Hello. I appreciate your recent addition to the intro paragraph for this article. I was merely attempting to try to provide an honest as possible description for this theory AS a theory and try to stay away from describing it as observable fact. I take it you are trying to, as well. However, I still feel that your addition is slightly biased, for the following reasons: Using the term "plausible" denotes that it has an appearance of truth. I'd like to stay away from any idea of this being "truth" because, frankly, we just don't know. Also, the use of "observed" facts seems slightly misleading since there are many "facts" made based solely on some inference rather than on observations. Having it worded this way in the introduction may influence new readers that the theory contains ONLY observations, and that these observations are then facts. Indeed, there are many things within the current scientific theory that is mere speculation and I feel it would do only good to suggest it as such. I'd like to have this article presented very honestly and without bias. When there is a fact, based on an observation or experiment that can be reproduced, then we should definitely state that. But the distinction should be made between that and "observations" that really weren't observed. This way, a new reader will have all the necessary material presented in an honest and unbiased way and allow him/her to make their own interpretations of it.
I have gone ahead and taken out our two last changes to the introduction that we have made. I have not made these changes in any attempt to sabotage information or belittle this theory. In fact, I hope that we can work together and come to some agreement as to how the introduction should be worded to not mislead. Please comment on my talkpage and I look forward to working with you on this article.
Best, Aglassonion ( talk) 21:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
hi, we where just discussing the issue on User_talk:Mion#Hydrogen_car. Mion ( talk) 15:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The California Star | |
Thanks for your tireless vandalism patrol on the California Gold Rush ... it is much appreciated! NorCalHistory ( talk) 22:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC) |
Do you have a copy of the Montana Atlas & Gazetteer, or know an editor who would have one? Willow Creek Pass (Montana) could well use a reference from it to demonstrate, for example, the surrounding countryside and the road (if there is one) that goes through the pass. Nyttend ( talk) 04:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, not this time anyway it seems... my effort to regain my adminship was unsuccessful, but your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!-- MONGO 07:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I've been flagged as spam:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:66.11.86.29
I have made some contributions and edits in the past about actual relevant web pages to certain articles, but don't feel that I should be flagged as spam. How do I get unflagged? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Junewarren ( talk • contribs) 16:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I see you've just reverted the date of Lascaux following presumed (creationist?) vandalism. I was about to do this, but looking around the web the accepted date for Lascaux seems to be in the 15-17,000 range rather than the 35,000 stated in the GIS article - Lascaux puts it at 16,000. Pterre ( talk) 13:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree with you at all. First of all you seem to be working in geological context, which makes your judgement less credible to deal with hydropower subjects. Moreover, you jump to flag people as spam contribution without any substance. I rather find your intervention in hydropower subject as spam intervention. Please leave that subject for other experts who knows better about the subject. I am not convinced with your justification to delete my contribution. That's why I insist because its unfair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wuhawater ( talk • contribs) 15:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Its not my site. Forget it any way. The link has no any relevance except complementing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wuhawater ( talk • contribs) 11:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
hi Geologyguy - So I've noticed your excellent work reverting vandalism! Do you leave warnings on the talk pages of vandals? If not, are you interested in doing so? I find it very helpful to have a full warning history available so that I know when to look for administrator help in blocking a vandal. If you want to start leaving warning notices and need any tips or guidance let me know. de Bivort 16:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Please don't revert my edits or links due to illegitimate claims. Please open the link and read it first. A discussion on relevancy would also be appreciated before you go undoing relevant and useful links. Mrjphillip ( talk) 23:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I want to compliment you on your speed in reverting vandalism in Ohio. However, in the future, you may want to check the page history after reverting the last edit because sometimes you miss something like you did in this edit (there was another edit by the same user further down the page). Also, you will want to warn the user on their talk page after reverting so they will be aware that we do not tolerate vandalism and so other users will know that they have previously vandalized if they do it again. (you are supposed to add a higher-level warning for repeat offenses. the full list of warning templates can be found here.) Again, thanks a lot for helping to keep vandalism on Wikipedia to a minimum. Thingg ⊕ ⊗ 03:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello Geologyguy, I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck. Acalamari 17:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Geologyguy, I just wanted to say thank you for creating the article on the Boulder Batholith. I found it this winter while working on Basin, Montana, which made GA this morning. The batholith article was most helpful, and I was glad to be able to link to it. Finetooth ( talk) 18:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
This is my first post to someone else's user page; please pardon any faux pas and advise. I write to you because you seem to have been involved in earlier revisions of this page, you seem to be active, and you are a fellow IU Geology grad (BA 1992, MS 1997), though I took my classes at IUPUI.
