Welcome!
Hello, Valich, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
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 need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
Vsmith 00:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Doing great. Some may complain that your edits are too technical, but I like 'em and we'll add clarification later for more general readership if we need to. Sure would be nice to have at least a sketch map of the Superior and other areas. Don't know of any that are free to use on wiki - will do some looking around. Trouble is school starts next week and I'll be torturing chemistry students again - less wiki time, my summer went fast :-)
Couple of pointers: I notice that your edits are all marked as minor - which probably means you have the box in your preferences checked for marking all edits as minor. Would be good to uncheck that, as minor edits are supposedly only for spelling, punct., grammar and link fixes - and most of your edits aren't minor. Also, as you may have noticed, I've been doing some reducing overlinking - Wiki Manual of Style suggests only linking to another page one time - or at least only once per section for a long article. No biggy. Cheers,
Vsmith 23:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
The cratons are subdivided by domains, subdivisions, blocks, margins, belts, rifts, crust formation eras, volcanism, and proto-cratons. I'm having a difficult time trying to figure out how to organize these seperate subsections of the articles into the most coherent way for the reader. The more I become familiar with their evolution and the compositional parts, the more I'll be able to go back and paraphrase the quotations so that the articles flow better. Still, as the craton articles stand right now, I know of no other more complete informative source that attempts to piece it all together. Thanks for your encouraging words, advice, editing and proof reading. By the way, what was your primary area of interest at UofA? Cheers! Don Valich 00:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Vsmith: I would appreciate any comments that you have on the Superior craton article because once I start on the Slave craton again, it will be much more indepth and harder to organize. I'll be entering an uncharted domain trying to piece it all together. I also start school in two weeks so it will be a side venture, but with great dedication and interest. I feel that I am putting together the results of the researchers out in the field in order to make sense of it all. I strongly agree in what we are doing. Comments please. Valich 06:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I see you made a stub for syenogranite - after I re-linked it to syenite. Guess i'd best change it back. Also, left a note at Talk:Leucogranite regarding a missing element, I don't have access to the ref to fix it. Cheers, Vsmith 23:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
This map is exactly the type of map that I need to write articles on the Noth American cratons. How can I get the rights and links to post it, or how can I draw one myself? [IMG] http://www.jamestown-ri.info/north_america_1bya.gif[/IMG] Source: http://www.jamestown-ri.info/prelude.htm Valich 04:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. I placed the map on all the craton articles that are listed on the map. I'm a bit perplexed as to how to present a division of the North American craton and the Canadian Shield into the individual cratons that accreted to form it, yet still maintain their integrity. The same problem exists with the Wyoming craton and the accretion of the Mojave, Yavapai, and Mazatlan Provinces and the Grenville Belt. In the former case, the accretion of these provinces contributed to the origin of the Grand Canyon, yet some geologists refer to the entire area as the Wyoming craton? These are issues that I have to research to find a happy medium so as not to cause any conflicting views, yet still present the historical sequence of events and delineate the stratigraphy. I need to consult with other geologists who are researching the Grand Canyon lower 2.0 Ga Visnu Group to get the contemporary views on this accretionary process and how they refer to the accretioned continental landmasses. No one is referring to them as cratons. Valich 03:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Help:Editing#Images,_tables,_video,_and_sounds
Experiment to make it do what you want it to. I'm copy-pasting here.
This | is |
---|---|
a | table |
You can also save it as an image then upload it, I guess. Maybe copyright issues? -- \/\/slack ( talk) 23:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick helpful response. I'm already in the sandbox experimenting with the codes. I think it be easier for me to just make one than to worry about the copyright restrictions. Valich 00:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Good examples of a multi-column multi-row tables at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organelles Valich 01:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Nice edits! If/when you add new info, please cite that in the wikitext. Journal cites are especially good ones to have. -- mav 18:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. What I was talking about is our meta:Cite/Cite.php functionality where you put <ref> tags around inline cites. I too would like some software that can be used to create diagrams but don't know of any programs that are free. -- mav 14:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
I'm fairly sure that this is a plate (although could quite easily be wrong) - please could you update the article a bit to explain what it is - otherwise many people, myself included, will have no idea what the article is about... Having looked through your edits you're a credit to Wikipedia - keep up the good work! Dave 00:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Dave! I completely revised the shield (geology) article. You have to differentiate the shield from a platform and its basement which could all be said to comprise a plate - or the cratons that partially make up a tectonic plate. Geologically you can interpret a landmass or continental crust with a tectonic interpretation or in a geomorphological interpretation. If you look at the map under the shield (geology) article you can see where the African Shield (sometimes called the Ethiopian Shield) and all the others are located. The shields on this map are in orange and the platforms are violet. The African Shield is on the lower eastern portion of the horn of Africa. If you were to compare this geomorphological map to a plate tectonic map you can see how the two interpretations work. To illustrate what I mean by this, consider the East European Craton. In a geomorphological formula, the East European Craton = the Baltic/Fennoscandian Shields, Ukrainian Shield, and the Voronezh Massif and Russian Platform. But in a tectonic formula, the East European Craton = Fennoscandia + Sarmatia + Volgo-Uralia.
