User talk:DanielCD/archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Raelism

On raelism: Reverted edits by 67.68.243.23 to last version by DavidWBrooks: honesty will get you farther than mischief So you claim that (Raelians believe that) the Elohim tried to kill Stalin. Can you give sources that support that claim, please ? I could not find much of them, only an anonymous comment on a web forum. Nothing serious-looking. Hence, I suggest we remove from the article any mention of attempt of murder on Stalin. --FvdP 18:34, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My mistake - thought I was doing the opposite. --DanielCD 18:48, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. It makes indeed more sense to me that way. Actually since 67.68.243.23 = AndreJ seems to have a POV close to the raelians's, it's no wonder he was trying to remove that sentence as well. --FvdP 19:03, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Mythotaxoboxes

Yes, they're my fault; I started with the much easier Template:Roman myth. Some of the Greek ones haven't work out as well as I'd hoped (Apollo, Pan, abstractions) - and yes, the Birth of Tragedy has been a big influence on me.

Input would be welcome. I'm thinking of pairing down the project to - for now - Olympians, Titans, Sea Gods and maybe Hades. Heroes are turning out to be much more of a bother than expected. I'm glad they at least look nice though. ;) Bacchiad 01:39, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Glossary of German WWII military terms

I believe that this could very well indeed be it's own page, depending how in depth you're going. I assume you'll be including things like ranks, unit names, equipment names etc. Sounds like a good idea for a page btw, good luck with it. Oberiko 22:58, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree your Glossary of military terms needs to be kept seperate. I appreciate your contribution and an excellent article. One glossary is socio political and the other is military terms. There might be some redundancy and that is okay but it was an excellent choice to make a seperate article. Good Job.WHEELER 16:39, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Link: Glossary of German WWII military terms. For ref. --DanielCD 17:04, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Could you also check out Glossary of the Weimar Republic and correct and add terms you think needful. Thanks.WHEELER 20:42, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Stuck on Stucco

My mistake. I should have tagged it for expansion. Although, it kinda seems like a dictionary definition with a bit of history. Allyunion 23:41, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Power

Thanks. Hyacinth 20:18, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Eurypterus

Hi, I noticed you expanded the Eurypterus article. There was an article in existance called Eurypterid, which contains much of the info in Eurypterus. A merge might be in order. --siliconwafer

taxa capitalization

In general the ranks of taxa (phylum, class, etc) should be left lower case, while the taxa themselves (Animalia, Cephalopoda, etc) are capitalized. The exception to this is the taxobox, as shown in Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life. (Phylum, Class, etc, are not proper nouns.) - UtherSRG 17:20, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Small remark

I noticed your edit "remove "moooooo"" on Wikipedia:Edit summary. When you spot vandalism, always check the history of the page to see its original state, and revert to that state. Just a small remark, I see you are much more active on Wikipedia than me :-) --Lemming 22:19, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Fayum

Hi Daniel: I saw the large article Fayum that you copied from EB 1911. However, I've always thought that this region is best transliterated as Fayyum -- whence a number of links point. And we currently have a stub for one of the Governates of Egypt under Al Fayyum. Obviously there is difference of opinion about the spelling, but seeing all of the work you put into this article, I thought you should have first crack at sorting this out. -- llywrch 05:44, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As a point of interest, at the Seattle WikiMeetup today, someone commented that everything useable from EB 1911 had by now been taken; in response, I mentioned your contribution of Fayum. My point is that everyone appreciates work -- especially when you find overlooked ore in a vein thought worked out. -- llywrch 08:00, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

cephalopods

I see you have an interest in cephs, at least the extinct variety. Please cosider joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Cephalopods so that we can better coordinate our articles. Good job on Orthoceras! - UtherSRG 15:00, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

An overly verbose note on spelling

Hi. I've noticed you've been going through the various mineral articles and changing British spellings to American ones without there being a real need for those changes. Granted, you were avoiding a disambig page with lustre >> luster, but you could have piped the link. I've since moved the lustre article back to its original location (but I preserved your edits, sans spelling changes): An anonymous user had improperly moved the page via copy/paste, which was then replaced by a speedily-deletable substub on a file system. Funnily enough the file system article already existed at Lustre (file system), but I had to remove it due to possible copyright infringement. Thus there is no further need to change "lustre" to "luster". Similarly, if you'd like to avoid the redirect from colour to color, it would be courteous to pipe the link rather than change the visible spelling (that is, [[color|colour]]).