I would like to suggest a change in the
List of basic Earth science topics page, but I'm unsure how to go about it and was unwilling to just make the change without conferring with more experienced users.
Specifically, I have a problem with the use of the term 'Lithosphere' to indicate all solid material below the pedosphere and cryosphere. I have taught introductory physical geology for 15 years and the way I describe the 'solid' portion of the earth is to explain that geologists divide the earth in two different ways it based on two properties: composition and mechanics.
As I'm sure you know, compositionally we have:
In terms of mechanics, we have:
Since the term lithosphere is commonly used to indicate this more brittle, uppermost portion of the mantle plus the crust, I find that to use lithosphere by its most literal sense (rock layer) could cause confusion for some. I would propose using the term geosphere to mean the whole of the rocky portion of the earth, meaning 'c' from Bates & Jackson
[1]
Below, there could be the list the sub-layers in relative order, perhaps even giving an image showing how the two ways of dividing these layers relate to each other.
Is this something that I should just change and see what kind of response there is?
On a related note, I am interested in soil and noted that one of the requested topics in the
WP:SOIL area is the term 'argillic', and adjective that is usually used with respect to a soil horizon. Are adjectives usually given a separate entry in Wikipedia? I did add the term to Wikitionary, as it was missing there.
Thanks, Vince
Fhernly (
talk) 20:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm new to Wikipedia, but I've been dealing with the religious anti-science brigade for some time on other sites. I don't have the scientific background to really go toe-to-toe in some of these areas (my talent lies in rhetoric) so I often ask for assistance from the professionals such as yourself. Expanding earth theory is a pet favorite of some of the more extreme creowarriors, so I thought I'd check the page out. There is another page on the same subject called Growing Earth Theory. Both reek of fringe, and need more people like you for a reality check. If you have the time or inclination, please give it a look. Thanks... Aunt Entropy ( talk) 18:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Geologyguy. Does the gravel on Image:NSRGlacialFlats.JPG look like volcanic ash to you? There's a large volcanic ash deposit called the Bridge River Ash that appears to fan out east-northeasterly as far as westernmost Alberta in the vicinity of the North Saskatchewan River. Black Tusk 22:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
How is the external link spam? http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Abdomen&oldid=194310076
You're welcome! Glad it's been useful! Acalamari 02:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I saw that and was wondering about the motivation behind adding Graham Hancock bit, thanks for dealing with it. I wonder how accurate it is anyway.-- Dougweller ( talk) 14:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I just saw you revert an edit on Comet, and your username just struck me. Have a good day, and may the vandals fail... J.delanoy gabs adds 18:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
J.delanoy
gabs
adds has given you a cookie! Cookies promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{ subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
![]() |
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
For being the first person to post on my talk page in my secret native language ( Yoda-ish), Geologyguy is awarded the Barnstar of Good Humor. J.delanoy gabs adds 19:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC) |
Thanks for your remind, Geologyguy. Here you find the explanation I gave to the first note by Mumia. I'did not receive any comment from him, so I thought it was all right. What do you think?
"Thanks for your advice and sorry for answering you so late. I’m also the Administrator of the young Wikidot website “Himetop – The History of Medicine Topographical Database” and, as you can imagine, I’m trying to make of it a reliable source of historical medical information.
In fact, every item of the database – generally dedicated to a too specific subjects for a Wikipedia page (as discussed and stated by the Wikipedia community on the past months) – a monument, a home... - has a photographic documentation and precise address to making it reliable and useful.
I can add that I’m seeing from the Stat Counter connected with Wikidot that quite many people are passing from the Wikipedia pages to the Himetop ones, so it seems to me that this kind of specific deepening may be useful to someone interested in this particular subject.
Do you think that my explanation can solve your doubts?
