User talk:Ufwuct/Archive 2

Happy Thanksgiving!

 * Enjoy the meal!  T ennis Dy  N  ami  T  e  (sign in) 17:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Starfish Prime
Please see Talk:Starfish Prime. &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 19:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Manitoba Provincial Highway 1
I have added a couple of source citations to this article. The highway around Portage La Prairie has a large detour due to the fact that the bridge over the CN Tracks has been decommissioned as it is unsafe. Until further notice there are detours around the bridge on the east side of Portage La Prairie. I travel this section of the highway quite often and it is a pain the neck right now.

Hope this solves your question to my talk page. AND I hope that this is done correctly on your page.

Paulsfunhouse 19:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for comments at Keith Ellison (politician) page
As you have contributed in the past to the Keith Ellison page I notify you of a current request for comments on that page. Your input would be helpful.
 * Talk:Keith Ellison (politician) This is a dispute about where in the article about US Rep. Keith Ellison’s (first Muslim in Congress) ties with the Nation of Islam should be discussed. Whether since they were in the past they can be consigned to a segment enumerating the year of their maximum impact or if such enumerating lessens their impact which is held to be ongoing.07:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

List of rivers by length
You put a citation tag on here saying the Congo River article disagreed. But you put the tag on the Brahmaputra River line. The Congo River article does not mention the Brahmaputra and the Brahmaputra article does not mention the size of its drainage basin, so I am wondering what the disagreement is? Rmhermen 07:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * From Congo River:
 * The river also has the second-largest flow in the world, behind the Amazon,


 * In List of rivers by length, average discharge:
 * Congo: 41,800 m³/s
 * Brahmaputra: 43,900 m³/s


 * The source for either of these is not clear. Ufwuct 15:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

thermoregulation
Thanks for your hard work on thermoregulation. Someone vandalised it in the next edit a month ago, and the revert vandalism was done from a plain text copy which ignored any markup. I see that quite a bit: well-meaning rvv from plain text or removing a vandalised section rather than looking to see if most of the section was previously good-faith. Anyway, thank you. TransUtopian 13:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, and thanks for dealing with the messes that cropped up in that article. Ufwuct 18:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

D/FW metro elevations
Hi, Ufwuct. I'm a little puzzled by your changes to the maximum and minimum elevation figures I supplied (14:19, 2 July 2006 67.9.101.189 [I was unregistered at the time; in fact, I think it was my very first edit ever]). They were not guesses. The figures came from Texas Almanac 2006-2007, ed. Elizabeth Cruce Alvarez. Strangely, this is the same source listed in the Notes of the article (notwithstanding the 2005-2006 years for the cited edition); since your edit summary says "with source," I assume it was you who made the citation. Anyway, here is what my Texas Almanac says:
 * Hunt County (p. 246): "Altitude (ft.).......437-692."
 * Kaufman County (p. 255): "Altitude (ft.)........300-550."

When I made that edit last July, I was using the minimum altitude of 300 feet listed for both Ellis (p. 216) and Kaufman Counties, and the maximum figure of 1,275 feet for Parker County (p. 289). I'll grant that both 300 and 1275 appear to be rounded figures, but they were listed just that way in an authoritative source. . . . Actually, I'm a little curious about the existence of a 2005-2006 edition of the Texas Almanac, since they've been published biennially for quite a few years, and I have the 2006-2007 edition in my lap this very moment, so the previous edition would be 2004-2005--but if you say you have a 2005-2006 edition, I'll believe you. Anyway, I won't edit the figures until I hear from you. Thanks Emoll 21:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I had two versions of the Texas Almanac. One was from the late 80s and the other I had just bought at Barnes & Nobles a few weeks before my two edits  on September 24.  I don't remember which I was looking at at the time; I might have been comparing populations between the two books or something like that.  Maybe I just assumed the current year without even looking at the front (as World Almanac, for instance, publishes every year).


