User talk:Anlace/Archive 3

This page is Archive 3

Sourced measurements
Hi Anlace, I noticed in your edits to Annadel State Park that you had removed the cited unit of measurement (35 miles) and replaced it with a converted value (56 kilometres). You may not know this but, this type of edit goes against the MOS for a couple of reasons. One, that you always use the sourced units and include a converted value &mdash;i.e. if the source is metric, state the metric value in the text with the appropriate U.S. or Imperial unit converted in parenthesis and vise-versa. Second, the conversions should always be included and not removed. In this example, your source stated that there was 35 miles of trails. Therefore, I changed the article to read "There are 35 miles (56 km) of trails..." with proper formatting and references. There were some other areas that I tweaked in that article. Check out my changes to get a full idea of what I am talking about. Regards, MJCdetroit 18:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Surface runoff
Howdy - Please forgive this dumb question, but do we define surface runoff the same way? (I may misunderstand what some edits mean.) It's not always so clear, and perhaps the terms get mixed up. This is how I see it: Runoff is water flowing over the Earth, anywhere. Surface runoff, is runoff on a hillslope before is reaches a channel. Once surface runoff reaches a channel, it become subsumed into streamflow (which is also runoff). This view conflicts with a chunk of the content in surface runoff. What say you? Cheers, Daniel Collins 17:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC).
 * Thanks. I just wanted to make sure. Compared to surface runoff, the other runoff entries are sorely lacking. Cheers, Daniel Collins 02:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Biodiversity Action Plan in Europe
Hi Anlace, could you please clarify your recent addition to European Union. A question about it has been asked on the talk page. Thanks in advance. --Van helsing 09:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Hickman's potentilla
I'm not clear about the caption to the image of Devil's Slide. Is Potentilla hickmanii habitat in this picture or not? The picture should not be used if it does not include the habitat, instead just link to article about Devil's Slide. Please clarify. KP Botany 21:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * i have modified the caption to make things clearer. the earlier vagueness was due to desire not to publicise the precise location of an endangered species. Anlace 21:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I think the caption change is fine, but if there is any concern about publicizing the precise location the photograph should simply be removed--the risks outweigh any possible benefit of including a photograph.  KP Botany 21:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * i think the scale and rugged terrain are adequate protections given the residual broad scale caption depiction....so we are fine the way it stands. Anlace 22:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Cedros Island
Cedros Island is not in the CFP according to its article and the article on Cedros Island. "With an area of 293,804 km², [the CFP] includes 70% of California and extends into southwestern Oregon, a small part of western Nevada and northern Baja California." Cedros Island is " 426 km (265 miles) south of San Diego." If you feel these are incorrect, please change everything as necessary. Otherwise I have removed comments about Cedros Island endemics from the CFP article. KP Botany 18:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Quercus lobata
I removed your picture from the Quercus lobata page because they don't look like Valley Oak acorns which are known for tapering to a pointed tip, and generally being long and slender, etc.  See http://calphotos.berkeley.edu/cgi/img_query?query_src=ucjeps&enlarge=0000+0000+1002+0533 KP Botany 19:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * when i collected these valley oak acorns there wasnt another typ of oak within several hundred meters, so i know these are valley oak acorns. note the date of my photo upload was winter, when the acorns have shriveled quite a bit. also note that some of my acorns are somewhat at an end view, making them appear less elongated than they are. Finally i could not see a source location for your photo. these acorns from my experience vary in elongation over the range of this tree. My acorns were collected in sonoma county, calif. feel free to insert a photo of your choosing, but i do think the source location of collection should be given.  if i dont hear from you in a timely way i will re-install my (genuine) photo of valley oak acorns. Anlace 20:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There is simply no point in attaching atypical acorns to the page, particularly if you have to admit they look less elongated than they are in the photo, they're shriveled quite a bit and so on. Just wait and gather some fresh ones that look like Quercus lobata acorns or include the fact that though you say they are Q. lobata acorns, they don't look like them because they're shriveled, not fresh, and the photo is shot from the end making them appear less elongated than they are.  It's not useful in an encyclopedia to include a picture of something that doesn't look like what it is--this is just confusing.  Source location?  For the CalFlora photos click on the "more information" to get a source location:  location  Near Coleman Fish Hatchery (Shasta County, California, US).  KP Botany 18:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Marin Dwarf Flax

