User talk:Lfstevens/2022 Archive

]

Precious anniversary

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for noticing! Lfstevens (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your addition to Carbon capture and storage because much of the content was either a direct copy or close paraphrasing of this site which you gave as a source. I assume that this was inadvertent as you appear to have been here a while and have a reasonable edit count. Because of this I have avoided the formal drama of a copy-vio process but I would be interested in knowing why and how this happened. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for noticing. Checked my edit here and it found no significant problems. Can you suggest changes that would allow the material in? Lfstevens (talk) 22:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your additions includes The water flows through a series of exponentially-growing enclosures the source says The water flows through a series of exponentially-growing enclosures.

Your addition says “The resulting dried, salty, carbon-rich biomass is buried 1–3 m (3 ft 3 in – 9 ft 10 in) underground, where it remains sequestered indefinitely and the source says and then this dried, salty, carbon-rich biomass is sent to a shallow desert grave, some 1 to 4 m (3 to 13 ft) under the surface, where it remains effectively sequestered for thousands of years. There are others. The source appears to be parroting a press release and I would not regard it as reliable in any sense. It fails to explain the supposed change in acidity. Statements such as while a team of bio-prospectors starts filtering through samples of thousands of local strains of algae, selecting the ones that best fit the company's criteria. Thus, there are no introduced species, and the algae is already well adapted to the local climate and conditions simply don't add up. Algae travel as spores through the air and colonise any water bodies they find. Whatever is put in the ponds initially will soon be overwhelmed by local invasive species. This doesn't negate the potential effectiveness of the system it just flags up probable pseudo-science writing to make something seem more than it is. The there is the quality of the writing - The water flows through a series of exponentially-growing enclosures - really?. The algae may grow exponentially for a while , but the enclosures certainly don't. In my view it is a puff piece and should be ignored until something more reliable such an article in "Nature" or even "New Scientist" comes along. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   22:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you have a second concern about the source? While the New Atlas article makes lots of claims about wonderfulness, the WP article did not. I can tweak the language, but that pub is cited many times across WP. Perhaps you want to raise the subject of NA re WP:RS elsewhere, rather than picking on one example. Lfstevens (talk) 23:19, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revision:

Algae captures carbon more efficiently than plants, because its entire surface is dedicated to photosynthesis, and wastes no resources creating roots and other non-photosynthesizing material. It proliferates rapidly given the right conditions. Facilities are sited on ocean-adjacent desert land. The target algae species is selected from among local strains, without introducing potentially invasive species. Pumps bring seawater into a series of containers and ponds from shore. "Upwelling" water is prefered, because it is cold and nutrient-rich. Pumping accounts for most of the system's required (solar-powered) energy.

The seawater flows through a series of progressively larger enclosures. A small amount of algae added to the first enclosure multiplies to fill eventually four . Mature algae is filtered from the largest ponds and dried. The resulting salty, carbon-rich biomass is dried and buried underground, where it remains sequestered indefinitely. The nutrient-free, less acidic seawater is returned to the ocean, with improved sequestration capacity. ( acidifies seawater and its removal has the reverse effect.) Lfstevens (talk)

This particular article remains, in my view, a puff piece. The scientific writing is poor, there is no explanation of the basis for the pH change claimed and your suggested revisions are also very close paraphrasing. The website may be generally reliable, I have no view on that, but this article is poor. If this is a radical and new approach, then reliable sources will cover it in due course and they may be quoted at that time. I would suggest waiting until "Nature" or "The Times" or "The Guardian" review the system and use them as the appropriate source.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   15:15, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

You listed Mathematics as having been copy edited during the drive. I didn't find a tag of any sort. Did you include work that wasn't tagged, or have I missed something? For now, I've commented that line out at the barnstar page and it isn't included in your totals. Dhtwiki (talk) 19:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was the Areas_of_mathematics section. Lfstevens (talk) 20:49, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I see it now. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:42, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing, but I'm not sure what the offense is. I copied part of the intro to List of fish of Hawaii into this article. Is that it? If so, I am happy to add a citation, but I'm not sure what that would be. I'll look around more. Lfstevens (talk) 05:12, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's it. See

edit history of the source page, where they can trace exactly who added what content when. I took care of it with this edit, so no worries. Just a friendly reminder for next time. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:41, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Appreciate the help and the heads up. Lfstevens (talk) 06:58, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]