I should direct you to the relevant Manual of Style entry, at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Usage and spelling. As this is an international project, it is best to respect the spellings of the original/major author(s) of an article. American English does not hold rule here, so changing British spellings should be avoided as such actions tend to create hard feelings (not that there are any in this instance). The few exceptions include whether the topic is especially US-oriented, like Yellowstone National Park. Note that the same courtesy should be extended to imperial vs. metric units; if an author put metric first (in a non-US-specific article), imperial units should be added in parentheses rather than replacing or superseding the metric units (I haven't seen you change units, so this is just a friendly FYI). I probably appear peevish for making a point of this, but please know that I'm only trying to avoid future strife. Thanks, -- Hadal 05:15, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

hectocotylus

I corrected your spelling on argonaut and made it a link, as itwas a link on a few other ceph articles. Wana take a crack at writing the article? - UtherSRG 20:14, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Lycopsid

Hi Daniel - the article Lycopsid covers the same taxon as Lycopodiophyta; I reckon the two should be merged - MPF 23:21, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nice merge job, thanks! - MPF 00:27, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not sure about some facts that were added to an article

The following is part of the article Views of creationists and mainstream scientists compared. I am not sure about the factual nature of the following and am worried that it is factually inaccurate or maybe just a POV. I noticed you edited the limestone article recently so I thought you might be able to comment.

  • Deep limestone deposits are most reasonably explained as rapidly precipitating when CO2 suddenly escapes from carbonate-saturated ground water, as has been observed today on many Carribean islands, turning the sea white with precipitated limestone which quickly settles to the seafloor and cements. (Jeffrey S. Hanor, “Precipitation of Beachrock Cements: Mixing of Marine and Meteoric Waters vs. CO2-Degassing,” Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, Vol. 48, No. 2, June 1978, pp. 489–501).
  • Uniformitarian explanations fail because gradualism predicts a great deal of mixing in the formation of limestone, which is not observed. Further, for every molecule of limestone that precipitates, a carbon ion is released, predicting an equivalent amount of carbon in the atmospheres and seas as in limestone formations, while the amount of carbon in limestone on Earth exceeds the amount of carbon in the atmosphere and seas combined by almost 2000 times (“The Global Carbon Cycle: A Test of Our Knowledge of Earth as a System,” Science, Vol. 290, 13

October 2000, p. 293.)

Regards. Barnaby dawson 21:59, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation (on my talk page). I shall remove the quotes from the page and cite your critique as an explanation. I don't know the wider context btw as I didn't produce the quotes. Regards :) Barnaby dawson 22:27, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Categories

I am dubious about categorising eg Caucasian Snowcock as as pheasant. It is in the pheasant family Phasianidae, but is a snowcock, not a pheasant. The Phasianidae article should clarify this. jimfbleak 17:09, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

either Phasianidae or Galliformes would be fine, You've used the latter previously, but perhaps a group as large as the Phasianidae deserves its own category - I leave it to you. jimfbleak 07:09, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

White Hawk

I noticed your minor edits to this article, and there are just a couple of comments. You removed the space from 56 cm, and other measurements. I only put the spaces in measurements because someone else edited my articles to that style from my original closed-up format. I don't care which style is used, but it's crazy to be going in editing circles with some people adding the space and some removing it.

You added "typically" to the length measurement of this species. When I was researching this bird I didn't see any evidence that any of the subspecies ever fall outside this range. Have I missed something? jimfbleak 16:12, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No problem, not a criticism - the unit style is hardly your fault, and the "typically" comment is really just me nitpicking. I write many bird articles, so I know from my watchlist the amount of work you're putting into editing them. jimfbleak 19:42, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Pheasants, etc.

a category for the Phasanidae sounds find to me. As to scientific name with/without parentheses, bold/notbold, I have no strong feelings and I'll go with the flow; my own preference would be no parenthese or bold, but I suspect that others may think diferently, jimfbleak 21:34, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

White-backed Duck

This duck is usually classified in the subfamily Dendrocygninae of the family Anatidae. However, recently someone elevated the subfamily to the full family Dendrocygnidae. There may or may not be a case for this, but it is not the taxonomy used in Wildfowl of the World, nor, more importantly, is it used by Handbook of Birds of the World, which we take as the standard for wikipedia. It is important to have a single taxonomic standard for consistency between articles, but it looks as if I've missed one of the changes made earlier -I'll move the Dendrocygnidae back to the subfamily later. jimfbleak 06:36, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Swifts

My standard text, Swifts by Chantler and Driessens, ISBN 1-873403-83-6, includes treeswifts, which realistically are too small a group to need their own cat. I can't see any problem with this - keep up the good work, jimfbleak 06:38, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Water Hardness