Many thanks, again.Luca Borghi (talk) 17:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)"
Luca Borghi ( talk) 18:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Geologyguy! My name is Victor. I am very fascinated Wikipedia user and I hope that my knowledge will be useful here. I take a keen interest in real estate and mortgage and now I'm working at the article Fizber (internet company). Some days ago it was nominaded for deletion. So I extremely need your detached opinion about it here - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_March_1#Fizber_.28internet_company.29. Thank you in advance. :) -- Prokopenya Viktor ( talk) 23:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey,
I got you message and I am still wondering why you retracted my edit. I looked over the rules regarding external links, and have been a wikipedia editor for quite some time, though under a different username. If you wouldn't mind, I would like an explanation as to why you deleted my addition. TIME is a reliable source, the Archives provide valuable first-hand context that I have found missing in the article, and the collection is a good tool for further research into the Petroleum field. -- Kevindkeogh ( talk) 19:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I am planning to nominate the Oil shale geology article for GA. I wonder if you would like to proofread this article before nomination and verify the correctness. There is also one block, which compares deposits formed on continental shelves with lake basin deposits. This block needs reference. Unfortunately I am not able to find the reference myself, so maybe you could assist with this. Beagel ( talk) 20:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, thanks for your message. Secondly, do you use any tools? Your monobook.js appears to be empty. If you use FireFox, twinkle is a great browser based program, whereas if you want a much more powerful tool, huggle is the way to go, although I can not guarantee it wont break your computer ;) Both speed up the warning side of things, with the latter doing it automously! If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Tiddly- Tom 19:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Geologyguy. Have you herd of the Temagami Magmatic Anomaly? It's one of the largest positive anomalies in North America. Anyways I'm trying to find out how this structure formed. I found some websites about the structure but don't say anything about its formation. One of the sites said something about one of the oldest well-preserved rift basins on Earth, but I didn't understand it that well (I'm new to the subject). Perhaps it might be the rift basin? Black Tusk 17:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure there is real consensus on the origin of the granite-greenstone belts. This Google Books result indicates that most Archean ones represent arc accretion, mostly involving basaltic and rhyolitic volcanic zones (and not necessarily any "true" oceanic or continental material. I guess that is a pretty good way to try to account for the dramatic petrologic alternations within the belts. Afraid I really don't know much more than that - cheers Geologyguy ( talk) 18:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
By "References one through 6 (including 5a to 5j) are to tertiary sources such as Encarta, Encyclopedia Americana, Science and Technology in World History (a text, but more or less an encyclopedic compilation)." do you mean that the wikipedia article Paleolithic is a Compilation or do you mean that one or more of the sources is an encyclopedic compilation?-- Fang 23 ( talk) 19:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Can't agree with you. The whole point of citation referencing in my view is to enable verification of information in Wikipedia. External links are also useful for images where we can't get a free image ourselves. It took me an amount of time to find an image of an obsidian scalpel on a non-commercial site. If I was interested to see this I'm sure others would too. This is why the 2nd ref was entered. Although the first reference probably isn't of a great quality website, the 2nd ref provides something that we don't. I've added another reference from google books which is higher quality and I'm removing Obsidian from my watchlist as I'm not that bothered to edit war. Regards SeanMack ( talk) 15:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
In response to your request for me to remove the link in Granite, first of all, I was not the person who added the link. Instead, I merely formatted it as a reference. Second of all, if you even bothered reading the article, you would realize that it does contains information on Ailsa Craig, once a major source of granite. Thanks. Stephenchou0722 ( talk) 19:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I'm a self-confessed novice when it comes to Wikipedia but have been trying over the past year or so to keep the bioplastics page relatively informative to visitors. To that end I've tried to keep it focused only on plastics derived from plant resources and to explain the energy implications of producing bioplastics, as well as the many different claims made by producers about biodegradeability and the scope of international standards. I can see from the amendment history that you are working to the same end. You have deleted the external link I put in to our plastics magazine website - www.prw.com. I organise the longest running international conference on bioplastics and carry a lot of bioplastics news stories on that website - the reason I included the link. I thought it would be a useful source of additional information to anyone looking to research bioplastics and thought an external link was appropriate for that purpose - am I breaking Wikipedia rules with that? Best regards, Epnedit ( talk) 11:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I appreciate your recent addition to the intro paragraph for this article. I was merely attempting to try to provide an honest as possible description for this theory AS a theory and try to stay away from describing it as observable fact. I take it you are trying to, as well. However, I still feel that your addition is slightly biased, for the following reasons: Using the term "plausible" denotes that it has an appearance of truth. I'd like to stay away from any idea of this being "truth" because, frankly, we just don't know. Also, the use of "observed" facts seems slightly misleading since there are many "facts" made based solely on some inference rather than on observations. Having it worded this way in the introduction may influence new readers that the theory contains ONLY observations, and that these observations are then facts. Indeed, there are many things within the current scientific theory that is mere speculation and I feel it would do only good to suggest it as such. I'd like to have this article presented very honestly and without bias. When there is a fact, based on an observation or experiment that can be reproduced, then we should definitely state that. But the distinction should be made between that and "observations" that really weren't observed. This way, a new reader will have all the necessary material presented in an honest and unbiased way and allow him/her to make their own interpretations of it.
