User talk:Daniel Collins

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Feel free to send me comments or questions, though I may not get back promptly because I'm putting more energy into my blog, Down to Earth.

Contents 1 Welcome by a non-admin. 2 Thanks! 3 Simple vs. Complex 4 Bravo mate 5 Testing adding a water topic 6 Category:Geography 7 Thorpe RFA nomination 8 Science pearls 9 Ecohydrology Page 10 WMDs 11 2003 invasion of Iraq 12 Charles Cotton 13 Hydrophobic soils 14 Environmental science template 15 Consensus by a landslide 16 runoff 17 Watershed 18 Image copyright problem with Image:Evapotranspiration_diagram.gif 19 Speedy deletion 20 Re: watershed 21 Riparian zone 22 surface runoff 23 Circular snowmelt patterns 24 Why so few Wikipedians are engineers? 25 Image copyright problem with Image:BlueGrama.jpg 26 Bay mud 27 WikiProject Soil 28 Please help on William Shakespeare 29 You helped choose this week's WP:AID winner 30 Rivers of Kent 30.1 Biogeography and biogeochemical cycles 31 Amchitka 32 Water Cycle 33 You helped choose Coffee as this week's WP:AID winner 34 barnstar 35 You helped choose Environmentalism as this week's WP:AID winner 36 Mussels and phosphorus

[edit] Welcome by a non-admin.

Hi - I see no admin type has given you a welcome aboard message yet. So I'll say welcome. Anyway, I'll be glad to work with you - don't know just what collaborating involves though :-). I currently monitor some 1700 pages (way too many) mostly in geology, mineralogy, chemistry and climatology, and manage to always find something to fix or add somewhere when th wiki urge hits me. Currently most involved with some controveries on the climate pages (greenhouse effect, global warming, etc.). I just a couple of hours ago added a bit to the erosion page on stream erosion. Kinda did it off the top of my head so feel free to edit it and catch any errors and unclear stuff. Seems I tend to do that more than I should rather than check some refs. for accuracy - never sure whether the top of my head is reliable or not. I'm rambling now - so edit away, learn, and enjoy, if I see something I disagree with or am confused about I'll let you know. And if you have any questions feel free to leave me a note. Vsmith 04:19, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Great info on geography degrees. :) Although I'll probably get an MBA first since that would result in faster advancement in my GIS career. --mav 03:54, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Great job the the deforetestation article. You did what I can not. Thanks. Tardigrade 02:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Well done ! with the deforestation and erosion. I changed the landslide because it talks about tree removal. I understand that if the stumps and roots remain the chance of landslide increases as the roots decay then decreases as new growth occurs? I though it sounded as if landslide was imminentKAM 21:39, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Simple vs. Complex

If a disturbance occurs at Old growth will it regain equilibrium?.KAM 00:16, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

First, I should illustrtate what I think of as "equilibrium" here. It's not old growth forest; that's climax. Disturbances happen, and will always "reset" the successional clock to some earlier stage. There is no "static" equilibrium. But if there is some bound on the changes of the ecosystem, it might be fair to call it "dynamic" equilibrium. This is where the system varies within some "normal" bound, a bound that the system has adapted to accomodate.

If I assume the nature of the disurbances don't change appreciably (and I incidentally think a degree of human intervention is within this), then the old growth forest managed to become old growth while subject to these disturbances. That means it can again, and so the answer to your question, I think, is then "yes". It can and it will return to old growth, all else being equal. And in so doing, it is in a state of dynamic equilibrium.

(Now, don't get me wrong with "climax". It's a very useful concept, but it has to be paired up with "disturbance theory".)

Do you buy it? Daniel Collins 04:17, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes that seems true to me. And thank you, your comments were very helpful. Maybe I shouldn’t have used the word equilibrium the term may not be very useful, only confusing . It seems that the state of the forest depends on the frequency and severity and type (?) of the disturbances. In the case of a climax forest they are relativity low. If the rate and severity was low enough the system may become more simple? For example in forestry, tending towards a pure, or nearly pure stand In this case, the primary value of old growth is that species it contains are rare, not necessarily that it has high biodiversity. I think the article at Old growth needs a little tinkering. I need to do some more reading.KAM 13:23, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I only skimmed the article before. Looking at it again, there are some things I would change. For example, I don't think the idea of climax necessarily means a uniform aged, old forest.