 * However, I suspect that the differences between our numbers stem from using different counties (if I remember correctly) and not different years. Otherwise, I'm at a loss as to why the elevation difference would be as much as 278 ft (1,553 - 1,278).  I'll try to check at a bookstore possibly tonight, or even the 1988 almanac on Thursday night if I can remember (I don't think it is at my current house).  Until then, I appreciate your patience.  Thanks for waiting.  Ufwuct 22:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back. I did in fact look at the elevation figures for all twelve Metroplex counties prior to making that edit. Parker's maximum, 1,275 feet, was higher than any of the other eleven maximums (maxima?), and Ellis's and Kaufman's common minimum of 300 feet was lower than those of the other ten. I should have cited my source, but that notwithstanding, I think my research was appropriately thorough. Let me know if you find something different! Emoll 23:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * In that case, there appears to be an error somewhere. See Slipdown Mountain, for example.  I also find it very strange that two counties have their minima at exactly 300 ft.  Also, the unit conversions that were given before (are they directly from the Almanac?) for both the maximum and minimum elevation do not match up, which is another cause for concern.  I'll try to check on this some time later. Ufwuct 05:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It is now clear to me that it depends on which Texas Almanac edition one consults. I have several back editions&mdash;1986-87, 1994-95, 1996-97, 1998-99, 2000-01, 2002-03, and 2004-05&mdash;as well as the current 2006-07 edition, at home. I just did an exhaustive examination of all altitude data on all twelve Metroplex counties in all eight editions. What I found was: it keeps changing! Here are the extremes by edition (measurements in feet): It's amazing by how much some of the figures change: Parker's maximum jumps from 1400 (86-87) down to 966 (94-95 through 98-99), then back up to 1275 (00-01 and later). None of these matches the 1368 figure in the Slipdown Mountain article. Hunt is even wilder: its maximum starts out at 700 (86-87), jumps way up to 1553 (94-95 through 98-99), then plummets to 692 (00-01 and later); while its minimum goes from 400 (86-87) to 688 (94-95 through 98-99), then down to 437 (00-01 and later).
 * 1986-87: lowest = 300 (Ellis, Kaufman); highest = 1400 (Parker)
 * 1994-95, 1996-97, and 1998-99: lowest = 359 (Kaufman); highest = 1553 (Hunt)
 * 2000-01, 2002-03, 2004-05, and 2006-07: lowest = 300 (Ellis, Kaufman); highest = 1275 (Parker).

The problem, obviously, is that the Texas Almanac editors are themselves getting data from different sources from one edition to another. Source notes in the introductions to the sections on counties in the various editions read as follows:
 * 1986-87: "U.S. Geological Survey, Texas Department of Highways and Public Transportation and Texas Railroad Commission"
 * 1994-95: "From the U.S. Geological Survey list of highest and lowest points measured in each county"
 * 1996-97 and later: "From the U.S. Geological Survey. Not all of the surface of Texas has been precisely surveyed for elevation; in some cases data are from the Texas Railroad Comission [sic] or the Texas Department of Transportation."

So what should the Wikipedia article say? I was about to suggest we go with numbers that look precise, which means keep what you put (1553 ft. and 359 ft. for max and min, respectively), but what do we do about Hunt, which is where the 1553 came from? That datum (Hunt max) has been adjusted to 692, an equally precise figure, in later almanac editions. And what does precise mean? Do we assume a figure is not precise if it's divisible by 5? Or 25? Or 100?

OK&mdash;here's a thought:

For highest point: 1,368 feet (417 m). Have the footnote read: "Slipdown Mountain, Parker County. Some editions of the Texas Almanac prior to 2000 (the latest being the 1998-1999 edition, ed. Mary G. Ramos) give a maximum elevation of 1,553 feet in Hunt County.  Texas Almanac data are obtained from the U.S. Geological Survey, the Texas Railroad Commission, and the Texas Department of Transportation."