I have gone ahead and taken out our two last changes to the introduction that we have made. I have not made these changes in any attempt to sabotage information or belittle this theory. In fact, I hope that we can work together and come to some agreement as to how the introduction should be worded to not mislead. Please comment on my talkpage and I look forward to working with you on this article.
Best, Aglassonion ( talk) 21:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
hi, we where just discussing the issue on User_talk:Mion#Hydrogen_car. Mion ( talk) 15:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The California Star | |
Thanks for your tireless vandalism patrol on the California Gold Rush ... it is much appreciated! NorCalHistory ( talk) 22:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC) |
Do you have a copy of the Montana Atlas & Gazetteer, or know an editor who would have one? Willow Creek Pass (Montana) could well use a reference from it to demonstrate, for example, the surrounding countryside and the road (if there is one) that goes through the pass. Nyttend ( talk) 04:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, not this time anyway it seems... my effort to regain my adminship was unsuccessful, but your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!-- MONGO 07:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I've been flagged as spam:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:66.11.86.29
I have made some contributions and edits in the past about actual relevant web pages to certain articles, but don't feel that I should be flagged as spam. How do I get unflagged? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Junewarren ( talk • contribs) 16:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I see you've just reverted the date of Lascaux following presumed (creationist?) vandalism. I was about to do this, but looking around the web the accepted date for Lascaux seems to be in the 15-17,000 range rather than the 35,000 stated in the GIS article - Lascaux puts it at 16,000. Pterre ( talk) 13:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree with you at all. First of all you seem to be working in geological context, which makes your judgement less credible to deal with hydropower subjects. Moreover, you jump to flag people as spam contribution without any substance. I rather find your intervention in hydropower subject as spam intervention. Please leave that subject for other experts who knows better about the subject. I am not convinced with your justification to delete my contribution. That's why I insist because its unfair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wuhawater ( talk • contribs) 15:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Its not my site. Forget it any way. The link has no any relevance except complementing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wuhawater ( talk • contribs) 11:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
hi Geologyguy - So I've noticed your excellent work reverting vandalism! Do you leave warnings on the talk pages of vandals? If not, are you interested in doing so? I find it very helpful to have a full warning history available so that I know when to look for administrator help in blocking a vandal. If you want to start leaving warning notices and need any tips or guidance let me know. de Bivort 16:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Please don't revert my edits or links due to illegitimate claims. Please open the link and read it first. A discussion on relevancy would also be appreciated before you go undoing relevant and useful links. Mrjphillip ( talk) 23:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I want to compliment you on your speed in reverting vandalism in Ohio. However, in the future, you may want to check the page history after reverting the last edit because sometimes you miss something like you did in this edit (there was another edit by the same user further down the page). Also, you will want to warn the user on their talk page after reverting so they will be aware that we do not tolerate vandalism and so other users will know that they have previously vandalized if they do it again. (you are supposed to add a higher-level warning for repeat offenses. the full list of warning templates can be found here.) Again, thanks a lot for helping to keep vandalism on Wikipedia to a minimum. Thingg ⊕ ⊗ 03:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello Geologyguy, I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck. Acalamari 17:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Geologyguy, I just wanted to say thank you for creating the article on the Boulder Batholith. I found it this winter while working on Basin, Montana, which made GA this morning. The batholith article was most helpful, and I was glad to be able to link to it. Finetooth ( talk) 18:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
This is my first post to someone else's user page; please pardon any faux pas and advise. I write to you because you seem to have been involved in earlier revisions of this page, you seem to be active, and you are a fellow IU Geology grad (BA 1992, MS 1997), though I took my classes at IUPUI.
