User talk:Anlace/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Anlace/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!

Also, you don't need to put the tildes (~~~~) into the Edit Summary box - your name and date of change will automatically appear in the article history. You only need to sign posts made to talk pages.

I don't want to get off on the wrong foot here — you'll understand if I am a little skeptical, given the lack of information on this fellow and the fact that a high percentage of the websites which give him such credit are anti-Darwin sites. Priority disputes on Wikipedia science pages are quite common (there's on on the Albert Einstein page as well at the moment), and what is required in all cases is to make sure that it can be demonstrated that Wikipedia is reflective of significantly notable points of view, and not fringe points of view. This is not to say that there aren't ways for non-mainstream points of view to be incorporated into articles, and is certainly not meant to imply the correctness of one view over another. So if I am suspicious, just take it into context that in most cases I am used to people trying to push little agendas when they insert priority dispute information like this into articles, and it is nothing personal against you. Thanks! --Fastfission 04:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary

Hello. Please remember to always provide an edit summary. Thanks and happy editing. Hiding talk 13:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Elsiecm.jpg

You cannot take a picture of artwork and release rights to it unless you are artist, in which case you need to document the fact. Same for Image:Martinezcm.jpg The image photographed is probably copyrighted. -Thanks Nv8200p talk 22:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is with the way you documented it. On the Image description page, you need to source any information you have on the underlying image, especially if you know when the image you photographed was created or published. If the images are over 100 years, they are probably public domain in the United States (which is where English Wikipedia's servers are located). Change the copyright tags to {{PD-art-US}} or {{PD-US}} and that should fix the issue -Thanks Nv8200p talk 22:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Callan

You have written Curtis Callan graduated with a B.A. in physics from Princeton, his thesis advisor was Sam Treiman. SPIRES says that his undergrad institute is Haverford College. Also your sentence makes me think that Sam Treiman is his senior thesis advisor while I think he is his PhD advisor at Princeton. Can you clarify that and cite your source? Thanks. þħɥʂıɕıʄʈ^ʝɘɖı 02:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the correction has been made. Anlace 16:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Rowena Meeks Abdy

When you create an article it is important that you assert notability in the first edit, otherwise it is likely to be listed for speedy deletion, as it was.

As well, please make comments to user talk pages at the bottom. Paul Cyr 05:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

noise pollution

Regarding your change of:

noise pollution, which now encompasses marine environments as well as urban and industrial settings

to

noise pollution, which now encompasses occupational exposure as well as urban and industrial settings

The inclusion of marine environments was an implicit reference to military use of sonar impacting the "sound" habitat of marine mammals such as whales. I guess this is somewhat controversial but there are substantial scientific findings concerning this and sonar is sound, albeit underwater. Occupational exposure while you state it more explicitly, was already less prominently included under industrial settings. I would like to take this opportunity to caution against practicing deletion too liberally. Sometimes one can add to or modify without deleting what is already there to edit an article. -thanks, Onceler 16:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Cyr ought to learn to give people time - only four minutes elapsed between your edit and Paul tagging your article for the first time. To avoid the problem, create your articles in user:Anlace/sandbox until it has established notability, then copy it to the permanent title. -- RHaworth 08:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or not, since it's a speedy deletion due to lack of notability. If articles like the one in question are deserving of speedy deletion and no one marks them when they're listed as a new page, there's a good chance they'll never be noticed and just waste space. Now, given how many new pages get speedy deleted within the first 10 minutes, that's a lot of wasted space. In the future the contributor should place a {{hangon}} tag on the page.Paul Cyr 16:33, 26 January

2006 (UTC)

Muchalls Castle

What you've done so far is great, and very impressive. It is wikified, seems to be well written and informative, it's linked to by other articles (very important), I think interested people will see this article and work on it over time.

