This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Thanks - looks a good start - I'll see what I can do... Babakathy ( talk) 07:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
GW sure got nasty. We haven't talked a while, and if this a bad moment, I'm alright with waiting. It seems kind of odd that some of the editors seem experience an abrupt change in habits. For example FinScribe, Dalej78, and Macai all abruptly stopped editing two years ago, 2007, and then picked right back up again with minor exceptions. Some also seem to be unusual well-versed in policy, although it's not beyond inconceivable bounds. Whether this is because of the e-mail incident, a perennial pattern, or a new Scibaby (+ friends) tactic. I don't know. In terms of political progressivism in the media, it seems time to me, now that the presidential election's over, that they're going become more conservative again. I was wondering if you had any thoughts in mind. I don't like seeing the wrong version of the article locked, but IMO it's acceptable to wait until it blows over. The number one deterrent for flamers is boredom, so write in a very dry, unemotional, logical tone. Well that's my two cents, how about you? ChyranandChloe ( talk) 05:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
The media goes through cycles, pretty predictable ones too, I took political science. To sum it up, presidents receive the greatest approval during and after the election, which declines during the house elections. Names have changed, so have positions, but with a few excpetion it's been like this for the past fifty years.
My problem is that I look for errors in their arugments, which is a sure way to turn their ego against you.
I feel like I'm being really cold, which apparently is the opposite of encouragement and an aweful way to improve the community. I'm probably getting too much practice with alliterations, [1] which works better than bolding to get your point across. Well those are the happenings, how about you? What do you think? ChyranandChloe ( talk) 08:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Para poder, fuerza e energia! Or, when facing a wreck, Toddy! I hope this cheers you :) User:Tim Vickers might be able to help on that RSN hypothesis issue; he has a calming effect on such discussions, in case you want to knock on his door. Saludos, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh good grief. What is this all about? Send me a mail? William M. Connolley ( talk) 09:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Re this, I don't have 49 minutes to watch the video, so I can't answer, but the video is used to source the statement that he is supportive of Chavez ... does he actually say something like that in the video? Or is that the viewer interpretation? The video *is* a reliable source for what Weisbrot says, but not interpretation of what he says, as that would be OR. I haven't watched it, so can't comment, but if he says something that supports the statement, the time on the video should be indicated. The SOP on Venezuelan articles is just to revert and hope no one will take the time, rather than discuss and improve text (which generally means leave cleanup to others and keep only text that supports one side of the story -- sorta like the reviews of South of the Border (2009 film)); hopefully that will abate a bit now, at least on one article. It's hard to know what JRSP and Rd2332's standards of interpreting policy are, since what applies in one case doesn't seem to apply in another; I'm trying to figure out how JRSP wants the text written, and what he wants attributed, but simply reverting isn't the way to go. Best, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 05:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Courtesy, I mentioned your original edit here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Since you and I were having an exchange about the phrasing/sourcing of Weisbrot's "support for Chavez policies", please feel free to continue that conversation in the new Reboot section, Sandy's unilateral declaration that everything is resolved notwithstanding. Rd232 talk 11:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Do you have any thoughts on this and would you care to add your name to any part of it? Any suggestions on launching it properly and getting lots of input would also be valued. MalcolmMcDonald ( talk) 14:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
FYI, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2007–2008 Nazko earthquakes/archive1 SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Any objections to my copying our "civility" discussion (which was deleted by WMC as "unhelpful) to a collapsed copy on my talk page? Good rhetoric should never go to waste. :-) Proofreader77 ( interact) 23:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Bottom line, I may certainly be discussing "civility" in the future ... but not about that pleasant exchange — which I honor by rescuing it from oblivion. :-) Cheers. Proofreader77 ( interact) 00:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
GW's cooled down quite a bit, for un-cool comments we've got a protocol and a template. You and Boris worked on the article "Climate change", Count Iblis asked something I think is interesting, see Talk:Global warming#Stratospheric cooling. Thanks, haven't talk to you in a while. ChyranandChloe ( talk) 02:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I put a quote in the "Relation to Mountain Formation" section from Jackson and Bates. It is quoted by Ollier & Pain. You may have noticed in earlier discussion that there are a half-dozen or so references that seem to treat orogeny as including stuff not related to mountain building and excluding stuff that is. So it seems reasonable to me to include some heads up on that score. Brews ohare ( talk) 14:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Here is a recent discussion. Brews ohare ( talk) 14:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Seems like we've both been looking into Ollier. He's also on Inhofe's list of deniers or whatever, thought the name was familiar - he wrote a paper comparing Global warming to Lysenkoism or some such. Interesting -- rejects climate change and plate tectonics. I'd like a copy of the Dahlen and Suppe paper, I'm a GSA member, but don't have access to old special paper articles. PV = nRT Cheers, Vsmith ( talk) 02:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I'd be happy to do that, but am not versed in how it is done. Maybe you can point me in the right direction? Brews ohare ( talk) 03:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
...lurking... cf Wikipedia:E-mailing users: you need to provide an email address in your preferences in order to enable emailing others. Rd232 talk 11:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I have activated this feature, so I think you can now send me those articles. Thanks for your help with this feature. Brews ohare ( talk) 16:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm proposing a change here. I believe you added the words I'm proposing to change, so I thought I'd let you know. -- SPhilbrick T 01:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Andy:
Thanks for contributing to the action concerning mitigation of the sanctions against me. Appreciated. Brews ohare ( talk) 17:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Awickert. Have you used Citation bot lately? I cannot get it to work well for me: if I ask to commit edits, it won't do it. If I ask it to not commit edits, it strips all of the <ref> out of the article, and I have to pick through the results by hand.
