. and there is a lot of organic farming going on without any use of pesticides. just because it is allowed does not mean everbody uses it. --trueblood 11:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Response: Mr. Trueblood, please recognize that what I am trying to point out is the inconsistency of the "organic" movement, who loudly proclaim they don't use toxic pesticides, when they actually do. The fact that such pesticides are also used in conventional agriculture is immaterial to the argument, sorry. --Zeamays 15:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

yep, if that is what you want to say , that is a valid point. certain pesticides are legal to use in organic agriculture and that should be pointed out. i never had a problem with that. anyway i am getting a little bored with our argument since we are not getting anywhere.we won't resolve our different opinions, so we just have to work with that. i want to get on with editing these articles. one of my problems is that there are several, and sometimes sections are not in the right article. for instance i propose that the whole sustainability question should be in the organic farming article not in the one on food. here we might just leave a hint that there are claims about higher sustainability and that there is a controversy about it.--trueblood 06:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] fascism

migtht be well documented, i have not come across it, but can imagine that there is some truth in what you say. if you can document it i suggest it would fit into history and/or movement. you seem to be driven by the wish to discredit organics though. it is not just pesticidething that bugs you.--trueblood 11:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Response: The references to the close relationship of the founders of the "organic" movement to the British Fascists didn't display above, so I repeat them:

  • Moore-Colyer, R. "Towards ‘Mother Earth’: Jorian Jenks, Organicism, the Right and the British Union of Fascists" J. of Contemp. Hist. 39(3): 353-371 (2004) and
  • Conford, P., Dimbleby, J. "The Origins of the Organic Movement" Floris Books (2001) 280 pp.

Mr. Trueblood, you assumption always is that I have made up these criticisms, but that is untrue. I am just passing along the documents I have found. Don't blame the messenger for the bad news. --Zeamays 15:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

nah, that is not true. i am a little frustrated with your edits because i am under the impression that it is your mission to but organics in a certain light and hence or your different issues are not brought up to improve the article and make it more informative but to state your opinion. for example the two people you mentioned, trewavas and this professor of economy, forgot his name, are have very strong opinions on organics, write very polemical. to call them independent is somewhat misleading. but nevertheless if this connection is true and the evidence sound it should be in the article, not the one on food though, the one on the history. make sure that this is sound though. it's not bad news to me. i know that there were people at the beginning of the 20th century that combined environmentalism (of sorts) and back to nature romanticism with right wing ideology. it does not discredit organic farming though, in my book that is. --trueblood 18:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC) um just read up on jorian jenks, googled him since i don't have the books at hand. interesting, but is that all? um if it is than i propose it could maybe go an article about the soil association. or maybe history of the soil association. since it seems a rather local (british) concern> --trueblood 19:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Trueblood: Both Trewavas and Ames are independent scientists, well-respected for their expertise in basic research. Anthony Trewavas [1] is professor at the University of Edinburgh, with many publications in basic plant molecular biology, parcularly the role of calcium in plant development. Bruce Ames is Professor at the University of California, Berkeley. He is most famous for inventing the Ames test for mutagens.

I argue that since the origins of the "organic" movement were partly the work of British fascists, it is not irrelevant to mention their contributions. Your opinions of relevancy are just one side of this argument, definitely not NPOV.

--Zeamays 12:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

sorry i meant Thomas DeGregori not ames. maybe someone else brought him in but trewavas quotes him. for that fascist claim you need some good evidence.--trueblood 12:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Response: "for that fascist claim you need some good evidence." See references above. Once again, I am just the messenger.
  • I also would call attention to the curious note one editor has added about Cuba going "organic", which did not mention the fact that Cuba defines "organic" differently from the US. Cuba fully supportes genetically-engineered crops, and it is in fact a center for genetic engineering work.

[edit] License tagging for Image:Shawneetown bank.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Shawneetown bank.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Vanderbilt Plaque.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Vanderbilt Plaque.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compliance with Wikipedia rules

You have repeatedly added information about PSK to the Vanderbilt University article, information that two other editors have repeatedly questioned, and, more importantly, improperly removed "fact" tags from that unsourced, questioned information. The other editors have cited WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NOR. In reviewing the matter, I found quite surprising statements by you such as the PSK data is the personal knowledge of the person, a former member, who added it. No citation is needed, given how long you have been an editor here. What you are doing meets the definition at this policy: Wikipedia:Disruptive editing.