I punctuated the African Shield article and the others as only being a geo-stub, because I just don't have time to research more details for them right now for any completion. I think the shield (geology) article is now complete so I removed the geo-stub label, but of course, as all articles are, it is always open for better revisions. :) Valich 02:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC) Valich 02:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi, about you're question on the User Page Help page, I don't the linking of your signature is connected to your new User page. The reason using four tildes no longer links to your user page would most likely be that you have accidentally checked the "Raw Signature" box on your "
Preferences" page. If you check that box, you can customize your signature like what some users (including me :) do.
For more help on that you can check out
Sign your posts on talk pages#Customizing your signature. But right now unchecking the box should make your signature link back to your user page.
Hope that helped. If not feel free to contact me again. Cheers! --
snowolfD4(
talk /
@ ) 03:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
see Wikipedia:Taxobox usage for all parameters for phylum, class, order, species, and subdivision labels Valich 23:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for doing the references correctly in the article. I spent hours fixing them, so that they were readable, and usable. Orangemarlin 02:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Just wondering, but do you actually have any idea what the discussion you were commenting on (from more than 3 months ago) was even about?-- Margareta 05:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Evolution is the change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals that leads to survival of the fittest, where fitness is measure in the number of offspring produced. Eventually, as the species population changes through time, this can result in the development of new species. New species normally evolve from a common ancestor. Forces that change gene frequencies in a population are natural selection, migration, adaptive radiation, founder effect, bottlenecks, genetic drift, genetic flow, mutations, and gene transfer in unicellular organisms.
As Rivera and Lake (2004) point out: In the microbial world things are different, and various schemes have been devised to take both traditional and molecular approaches to microbial evolution into account. Unknown to Darwin, microbes use two mechanisms of natural variation that disobey the rules of tree-like evolution: lateral gene transfer and endosymbiosis. Lateral gene transfer involves the passage of genes among distantly related groups, causing branches in the tree of life to exchange bits of their fabric. Endosymbiosis -- one cell living within another -- gave rise to the double-membrane-bounded organelles of eukaryotic cells: mitochondria and chloroplasts. At the endosymbiotic origin of mitochondria, a free-living proteobacterium came to reside within an archaebacterially related host. This event involved the genetic union of two highly divergent cell lineages, causing two deep branches in the tree of life to merge outright. Instead of a tree linking life's three deepest branches (eubacteria, archaebacteria and eukaryotes), they uncover a ring. Valich 22:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I've reverted your changes here: They're just a little too dismissive, throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Instead, I propose a large new section, dealing with all the things that can muddle with it in detail, e.g. HGT, fusion origin of Eukaryotes, hybridisation, etc. Vanished user talk 11:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree and disagree: It is more complicated than LUCA can implied, but the main point, that all life is connected, shouldn't be thrown out with the bathwater. I think that universal common descent is really usefyul, insofar as it sets up understanding of a lot of key biologcal concepts - the universal genetic code, for instance, and the single origin. There are confounding factors, but the fact we could never find the last universal common ancestor now does not undo the evidence - notably the universal genetic code that allows HGT - of its existance at one point. I think that trying to explain deep concepts like HGT muddling common descent before the simple ones would just cause misunderstanding, and it's not like LUCA is actually inaccurate, just heavily qualified. Vanished user talk 01:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm... I was answering James, La gloria è a dio adding of the term theory and why it should not be there, it was an answer to his argument to include the term theory. The guy was mediating an article involving me, and I have seen about his edit on the Evolution article from his talkpage, and I simply told him there why I believe the term theory does not fit where he added it. Not everyone will be reading discussion pages and faqs before editing, so few lines sometimes will be enough to show that person his edit should not have been done than sending him on faqs and past discussions that an occasional visitor to the article will probably not take the time to read. Fad (ix) 15:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
You wrote "You wrote: 'Various processes can bring genes from species back together long after those species diverged.' I don't know what you are trying to say here?"
I'm actually trying to be vague here: There's several important processes: HGT, hybridisation, viral incorporation, and fusion. I was trying to be broad enough to include all of them in one short statement. "Genes", because it's not always the whole genome that gets transfered - HGT can include plasmid transfer, after all. Vanished user talk 18:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Jonathan Wells is one of the major proponents of Intelligent Design. Not the best source on biology matters.