If you're really wanting to go the distance though, you can see Wikipedia:What is a featured article, which is about where you are on "the path to a featured article". The steps are laid out on that page (in the upper righthand corner), and if you follow them, you'll get a lot of help in further improving the page. However, this process is not required even for good articles, it's a lot of work, this is just a suggestion. --W.marsh 21:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. The above is just one possibility. Good articles tend to attract good edits over time on their own. --W.marsh 21:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FACs

You seem to be quite new to the FAC process. I have seen some of your votes on various Featured article Candidate pages, and I should tell you this: You need to read the rules, conventions and guidelines before voting. You have repeatedly used words like "Poorly written" or "awkward sentences' as reasons for votes. While this is acceptable, you need to cite specific instances in the article where the POV or poor grammar are. This enables the editors to correct them. Please read Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Supporting_and_objecting before voting again. Moreover, you cannot oppose an article because you think the topic is trivial. An important topic is not a FA criterion. In fact, even Shoe Polish is a featured article.

I'm sure that most (if not all) of your oppose votes will be overlooked by the Fa director as they have failed to follow the voting guideline. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 05:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Childe Hassam

Go ahead, that's what its there for. :) --Etacar11 05:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Floyd

Is there any chance I could get you to re-evaluate the Pink Floyd page, whose candidacy for FA you voted on? I believe that all the specific issues you raised (incorrect plural references) have been addressed as well as your general issues (paragraph style, slanginess). If you still don't feel it's up to scratch, please let me know what specifc problems you see so I can address them. - dharmabum 00:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I don't know why it's not on the FA list anymore, as it hasn't been archived... if you want to change your vote on the FAC as so the bureaucrat can see it (he won't check the talk page of the article in question), here's a direct link for you. Thanks again! - dharmabum 05:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a bunch, both for your suggestions and your vote. Cheers! - dharmabum 05:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, the article is now a Featured Article. Thanks again for all the suggestions and your support! - dharmabum 23:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eggplant

I responded to your earlier comment over on my Talk Page.

Egg plant 17:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental Science template

I think that physics is already included on the template - at least from here it is ! However, in case I am totally off beam you can edit the template at [1] Hope this helps Velela 15:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you are correct...sorry i didnt see it where i expected next to biology and chemistry...but i saw later it was alpha...its fine as it stands ....thanks, cheers Anlace 19:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

credentials for removing medical data from indoor air pollution article

First, the sentence I removed was uncited. Second, I explained my rationale in the edit summary which is: "Carbon monoxide present in tobacco smoke increases blood pressure and cardiovascular risk." is not a "Directly correlated benefits of smoke-free restaurants". There is no correlation there. If someone put up a source that said banning smoking in restaurants decreased carbon monoxide poisoning then it would make sense. Everything else in the section has a cited source and actually talks about how the ban correlates to the listed benefits. While carbon monoxide may be a health risk, the way it was written in the article did not relate back to a ban on smoking in restaurants. It just seems like someone threw in a random fact that just conflicts with the flow of the rest of the article. --TheKoG 20:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've edited the article to include more information. It makes a lot more sense now in relation to the topic as it doesn't just stand out as a random statement. ~~I'd say the only thing it needs now is a source and it's good to go.~~ Looks like it's good to go now. :p --TheKoG 20:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Air dispersal modeling

Most of links and references use that term and the existing title is offputting in its length :)...hope to hear from others on thisAnlace 18:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You posted the above comment on the Talk page at Dispersion Modeling of Air Pollutants. As the primary author of the article, I disagree with you slightly. Having worked in the air dispersion modeling field for over 30 years, I am aware that it is often referred to as "air dispersion modeling" and as "atmospheric dispersion modeling". However, I have never seen the field referred to as "air dispersal modeling".

The reason for choosing the the current title when I contributed the article is simply that I felt it was more precise. The article is not about dispersion of the air nor about dispersion of the atmosphere. Rather it is about dispersion of air pollutants in the atmospheric air ... and therefore the current title is more precise.

