Welcome to my talk page!

Please feel free to leave any (civil) comment you like.

Please do not delete, revert, or otherwise remove anything from my talk page.
And please do not judge me for excessive typographic emphasis; recent experience has proved that my request must be made very clearly and prominently.

Newer Threads

Lawn maintenance

Latest comment: 8 years ago15 comments2 people in discussion

should really get to this some day...

-- putting this old thread back on my talk page to remind myself to work on this SemanticMantis (talk) 19:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Please express your thoughts on the disadvantages of lawn care as it is practiced in the United States. My request is a response to your invitation at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#Lawn maintenance at 16:48, 4 June 2014. (I am adding your talk page to my watchlist.)
—Wavelength (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Wavelength, thanks for your interest! I am an ecologist, specializing in theoretical plant ecology, and turf lawns are something I've thought about quite a bit. I don't usually appeal to my own authority on WP, but I thought it would save time to let you know that I know what I'm talking about. Of course I'll be happy supply refs for any subclaims if you'd like. So, without much organization, I'll throw out my thoughts, and see what parts you're interested in.

Most people on the USA that own houses have turf lawns, mostly because that's what it came with, and that's all they know. Many of them spend money on fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides. Fertilizers take an enormous amount of energy to produce, through the Haber process. Then, they are often over applied, and runoff fertilizer is very bad for all of our natural ecosystems, but especially for streams, e.g. eutrophication. Herbicides applied to lawns are usually selective, in that they don't kill turf grass, but they also have their own ecological problems Herbicide#Ecological_effects.

Ok, but what about people who don't use fertilizers and herbicides? They still usually have a monoculture of grass, often a type that is an invasive species, or of a type that is not well adapted to local conditions. For example Kentucky bluegrass is beautiful, but it is silly to grow it in most states, because it needs extra water that native species don't. In the south, there are many bermuda grass lawns, which don't provide any resources for the local fauna. So, monocultures are generally bad, and we've replaced huge swaths of our formerly diverse suburban and rural acreage with one type of plant. Insects, birds, amphibians, and many other animals are thus displaced.

What if I don't care about insects and birds? (I'll even ignore how human society depends upon biodiversity and ecosystem services) Well, huge chunks of the country are naturally arid, (CA, TX, AZ, NV, etc) and simply cannot support a turf lawn without irrigation. Using potable water on grass is just silly, but millions do it anyway, even when they live in deserts, and are facing water shortages in the near future.

But I don't irrigate my lawn-- well, then we come to gas mowers, which in my opinion totally ruin my weekends. Even if I don't have to mess around with an expensive machine and breath its exhaust in the hot sun, I'm annoyed by all my neighbors doing it. And of course in addition to noise pollution, there are lots of other pollutants they emit as well. 4-stroke mowers aren't all that terrible, but 2-stroke weed wackers are amazingly polluting, as are most leaf blowers. By some measures, they are worse than an SUV, see e.g. String_trimmer#Power_and_emissions. So I use a Fiskars push reel mower, which I'm rather happy with.

After all this, I conclude the prevalence of massive turf lawns in the USA is just bad for our society. Especially the way they are commonly cared for, and in many cases, they are not even used much! I feel totally different about it if e.g. someone has many children, or grandchildren who need space to play, or if one wants space for a game of croquet or badminton. I spend tons of time in my yard... but I have many neighbors with giant lawns that never seem to use them! But we keep them, just because of a sort of cultural momentum, and thinking it's "normal", and fearing what our neighbors would think, and not knowing what else to do.

So, what are the alternatives? There are several, depending on the biome you live in, and what needs you have for the yard. E.g. if I lived in the band from eastern CO to western PA, and I didn't have much need for lawn play, I'd install a prairie. If I lived in CA or AZ, I'd do some sort of xeriscaping. Another key thing is that many nice urban/suburban neighborhoods have nice big trees. And here's a key concept: Trees and grasses generally don't live together, they require different environmental conditions. So, trying to get trees and grass to coexist is just ecologically unsound in a household setting (it can happen in nature, but it usually needs a frequent fire regime). So for big chunks of the USA, having a nice tree canopy, with shade-tolerant groundcover underneath is a nice solution: It takes no water, mowing or fertilizers, and will tolerate a bit of foot traffic. Of course, none of the alternatives are truly maintenance free, but they can be much lower maintenance than turf lawns, and are almost always ecologically superior if you do a little research.

Anyway, there's some of the key points that I'm happy to proselytize on :) As for my personal life, I can't practice everything I preach. I rent in TX, so I can't just convert my whole yard to non-turf. But I do use the push mower, and I've removed lots of turf around trees, and turned them into ornamental beds. This way, at least I have less grass to tend to, and use less water than if it were all grass. If you'd like some specific information on turf alternatives that might be good for your needs, just tell me roughly where you live and how much traffic/play you expect. Cheers, SemanticMantis (talk) 21:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much for your generous reply, which I have read in its entirety. All of it interests me, and I propose that the information be covered in Wikipedia, if it is not already. Of course, it would be with a neutral presentation of views. Here is a link to Category:Landscape. Here is a link to http://www.dmoz.org/Home/Gardening/Landscaping/.