Let me be clear: I think that the ring of life and other such things should be fully discussed. Indeed, I did the revision of Gene Flow to include more on Hybridisation and interspecies transfer. I just think that putting a subject that complex in the lead is a bad idea. Let's face it, at the level of detail possible in the lead, we're looking at a quibble over whether horizontal transfer makes ancestry meaningless. I think both of us can agree that it's not at all likely that two organisms, identical enough to be able to swap genes, appeared completely independently through two seperate abiogenesis events. If we accept this, I don't see any problem with calling the first prokaryote the LUCA. And if there's quibbles over whether previous organisms could feed into prokaryotes, I'm quite happy to work backwards to the point where the genetic code came about, and call that the LUCA.
I have added a "{{
prod}}" template to the article "Detailed list of the families and genera of the order Carnivora," suggesting that it be deleted according to the
proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the
proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the
speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to
Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.
UtherSRG
(talk) 11:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I left some questions regarding this page on Talk:Universal genetic code. Others have also left comments. Since this page seems to be entirely your creation, I'm letting you know here. - Madeleine 20:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I've nominated this article for deletion. This is not meant to be a personal attack. I felt a discussion needed to take place, which should occur here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Universal_genetic_code. Thanks. -- Madeleine 14:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I am the original author (and main contributor) of the Feliformia article. I noticed your addition to the article discussing the Feliform evolution and Feliform/Caniform split. I also noted that the information added is from the article on Carnivora (presumably your contribution). While it is excellent work, I felt duplicating the information somewhat unnecessary. And, as the discussion deals with both Feliforms and Caniforms, it quite rightly belongs in the Carnivora article. I have therefore undone your edit and added a note under evolution to direct readers back to the Carnivora (i.e. for an expansion on the evolution discussion).
As an aside (and meant only as positive feedback) the inclusion you made also broke up the flow of the discussion in the Feliformia article. It would have been better to include it in section on evolution. I considered doing just that, but decided a reference back to the Carnivora article made more sense (as that article is well structured and duplicating sub-elements from it would not add value). - Oz Spinner 07:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
You appear to be a starter of the sheild article - just letting you know there is possible merging and change to the way it is there. cheers Satu Suro 05:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
A {{
prod}} template has been added to the article
Emplacement, suggesting that it be deleted according to the
proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the
proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the
speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to
Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if
consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{
db-author}}.
Nick boyd 16:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Do you happen to have any information on Sinonyx or on triisodontid mesonychids aside from Andrewsarchus?-- Mr Fink 23:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Also, was Hapalodectes an "otter-like" mesonychid?-- Mr Fink 03:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi - I have moved this article back to its original title. I don't know why you moved it to "Trans-Hudson oregon" - that title is clearly wrong, and the original title is the name used in articles like Orogeny and Black Hills, as well as in the references in the article itself. If you had a good reason, please let me know. Regards, JohnCD ( talk) 21:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello Don - I just stopped by to express my appreciation for the expansion of the Trans-Hudson article. Nice! Thanks. Cheers Geologyguy ( talk) 15:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Sémhur, I came across an article written by Black Tusk and saw that you made a map of the Image:Anahim Volcanic Belt-en.svg for an article that he wanted. Can you tell me what program you use to create these drawings and maps? I need a detailed map of the Trans-Hudson orogeny suture zone similar to the LITHPROBE transect maps, such as the one at [ [5]]. Are you able to make an expanded map like this that includes the entire THOT (Canada and the U.S.)? [ [6]] Valich February 17, 2008 (MST).
Just by chance I happened along your userpage, and I noticed those (beautiful) pictures of your Elkhound. It's so amazing to meet other fans of Norwegian Elkhounds (I have two; brothers). They are indeed the best dog breed in the world! Winnifred-Ian-Leonard-Harry-Ellen-Lucy-Marilyn-Ingrid-Nora-Amanda Walter-Ira-Lauren-Lalla ( talk) 01:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sending this to all the wikiproject:mammals participants. There's a naming guideline up for discussion on the talk page, and the more people get involved the more valid any consensus drawn. Ironho lds 19:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
You seem to be interested in a whole bunch of topics related to an article I just wrote, Cat gap. Would you be interested in helping me expand it? Raul654 ( talk) 04:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Looking at this edit, you reverted a whole bunch of changes I made to the article in the process of making some other changes. Was that accidental? If not, can you explain why you did it? Raul654 ( talk) 23:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi. On 21 March 2007, you made this edit to Organism, and added a source linked to the Discovery Institute and the Access Research Network. I'm a little confused by this edit given your user page. I don't believe these references are considered reliable for this topic. Viriditas ( talk) 12:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, User:Valich. I just reverted an edit you made at the Last Universal Common Ancestor page. I do not necessarily disagree with the substance of your edit, however the source provided (a Scientific American article) does not support the claim that the LUCA is as old as 4.1 Ga. I'd be happy to see it changed to this new figure if you can find a reliable source that specifies this. Cheers, Thibbs ( talk) 17:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Please don't copy-paste text from other websites as you did in this edit [7]. The text appears to have been copied from < http://www.everestnews.com/history/sherpas/apa.htm> and has now been removed from the article due to copyright violation. Thank you. -- Amplitude101 ( talk) 12:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Research Project thought.