I should point out that I also created the following pages all of which redirect the reader to the page as it is now titled:

Atmospheric dispersion modeling
Atmospheric dispersion modelling (for British Commonwealth readers)
Air dispersion modeling
Air dispersion modelling (for British Commonwealth readers)
Air quality modeling
Air quality modelling (for British Commonwealth readers)
Dispersion modeling
Dispersion modelling (for British Commonwealth readers)
Air Dispersion
Atmospheric Dispersion

I very much like the article Roadway air dispersion modeling. Thanks for doing it. Regards, User:Mbeychok|mbeychok 20:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

If you really believe that the above list is inadequate, I would be happy to create another redirected page entitled "Air dispersal modeling". However, I strongly believe that the current title of the primary page is the most correct and most precise one. - mbeychok 00:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Petaluma

We try to avoid using terms in article introductions which indicate a POV. "Thriving" and "charming" may be terms that are applied to Petaluma by obervers, but if so they should be placed later in the article and attributed. I'm sure you can appreciate that the chambers of commerce would like to see those terms applied to their respective towns. Likewise, we avoid "blighted" and "dwindling", even those may be true of some communities. Cheers, -Will Beback 00:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Rosa, California

That's weird—I took out "looking north" and downsized the pic (270px is too big in smaller res browsers) but articles are not supposed to save if they're changed by someone else prior (*scratches head*) and you had fixed the direction. Radio Kirk talk to me 04:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any knowledge of and experience with AERMOD?

Have you had any hands-on experience with use of the AERMOD dispersion model and how it works? Also, any knowledge about the history or development of AERMOD? If so, how about contributing an article about AERMOD to the [[:Category:Air dispersion modeling]? I am trying to populate that category with articles so as to give it a good start.

Regards, mbeychok 03:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi mbeychok, i dont think ive had enough experience with AERMOD to create an article. i was thinking of doing one onLine so urce air dispersion]. You can help me with the title :) a authored some early work on the line source models and think it is an important topic since vehicular traffic is such a large source ....let me know your thoughts, best regards, Anlace 03:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think an article on line source modeling would be very useful. As you may know, the EPA has a BLP line source model and a CALINE4 line source model as well as a HYROAD model. You might want to mention them in your proposed article. As for a title, how about "Air Dispersion Modeling of Line Sources" or "Air Dispersion Modeling of Roadway Sources"? I will watch for your further response here on your Talk page.

mbeychok 04:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes i think those models are worth citing..i would plan to devote a good deal of the article to the history of the model development and the basis on point source theory...i would also talk about initial validation and the parameters used...i would talk about some of the early case studies using the model in boston , ny . arlington , and california.now about the name...i think we need a shorter name, three or four words at the most: what about Line source air dispersion or Line source model or Line source dispersion or Roadway air dispersion]]//?? what do you think? best Anlace 04:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about Roadway air dispersion modeling? That's four words.

mbeychok 17:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok ill use that name ...im working on the article...can you give me any reference citations for AERMOD and other models you mentioned? i am familiar with early versions of Caline, but not later......should be done with the article within a week :} cheers Anlace 17:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are links to pages in the US EPA's website:

Preferred/Recommended Models Alternative Models Screening Models

On each of those pages, there are links that take you to the various models. For each model there is a brief few sentences of description and, in some cases, links to User Manuals and other information.

Google searches will probably also yield some information that may be useful.

I decided to re-start our dialogue at the left margin ... we were running out of space. By the way, my name is Milt and I live in Newport Beach, California. My email is mbeychok@xxx.net (replace the xxx with cox). mbeychok 18:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi milt, im in northern california. thanks for the refs. im over halfway through with the article...my main hurdle now is coming up with some decent graphics and/or photos to liven it up :) best regads, Anlace 19:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hello again milt, im farther along now and doing the research on newer models. QUEESTION: are we sure AERMOD is a line source model...in studying its characteristics i have found nothing suggessting it is other than a point source model. let me know your thoughts, milt..best regards Anlace 21:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AERMOD is definitely NOT a line source model. It is the latest general purpose model accredited by the EPA (just about 1-2 months ago) after a some years of developing the model. When you said you were unfamiliar with AERMOD (see above), you suggested doing an article on Line Source models and I agreed that was a good, alternative idea.