I am formally requesting that you post nothing futher about PSK in the Vanderbilt University, and that you reread the first three policies mentioned so that you better understand what editors should and should not do with unsourced information. In addition, you might want to read WP:COI.

It is clear from my review of your contributions that you are a constructive editor who has brought a lot of knowledge to this project. The matter that I'm bringing to your attention is a minor one, and I urge you to focus your time and contributions elsewhere. Thanks. John Broughton | Talk 14:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing to stop adding information on PSK to the article without providing a reliable source. May I suggest that the current amount of information in the article on PSK (see below) is now appropriate per WP:NPOV - that adding more information on this fraternity and not others would be giving it undue weight?
Regarding your comments, I think the crux of the issue is your statement I would think that you would welcome information that is factual, not just what is easily verified. WP:RS addresses that squarely: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. It may well be true that a famous movie star often eats at a restuarant, for example, and I may know that personally because I'm a regular there too (or an employee, or owner), so it's true. But that's not the criteria - it's whether this fact is able to be verified by someone looking online or going to a library.
The problem, in a nutshell, is that including something that one or a few editors insist is true essentially gives anyone the right to put anything in Wikipedia they want. I realize that you're not anyone, but the reality is that Wikipedia doesn't distinguish (in theory, and generally in practice) between editors - there is no system in place so you're trusted to add stuff that isn't verifiabile, he's not, she is, I'm not, and so on. And yes, this is a limitation - Wikipedia won't be complete because some stuff that is true just isn't verifiable. But the decision - which I agree with - is that the benefits of a strict policy on verifiability are worth the costs of excluding some information.
And you're right - half (or so) of what is in Wikipedia has no reference or source. One reason is that standards were looser in the early years. Another is that no one has the time to search for citations for everything. A third is that efforts on verification are concentrated today - and again I agree with this unstated and official policy - on what one or more editors think are controversial matters. For example, WP:BLP is a relatively recent policy that tilts the playing field in favor of removing negative info from biographies rather than slapping "fact" tags on such info. So yes, sometimes you'll run into editors who want something documented or removed, and they are selecting one unsourced thing out of many, and that seems unfair. My recommendation is to noy fight such demands - either provide a source or let the information be deleted after the "fact" tag has been up long enough for other editors to address it if they want to. Do remember that nothing in Wikipedia is permanently gone - any editor can find a source and then add the info back, this time proofed against "fact" tags.
Finally, as you may have noticed, I've put something about PSK back into the article. I hope that this compromise is acceptable to everyone, and I hope that you'll focus your efforts regarding this article - and elsewhere - on continuing to add information that does meet WP:V and WP:RS standards, as the percentage of unsourced information in articles continues (slowly) to decrease. John Broughton | Talk 19:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Now we have the problem that because one reference listed "Pages, Squires & Knights" as the name (incorrectly), some editors want to use that name, even thought that was NOT this organization's name. So what do we do about an incorrect reference? --Zeamays 16:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Alexandria from Fairfax locations

Copied from Jkatzen Talk: Within minutes of my adding Alexandria as a placename in Fairfax Co., you'd deleted it. My reasoning is that if people call a place by that name, that is a place, regardless of which government authorities recognize it. Alexandria, Fairfax Co. is south of Alexandria and north of Mount Vernon. Yes, the Post Office regards it as a distinct place. Why are you so aggrsssive about deleting this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zeamays (talk • contribs).

I don't think it's being terribly aggressive, and it certainly wasn't directed at you specifically. But I don't agree with you that it should be included. Alexandria as a name for a zip code in Fairfax isn't a place recognized by the post office as distinct from Alexandria, the city. For hundreds of square miles in the exurbs around the city of Atlanta, addresses use the name "Atlanta" (and have zip codes assigned as such), but that doesn't mean that "Atlanta" is an area in any of those outlying counties. Similarly, using Alexandria in an address in Fairfax County is merely alluding to the fact that the particular site in question is a suburb of Alexandria, Virginia. Likewise, much of the areas around Richmond, Virginia have a "Richmond" address but none are actually in the city, nor are they considered Richmond-named "places" within the surrounding counties. When people in, say, McLean, say, "I'm going to Alexandria," they're not typically distinguishing the actual city limits from the immediately surrounding area in Fairfax which references the city. Jkatzen 20:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../z/e/a/User_talk%7EZeamays_68a0.html"