Dingos are a Wolf-pariah dog, and Red Heelers are cross-breed with Dingos and some herding dogs in the 1800's(19th century). What mekes them both interesting is that they commit a peculiarity that is likeness to a weasel.
When a Heeler(Cattle Dog) or Dingo is threatened by something in close proximity "feeling unsure of something intruding", it stands upright on its back legs with its front legs a little to either side.
I have witnessed this(and not less than three months back a woman walking a Red Heeler in Macdonaldtown suburb, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia) many times before from Heelers and wild dogs in approaching them. Moreover, Kelpies appear unlike many dogs to take to the action of standing on back legs when near someone they do not know or when on their chain when people get near(Kelpies are a familiaris).
But Heelers and Dingos tend to do that alike shrews, mongooses, otters and weasels in sensing danger and feeling threatened.
The mixture of genetics in Dingos is said to be Wolves(Lupus) and Pariah dogs from Thailand, again a set of these may have existed in North America sometime and to this day called Carolina Dogs(A wild dog of the Indians of North America).
Could this be because they have a heavy genetic presence from Borophaginae and as much from Hesperocyonine(Weasel dogs as were the Borophaginae in part)???
Nicephotog ( talk) 11:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Research Project thought (Canid genetics).
Dingos are a Wolf-pariah dog, and Red Heelers are cross-breed with Dingos and some herding dogs in the 1800's(19th century). What makes them both interesting is that they commit a peculiarity that is likeness to a weasel.
When a Heeler(Cattle Dog) or Dingo is threatened by something in close proximity "feeling unsure of something intruding", it stands upright on its back legs with its front legs a little to either side.
I have witnessed this(and not less than three months back a woman walking a Red Heeler in Macdonaldtown suburb, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia) many times before from Heelers and wild dogs in approaching them.
Moreover, Kelpies appear unlike many dogs to take to the action of standing on back legs when near someone they do not know or when on their chain when people get near(Kelpies are a familiaris).
But Heelers and Dingos tend to do that alike shrews, mongooses, otters and weasels in sensing danger and feeling threatened.
The mixture of genetics in Dingos is said to be Wolves(Lupus) and Pariah dogs from Thailand, again a set of these may have existed in North America sometime and to this day called Carolina Dogs(A wild dog of the Indians of North America).
Could this be because they have a heavy genetic presence from Borophaginae and as much from Hesperocyonine(Weasel dogs as were the Borophaginae in part)???
Nicephotog ( talk) 11:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Note: Wikipedia must not get too worried about some facets of this post, it is immensely unlikely the english language has not been used before, including in this jargonal context(c'n shove itself and move over for more important text communication!!! PERIOD 2* It can have any matching apostrophes back providing the liase collectors can spell "apostrophe" correctly as proof).
A couple of years ago you made the following statement in the Red Panda talk page: "Firefox webbrowser uses the Red Panda as its logo. There is also an ancient Chinese translation of the Red Panda as hǔo hú (火狐), which literally translates as "fire fox", referring to the Red Panda’s "fire-reddish" fur color: a name which can designate either the red fox or the Red Panda. Valich 03:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)" Although this same statement seems to appear all over the internet (not to mention at my zoo), I can find no primary source to substantiate. Someone else left a bunch of links claiming to cite this, but all of those links seem to now be broken. Do you have a primary source citation for this statement? thanks for any clues. Donlammers ( talk) 04:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Baltic Shield, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images from either web sites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from https://web.archive.org/web/20080202095955/http://www.nrm.se/theswedishmuseumofnaturalhistory/researchandcollections/geology/laboratoryforisotopegeology/geologyoffennoscandia.291_en.html), and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.
If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:
It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Baltic Shield saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.
Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! GeoWriter ( talk) 16:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
The Norwegian Elkhound is my Norwegian Elkhound
Thanks for uploading
File:NorwegianElkhound.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. 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 after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{
PD-self}}
(to release all rights), {{
self|cc-by-sa-4.0}}
(to require that you be credited), or any tag
here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. 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:
This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. -- MifterBot ( Talk • Contribs • Owner) 19:46, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello, Valich, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
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 need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
Vsmith 00:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Doing great. Some may complain that your edits are too technical, but I like 'em and we'll add clarification later for more general readership if we need to. Sure would be nice to have at least a sketch map of the Superior and other areas. Don't know of any that are free to use on wiki - will do some looking around. Trouble is school starts next week and I'll be torturing chemistry students again - less wiki time, my summer went fast :-)
Couple of pointers: I notice that your edits are all marked as minor - which probably means you have the box in your preferences checked for marking all edits as minor. Would be good to uncheck that, as minor edits are supposedly only for spelling, punct., grammar and link fixes - and most of your edits aren't minor. Also, as you may have noticed, I've been doing some reducing overlinking - Wiki Manual of Style suggests only linking to another page one time - or at least only once per section for a long article. No biggy. Cheers,
Vsmith 23:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
The cratons are subdivided by domains, subdivisions, blocks, margins, belts, rifts, crust formation eras, volcanism, and proto-cratons. I'm having a difficult time trying to figure out how to organize these seperate subsections of the articles into the most coherent way for the reader. The more I become familiar with their evolution and the compositional parts, the more I'll be able to go back and paraphrase the quotations so that the articles flow better. Still, as the craton articles stand right now, I know of no other more complete informative source that attempts to piece it all together. Thanks for your encouraging words, advice, editing and proof reading. By the way, what was your primary area of interest at UofA? Cheers! Don Valich 00:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Vsmith: I would appreciate any comments that you have on the Superior craton article because once I start on the Slave craton again, it will be much more indepth and harder to organize. I'll be entering an uncharted domain trying to piece it all together. I also start school in two weeks so it will be a side venture, but with great dedication and interest. I feel that I am putting together the results of the researchers out in the field in order to make sense of it all. I strongly agree in what we are doing. Comments please. Valich 06:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I see you made a stub for syenogranite - after I re-linked it to syenite. Guess i'd best change it back. Also, left a note at Talk:Leucogranite regarding a missing element, I don't have access to the ref to fix it. Cheers, Vsmith 23:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
This map is exactly the type of map that I need to write articles on the Noth American cratons. How can I get the rights and links to post it, or how can I draw one myself? [IMG] http://www.jamestown-ri.info/north_america_1bya.gif[/IMG] Source: http://www.jamestown-ri.info/prelude.htm Valich 04:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. I placed the map on all the craton articles that are listed on the map. I'm a bit perplexed as to how to present a division of the North American craton and the Canadian Shield into the individual cratons that accreted to form it, yet still maintain their integrity. The same problem exists with the Wyoming craton and the accretion of the Mojave, Yavapai, and Mazatlan Provinces and the Grenville Belt. In the former case, the accretion of these provinces contributed to the origin of the Grand Canyon, yet some geologists refer to the entire area as the Wyoming craton? These are issues that I have to research to find a happy medium so as not to cause any conflicting views, yet still present the historical sequence of events and delineate the stratigraphy. I need to consult with other geologists who are researching the Grand Canyon lower 2.0 Ga Visnu Group to get the contemporary views on this accretionary process and how they refer to the accretioned continental landmasses. No one is referring to them as cratons. Valich 03:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Help:Editing#Images,_tables,_video,_and_sounds
Experiment to make it do what you want it to. I'm copy-pasting here.
This | is |
---|---|
a | table |
You can also save it as an image then upload it, I guess. Maybe copyright issues? -- \/\/slack ( talk) 23:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick helpful response. I'm already in the sandbox experimenting with the codes. I think it be easier for me to just make one than to worry about the copyright restrictions. Valich 00:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Good examples of a multi-column multi-row tables at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organelles Valich 01:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Nice edits! If/when you add new info, please cite that in the wikitext. Journal cites are especially good ones to have. -- mav 18:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. What I was talking about is our meta:Cite/Cite.php functionality where you put <ref> tags around inline cites. I too would like some software that can be used to create diagrams but don't know of any programs that are free. -- mav 14:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
I'm fairly sure that this is a plate (although could quite easily be wrong) - please could you update the article a bit to explain what it is - otherwise many people, myself included, will have no idea what the article is about... Having looked through your edits you're a credit to Wikipedia - keep up the good work! Dave 00:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Dave! I completely revised the shield (geology) article. You have to differentiate the shield from a platform and its basement which could all be said to comprise a plate - or the cratons that partially make up a tectonic plate. Geologically you can interpret a landmass or continental crust with a tectonic interpretation or in a geomorphological interpretation. If you look at the map under the shield (geology) article you can see where the African Shield (sometimes called the Ethiopian Shield) and all the others are located. The shields on this map are in orange and the platforms are violet. The African Shield is on the lower eastern portion of the horn of Africa. If you were to compare this geomorphological map to a plate tectonic map you can see how the two interpretations work. To illustrate what I mean by this, consider the East European Craton. In a geomorphological formula, the East European Craton = the Baltic/Fennoscandian Shields, Ukrainian Shield, and the Voronezh Massif and Russian Platform. But in a tectonic formula, the East European Craton = Fennoscandia + Sarmatia + Volgo-Uralia.
