User talk:Avenue/Archive3

Previous archived messages: 2004-2006, 2007

Bar charts

Hello. At Bar chart if you use the linked online tool you will see that it produces standard bar charts. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied at Talk:Bar chart. -- Avenue (talk) 08:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Waitemata Harbour

Hello Avenue,

Thanks for your geology addition to Waitemata Harbour - could you provide some refs too? Thanks and happy editing. Ingolfson (talk) 06:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I did that from memory, and I've been meaning to track down the relevant source. Thanks for the reminder. -- Avenue (talk) 11:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Wikiholics help each other ;-) Ingolfson (talk) 07:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Highlanders (rugby) peer review

Hey. I've been struggling to get any comments at my requested peer-review of Highlanders (rugby). I was wondering if you would be able to spend a few minutes reading through the article and adding any comments or suggestions here? Thanks. - Shudde ^talk 06:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not that familiar with sports articles, so I suspect it'll take me more than a few minutes. I'll try to get onto it later ~~this~~ next week; I have a few other things I want to complete first. My initial reaction from a quick skim was that it looked good, although the length of the History section seemed a bit offputting. -- Avenue (talk) 11:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SS Tararua

On 23 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article SS Tararua, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 15:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

$NZ average daily value

A long time ago in this edit you added average daily values. Where do you get these? Currently the article is not clear as to whether it has average daily max or intraday max. cheers Nurg (talk) 04:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

Would you like to have rollback? It's more efficient for some anti-vandalism purposes than the javascript tools such as Twinkle.-gadfium 07:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probability and statistics sub-project?

I recently proposed starting a "probability and statistics" sub-project (aka task force or work group) of WikiProject Maths and was wondering if you'd be interested in participating. If so, please add your name and any comments at WP:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Probability and statistics. Regards, Qwfp (talk) 22:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Official languages

Oh heavens, so much back and forth and I got myself confused. I misread the edit and thought you were reducing it from 13 to 2. I'll put back 13. Thanks for the note. Tb (talk) 13:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between probability and statistics is…

Well I was hoping you could tell me since you list it as an interest of yours… But, incase you did not know. In Probability, you know the underlying probability theory, but in statistics, you do not know it is what you are trying to find.

Dude

The difference between probability and statistics is…

Well I was hoping you could tell me since you list it as an interest of yours… But, incase you did not know. In Probability, you know the underlying probability theory, but in statistics, you do not know it is what you are trying to find. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.164.71.9 (talk) 10:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

warning vandals

Hello Avenue
I noticed that you revert vandalism fairly frequently. Thank you for helping keep Wikipedia the best encyclopedia in the world!
However, I have noticed that you do not always leave warnings on the vandals talk pages. You should always leave an appropriate warning after reverting vandalism. (The full list of talk page warnings may be found here, along with some suggestions and guidelines for using them.)
Be sure to leave the correct level of warning, and if the vandal has been warned four times in the last month, (Check the vandal's talk page history. Some vandals remove warnings from their talk pages.) report the vandal by going to this page and following the instructions.
Thank you again, and may the vandals fail... J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 17:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Watershed (word)

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Watershed (word), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for support

Thanks for stating that you came after seeing my "canvass" message but still didn't vote keep just because of belonging to a certain project. I think that I won't be warned or anything because of my mistake, because of being a good faith edit, but who knows. It's always better to have independient confirmation --Enric Naval (talk) 10:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zealandia image

Hi Avenue. Can you tell me how you cropped Image:Zealandia topography.jpg? I'm trying to do some volcano maps with NASA images.

I tried cropping one of the NASA images, but I can't upload it on Wikipedia because it has a different file type; Wikipedia will only use: png, gif, jpg, jpeg, xcf, pdf, mid, ogg, svg and djvu. My file type is "bmp", meaning bitmap image. Any way to fix this? Black Tusk 00:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, most image editing software should allow you to save in different formats. The only common one I can think of that doesn't is MicroSoft's Paint application. If you're using Windows, the built-in Imaging application is much more powerful, and will let you save in jpg format. -- Avenue (talk) 00:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Avenue. I have already uploaded my first map; Image:Level Mountain and Heart Peaks.jpg. Black Tusk 16:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Urban area

Hello Avenue - I have changed the Auckland lead again. The reason is that I very much dislike piped links which hide the real link - in this case, the link is not to urban area as it appears, but to New Zealand's definition of urban area, so I would like this shown in the piped link. Cheers. Ingolfson (talk) 00:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Part of the reason I reworded that part was that "most populous urban area of the country" sounds less than fluent; I've changed "of" to "in" instead. -- Avenue (talk) 07:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Cheers. Ingolfson (talk) 08:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics and Richthofen

In the section on the famous Red Baron there currently rages a controversy about the application of statistics to the capriciousness of "fame". I think you might have some fun reading this, at least - and may even be able to correct some WW1 aviation enthusiasts illusions about statistical science into the bargain Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it is an interesting issue. I've commented on the Talk:Manfred von Richthofen page. Nice article, by the way. -- Avenue (talk) 04:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Australia EEZ