I would like to suggest a change in the
List of basic Earth science topics page, but I'm unsure how to go about it and was unwilling to just make the change without conferring with more experienced users.
Specifically, I have a problem with the use of the term 'Lithosphere' to indicate all solid material below the pedosphere and cryosphere. I have taught introductory physical geology for 15 years and the way I describe the 'solid' portion of the earth is to explain that geologists divide the earth in two different ways it based on two properties: composition and mechanics.
As I'm sure you know, compositionally we have:
In terms of mechanics, we have:
Since the term lithosphere is commonly used to indicate this more brittle, uppermost portion of the mantle plus the crust, I find that to use lithosphere by its most literal sense (rock layer) could cause confusion for some. I would propose using the term geosphere to mean the whole of the rocky portion of the earth, meaning 'c' from Bates & Jackson
[1]
Below, there could be the list the sub-layers in relative order, perhaps even giving an image showing how the two ways of dividing these layers relate to each other.
Is this something that I should just change and see what kind of response there is?
On a related note, I am interested in soil and noted that one of the requested topics in the
WP:SOIL area is the term 'argillic', and adjective that is usually used with respect to a soil horizon. Are adjectives usually given a separate entry in Wikipedia? I did add the term to Wikitionary, as it was missing there.
Thanks, Vince
Fhernly (
talk) 20:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm new to Wikipedia, but I've been dealing with the religious anti-science brigade for some time on other sites. I don't have the scientific background to really go toe-to-toe in some of these areas (my talent lies in rhetoric) so I often ask for assistance from the professionals such as yourself. Expanding earth theory is a pet favorite of some of the more extreme creowarriors, so I thought I'd check the page out. There is another page on the same subject called Growing Earth Theory. Both reek of fringe, and need more people like you for a reality check. If you have the time or inclination, please give it a look. Thanks... Aunt Entropy ( talk) 18:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Geologyguy. Does the gravel on Image:NSRGlacialFlats.JPG look like volcanic ash to you? There's a large volcanic ash deposit called the Bridge River Ash that appears to fan out east-northeasterly as far as westernmost Alberta in the vicinity of the North Saskatchewan River. Black Tusk 22:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
How is the external link spam? http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Abdomen&oldid=194310076
You're welcome! Glad it's been useful! Acalamari 02:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I saw that and was wondering about the motivation behind adding Graham Hancock bit, thanks for dealing with it. I wonder how accurate it is anyway.-- Dougweller ( talk) 14:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I just saw you revert an edit on Comet, and your username just struck me. Have a good day, and may the vandals fail... J.delanoy gabs adds 18:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
J.delanoy
gabs
adds has given you a cookie! Cookies promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{ subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
![]() |
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
For being the first person to post on my talk page in my secret native language ( Yoda-ish), Geologyguy is awarded the Barnstar of Good Humor. J.delanoy gabs adds 19:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC) |
Thanks for your remind, Geologyguy. Here you find the explanation I gave to the first note by Mumia. I'did not receive any comment from him, so I thought it was all right. What do you think?
"Thanks for your advice and sorry for answering you so late. I’m also the Administrator of the young Wikidot website “Himetop – The History of Medicine Topographical Database” and, as you can imagine, I’m trying to make of it a reliable source of historical medical information.
In fact, every item of the database – generally dedicated to a too specific subjects for a Wikipedia page (as discussed and stated by the Wikipedia community on the past months) – a monument, a home... - has a photographic documentation and precise address to making it reliable and useful.
I can add that I’m seeing from the Stat Counter connected with Wikidot that quite many people are passing from the Wikipedia pages to the Himetop ones, so it seems to me that this kind of specific deepening may be useful to someone interested in this particular subject.
Do you think that my explanation can solve your doubts?