Yes, frequency and type. Logging, blight and hurricanes are all different, because they affect trees and soil in different ways. Timing of the disturbance is also relevant; a month of low rainfall when plants are already drought-stressed may kill them, but not if the soil is still soaked from snowmelt and the plants are not transpiring much because it's too cold.

I should add, though, some more details to the above discussion. First up is this thing called the "intermediate disturbance hypothesis" (IDH). It's not universally accepted, but again helps to illustrate a point. It states that maximum diversity arises from an intermediate degree of disturbance; too much disturbance and the ecosystem doesn't have time to fill the niches; too little, and it becomes, for example, an old growth forest. I like the theory, but again it's incomplete.

To expand on one of these points, evolution has a remarkable capacity to create diversity. Darwin's finches is a case where, left alone, evolution led to more species, becuase they could specialise on subtely different food sources. If there are, say, 10 distinct resources, it is expected that 10 species would evolve to be the best consumers of that resource. On the Galapogas, there were different food sources. In a semi-arid shrubland, it could be the temporal arrival of rain (my current interest). But in an old growth forest, especially in New England, I think resources can homogenise, thus encouraging fewer species than if there had just been massive logging, a hurricane, or some oak disease.

I think this is all very interesting stuff. And I'd really like to know how much the disturbances can change and yet the ecosystem not realise it. That would help guide how much we alter the ecosystems without negative downstream effects for us. This, though, is not ready for Wikipedia. Daniel Collins 13:48, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bravo mate

"Yet understanding of the nature of the threats is not high, in part because of imprecise usage of the term by politicians and the media."

I like the new start of the WMD page (although you forgot radiological--R of the now commonly accepted CBRN--but your statement regarding imprecise usage is the crux of the whole problem. CBRN are complex, and very few people have any clue what they're talking about, especially in the press and among politicians--two classes of people who care little for truth or facts that stand in the way of making a point.Binkymagnus 20:32, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)

Cheers, mate; It took some doing to get the references together. I don't happen to like the term - more so after doing the digging - because its ambiguity and complexity can lead to such manipulation. I prefer the 1937 definition. I wish we could ban the term alongside what it may or may not connote. Daniel Collins 03:25, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Testing adding a water topic

Greetings,

I'm with the U.S. Geological Survey, Water, and I'm trying to get our top people to notice that Wikipedia is indeed a source of (water) information to the public (especially now that Google Dictionary uses it...). USGS is really one of the premier sources of water information and it would behoove us to put some of our published material on all aspects of water into Wikipedia, since that would greatly improve our being able to reach the public.

So, I tried creating a new article "saline water". It was my first time and it started off OK. I got the text in and I even uploaded 4 graphics. But I didn't realize it was in "Sandbox" and I had to start over in "Saline water". Now the images I uploaded don't appear. So, I'd like to get them showing.

The ideal thing is for them to fund me to put stuff into Wikipedia, but when they hear "money" they run out of the room; getting funding is essentially hopeless. Thanks Howard Perlman hperlman@usgs.gov

[edit] Category:Geography

The Geography cat 64 articles in the main cat. I'm trying to winnow down and hope to put many in subcats if they aren't already. Maybe some of my deletions were mistakes. Maurreen 1 July 2005 16:36 (UTC)

[edit] Thorpe RFA nomination

I saw on the Usertalk for Thorpe you saw his username vandalize several pages. He responded with "my username was hacked". He nominated himself for adminstratorship and I voted in support but I was wondering if you could clear up whether he was responsible or this was a case of mistaken identity. thanks. freestylefrappe 21:58, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Science pearls

Hello,

Since you contributed in the past to the publications’ lists, I thought that you might be interested in this new project. I’ll be glad if you will continue contributing. Thanks,APH 10:54, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ecohydrology Page