—Wavelength (talk) 22:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Coverage on WP is a good idea! I'm sure a some of it is on WP (e.g. some of the links above), but it is scattered about in many places. It is hard to be neutral while still proposing that certain things are "better", especially in such a complex area. I don't really think "Why lawns should be minimized in modern society" is a very good candidate for an article :) Also, I usually only make small corrections to article space, and spend most of my WP time on the ref desk, because those are tasks I can handle in ~10-15 minute work breaks. Anyway, do you have any specific articles in mind that could use this info? I could probably find various sources to scientific publications for many of my claims above, but I'm not sure where they would fit. If you have some suggestions of what/where I should include some of the ideas, I'll listen and at least give it 15 minutes a day :) SemanticMantis (talk) 23:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

There could be a new article called "Alternative lawns" or "Alternatives to lawns" or "Lawn alternatives"; there could be a new article called "Anti-lawn movement". In searching for online sources, I found some dissenting views.

Why the anti-lawn movement bugs me a little
Turf War : The New Yorker (July 21, 2008) (mentioning many of the same points that you mentioned)
Anti-Lawn Nazis Should Call Off the Blitzkrieg | Garden Rant

Do your work breaks allow you to develop articles gradually in a "sandbox"?

—Wavelength (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

I think Lawn alternatives would be a good place to start. Sure, I can work on a sandbox article in small chunks. Do you want to start one in your space, or should I start one here? SemanticMantis (talk) 20:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

I prefer that you start one in your user space. Later, I might improve it, preferably in article space because I prefer to avoid editing in user spaces of other editors, except their talk pages.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sounds good. I'll get a rough copy started and maybe ask a few others to take a look once it's presentable. Thanks for your help and encouragement! SemanticMantis (talk) 17:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

The original discussion has been archived.

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2014 June 3#Lawn maintenance

Here is another external resource.

Lawn Reform Coalition | The Lawn Reform Coalition is all about reducing or replacing lawn, water-wise lawn species and eco-friendly care for all lawns.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Here are a few reports like the one from which I quoted at the beginning of the discussion archived at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2014 June 5#Lawn prohibition: Turf War : The New Yorker (July 21, 2008).

Lenoir City woman sent to jail for having a messy yard (October 21, 2014)
Brown lawn means jail time | Tampa Bay Times (October 8, 2008)
Mow or Go to Jail! Local City Cracks Down on Lawn Care | fox8.com (May 15, 2014)

—Wavelength (talk) 01:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

"Food Not Lawns" is a new Wikipedia article.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Here is a news report about lawn maintenance for an elderly woman in Texas.

Brothers Mow Lawn To Keep Woman From Going To Jail—KWTX (June 12, 2015)

—Wavelength (talk) 20:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

"Tapestry lawn" is a new Wikipedia article.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

-- putting this old thread back on my talk page to remind myself to work on this SemanticMantis (talk) 19:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

You've got mail

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, SemanticMantis. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:28, 17 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Please comment on Talk:Clean coal technology

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Clean coal technology. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 19 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Why do you listen to Sunshine?

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

For previous discussion see edit of 16.20, 12 February 2016.

old drama. Vote X, play nice if you can, otherwise please find some place else to carry on your vendetta.

Sunshine says Vote X for Change is banned and you agreed! Said editor was unbanned long ago as a result of a community unban discussion, which is why Zzuuzz said on his talk page that the ban had been "superseded". 81.177.49.3 (talk) 15:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, this was all long ago, and I don't care to play any more. Are you Vote X? Do you want to talk? Do you want to play nice and act like a grown up? As I've told Vote X before, I think they can potentially be a helpful addition to our team at the reference desk if they choose to play by the rules, be civil, and actually attempt to be helpful. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them care. If you decide you care, and want to help, I can try to support you in that. Otherwise, please leave me alone, and don't go out of your way to stir up old shit. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

(comment deleted) Hi, I read that link you posted. It shows you to be very nasty and vindictive. I think it's clear that I have very different opinions than that user, and I don't care for many of their actions here on WP. But I will not let you try to out him and cause him personal strife, not on my talk page. Don't continue to push me, I am here in good faith, and think you could be too. If you want to help, help. Posting personal info here just minutes after I asked you nicely not to stir up old shit is not doing anything to improve my estimation of your motives. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

My personal religion is that of Great Old Ones. Yea, I'm Vote X for change! Cthulhu fhtagn! 81.177.49.3 (talk) 16:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

(Just happened to see the above. Thanks for dealing with the vandal above. Just FYI and for the record, this wasn't actually Vote X, but another banned pest, "Wikinger". Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC))Reply