I punctuated the African Shield article and the others as only being a geo-stub, because I just don't have time to research more details for them right now for any completion. I think the shield (geology) article is now complete so I removed the geo-stub label, but of course, as all articles are, it is always open for better revisions. :) Valich 02:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC) Valich 02:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi, about you're question on the User Page Help page, I don't the linking of your signature is connected to your new User page. The reason using four tildes no longer links to your user page would most likely be that you have accidentally checked the "Raw Signature" box on your "
Preferences" page. If you check that box, you can customize your signature like what some users (including me :) do.
For more help on that you can check out
Sign your posts on talk pages#Customizing your signature. But right now unchecking the box should make your signature link back to your user page.
Hope that helped. If not feel free to contact me again. Cheers! --
snowolfD4(
talk /
@ ) 03:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
see Wikipedia:Taxobox usage for all parameters for phylum, class, order, species, and subdivision labels Valich 23:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for doing the references correctly in the article. I spent hours fixing them, so that they were readable, and usable. Orangemarlin 02:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Just wondering, but do you actually have any idea what the discussion you were commenting on (from more than 3 months ago) was even about?-- Margareta 05:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Evolution is the change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals that leads to survival of the fittest, where fitness is measure in the number of offspring produced. Eventually, as the species population changes through time, this can result in the development of new species. New species normally evolve from a common ancestor. Forces that change gene frequencies in a population are natural selection, migration, adaptive radiation, founder effect, bottlenecks, genetic drift, genetic flow, mutations, and gene transfer in unicellular organisms.
As Rivera and Lake (2004) point out: In the microbial world things are different, and various schemes have been devised to take both traditional and molecular approaches to microbial evolution into account. Unknown to Darwin, microbes use two mechanisms of natural variation that disobey the rules of tree-like evolution: lateral gene transfer and endosymbiosis. Lateral gene transfer involves the passage of genes among distantly related groups, causing branches in the tree of life to exchange bits of their fabric. Endosymbiosis -- one cell living within another -- gave rise to the double-membrane-bounded organelles of eukaryotic cells: mitochondria and chloroplasts. At the endosymbiotic origin of mitochondria, a free-living proteobacterium came to reside within an archaebacterially related host. This event involved the genetic union of two highly divergent cell lineages, causing two deep branches in the tree of life to merge outright. Instead of a tree linking life's three deepest branches (eubacteria, archaebacteria and eukaryotes), they uncover a ring. Valich 22:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I've reverted your changes here: They're just a little too dismissive, throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Instead, I propose a large new section, dealing with all the things that can muddle with it in detail, e.g. HGT, fusion origin of Eukaryotes, hybridisation, etc. Vanished user talk 11:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree and disagree: It is more complicated than LUCA can implied, but the main point, that all life is connected, shouldn't be thrown out with the bathwater. I think that universal common descent is really usefyul, insofar as it sets up understanding of a lot of key biologcal concepts - the universal genetic code, for instance, and the single origin. There are confounding factors, but the fact we could never find the last universal common ancestor now does not undo the evidence - notably the universal genetic code that allows HGT - of its existance at one point. I think that trying to explain deep concepts like HGT muddling common descent before the simple ones would just cause misunderstanding, and it's not like LUCA is actually inaccurate, just heavily qualified. Vanished user talk 01:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm... I was answering James, La gloria è a dio adding of the term theory and why it should not be there, it was an answer to his argument to include the term theory. The guy was mediating an article involving me, and I have seen about his edit on the Evolution article from his talkpage, and I simply told him there why I believe the term theory does not fit where he added it. Not everyone will be reading discussion pages and faqs before editing, so few lines sometimes will be enough to show that person his edit should not have been done than sending him on faqs and past discussions that an occasional visitor to the article will probably not take the time to read. Fad (ix) 15:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
You wrote "You wrote: 'Various processes can bring genes from species back together long after those species diverged.' I don't know what you are trying to say here?"
I'm actually trying to be vague here: There's several important processes: HGT, hybridisation, viral incorporation, and fusion. I was trying to be broad enough to include all of them in one short statement. "Genes", because it's not always the whole genome that gets transfered - HGT can include plasmid transfer, after all. Vanished user talk 18:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Jonathan Wells is one of the major proponents of Intelligent Design. Not the best source on biology matters.