Hi, I started adding some content to the stub you started on Ecohydrology. I wasn't sure if it was on your watch list or not, but I thought you might be interested in taking a look at it. It could definitely use some attention from a more experienced Wikipedian than myself. Thanks! --Gmiller 22:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WMDs

Please read the information disclosed in the statements by David Kay on the interim progress report on the activities of the Iraq Survey Group and, later, the Iraq Survey Group Final Report. JDR 16:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 2003 invasion of Iraq

Hi there, when trying to go over the discussion at 2003 invasion of Iraq I saw it has become a big mess. If I see it correctly there was a conflict between an anon and others and now the page has been blocked. I think the anon had a point that an encyclopedia article about any military conflict should not be written exclusively by three members of one the conflicting parties, in this case Pookster11, Swatjester, and Dawgknot who according to this comment all belong to the US military. I therefore suggest to get more people into the boat, that should take the wind out of the sails of bias allegations. As I saw you also edited on that page, would you be willing to help out? Get-back-world-respect 22:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Cotton

See comment on that talk page... Bob aka Linuxlad 21:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hydrophobic soils

Good work on starting the article on hydrophobic soils. Sometimes i wonder what with wikipedia having almost one million articles whether there is really anything new that is notable to write about - but then i see articles like this being created and realise that there is a world of information yet to be documented on wikipedia. Anyway keep up the good work - looks like an interesting article. 130.194.13.105 03:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Crikey! I had only just created it, and I got the inspiration from someone else's user page. Cheers, Daniel Collins 03:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Environmental science template

Hello. See Template talk:Environmental science and Template talk:Environmental science. Alan Liefting 02:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus by a landslide

Thanks for the reassuring note, I really appreciated it :-)--Commander Keane 05:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] runoff

thanks for your constructive additions to this article and the feedback to my queries. i understand your point about the "noun" issue. im stumped on this renaming because i see your point and yet im troubled by the present disambig setup and the "runoff (water)" title seems too unscientific for me...let me know your further thoughts...by the way we are close to being able to remove the tag from the runoff article :} regards, Anlace 04:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

i definitely like runoff (hydrology) better than runoff (water)....any other ideas, before the voting closes? :) Anlace 04:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

the choice of surface runoff would make my day :)its descriptive and well used in the technical literature ...you are brilliant daniel c...why didnt i think of that?...besides i think the lack of linkage is tied to the poor title...ill do some further research on links and expand my comments in that regard, cheers Anlace 05:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

i mistakenly answered you on my talk page User talk:Anlace...check it out ...thanks Anlace 05:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

so are we in agreement on the and redirect parts? if so ill be glad to execute. as far as the name, why cant we or someone write a separate article on river runoff if thats an important issue...personally i think most of the interesting action is with overland runoff, so im quite happy with the article at hand being named surface runoff...what are your further thoughts? regards Anlace 06:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

i believe i am in agreement with all of your latest points...and i even agree that runoff "can" include river flow, so as long as we agree the present article called runoff (water) is about surface or overland flow and not river flow, i think we are set to:

• rename runoff (water) to surface runoff
• merge overland flow into the new surface runoff
• create appropriate redirects
• create a new disambig page called runoff (hydrology) allowing direction to surface runoff or river flow, river runoff

to me this fourth item is optional, but i ll be glad to do it, if you see the need. are we agreed? if so i ll be happy to start on the structural changes cheers Anlace 06:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

its all executed, with double redirects fixed as well....pleasure working with you daniel c...yes i think this is a good example of the collaboration process working well...thanks for all your valuable ideas in making surface runoff a good article...it was just a stub this morning...i have a few ideas for adding to it...but goodnight for now, best regards Anlace 07:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Watershed

I'm British, and to me, a "watershed" is a ridge (which "sheds water") between two drainage basins (or catchment areas). I am happy with using watershed for a slope down which water runs, but I wouldn't use it to mean "river basin".

I got involved in this because I've been helping with Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links. I have been disambiguating basin - it had nearly 200 links. When I started, the page Drainage basin redirected to watershed. There were lots of articles where "basin" meant "river basin", so I put a brief article at Drainage basin that I could use for these links. It would be baffling for a British person to follow a link to "basin" and go directly to "Watershed".