(Unless there is a secret working copy of it somewhere? I use http://toolserver.org/~verisimilus/Bot/DOI_bot/)
Thanks! — hike395 ( talk) 07:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Hey. Since you did good reviewing the 2007–2008 Nazko earthquakes article, are you willing to review other articles that I might bring to FAC? There is at least two articles I am willing to put effort into for FA class, one of which I have already started. The Milbanke Sound Group on the Coast of BC has been one of my areas of interest recently and I looked for as such information as I could. But it turns out the volcanic group has not been studied too much so there is not much known about it. This includes its age, last activity and origin(s). I posted all the information I found about it in the article, so most if not everything known about the group is in the article. The other article I am willing to turn into an FA is the Magic Mountain hydrothermal field on the Explorer Ridge west of Vancouver Island, which is currently only a stub. I will do a major expansion to this article when I am done collecting information to change it to at least B class if not more. Lots of the content is public domain so it can likely be just be copied and reworded a bit. BT ( talk) 23:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Did I ever ask you to review (or did you from a generic request) the geology sections of Everglades and St. Johns River? If not, are you willing to do so? I was informed that you are somewhat willing to give advice on geology matters. I read geology texts with bravado and fortitude, but the reality is that I usually end up saying, "Dude, what?" to the sources and biting my lip, praying, and holding my breath while I'm trying to interpret it. I appreciate what you can do. Thanks. -- Moni3 ( talk) 14:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm in self-imposed purdah on most aspects of climate change editing, including discussion of conduct issues. However upon seeing your report on this editor at ANI my first thought was that you might want to consider taking it to the climate change probation enforcement page.
There are without doubt some editors who openly soap-box a minority science position, most of them from a state of ignorance. I encountered this editor yesterday and was shocked at his candor about his own motives.
A case can probably be made that he is engaged in an attempt to subvert Wikipedia's science coverage to advance his favored position to the detriment of the neutral point of view, and that his hostile and warlike posture is a calculated gambit. Such a case could probably be best made, and appreciated, by those who have now devoted a month or so to observing Thegoodlocust and other problem editors at work on Wikipedia. Tony Sidaway aka -- Tasty monster 16:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
About T:GW, a good deal of their motivation comes from responses to their post, which is what drives forums. We're not a forum. Unless it's clearly about an edit to the article, nothing bad happens (unless its tied to your ego) when you ignore them. This doesn't imply a complete abandonment of talk, just to remember what we're here for. ChyranandChloe ( talk) 08:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I had to look up logs and specks. Interesting. I haven't heard that phrase used.
Old fruit my be acceptable in Britain, but it is a mean slur in the U.S., equivalent to calling someone and old fag, and not the cigarette kind. So it should probably be avoided alltogether here since there are editors from all parts of the English speaking world. Among friends, maybe it should get a pass, but accusations of malicious editing were also leveled that got the same defense. So there does seem to be a double standard. On the other hand, I understand that there are cultural and language differences. For example I find the whole "have a cup of tea" thing insulting, that doesn't fly where I come from. Maybe it has something to do with us dumping the lot of it into Boston Harbor? I don't know. I have noticed British editors often misunderstand my patented brand of American gringo humor, so I guess it goes both ways. Well, cheerios. Enjoy your tea and crumpets. :) ChildofMidnight ( talk) 19:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
cf Talk:Venezuela_Information_Office#VIO_employees_discussion, and please exercise BLP caution and do not rush reinsert contentious material without sufficient discussion. thanks. Rd232 talk 17:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Well how'd it go? You had ~2 months. Res Mar 19:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your recent contributions to one of Wikipedia's Venezuela-related articles. Given the interest you've expressed by your edits, have you considered joining
WikiProject Venezuela? We are a group of editors dedicated to improving the overall quality of Wikipedia's Venezuela-related content. If you would like to join, simply add your name to the
list of participants. Please see our
list of open tasks for ideas on where to get started.