I'd suggest keeping the name hard water, firstly because that's how most people know it as (IMHO), and secondly because it seems to describe the broader topic, while water hardness sounds like a measure of hard water itself. --InShaneee 16:04, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Categories

Thank you for the tip and your kind comments. My web time is going to be limited in the next few days but look out for more moths soon! Richard Barlow 09:57, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Saharan Cypress & brackets

Hi Daniel - it is normal practice in books not to have brackets in this sort of situation, with the scientific name following straight after the vernacular with no punctuation at all. That's why I'd not put them there in the first place. Think of the scientific name as an integral part of the full name, not an appendage. The sentence referring to the varietal combination is of different structure, so the brackets are appropriate there. - MPF 18:40, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi again, thanks; nice one on Glossopteris, I've done a couple of minor link changes to bypass redirects and changed 'cones' to 'cone-like structures' as they may not have been of the same origin and structure as modern conifer cones - MPF 19:03, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Archaeopteris

Hi Daniel - thanks for the note, looks really good to me, I can't see much to add except a bit of minor copyediting (like all scientific subjects, it should be metric, no need for any archaic imperialist cr@p :-), a few small punctuation etc typos and a few more links) - MPF 21:32, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cibotium

Hi again - done (tho' JoJan beat me to it on the main correction!). Here's my plant taxobox templates, feel free to use them (just copy & paste); if there's no pic, stick <!-- before, and --> after, the taxobox image line; and if you don't know the conservation status, delete the <br>{{Status****}} bit - MPF 22:09, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(addenum) - not your bit (from the IP number who started the page), but I'm not at all sure that mediaeval 'Scythian Lamb' tale applies here, the same is also often cited of cotton, with rather greater likelihood of that being the fibre behind the tale (cotton is still called 'tree wool' in e.g. German) - MPF 22:17, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Tree fern, Cyatheales

Hi Daniel - I suspect these two pages should perhaps be merged. As far as I know, all tree ferns (except one or two not-very-large species of Osmunda) are in Cyatheales. Any thoughts? - MPF 17:35, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Taxoboxes, names

Hi Daniel - it is WP:TOL policy to leave a blank line space at the end of the taxobox, so it is easy to see where the box ends and the text starts when editing, avoiding the risk of accidentally putting paragraphs of text into the taxobox. Of names, there's been lots of debates in the archives, but there is a general (if small) majority to capitalise English species names fully (e.g. Antarctic Beech, not antarctic beech); it isn't being hard-and-fast edited in, but when new pages are started, it is better to use caps, that's why the southern beech page had all the species listed with caps ready for new page starts - MPF 22:38, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Good luck! Unfortunately a lot of the decisions are buried deep in the archives of the WP:TOL talk, so they are far too easy to overlook. I think you've got the hang of most of them now though :-) The caps for English names has always been contentious, with very strong views held on both sides, but when it's been voted on, the majority was for caps. Though it wasn't a very decisive vote, something like 7:5 if I remember rightly. I'm on the pro-caps camp because it makes things simpler (not having to work out if Abcdef is a proper name or not!), looks neater in lists, and follows standard field guide practice (which is where most people read about plants/animals). - MPF 00:54, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Deluge (mythology)

Thanks for your comments on my talk page. Yeah, these creationists will go to great lengths to try to insert their agenda into everything. After I pointed out that Ungtss (or however you spell that) was very wrong to claim I did not know about mythology, he immediately hopped over to the myth article and added a big long spiel about what CS Lewis claims about myths. CS Lewis, for crying out loud. It's just part of their long-standing strategy of taking people with minimal credentials in a field pumping them up as supposed experts just because of shared religious beliefs. These people need to be watched like hawks. DreamGuy 20:06, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Energy development WikiProject

Daniel, could you please add Wikipedia:WikiProject Energy development to your Watchlist and participate in any polls and discussion there? Thanks in advance. We really need some additional input. We are kind of at a standstill on some issues. Tom Haws 05:54, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Passionate request