Let me be clear: I think that the ring of life and other such things should be fully discussed. Indeed, I did the revision of Gene Flow to include more on Hybridisation and interspecies transfer. I just think that putting a subject that complex in the lead is a bad idea. Let's face it, at the level of detail possible in the lead, we're looking at a quibble over whether horizontal transfer makes ancestry meaningless. I think both of us can agree that it's not at all likely that two organisms, identical enough to be able to swap genes, appeared completely independently through two seperate abiogenesis events. If we accept this, I don't see any problem with calling the first prokaryote the LUCA. And if there's quibbles over whether previous organisms could feed into prokaryotes, I'm quite happy to work backwards to the point where the genetic code came about, and call that the LUCA.
I have added a "{{
prod}}" template to the article "Detailed list of the families and genera of the order Carnivora," suggesting that it be deleted according to the
proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the
proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the
speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to
Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.
UtherSRG
(talk) 11:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I left some questions regarding this page on Talk:Universal genetic code. Others have also left comments. Since this page seems to be entirely your creation, I'm letting you know here. - Madeleine 20:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I've nominated this article for deletion. This is not meant to be a personal attack. I felt a discussion needed to take place, which should occur here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Universal_genetic_code. Thanks. -- Madeleine 14:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I am the original author (and main contributor) of the Feliformia article. I noticed your addition to the article discussing the Feliform evolution and Feliform/Caniform split. I also noted that the information added is from the article on Carnivora (presumably your contribution). While it is excellent work, I felt duplicating the information somewhat unnecessary. And, as the discussion deals with both Feliforms and Caniforms, it quite rightly belongs in the Carnivora article. I have therefore undone your edit and added a note under evolution to direct readers back to the Carnivora (i.e. for an expansion on the evolution discussion).
As an aside (and meant only as positive feedback) the inclusion you made also broke up the flow of the discussion in the Feliformia article. It would have been better to include it in section on evolution. I considered doing just that, but decided a reference back to the Carnivora article made more sense (as that article is well structured and duplicating sub-elements from it would not add value). - Oz Spinner 07:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
You appear to be a starter of the sheild article - just letting you know there is possible merging and change to the way it is there. cheers Satu Suro 05:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
A {{
prod}} template has been added to the article
Emplacement, suggesting that it be deleted according to the
proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the
proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the
speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to
Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if
consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{
db-author}}.
Nick boyd 16:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Do you happen to have any information on Sinonyx or on triisodontid mesonychids aside from Andrewsarchus?-- Mr Fink 23:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Also, was Hapalodectes an "otter-like" mesonychid?-- Mr Fink 03:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi - I have moved this article back to its original title. I don't know why you moved it to "Trans-Hudson oregon" - that title is clearly wrong, and the original title is the name used in articles like Orogeny and Black Hills, as well as in the references in the article itself. If you had a good reason, please let me know. Regards, JohnCD ( talk) 21:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello Don - I just stopped by to express my appreciation for the expansion of the Trans-Hudson article. Nice! Thanks. Cheers Geologyguy ( talk) 15:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Sémhur, I came across an article written by Black Tusk and saw that you made a map of the Image:Anahim Volcanic Belt-en.svg for an article that he wanted. Can you tell me what program you use to create these drawings and maps? I need a detailed map of the Trans-Hudson orogeny suture zone similar to the LITHPROBE transect maps, such as the one at [ [5]]. Are you able to make an expanded map like this that includes the entire THOT (Canada and the U.S.)? [ [6]] Valich February 17, 2008 (MST).
Just by chance I happened along your userpage, and I noticed those (beautiful) pictures of your Elkhound. It's so amazing to meet other fans of Norwegian Elkhounds (I have two; brothers). They are indeed the best dog breed in the world! Winnifred-Ian-Leonard-Harry-Ellen-Lucy-Marilyn-Ingrid-Nora-Amanda Walter-Ira-Lauren-Lalla ( talk) 01:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sending this to all the wikiproject:mammals participants. There's a naming guideline up for discussion on the talk page, and the more people get involved the more valid any consensus drawn. Ironho lds 19:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
You seem to be interested in a whole bunch of topics related to an article I just wrote, Cat gap. Would you be interested in helping me expand it? Raul654 ( talk) 04:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Looking at this edit, you reverted a whole bunch of changes I made to the article in the process of making some other changes. Was that accidental? If not, can you explain why you did it? Raul654 ( talk) 23:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi. On 21 March 2007, you made this edit to Organism, and added a source linked to the Discovery Institute and the Access Research Network. I'm a little confused by this edit given your user page. I don't believe these references are considered reliable for this topic. Viriditas ( talk) 12:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, User:Valich. I just reverted an edit you made at the Last Universal Common Ancestor page. I do not necessarily disagree with the substance of your edit, however the source provided (a Scientific American article) does not support the claim that the LUCA is as old as 4.1 Ga. I'd be happy to see it changed to this new figure if you can find a reliable source that specifies this. Cheers, Thibbs ( talk) 17:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Please don't copy-paste text from other websites as you did in this edit [7]. The text appears to have been copied from < http://www.everestnews.com/history/sherpas/apa.htm> and has now been removed from the article due to copyright violation. Thank you. -- Amplitude101 ( talk) 12:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Research Project thought.