For lowest point: 359 feet (109 m). The footnote could read: "Kaufman County. Source: Texas Almanac, 1998-1999, ed. Mary G. Ramos.  Subsequent editions of the almanac give a minimum elevation of 300 feet (approximately 90 m) for Ellis and Kaufman Counties, but this appears to be an estimate.  See previous note."

Does that cover all the bases? Emoll 18:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 1. Looking at Topozone, it appears that the minimum elevation is not 668ft., as I listed from my 1988-1989(?) source. I would assume that Lake Tawakoni would be the lowest point in the county (it occupies the whole southeast corner of the county).  The elevation would be about 440 ft.  This is close to what you originally thought for Hunt County (437 ft.).  I actually WOULD expect this level to vary by year, but probably no more than 20 ft., even in a severe flood/drought cycle.  As Greenville, the county seat, is at 550 ft., 668 ft. figure is clearly wrong.  Therefore, I think you are correct in also ignoring the 1,553 ft. figure.  However, as Topozone also shows 1368 ft. at Slipdown Mountain, >= 1,368 ft. should be used.
 * Conclusion 1: I agree with you on this first part, though I would wikilink Slipdown Mountain in the footnote.


 * 2. Though you are right (and I initially thought) that 359 ft. sounds more precise, the lowest elevation "in" Kaufman county is actually close to 300 ft. +/- 5ft. on the Trinity River in the southwestern corner where Kaufman, Henderson, and Ellis counties meet. At Cottonwood Creek, there appears to be a low point within Kaufman county of perhaps 315-320 ft. and 325-330ft. at "Bois d'Arc".  There appear to be no lower points in other places, as most if not all of the watersheds in Kaufman county appear to eventually go into the Trinity River.  I'm afraid that Ellis county might even have a lower point along the Trinity River, as it follows the river further downstream.  The lowest point along the river where Ellis, Navarro, and Henderson counties meet appears to be less than 295 ft..
 * Conclusion 2: The 359 ft. figure shouldn't be used. Kaufman county should also not be mentioned, as its lowest point is upstream of Ellis County's lowest point.  Perhaps use 295 ft. for Ellis County and use the topozone map as a source??


 * Also, perhaps the Greater Houston article also needs to be checked, as I used the Texas Almanac for this article too. Ufwuct 20:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work&mdash;your conclusions seem well-reasoned (I guess your topozone map is about as "definitive" a source as one can hope to get). I'll be happy to let you do the honors and make the edits. Emoll 20:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No, thank you for your work, for alerting me to the problem, for looking up the data in several editions of the Almanac, and even for paying attention to the original sources within the Almanac. I appreciate it. Ufwuct 19:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * May I just say that this kind of discussion is one of the things I love about Wikipedia, and one of the reasons it ought to be discussed in college classes more often by people who actually know how it can work, rather than only people who think it's garbage? :) I mean, here you have a bunch of people, none of whom are even getting paid, who look at this level of data and analyze it and research its original sources so that even an old stand-by like the Texas Almanac comes in for its fair share of scrutiny. Kudos to you both! Lawikitejana 16:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Greater Houston elevation
Looking at Oakhurst, there is an elevation near town of 388 ft. This is close enough to the 386 ft currently listed. However, north of Oakhurst, there is a high point of 402 ft. There also appears to be a high point of 413 ft. closer to Coldspring, and even a hill of 423 ft. I suggest that this be used.

Montgomery County appears to have a point above 430 ft, though the peak elevation is not labeled. Maybe I could put >430 ft.?? Ufwuct 20:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:MAC Cosmetics
Why did you move my article in MAC Cosmetics talk page to the bottom? Didn't you look at the timestamp it was posted YESTERDAY (1/8/07). It's not the oldest article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strydor (talk • contribs) 04:19, 10 January 2007

Shutup, your not a leader
Shutup, your not a leader —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.163.214.120 (talk • contribs).

Where did I attack
Where? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.163.214.120 (talk • contribs).