A message to recent editors

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Apparently someone out there has the mistaken impression that I give a fuck. I do not. Please don't bug me. In the past I have said that I thought Vote X has the potential to be helpful if they choose. I stand by that. I have no special affection for troll hunting, but I also am no friend of trolls. I haven't even read any of the recent bullshit, nor will I in the next several week (I will ber largely on wikibreak). So whoever the fuck is taunting Fut. perf and others on my talk page, kindly do it elsewhere. Let me repeat what I've said above - I may disagree with Fut. perf (and many other editors) on any number of things, but that doesn't mean I want you doing whatever ant-troll-trolling-of-troll-hunters you seem to be into. I can support a little bit of WP:NORULES but be WP:CIVIL and if you want any sympathy or support from me ever, stop antagonizing here. It's like I one time said maybe the cops were over the line, and now a bunch of gangsters keep spray-painting my house with "fuck the police. Not cool, and only going to encourage police brutality, in my admittedly not-that-good analogy. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

We need a wiki for people researching period details, comparative social history..

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Per the reference desk scope concern, I am wondering if there's a need for something like the reference desk, but more like the "Little details" live journal (http://little-details.livejournal.com/) in scope. If hosted on Wikipedia, it still couldn't do OR as such (perhaps on Wikiversity maybe). I'd be willing to discuss this further

Arguably, it would also be nice to have a wiki whose focus was specfically as comparative social history and period detail guide for model makers, set designers, film-makers as opposed to an Encylopedia ( bit retaining the ability to add citations as appropriate).

Any thoughts? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

I think that's an interesting idea, but I also don't think there's anything wrong with using the reference desk to help with your historical research. There's also no problem using a university library or public library references desk for these purposes. IMO medeis is far to eager to tell people they can't ask questions, and not nearly eager enough to provide helpful and well-referenced answers. Going forward, just make sure to ask for references. I'm sure there are dozens of books that comment on what was different between then and now, for lots of places and lots of times.

Back to the new wiki idea, I think there might be an audience for that. Maybe you could start up something like that on Wikia? It could indeed be of interest to a wide variety of people interested in history, but I'm actually not much of a historian myself, and don't know of any place else offhand to host it, or any good general resources to recommend. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Gratitude for your existence

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hello,

Hope you are okay!

Keep well and happy!

Kind Regards,

103.67.157.6 (talk) 07:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Aw shucks, thanks! Things are going well for me but I'm spending a bit less time on the reference desks due to real life getting in the way of my efforts here :) I'm not sure what I may have done to elicit this, but I appreciate it nonetheless. Regards to you too, SemanticMantis (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Your support and assistance, behaviourism and mannerism have been reviewed along with other Wikipedians... Sorry for the late reply, I don't have a an internet connection... 103.67.157.44 (talk) 05:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

DrChrissy

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi SemanticMantis,

Regarding this post, you might want to take a look at DrChrissy's user page. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 08:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Adrian J. Hunter:, wow, thanks for letting me know. I guess now I know why I haven't been seeing him around :( Obviously a great wikipedian, and his passing is a loss to the project. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:02, 23 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Absolutely. It's a pity I hadn't realised what a remarkable person he was while he was still contributing. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 11:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 29 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

All calories are not equal

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Sorry, didn't notice your "citation needed" tag until this was archived, so here's my source here:

[1] StuRat (talk) 19:21, 29 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, but it's not me who came here asking for references, that was OP. I doubt they will ever see it now, and that is why it's good to include references whenever possible when responding to a question at the reference desk. It's right there in the name ;) SemanticMantis (talk) 14:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Please comment on Talk:List of pioneers in computer science

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of pioneers in computer science. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 3 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Please comment on Talk:Plimpton 322

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Plimpton 322. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 7 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_pioneers_in_computer_science

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_pioneers_in_computer_science . Zazpot (talk) 20:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Please comment on Talk:Substance abuse

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Substance abuse. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

ref desk

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

You're saying "censor responses, not questions"[2] yet you're negating that. What gives? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

No, I'm not negating anything. I absolutely would rather see responses sanctioned than questions closed/removed. I undid what I thought was a bad closure, and left a response that gave potentially useful information. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Please comment on Talk:Disk storage

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Disk storage. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

DNFT

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I suspect you don't care about Wikipedia:Deny recognition, but it still applies. You shouldn't insist on justifying the entries of blocked editors, as you did on the science desk. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

I will say this: I reverted your WP:DENY hat because I thought it was improper, I did not think the question was trolling. When you clarified that it was a banned IP, I still would have left it open, because but chose not to get in to a fight about it. Rather, I thought the question was interesting in its own right, and the reference of potential value to current and future readers. It was something I had recently read and thought about, so I simply posted it myself. I do not think trolling is a big problem on the reference desk. I think the hostile environment created by aggressive censoring is a big problem. I think the hostile environment created by "google it" is a big problem. I suspect you disagree, but a) that doesn't matter and b) I don't care. You do you, I'll do me. I will not engage in any extended discussion on the matter, but offer this simple explanation of my rationale as a peace offering. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)Reply