By the way, where do you develop your articles? I could not find your Sandbox ... or whether you even had one? - mbeychok 22:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Milt, thanks for the quick feedback...that simplifies things for me...i develop my articles on my external processor and just cut and paste them into wikipedia :) cheers Anlace 22:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

runoff

Yeah, I don't really like the clarifiers in brackets. "Runoff (water)" probably irks me the most, though I have a clear bias. If this instance of runoff is not by far the most relevent "runoff", I'd feel more comfortable with "runoff (hydrology)", which is in line with every other "foo (bar-ology/-ist)" formulation. However, a superficial Google query returns sig more hydrology runoffs than voting runoffs. Cheers, Daniel Collins 04:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Just to be complete, an alternative, redundant term is "surface runoff". If there is a strong argument, one could lodge for this page to be the runoff, with a disclaimer at the top directing to the disambig page. Get support from a record of Google searches for the term; assess the geographical extent of populations that are subject to either (i) runoff (hydrology), or (ii) runoff (voting). Daniel Collins 04:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Far more WP entries link to "runoff voting" than to "runoff (water)", suggesting that the water-centric argument for renaming is dead in the ballot box. Daniel Collins 04:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Do you mean to merge surface runoff or overland flow? Currently the former points to the latter. You may not make a distinction. Just to be clear, in my neck of the woods, runoff includes channel flow, and is not exclusively overland flow. Thinking further, I think surface runoff is exclusively considered non-channelized, overland flow. Daniel Collins 05:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

surface runoff is presently just a redirect...i would propose

1. renaming runoff (water) to surface runoff

2. merging overland flow into surface runoff with the surviving title being surface runoff

3. establishing redirects from overland flow and runoff (water) to surface runoff

i have always considered surface runoff as exclusively non-channelized overland flow and all the technical literature i know of makes that distinction. best regards Anlace 05:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like there are nuances across disciplines. Looking at Web of Science, there are 16,409 records with "runoff", 3,167 with "river" and "runoff", and 446 with "river runoff". 446 is no small number in hydrology publications. I think of runoff as all encompassing, though I grant you in shorthand (when context is obvious) runoff may often be used to mean overland flow. When I need to be specific, I talk about overland flow or channel flow. (Searching "overland flow" yielded 1,375 results.) Daniel Collins 05:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Click! "Surface runoff" is a good label (WebOfSci: 1,913 > "overland flow"). I meant to stress that it was "runoff" that I considered universal, including both "surface runoff" and "river runoff" (or channel flow). I reckon there should not be one page on both types of runoff, because their physics are sufficiently different. So...

"runoff (hydrology)": general discussion of water movement over land; points to "surface runoff" and to "river runoff" (aka channel flow);
"surface runoff": non-channelized flow;
"river flow": river flow.

Do we agree with the generality of "runoff", or is this indeed a nuance?

Daniel Collins 06:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all steps, including the fourth being optional. Surface runoff has plenty of meat, and most of the interesting elements of river runoff are dealt with in other, pre-existing sections (eg. floods, Manning's equation). Good stuff. Democracy works. Daniel Collins 06:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A good effort indeed, thought the weight of the kudos heads to the west coast. Cheers, Daniel Collins 07:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Carmel-by-the-Sea, California

I'll ask you kindly to remove your unfounded accusations from the talk page of the above article. Thanks. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dante and I are not the same person. You have absolutely no basis for making such an accusation, and you need to take that comment down now.Scooterboss 13:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anlace, I cleared that page, as it did not benefit the article. If you have problems with other users it is better to talk to them directly on their user talk pages, or ask for help on the WP:ANI or similar page. Article talk pages are only for talking about articles. Thanks, -Will Beback 00:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moss Beach, California

Thanks for the comments. I've taken your comment and used it to start the Talk:Moss Beach, California page, where I've put my response. --Dcfleck 20:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carmel-by-the-Sea, California