Thanks; I'll have a go at it! - MPF 16:34, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Will do - first thing I've had to do at P. caerulea is to turn half the pics the right way up! - MPF 16:56, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Passiflora foetida - Oh my gawd!! MPF 17:25, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Meatflower - the pic shows a species of Rafflesia. I'll move the pic there and make 'meatflower' a redirect to it (the genus is better known by the Latin name) - MPF 18:38, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks; I quite often have to fiddle around with the pics to get the layout to look good; trouble is even that isn't any guarantee as the exact layout varies with the size of the monitor each person uses. Where there's lots of pics, I'm finding the table format (either horizontal or vertical) works best. There's also a new 'gallery' system some people are starting to use, but I don't like it as it doesn't format italics (see e.g. the last revision of Hebe (plant) before my recent revisions). This may well be a minor bug they're working on, so it may work some time in the future, but not yet!. - MPF 20:30, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

thanks again

I want to thank you again for your kind words on my talkpage -- i'm sorry my reaction was sour. no excuses. i really appreciate the encouragement -- it was certainly more kindness than i could have asked for:). Ungtss 01:20, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Right on:). see you around the "real pages:)." Ungtss 04:25, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Category:Plant families

Hi Daniel - I'm not convinced on its value; others might think it is a good idea. I don't think the number of categories at the bottom of a page matters very much (I'd guess some pages could have a dozen or more). Might be worth raising on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life for other folks' ideas (I'd be interested to know too!) - MPF 20:44, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Amaranth/Amaranthus

I agree that these two should be merged, and if you don't do it, I will when I have time, but I think they would be better off at Amaranth than at Amaranthus. What do you think?

Regards, Pekinensis 17:32, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Pics

Nice ones, thanks! Even if the focus isn't perfect (tho' they look fine to me!), there's always the option of taking another and loading the new pic on top of the old one with the same name; same can be done with brightness changes, cropping unwanted margins, etc. Been meaning to get a digi camera myself, all my pics so far are done with a scanner. But I'm not a very good photographer! - MPF 16:15, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nipa

Thanks; carry on! (I'm busy sorting out a merge and tidy of [Greenbrier (plant)] into Smilax). The correct genus name is Nypa; common names include Nipa, Nipa Palm, Nipah Palm, Mangrove Palm. My inclination, given the variety of common names, would be a move and merge to have the page at Nypa. I'll take a look later. - MPF 14:57, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Zamia

Hi Daniel - looks good to me; the Flora of North America (generally a very useful source, for what they've got done so far) lists the Florida Zamia as Z. integrifolia (they treat all the US cycads in this species); I'll add a note to that effect (and metricate too :-), and start a page for Z. integrifolia as well - MPF 16:41, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Done. You'll notice Zamia integrifolia is very close to a straight copy :-) just changed the distribution, figures and wording where necessary (sneaky tip on how to make a series of pages on closely related species!) - MPF 17:24, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the edits on [Solar greenhouse (technical)]. I've got myself in the middle of an edit war - trying to mediate by doing a rewrite and hoping to keep one of the editors from pushing it back and restarting the edit war. They are currently in arbitration for this and other wars. I have asked a few others to look in and coment or edit. I'd rather be writing mineral descriptions and geology articles :-). Vsmith 01:30, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Navajo Nation

Last summer you placed a note on the Navajo talk page asking about the tribe's prehistory. I just added a section on their entry into the Southwest to the article. We could probably expand that into a seperate article if you are interested. Comments welcome. WBardwin 06:15, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for cleaning up after me on the Parasites articles. I'll try to categorize them myself from now on. I'm new here, and I'm still sort of in awe of how, from my end, it looks like articles I write just magically improve without my help. Dave (talk) 15:53, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Ferns

Hi Daniel - amazing pic! My local Polypodium vulgare can do this a bit, but nothing like that well. The NZ Tree Fern, I don't know if the NZ contingent might want to move it to Wheki (they're using Maori names for most of the NZ trees), might be worth asking one or two of them - MPF 21:01, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Daniel - I'm not too sure what the current take on fern orders is, there's been a lot of upheaval in recent years (similar to the APG and flowering plants), so you'll get different (often wildly so!) answers from different sources. It will be a matter of deciding which source looks the most up-to-date and authoritative. I'll take a look round and report back later - MPF 15:33, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
These two look like they're probably fairly reliable. I've not checked them against each other, though! - MPF 16:01, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Picture

It's not a moth, it's a Nymphalid butterfly. 99% sure it's Small Tortoiseshell Aglais urticae (or Nymphalis urticae depending on your reference). If not it's something very similar we don't get in the UK. Nymphalids tend to have very dull underwings. Richard Barlow 16:03, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi, wish I could have been more help. Without knowing the provenance of the picture its very difficult to be sure. There are quite a lot of tortoiseshells around the world and this is certainly one of them. I think some Lepidoptera sites provide an identification service but they would still probably want to know where the photo was taken. A museum with a good Lepidoptera collection may be able to help. Richard Barlow 08:19, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)