Many thanks, again.Luca Borghi (talk) 17:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)"
Luca Borghi ( talk) 18:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Geologyguy! My name is Victor. I am very fascinated Wikipedia user and I hope that my knowledge will be useful here. I take a keen interest in real estate and mortgage and now I'm working at the article Fizber (internet company). Some days ago it was nominaded for deletion. So I extremely need your detached opinion about it here - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_March_1#Fizber_.28internet_company.29. Thank you in advance. :) -- Prokopenya Viktor ( talk) 23:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey,
I got you message and I am still wondering why you retracted my edit. I looked over the rules regarding external links, and have been a wikipedia editor for quite some time, though under a different username. If you wouldn't mind, I would like an explanation as to why you deleted my addition. TIME is a reliable source, the Archives provide valuable first-hand context that I have found missing in the article, and the collection is a good tool for further research into the Petroleum field. -- Kevindkeogh ( talk) 19:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I am planning to nominate the Oil shale geology article for GA. I wonder if you would like to proofread this article before nomination and verify the correctness. There is also one block, which compares deposits formed on continental shelves with lake basin deposits. This block needs reference. Unfortunately I am not able to find the reference myself, so maybe you could assist with this. Beagel ( talk) 20:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, thanks for your message. Secondly, do you use any tools? Your monobook.js appears to be empty. If you use FireFox, twinkle is a great browser based program, whereas if you want a much more powerful tool, huggle is the way to go, although I can not guarantee it wont break your computer ;) Both speed up the warning side of things, with the latter doing it automously! If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Tiddly- Tom 19:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Geologyguy. Have you herd of the Temagami Magmatic Anomaly? It's one of the largest positive anomalies in North America. Anyways I'm trying to find out how this structure formed. I found some websites about the structure but don't say anything about its formation. One of the sites said something about one of the oldest well-preserved rift basins on Earth, but I didn't understand it that well (I'm new to the subject). Perhaps it might be the rift basin? Black Tusk 17:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure there is real consensus on the origin of the granite-greenstone belts. This Google Books result indicates that most Archean ones represent arc accretion, mostly involving basaltic and rhyolitic volcanic zones (and not necessarily any "true" oceanic or continental material. I guess that is a pretty good way to try to account for the dramatic petrologic alternations within the belts. Afraid I really don't know much more than that - cheers Geologyguy ( talk) 18:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
By "References one through 6 (including 5a to 5j) are to tertiary sources such as Encarta, Encyclopedia Americana, Science and Technology in World History (a text, but more or less an encyclopedic compilation)." do you mean that the wikipedia article Paleolithic is a Compilation or do you mean that one or more of the sources is an encyclopedic compilation?-- Fang 23 ( talk) 19:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Can't agree with you. The whole point of citation referencing in my view is to enable verification of information in Wikipedia. External links are also useful for images where we can't get a free image ourselves. It took me an amount of time to find an image of an obsidian scalpel on a non-commercial site. If I was interested to see this I'm sure others would too. This is why the 2nd ref was entered. Although the first reference probably isn't of a great quality website, the 2nd ref provides something that we don't. I've added another reference from google books which is higher quality and I'm removing Obsidian from my watchlist as I'm not that bothered to edit war. Regards SeanMack ( talk) 15:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
In response to your request for me to remove the link in Granite, first of all, I was not the person who added the link. Instead, I merely formatted it as a reference. Second of all, if you even bothered reading the article, you would realize that it does contains information on Ailsa Craig, once a major source of granite. Thanks. Stephenchou0722 ( talk) 19:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I'm a self-confessed novice when it comes to Wikipedia but have been trying over the past year or so to keep the bioplastics page relatively informative to visitors. To that end I've tried to keep it focused only on plastics derived from plant resources and to explain the energy implications of producing bioplastics, as well as the many different claims made by producers about biodegradeability and the scope of international standards. I can see from the amendment history that you are working to the same end. You have deleted the external link I put in to our plastics magazine website - www.prw.com. I organise the longest running international conference on bioplastics and carry a lot of bioplastics news stories on that website - the reason I included the link. I thought it would be a useful source of additional information to anyone looking to research bioplastics and thought an external link was appropriate for that purpose - am I breaking Wikipedia rules with that? Best regards, Epnedit ( talk) 11:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)