It looks to me as if this is a trans-Atlantic difference. The Shorter Oxford Dictionary allows the broader meaning as a more modern development, but my son's British school textbooks support the narrower meaning.

I hope this helps. CarolGray 18:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Great. I wasn't happy with the Watershed page, but I didn't have the confidence to change it - I'm reluctant to risk upsetting people. Since you're an expert - go for it! CarolGray 18:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

That's excellent! I've made some trivial spelling corrections (because I'm that kind of irritating nit-picking person) but I think your draft is clear, interesting and balanced - well done! CarolGray 21:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Evapotranspiration_diagram.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Evapotranspiration_diagram.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Image legality questions. 11:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion

I noticed that you tagged the page Image:Evapotranspiration_diagram.gif for speedy deletion with the reason "No license (CA state,not federal)". However, "No license (CA state,not federal)" is not currently one of our criteria for speedy deletion, so I have removed the speedy deletion tag. You can use one of our other deletion processes, proposed deletion or articles for deletion if you still want the article to be deleted. Thanks! Stifle 12:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: watershed

Sounds good. It's not that I'm particularly concerned about this issue...but you know my standpoint (a #redirect from watershed to Drainage basin and Watershed (disambiguation) for the whole schmeer.) Thanks for stopping by, JackLumber 12:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Riparian zone

a merger is discussed with two articles. i hope you will weigh in on this issue, best regards Anlace 20:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

hope all is well with you daniel. thanks for your constructive comments on the merger. i have just completed the merger of riparian and riparian strips into Riparian zone per general agreement on talk pages. all content and images survive. i just noticed a loose end in the form of another (i think, duplicative) article called Riparian buffer zones, to which only one article in-links. so i have proposed a second merger. please visit Riparian zone and comment. cheers Anlace 18:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] surface runoff

i totally agree with your assessment of the runoff terminology. feel free to alter any edit ive done that doesnt recognize those distinctions. in particular im trying to point navigation away from runoff which is just a disambig page. but we see the concepts alike. ill try to be more mindful of the distinction you have well summarized. best regards, Anlace 02:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Circular snowmelt patterns

I'm intrigued by the image you uploaded showing circular holes in the snow. Could you direct me to any references on the process, please? Based solely on the image, I can think of a couple of competing explanations, so I'd like to understand it more. Cheers, Daniel Collins 14:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC).

While I am not a geologist, I don't have any reference on the process. I think it is those vegetation that gives off heat and speeds up snowmelt around them in the first place. Then as the earth is uncovered, it absorbs more heat than the surrounding snow (which reflects sunlight more than absorbs heat), and causes the circles to grow. I'd like know your other possible explanations too. Thanks.--Wingchi 18:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back. The first thing that struck me was the reference to the plants themselves producing the heat. I don't know how this could happen. Decomposition could lead to heat, but probably not enough to melt snow, and besides, decomposition is slowed in the cold. My best guess is that the plant structures change wind patterns around them, increasing localised windspeed (Bernoulli effect) that either prevents snow from being deposited or scours out snow that has been deposited. Another driver could be snow that accumulates on the exposed plant, melts, and drips down, melting snow beneath (I don't think this has as much potential as the former). In either case, when the snow gets too thin, bare in places, the albedo changes, and much more solar energy will be absorbed heating up the ground (as you say). I doubt that exposed plant material could absorb and transmit enough energy to cause the melting, and I presume you ruled out footprints. How does all this jibe with you? Cheers, Daniel Collins 18:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC).

Looking again, there are depressions in the snow where there is no exposed plant. So that throws one explanation out the window. Also, in the middle of these depressions, the snow appears dirtier, which is consistent with the theory of melting snow (though also of differences in deposition by wind). It is quite remarkable how much variation in the snow cover there is, and of such size. Daniel Collins 18:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why so few Wikipedians are engineers?