Houston FA
Looks like we have one supporting vote. You've done a great job with the revisions. Postoak 02:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I hope that we could get some adminstrator types to mosey over and review the article after all of the changes we've made (and then of course give a "support" vote :) ).  Does this FA Nomination close on a particular day? Ufwuct 02:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, I agree. I'd like to invite a few users over to review the article, but someone would claim foul play :). We have a few admins in WP Houston, but I guess they are exempt. You've doubled the refs...I don't see anyone can say we don't have enough. Like you said, you can't footnote each sentence. Postoak 02:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've tried to source the linked articles as well, because having more footnotes than 107 might be a bit obscene. I think you're allowed to invite people, but I don't know how to do it/where to go/whom to ask.  Maybe Wikiproject U.S. Cities?  Maybe I'll try tomorrow.  Ufwuct 02:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I can leave an invite on WPDallas and WPTexas. Postoak 03:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Houston has among the youngest populations in the nation,[56] partly due to this influx of immigrants.[citation needed]. Do you know the page the ref points to? Postoak 03:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * cool. check out the "strong support" just entered Postoak 03:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Great, let's hope for some more tomorrow. 'Night. Ufwuct 03:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * good night! Postoak 03:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Will a pompous former administrator of the old guard cabal type do?
I hope three years of experience at wikipedia, and the author of one of the model city FA's counts for something. ;) You've done an excellent job with the article, and it certainly should be featured. If its candidacy fails, you might consider nominating it for a GA. In my last year of general activity in Wikipedia I found that GA's were much more similar to what FA was intended to be, and at one time what it was. -JCarriker 04:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes. Thank you for your support on the FA nomination page and for the many reasons you gave.  It is appreciated.  My question there was never answered (what is the standard the article must attain), so I stopped trying.  I might try to get feedback from other places now.  I always liked the climate chart and it was removed, I think, for file size reasons.  I've added more to it now, but maybe a scaled back version could be added to the main article.
 * Also, how does this GA nomination work. I was under the impression that it was already a GA.  Are you suggesting that renominating it and getting it reapproved would help the article's FAC?  Thanks.  Ufwuct 16:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

GSP
The numbers for List of U.S. states by GDP (nominal) came from the June 6, 2006 release by the BEA here. Since then there's been an October 26, 2006 update for the 2005 numbers here. Each press release identifies the numbers as "cuurent dollars" (unadjusted for inflation). I'll put the updated numbers in the article and correct the mistake on the 2004 rankings. Thanks. Casey Abell 20:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:USRD Newsletter Issue 1

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.  V 6 0  VTalk · VDemolitions 20:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

San Francisco Bay Area
There's an issue about whether to describe the region as a single metropolitan area or not in the intro. I have suggested using "metropolitan region" as an alternative description. Any thoughts you have on this matter would be helpful. Thanks. --Polaron | Talk 15:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "Metropolitan region" is better than "metropolitan area" because it's not misleading. Maybe this might work too:


 * The San Francisco Bay Area, colloquially known as the Bay Area or simply the Bay, is a geographically diverse urban area surrounding San Francisco Bay in Northern California. It is comprised of two metropolitan areas: San Francisco–Oakland–Fremont and San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara. The Bay Area encompasses the cities of San Francisco, San José, and Oakland, and their many suburbs. 


 * If you don't think "urban area" is a misleading term, these sentences could be used to start the intro. Otherwise, "metropolitan region" would probably suffice. Ufwuct 16:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 2

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.  T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 3

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.