 * As always, thanks Anlace -- Samir धर्म 07:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Water pollution
Thanks for you comments. Much appreciated. Re fish kills from thermal pollution - I have had experience of a few especially during the drought year of 1976 in the UK and also following an incident in which 20 tonnes of liquid oxygen discharged into a small stream - not the normal sort of thermal pollution. No photographs howerver - sorry. Most of the evidence that I have relating to power station thermal pollutiion shows little evidence of fish-kills since the discharges tend to be permanent and fish exhibit avoiding behaviour so that the local area is reduced in its bio-diversity including fish life. We have had a number of examples of fish killed on the intake screens of power stations, especially smolting Salmon. Regards  Velela 12:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Western Harvest Mouse
Hi Dr. Anlace, Thanks for your contribution to harvest mouse. I felt bad removing it since it was clearly a situation where common names cause confusion. Once a Reithrodontomys page gets created we should see that a disambiguation statement is posted at the top that directs people there.

Instead of just deleting it outright I decided to create a new page (stub) at Western Harvest Mouse to at least incorporate your image. As I was creating redirects to it, I found the page you started at Western harvest mouse. Obviously we're talking about the same animal and the articles should be merged. I have done so, placing the two combined at Western harvest mouse. I actually slightly prefer the lowercase use, but tend to find many Tree-of-Lifers ravenously pushing the all caps option. I don't care enough to debate them on every case so tend to do the all caps first. Please look over the article and make sure I didn't butcher it too much. Thanks again for delving into muroid rodents. There are too many red links over there. --Aranae 00:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Soil Contamination
Thanks for all your work on this. It was much needed. -regards, Onceler 00:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Garry Oak
Agreed, and done; I've also expanded the article and added some references - MPF 09:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * cool, thanks MPF, hope to see you again best regards Anlace 14:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

lighting energy
Yes, I have a reference for the lighting energy entry, but it's my own website and I didn't want to be accused of self-promotion. :) See .  Incidentally, this is easy to prove by simply using a watt-hour meter, or looking at one's electric meter as the light is flipped on.  It's not really that mysterious.  -MichaelBluejay 22:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, I just read your user page and see that you're a physicist. You understand this stuff a lot better than I do. -MichaelBluejay 22:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Are any of your publications related to this topic available online? If so then I can reference it, and then it wouldn't be self-promotion -MichaelBluejay 00:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Given your California experience, I can see why you're skeptical of the D.O.E.'s lighting percentage numbers. I live in the Chicago area, and to me those same percentages seemed too high! I did an energy audit for my house in 2005, and the total natural gas usage was (converting btu's to kwh) 37000 kwh. Total electric was 3360 kwh. Doing the math, electricity was only 8% of my total energy consumption. And of course lighting is only a fraction of that. I don't know if I'm typical for this area (about half my lights are compact fluorescents, and I don't have central A/C), but it's safe to say most folks around here spend a lot more money staying warm than we do staying illuminated.

I hope the DOE used some kind of nationwide sampling to include all these climate differences. Unfortunately that also means the data aren't that meaningful for energy consumers in a specific region. InNuce 00:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)==DYK Congdon silktassel==