I am trying to understand why there are so few Wikipedians who are graduate engineers. Once I get a grasp on that, perhaps I may be able to formulate some ideas on how to attract more experienced engineers to become Wikipedians. It would be very helpful if you would respond to these a few questions:

• Are you a university graduate engineer?
• Please indicate in which of these engineering disciplines you obtained your degree:
  1. Aeronautical or aerospace engineering
  2. Bioengineer or biological engineering
  3. Chemical engineering
  4. Civil engineering
  5. Electrical engineering
  6. Environmental engineering
  7. Mechanical engineering
  8. Petroleum engineering
  9. Other
• In what year did you obtain your degree?
• What attracted you to participate in Wikipedia?

If you would rather not answer these questions on your Talk page, then you may respond on my User talk:mbeychok page. Or you may respond to me via Wikipedia's email which I have enabled on my User:mbeychok page.

If you would rather not respond at all, that's fine also. Regards, - mbeychok 04:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Environmental engineering, and similar. 1999, 2002, and soon 2006. Educational outreach. I expect there are plenty more engineers here than say so. Consider these questions: What mode of communication is more natural to engineers? What can engineers offer that is important to WP? Are people who are engineers the types of people to contribute to WP? Cheers, Daniel Collins 20:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:BlueGrama.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BlueGrama.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. PS2pcGAMER (talk) 07:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bay mud

just a note to say hello since we havent run into each other recently since our collaboration on surface runoff. hope all is well with you. you may want to check out an article created today: Bay mud. i hope we find other ways to work together. are you near the end of the PhD process? best regards, Anlace 13:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Soil

I am pretty sure this project will interest you. Your engineering, environmental, water, wetlands and nutrient cycle interests (did I miss anything?) are needed. Cheers! -- Paleorthid 06:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please help on William Shakespeare

Posted by Pruneau^T 00:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC) on behalf of the AID maintenance team.

[edit] You helped choose this week's WP:AID winner

Davodd 06:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rivers of Kent

Daniel - I have just seen your comment on the watershed for the River Len. Since I originally wrote that section including the term, I know what I mean! I have since discovered that, like a lot of other geographical terms, it has different meanings to different folk. In UK we tend to mean the piece of high land from which streams flow in often opposite directions, and that is why I mention the other stream which becomes a tributary of the Great Ouse. I see that Wikipedia calls that a "divide" so I have changed the reference. Regards Peter Shearan 13:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

and I have just seen the huge discussion which took place over this very point! Peter Shearan 13:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biogeography and biogeochemical cycles

Hello, biogeography has merged somewhat with ecology and pedology so I would say yes to biogeochemical cycles being in the biogeography category, although i can see there being a argument for it being in with pedology more so.AlexD 14:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amchitka

Hi, I wonder if you could take a look at Amchitka, and make any improvement you feel are needed. The article is currently a featured article candidate. Reviewers have identified a need for sections on geology, flora and fauna. Any assistance you could give would be greatly appreciated. Jakew 21:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Water Cycle

The biochemical cycling reference I threw in there was merely to define it and provide a reference. I don't know the original reference for that section myself. We do need a reference somewhere in that section for the topic. A link to the wikipedia article concerning the topic is not considered a sufficient reference, according to wikipedia's article guide. Thegreatdr 21:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I'll look for a replacement. Daniel Collins 21:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You helped choose Coffee as this week's WP:AID winner

– ClockworkSoul 04:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For dedication to improving and expanding Wikipedia. Good job! Sharkface217 02:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You helped choose Environmentalism as this week's WP:AID winner

AzaBot 18:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mussels and phosphorus

Thanks for the information; but I wasn't thinking about zebra mussels at all. A few years ago, someone from Ohio State did a mussel survey of Cedar Creek (Indiana) and, noting the drastic decline in the native mussel population, observed a purely empirical correlation between higher phosphorus levels and the relative absence of mussels. Despite all the abuse the creek suffered for the first 75 years or so in the 20th century through channelization, agricultural runoff and the discharge of raw sewage, the mussels didn't take a nosedive until the last 20 or 25 years. -- Cuppysfriend 23:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Reference: United States Geological Survey, What Makes a Healthy Environment for Native Freshwater Mussels? Fact Sheet 124-00 (October 2000) -- Cuppysfriend 23:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)