What's the problem with the extension of Australia's EEZ in the article? +Hexagon1 ^(t) 03:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC) PS: Ah, yes, never mind, I see where you were going, my bad. Thanks for pointing it out. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 03:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. It may be worth adding that material to the continental shelf article instead. -- Avenue (talk) 04:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Garibaldi

This article is up for FAC. Please support. Thanks, Meldshal42_{Hit me}^{What I've Done} 19:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on your talk page. -- Avenue (talk) 02:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ash fall/Ashfall deposit

Your re-wording of the second paragraph on the article Volcanic ash vastly improves it, but the technical term for ash accumulated on the ground is an ashfall deposit, it is important to add the word deposit as it separates the rock from the process. An ashfall is the process of ash falling from from the sky, like rain fall. Please see Heiken and wohletz 1985 or Branney and Kokelaar 1992, 2002, 2004, Wolfe 1981 or Walker 1976 to confirm

thank you Russjass (talk) 10:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge of Hector's and Maui's dolphins

I have taken the liberty of removing the merge tags from these articles. There was no discussion and I feel that Hector's dolphin and Maui's dolphin are notable enough for separate articles especially given their conservation status. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toetoe at Sunset.jpg question

Hello, regarding the picture of Toetoe at Sunset you uploaded the question rises when this picture was taken. See Talk:Toetoe. I wonder if you can shed some light on this? FelisLeo^Talk! 07:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was just looking into that. I'll reply with details there. -- Avenue (talk) 08:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Avenue, for clearing that up. It's actually a nice pic of Pampas grass, whatever species it is. You can tag images on Commons and ask for a rename - see [1]. Kahuroa (talk) 10:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibreak

Hope your wikibreak is reasonably successful, but could you pop back every couple of months and update Image:NZ opinion polls 2005-2008.png please. Normally it wouldn't matter too much if the graph wasn't updated for six or eight months, but with the election approaching it's likely to attract a bit of interest. Ditto for Image:New Zealand opinion polls - preferred prime minister 2005-2008.png. Alternatively, email me the csv files and I'll grab a copy of R and see if I can do it myself. My email address is my username at yahoo dot com.-gadfium 09:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to update them semiregularly. I'll also post the data on the image pages after my next update (which will hopefully be sometime next week) so anyone can do it if I don't manage to keep up. The most time-consuming part seems to be tracking down and entering the polls' results, not doing the graphs themselves. -- Avenue (talk) 04:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joining Volcanoes Wikia

Hi Avenue. i was wondering if you wanted to join my newly founded Volcanoes Wikia?

If so, please click here to find out more information:

[2]

Thanks, --Meldshal (§peak to me) 12:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Henry's Fork Caldera

Regarding "one of the world's largest" vs "sizable"...just because the Henry's Fork Caldera is not as large as the Island Park or Yellowstone caldera's does not mean it is not one of the world's largest. Looking in the Wikipedia "Caldera" article, I can only find a few calderas larger than the Henry's Fork Caldera. I'm sure what is listed in the Caldera article is not every caldera in the world but it probably has most of the big ones that are visible today. I also believe there are hundreds of calderas in the world...there are three or four smaller ones just in Yellowstone and several small ones in the Cascades. I would guess that of the hundreds of calderas that are visible today (there are dozzens of invisible ones burried in the SRP for example), the Henry' Fork Caldera is in the largest five or ten.

PS I did not know about the design guide and did not know you removed any. I removed most of the "See Also's"

Best, Neal

Thanks for removing them. About "one of the world's largest" versus "sizable": I think Henry's Fork Caldera is the fifth largest in the US, and probably in the top 10 or 15 worldwide, but it depends a lot on what you mean by "visible". I still think "one of the world's largest" is a bit misleading, given that some others are over twice as large. Henry's Fork Caldera isn't quite in that league. But its combination of being large, dry, and nearly circular is impressive. Could we go with "perhaps the world's largest almost circular caldera"? -- Avenue (talk) 10:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Henry's Fork is larger than Long Vally since Long Valley is only 11 miles wide so Henry's Fork is 4th in the US of those listed in the Caldera article. Further, the Yellowstone and Island Park calderas are probably the largest in the world. But it is difficult because we know there are very large erruptions such as Kilgore Tuff, Blue Creek Tuff, and Blacktail Creek Tuff in the SRP that are only 6 million years old and we do not know where their source is exactly. We know about where they were and call them the Heise Group. Since the Yellowstone hotspot continued to errupt, later burried them with flows, debris, and ash to where they are hundreds or thousand of feet below the surface. We know they are there but cannot see them. The La Grarita in Colorado is 30 million years old (five time older than the Heise Group) and I think it too is not really visible (not sure). If you want to count those we know are there but partially buried, erroded, or fully burried, then you could count all those in the SRP going back the 15 million years. There may be dozzens the size of Island Park or Yellowstone. So if you count La Garita, you should also count all the calderas in the SRP going back the 15 million years. If you are going to do that, then even Island Park may not be one of the world's largest. If you go far enough back in time, there were probably much larger calderas all over the place.