Active user verification
Hello,. Due to the high number of inactive users at WP:USRD, we are asking that you verify that you are still an active contributor of the project. To do so, please add an asterisk (*) after your name on WikiProject U.S. Roads/Newsletter/List. Users without one by the next issue in 2 weeks will be removed off the list and off the respective road projects as well. If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page. Thanks.  T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 4

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. — T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 22:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 5

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —Apologies for the late delivery,  T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 04:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 6

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —Rschen7754bot 22:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Houston
Operation Stub Attack! - see WikiProject Houston, for report and mission details. Postoak 20:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 7

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. — Vsh Bot (t • c) 19:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 8

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. — Vsh Bot (t • c) 19:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

User talk pages
I have moved Talk:Ufwuct/Archive 1 to User talk:Ufwuct/Archive 1 and deleted the resultant redirect. I also fixed the link at the top of this page. User talk pages go under "User talk:" not "Talk:". Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 15:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Oil shale
Hi Ufwuct. You have made some useful edits on the oil shale article. This article has developed quite well, but still some more expert assistance is needed. I hope you would pleased helping to improve it. I put some questions and issues to the talk page. Thank you in advance. Beagel 17:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I listed Oil shale for the new peer review and related spin-off articles (Oil shale extraction, Oil shale geology, Oil shale industry, History of the oil shale industry, Oil shale reserves, Oil shale economics, and Environmental effects of oil shale industry) for the peer review. Your comments and edits will be most welcome.Beagel 17:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 9

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. — Vsh Bot (t • c) 16:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 10

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. — Vsh Bot (t • c) 04:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

An important letter
Dear roads editor,

You may have noticed some changes at WP:USRD lately. Some of them, like the cleanup templates and the stub templates, have been astounding and great. Unfortunately, others have been disturbing.

This has become evidenced by the departure of a few prominent editors at USRD, a few RFC's, and much fighting among USRD editors.

After the second RFC, many of us found the opportunity to take a step away from Wikipedia for a while--as a self-imposed wikibreak, or possibly on vacation.

The result of such introspection was that many of us were placing ourselves in a "walled garden" and on a self-imposed pedestal of authority over the roads department. Also, we were being hostile to a few users who were not agreeing with us.

In fact, IRC has been the main incarnation of this "walled garden." Decisions have been made there to conduct grudges and prejudices against a few valued USRD users with poor justification.

For this, we have come to apologize. We have come to ask your forgiveness.

In addition to this, we hope to work as one USRD team from now on and to encourage cooperation instead of the promotion of interests.

All users are welcome to collaborate on IRC, the newsletter, or anywhere else at USRD.

In the future, please feel free to approach us about any issues you may have.

Regards,

Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 17:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)
 *  T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats
 *  master son T - C
 * SonTalk
 * ( [ →]O - RLY?)

Price of iron
In response to your question about the Iron Age article: Iron was expensive during the bronze age, because back then people didn't know a good way to make things from iron. It was even more expensive than gold, and way more expensive than bronze. But it became cheap at the beginning of the iron age, because people figured out a good way to make things from iron. Then it was cheaper than bronze, and way cheaper than gold. - Shaheenjim 00:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 11

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —Rschen7754bot 22:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 12

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —Rschen7754bot 22:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 13

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —Rschen7754bot 19:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

USRD Inactivity check and news report
Hello, Ufwuct. We had a few urgent matters to communicate to you:
 * 1) Please update your information at WikiProject U.S. Roads/Participants, our new centralized participant list. Those who have not done so by October 20th will be removed.
 * 2) There are important discussions taking place at WT:USRD relating to whether WP:USRD, WP:HWY, or the state projects should hold the "power" in the roads projects.

Regards, Rschen7754 (T C) 23:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 14

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —O bot  (t • c) 01:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 15

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. — O  bot  (t • c) 23:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 16

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. — O  bot  (t • c) 23:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Volume 1, Issue 17

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Want to change your method of delivery? – It's all here. — O  bot  (t • c) 04:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Darwin's abominable mystery
Charles Darwin referring to the origin of the flowering plants as an abominable mystery is a cliche. Google finds a secondary citation at http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/101/7/1904, and a copy of the original letter at http://www.fullbooks.com/More-Letters-of-Charles-Darwin-Volumex29481.html Lavateraguy (talk) 20:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was not aware of the quote. Otherwise, I might have Googled it myself.  Cheers. Ufwuct (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

U.S. Roads Newsletter, Issue 1

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Want to change your method of delivery? – It's all here. —Mitch32contribs 20:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)