Great work, but
Hi, great work on James Burnett, Lord Monboddo but I am afraid that it does not qualify for DYK as it is very old. While you developed it extensively, it was not a stub before and hence cannot be considered for DYK. A pity, considering that it is an interesting work. btw, you had left the message for me on my user page, I've moved it to my talkpage. --Gurubrahma 04:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Asymmetric dimethylarginine
I see you have added information on asymmetric dimethylarginine to many articles referring to atherosclerosis. To tell you the truth, I had never heard of the substance, and I find it very hard to verify your assertions without a reliable source. Could you explain on what grounds you are giving this substance so much prominence? I have removed some material from atherosclerosis because the same paragraph is lacking information that is much more relevant (in my view) than ASMA. JFW | T@lk  21:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * there are about 16 references in the asymmetric dimethylarginine article to the basic research studies. there are also two weblinks, one of which has over 80 citations. Anlace 03:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Anlace, I do not doubt the existence and relevance of ADMA, but by emphasizing it to this extent you're running into WP:NPOVUW. There are about 340 ADMA-related publications on PubMed. They are eclipsed by a factor 100 by research on cholesterol. On atherosclerosis you suggested that it participated in early atherogenesis. That is unsupported - what role does nitric oxide play in the formation of a fatty streak? Is that known at all, considering you are suggesting the research community worldwide is convinced that ADMA is the worst health risk since red meat? JFW | T@lk  07:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * the research data speaks for itself. other editors have made small changes but the article stands in much the tenor as written. we will all be hearing much more about ADMA in ten yrs. that seems to be about the length of time the medical establishment takes to absorb new facts :) Anlace 21:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about WikiProject:California assessments
Hi there. You might be interested in the discussion about WikiProject California assessments taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California/Assessment. Mike Dillon 06:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can
}

Sockpuppets
Are you using sock puppet? If so, please do no use this sock to review your articles, and do not vote twice on the same issue, whether for merging or anything, such as the merger discussion for California Least Tern.  This is directly against Wikipedia policy on "one person, one vote".  "In addition to double-voting, sock puppets should not be used for the purpose of deception, or to create the illusion of broader support for a position than actually exists."  It is intensely unfair to other editors to do something of this nature that requires them to go through the formal process of establishing that you are a sock puppet, but it looks pretty straight-forward in the case of these two accounts, as Annasweden created an account, blue-linked her user and talk page, then went forward to start editing articles of your interest, and shares your interests in rivers of Scotland (although professing to be a Swede), architecture, Sonoma/Marin/Napa county rivers, environmental issues, and wildlife, and architectural vaults.  If so, cut it out.  Thank you.  KP Botany 01:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * this is not the case. Anlace 03:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sonoma Creek
The article Sonoma Creek you nominated as a good article has failed, see Talk:Sonoma Creek for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a review. Jhamez84 14:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Dutch Masters
Do you think there should be a list of famous dutch painters at Dutch Masters or should it be a redirect to Dutch Golden Age painting as it currently is. For my two cents, I think there should be something at Dutch Masters (be it a list or otherwise) not just a redirect. However, as I pointed out in agreement with you at talk:Dutch Masters, it definately shouldn't be a page about cigars! What do you think? Witty lama 03:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * i am open minded as to your suggestion, but my slight preference would be to have a new separate article called List of Dutch Master painters. as long as we keep the cigars in their own box i am happy :). thanks for your interest in this matter. best regards Anlace 16:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Tidal power
Hi Anlace - your copyedit to the Economic considerations section of Tidal power is a definite improvement. However, the link you added, http://www.odpm.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1143908, doesn't seem to refer to tidal power at all. Do you have another source? --Singkong2005 06:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * i have altered the link to refer to a subpage of the original link. the more important information on tidal power is found in the subpage area of the original reference i provided. i have also expanded the text to refer to policy guidance to local councils. hope this helps your reading convenience. regards Anlace 13:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject Color
I saw you recently edited the article on Color. I'm looking to start up WikiProject_Color again. It seems to have been dormant for a while, even though there was a lot of great work and discussion already done. Care to join me? --Laura S 01:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I replied on my talk page to keep the conversation together. -- Laura S  |  talk to me  14:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Barrel Vault
I'm largely in agreement with you here. Barrel vaults are extremely significant to the development of western architecture, particularly the gothic, and ultimately should have it's own article. My problem is with the destined to be expanded - that's all well and good, but the article is a stub at the moment and could readily be incorporated into the vault article, now as it stands - the vault article needs expanding itself, because we can demonstrate the progression of development of the vault through its stages, starting with the barrel vault. Of course if the barrel vault article actually is expanded in the next week or so then, hell, why not keep it. So perhaps we can compromise on that - shall we say doubled in size in by the end of the month - or merge? --Mcginnly | Natter 20:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * your compromise proposal is acceptable regarding barrel vault. i assume to be in good faith your doubling measurement is based upon the stub version of the article when you installed the merger tag? Anlace 21:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * yeah of course - look I'm not trying to piss anyone off here - I think as things stand the articles could be merged - if they're improved to a point they can stand on their own then fine, let's keep them if not - if it's only 20% larger but 100% better then so much the better - brevity is the soul of wit - we'll all take a view at the end of the month. how does that sound? --Mcginnly | Natter 00:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Environmental science hierarchy discussion
Hello there. See Talk:Soil contamination, Template talk:Environmental science and Category talk:Soil contamination for answers. My comments at WikiProject Environment are not about environmental science categories. Alan Liefting 02:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC

WikiProject Soil
Hopefully this will interest you. Cheers! -- Paleorthid 06:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * thanks for the invite. ive signed up Anlace 13:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Clapper Rail
Hi. Just to respond to your comments on my talk page, I agree that there are lot of other biology pages out there in need of work, the reason I felt this was a high priority cleanup candidate was that it was at the time linked from the Main page, that the cleanup work wasn't trivial (e.g. spelling error, stub needing expansion), and that the problems with it were evident in the first few sentences of the lead. I agree that the 99% of the article is very good - as you say, thorough and well-referenced; it was because the not-so-good 1% was so visible that I felt we needed to highlight this with a cleanup tag. Looking at the page now, User:jimfbleak seems to have done a good job sorting things out - it's worth taking a look at his edits to see what he's done. SP-KP 19:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Santa Cruz Long-toed Salamander
It looks like you started working on Santa Cruz Long-toed Salamander back in February &mdash; are you likely to finish it up any time soon? I'm particularly curious about the end of this sentence: "In the case of A. m. croceum, ." If you aren't planning to complete that thought, drop me a line on my Talk page and I'll start cleaning the page up. --Quuxplusone 21:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the observation. Your point was addressed and fixed on april 15, 2006 Anlace 07:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Ad hominem remarks
Please don't falsely accuse me of an "ad hominem remark" on a talk page to an article. There isn't one in what I wrote. The point of the talk page is to discuss the content of the article. I asked quesions that people reading the article may wonder themselves, why this huge list of names and no comment about how they differ, who thinks what, or anything, and you offered up your personal research and decision making into the matter. While does play a role in what is included in articles, it does not address in any way the questions I asked, that need to be addressed in the article to make it useful for readers, especially if this is a high importance California native plant. You did not, in any way, answer my question, initially, then provided an answer to my question that was internally inconsistent with a pre-Jepson source to support your comment about post-Jepson researchers. Off-hand remarks about nonexistant "ad hominem remark" don't take the article any further, either. KP Botany 22:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * you have inserted new text between your original remarks and my comment, so the reader is mis-led by your above posting which does not include your original remarks. i think that maneuver speaks for itself better than i could further respond.  furthermore, if your real interest is in improving the article, perhaps you could suggest some alternative text rather than merely criticising the text of others.  most of the passage you are criticising (and i am defending) is not material i introduced into the article but is the hard thoroughly referenced work of others) Anlace 18:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "you have inserted new text between your original remarks and my comment, so the reader is mis-led by your above posting which does not include your original remarks."


 * I have no idea what you are talking about.,,  Simply look at the history of your page to see that what you say is not correct.


 * However, the topic is not me, the topic is the Pygmy Cypress and its nomenclature.


 * You introduced dictionary texts that say one thing, and quote them in the article saying something different and they don't address the issue I brought up, why was one name chosen over another for the title of the article?


 * "Why is this listed as the species rather than the subspecies (or variety, I forget which) that it is listed under in the Jepson Manual? KP Botany 21:23, 25 November 2006"


 * I asked questions to facilitate understanding, and to point out some of the limits of the article, and you answered them as if someone else's work was being attacked and it was necessary for you to defend it. Why not just assume good faith and discuss the issue as would two editors of an encyclopedia discussing the accuracy of information?  This is why scientists spend so much time meeting with each other, attending symposiums and seminars: science is, like Wikipedia, a joint endeavour, and requires working with others.  KP Botany 20:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Doreensmithypiperia.jpeg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Doreensmithypiperia.jpeg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 15:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)