As mentioned, there are hundreds of calderas...visible, tangible, recognizable carlders in the world. They probably average something like a mile wide. How about something like, "the Henry's Fork Caldera is still one of the world's largest known calderas that is visible today? Best--Neal

As far as I know, the fourth largest in the US is Emory Caldera. That's not counting the SRP ones. Lake Toba is bigger than the Yellowstone and Island Park calderas.

I think we're getting closer to agreeing, although "visible" still seems a bit vague to me. Would this work? "...the Henry's Fork Caldera is one of the world's best-preserved megacalderas". -- Avenue (talk) 06:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No...I am going to give it up. Emory is another 30 million year old caldera that is more or less burried. And there are many of these. I read, by the way, that the estimated size of La Garita has been revised down to where it is smaller than Yellowstone or Island Park (but still larger then Henry's Fork). I have little doubt that there are larger and larger caldera as you go back in time and more and more of them will be discovered bucause they can do coordination studies of the ash bed and figure out where they were. So if you are going to include something 50 millon years old and 2000 feet below the surface in your definition of a "caldera" then I am sure all calderas we know of today are small.

And Toba is not larger the Island Park in terms of area. The estimates for the volume of ejected materil is a little larger (2800 km3 vs 2500km3) for Toba but given these are estimates with a large margin of error, it is inconclusive. And we were talking about the size of the caldera or the area. Toba is about 100km X 30km. Island Park is about 93km X 64km. Island park is an odd shape and I am not going to go to the trouble of calculating an area but I am sure it is larger than Toba in area.

You're right. Sorry, my mistake. -- Avenue (talk) 08:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The New Zealand Barnstar of National Merit
		Thank-you for all your work on Opinion polling for the New Zealand general election, 2008
		_{this WikiAward was given to Avenue by Tshiels1 (talk) on 02:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)}[reply]

You're back!

Yay. (Meldshal, renamed) —Ceran ♦ ♦ (speak) 14:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - it's nice to be back. But I'll be off again soon, I'm sorry to say. -- Avenue (talk) 00:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom cat‎

Hello, can you explain why you have returned so much unsourced material to the Phantom cat‎ article without providing inline citations? -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why you deleted the material so abruptly? Much of it seems to be sourced. I am looking through the sources, and hope to convert them to inline cites eventually, but this takes time. -- Avenue (talk) 02:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it because it was unsourced. "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." Is there any reason that the material needs to be in the article during your process of evaluating if it is indeed sourceable? -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me that most of the material is sourced, but the sources are not inline. This does not warrant removal of the material unless there is good reason to believe that it is incorrect or biased.-gadfium 05:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a policy basis for "I think this might be verified by one of these links down here so it shouldnt be removed"? I have not seen it. But I have seen WP:BURDEN-- The Red Pen of Doom 05:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Thanks, gadfium. Yes, much of the material RedPen deleted was sourced. It may not have had inline citations making it crystal clear exactly which sources support which statements, but there were sources there for most of the material. Most of the sources also seem reliable, or refer to reliable sources.

RedPen, my other concern about your approach was that you gave no warning before you gave so much material the chop. WP:BURDEN warns that "... editors may object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references", and I've seen people object over much smaller deletions. If you can give people some warning in the future, I'm sure any deletions you want to make will provoke much less drama. -- Avenue (talk) 05:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that we both cite WP:BURDEN. To answer your question: no, there isn't a policy basis for "I think this might be verified by one of these links down here so it shouldnt be removed" if by that you mean it should never be removed. But there is guidance suggesting that giving people time to clarify which sources support any controversial statements will probably produce much less friction. -- Avenue (talk) 05:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article had been tagged for cleanup for this purpose since July. And while BURDEN indicates that editors may object, it does not say that they can reinsert the unsourced material. However, I have heard your objection, I see that you are working on cleaning it up and I will allow some more time before removing unsourced material. -- The Red Pen of Doom 06:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying the deleted material was unsourced, but that's simply not true. Inline citations are not the only form that a citation can take. Sure, you can delete specific passages if they've been tagged for a while with {{who}}, {{fact}}, etc. (Of course, finding a source yourself would be even more constructive.) But that general cleanup tag is no excuse for wholesale deletion - it says that someone thought inline cites would improve the article, not that three quarters of the article should be deleted if they're not forthcoming. Anyway, I'm glad you're waiting now, and that you've put some more specific tags in place to indicate what parts trouble you. -- Avenue (talk) 07:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevado del Ruiz

Where did you find out the native name for the volcano? I'd be glad to add more info, but I need an idea of where I could find these sources. —Ceran [ speak ] 22:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at some tourism websites and found it here. I haven't had the time to look much further, and my Spanish is not very good, but I think there is something on pages 30-31 of this document that might be useful. There's also some good information here about the national park in general, although not all of it will be relevant to Nevado del Ruiz. I found all of these sites through Google. -- Avenue (talk) 17:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, PDF. I tried my best to translate it on Google, but it's enough to come out to a paragraph about how the volcano was sacred to the civilization around it and was often visited by the Mama. Would that be the Pachamama? Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 20:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done as much as I can to resolve your comments without having sources. Therefore I can't add the material you requested until I have an idea of where you found it. I hope to be able to add it, but right now I can't. ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 14:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]