Dingos are a Wolf-pariah dog, and Red Heelers are cross-breed with Dingos and some herding dogs in the 1800's(19th century). What mekes them both interesting is that they commit a peculiarity that is likeness to a weasel.
When a Heeler(Cattle Dog) or Dingo is threatened by something in close proximity "feeling unsure of something intruding", it stands upright on its back legs with its front legs a little to either side.
I have witnessed this(and not less than three months back a woman walking a Red Heeler in Macdonaldtown suburb, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia) many times before from Heelers and wild dogs in approaching them. Moreover, Kelpies appear unlike many dogs to take to the action of standing on back legs when near someone they do not know or when on their chain when people get near(Kelpies are a familiaris).
But Heelers and Dingos tend to do that alike shrews, mongooses, otters and weasels in sensing danger and feeling threatened.
The mixture of genetics in Dingos is said to be Wolves(Lupus) and Pariah dogs from Thailand, again a set of these may have existed in North America sometime and to this day called Carolina Dogs(A wild dog of the Indians of North America).
Could this be because they have a heavy genetic presence from Borophaginae and as much from Hesperocyonine(Weasel dogs as were the Borophaginae in part)???
Nicephotog ( talk) 11:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Research Project thought (Canid genetics).
Dingos are a Wolf-pariah dog, and Red Heelers are cross-breed with Dingos and some herding dogs in the 1800's(19th century). What makes them both interesting is that they commit a peculiarity that is likeness to a weasel.
When a Heeler(Cattle Dog) or Dingo is threatened by something in close proximity "feeling unsure of something intruding", it stands upright on its back legs with its front legs a little to either side.
I have witnessed this(and not less than three months back a woman walking a Red Heeler in Macdonaldtown suburb, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia) many times before from Heelers and wild dogs in approaching them.
Moreover, Kelpies appear unlike many dogs to take to the action of standing on back legs when near someone they do not know or when on their chain when people get near(Kelpies are a familiaris).
But Heelers and Dingos tend to do that alike shrews, mongooses, otters and weasels in sensing danger and feeling threatened.
The mixture of genetics in Dingos is said to be Wolves(Lupus) and Pariah dogs from Thailand, again a set of these may have existed in North America sometime and to this day called Carolina Dogs(A wild dog of the Indians of North America).
Could this be because they have a heavy genetic presence from Borophaginae and as much from Hesperocyonine(Weasel dogs as were the Borophaginae in part)???
Nicephotog ( talk) 11:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Note: Wikipedia must not get too worried about some facets of this post, it is immensely unlikely the english language has not been used before, including in this jargonal context(c'n shove itself and move over for more important text communication!!! PERIOD 2* It can have any matching apostrophes back providing the liase collectors can spell "apostrophe" correctly as proof).
A couple of years ago you made the following statement in the Red Panda talk page: "Firefox webbrowser uses the Red Panda as its logo. There is also an ancient Chinese translation of the Red Panda as hǔo hú (火狐), which literally translates as "fire fox", referring to the Red Panda’s "fire-reddish" fur color: a name which can designate either the red fox or the Red Panda. Valich 03:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)" Although this same statement seems to appear all over the internet (not to mention at my zoo), I can find no primary source to substantiate. Someone else left a bunch of links claiming to cite this, but all of those links seem to now be broken. Do you have a primary source citation for this statement? thanks for any clues. Donlammers ( talk) 04:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Baltic Shield, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images from either web sites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from https://web.archive.org/web/20080202095955/http://www.nrm.se/theswedishmuseumofnaturalhistory/researchandcollections/geology/laboratoryforisotopegeology/geologyoffennoscandia.291_en.html), and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.
If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:
It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Baltic Shield saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.
Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! GeoWriter ( talk) 16:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
The Norwegian Elkhound is my Norwegian Elkhound
Thanks for uploading
File:NorwegianElkhound.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. 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 after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{
PD-self}}
(to release all rights), {{
self|cc-by-sa-4.0}}
(to require that you be credited), or any tag
here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. 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:
This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. -- MifterBot ( Talk • Contribs • Owner) 19:46, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)