I just now noticed that you had left me a message about the Carmel/Carmel-by-the-Sea issue. Please understand that I was not ignoring you, but since you left the message on my User page instead of my Talk page, I didn't see it until just now. :) I hope that the current situation (with the notation that Carmel-by-the-Sea is commonly referred to as "Carmel" being a bit further down in the article) is acceptable to you. I had no particular interest in it going in the opening line (it just seemed to be common practice, such as at Rhode Island), I just felt that it needed to be stated at some point, seeing as how the article body used "Carmel" almost exclusively, and otherwise a non-local reader might be confused. As far as people actually referring to it by the full name... well, I'm from the SF Bay Area, and we all seem to call it Carmel up here. When I visit down in the Monterey area, I usually hear people there refer to it as Carmel as well, but I grant that your experience with the matter is likely more wide-reaching than mine. :) Nevertheless, please reflect that even "official" sources often abbreviate the name, as an example, see this and look at the address of the official website for the city. In any event, I think the current state of the article is fine, and I hope that we're past any arguments over it. P.S. I never edit under an alias. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spin_wave

why do you link to an article in spin wave? Robert M. White I've at least heard of, and he arguably deserves an article based on his long career of contributions to magnetism, his leadership of the Center at CMU and his tenure as Undersecretary of Commerce in the Clinton Administration. [User:Chaiken|Alison Chaiken]] 19:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

See my comments . Alison Chaiken 21:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a forum to publicize. Jimmy Wales himself was called on it. Alison Chaiken 06:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be that you considered [[California clapper rail to be a high priority to put another link in it? I appreciate that you have done some high quality work on a variety of articles but that doesn't excuse links. Either defend the works you've referenced or take them back out again! Alison Chaiken 04:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make myself clear: I don't think you should remove just the links; I think you should remove all the references to et al. papers too. That doesn't mean you just remove the list of authors; that means remove the entire reference to all papers I'm not trying to be mean but simply don't believe that all this belongs in Wikipedia. Since I post under my real name, you can easily verify that I have written a bunch of scientific papers and that I have never referenced one of them. Alison Chaiken 06:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead: it's your user page! Alison Chaiken 05:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages

I got your message regarding noise pollution et al. I haven't had a chance to respond there (I just got off work), but I thought I'd leave you note about talk pages, specifically the use of indentation to help organize the conversation. Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Layout:

"Use indenting to keep the threads of the conversation straight: The first contributor is all the way to the left, the next person starts with one colon (:), the next person starts with two colons. Then, when the first contributor responds, they start at the left margin again, and the second and third persons continue to mark themselves with one and two colons respectively. In that way, who is saying what is clear. Other indentation systems are equally acceptable and widely used (such as a threaded tree format, like that often seen in email clients)."

Obviously no one is perfect and I sometimes forget to indent my own comments. I've indented some of your comments and I thought I'd let you know how to do it yourself. Hyacinth 15:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

history of science wikiproject

Anlace, please consider joining the History of Science WikiProject, if it interests you. May the Wiki be with you--ragesoss 17:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the invitation. ive browsed and weighed in a little bit. is it possible to suggest "environmental science as one of the "sciences" regards Anlace 17:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of the "sciences" regarding what? The environmental sciences are certainly part of history of science (even if we haven't turned much attention to them yet on the wikiproject). Did you have a place in mind where it should be mentioned but isn't? Thanks,--ragesoss 18:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the history of science template. I try to keep an eye out for other similar changes to make as well.--ragesoss 19:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental Science template

I think that physics is already included on the template - at least from here it is ! However, in case I am totally off beam you can edit the template at [2] Hope this helps Velela 15:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you are correct...sorry i didnt see it where i expected next to biology and chemistry...but i saw later it was alpha...its fine as it stands ....thanks, cheers Anlace 19:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

primate capitalization

See WP:PRIM and WP:BIRD. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the referral, but both links actually end up talking about birds. the lemur literature and even wikipedia are inconsisent on species common name capitalisation protocol. Anlace 17:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Iconography

Thanks for your note about Venus Anadyomene! There should be a Category:iconography, don't you think?--Wetman 15:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

clearly. go for it Anlace 20:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]