If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page. We look forward to working with you in the future! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Awickert:
Thank you so much for your support and well expressed commentary on the recent unblock action on my behalf. As a completely outside uninvolved editor, your views are not suspect of being partisan, and carry weight. Brews ohare ( talk) 01:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I sent a message to David Tombe here, but it's really to you all. Thank you for your support, not because I give a rip about being punished by a bunch of bottom-feeding wannabe politicians, but because you all see and recognize something that was totally wrong and against the spirit of Wikipedia, and you rose up and stated such long before I even thought about it. Trusilver 18:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Hey Andy, I'm preparing Cerro Azul (Chile volcano) for FAC and it needs some looking over. Would you mind reviewing it to see if it's comprehensive and make sure that it makes sense? You helped me a lot with Nevado del Ruiz and I'd be glad to get your help again. :) ceran thor 16:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) So how are we looking towards FAC? The article's improved sh*tloads since last week. When I do nominate, be prepared to be a co-nom or something. You'll at the very least be recognized. ceran thor 22:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
The title I asked for gives the wrong map.
Last year you had downloaded a similar map with a VERY similar map. Hyper-linking brings up your map, rather than mine.
In Commons, under Geology of Minnesota:
5th row, 1st column is your original map 11th row, 1st column is my map.
I don't know how to rename.
Also, I downloaded another map and put it in the Geology of Minnesota - Grand Portage route. If you see any problems, I'd appreciate knowing about it.
Thank you for your invaluable help!! Bettymnz4 ( talk) 23:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
"Mine" is titled "Ne mn geologic map,j 189,672 bytes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettymnz4 ( talk • contribs) 01:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC) Bettymnz4 ( talk) 01:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
the web address for the second map is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Grand_Portage_route.JPG
As of now, it doesn't availabe. Does it take a while for an image to be "posted" to Commons?
thanks again
Again, thank you for your help. Bettymnz4 ( talk) 01:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I was using the wrong source for that information and have corrected it. Thank you for the offer on sources. I may be taking you up on that. Cla68 ( talk) 01:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah yes, you must be referring to the rock dab... you're welcome. Had you been a new user however (I checked), I probably would have reverted that page back to a redirect, being as it's a dab page with only two items. Regardless, thanks for the kind words. Happy editing! -- WikHead ( talk) 08:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Well the rewrite seems to be a little bit more than to just "attributed and expected effects". What do you think of this discussion: Talk:Global warming#Rewrite of attributed and expected effects, and other changes? ChyranandChloe ( talk) 23:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you so much for taking care of the alt text. I'm trying to find that one image - there are plenty that look like it on flickr, but none are it. ceran thor 17:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I'll be sending this to you and Ruslik. Unfortunately, I'll be on vacation this Thursday morning so I'll be leaving you guys for a week to fend for yourselves on the FAC. Seeing the excellent work you've already done, I think you'll be fine. Hopefully the article will pass while I'm gone! ;) ceran thor 11:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Andy,
As it seems that we're the only ones interested, how about we work on this together? I've started on a draft at User:Mikenorton/Sandbox, although there's very little content as yet. I'm thinking of this in terms of the experience I gained from logging hundreds of metres of Devonian red beds and metamorphic/igneous basement core back in the early 90s, where the description was based on a standard set of characteristics of: base lithology with qualifiers of colour, grain size, grain/clast shape, bedding/fabric type/scale, small scale structures etc. If you have any thoughts on this I would be grateful and feel free to get in there, rename sections, move stuff around and add as much content as you like. Cheers, Mikenorton ( talk) 07:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Since you appear to be one of the contributors to this article, I thought I would point you to this proposal. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Taking a different route this time, perhaps we could collaborate on David A. Johnston? I would be really psyched if we could get it to FA for the 30th anniversary of the eruption (May 18, I think). What do you think? ceran thor 23:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey. Are you able to review this article sometime? I just remade and expanded this article today so it could use some looking at before I do something with it like bring it to FAC. BT ( talk) 20:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Cerro Azul was promoted today! Thank you for all the amazing work you put into helping me research, polish prose, and polish it again so that it was accurate. Without you and Ruslik (and of course Malleus, Ruhrfisch, and any other copyeditors), it would never have gotten this far! I'm looking forward to improving Johnston even more; he was a great guy who really deserves a great article, and we're on the way to that. ceran thor 23:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm winding down for a few hours, so I thought I'd point you to some more thoughts I've put on the article talk page. I'd like to get some fedback on the other pictures I've found before uploading, as it would be more efficient to upload pictures that are useful, rather than borderline one. If you have time, could you let me know what you think, and which images are still needed and it is best to concentrate on? Thanks. Carcharoth ( talk) 20:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, just ran across this article, Megamullion, and did some fixin', the article still needs work. Added a couple of refs, but don't have access to either of them - just abstracts, look like interesting articles. I see that you had edited it last fall - so thought with all your free time... :) Cheers, Vsmith ( talk) 23:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
David A. Johnston passed! Excellent work! Now we just have to get through TFA/R... and there's already an article being considered for May 18. :( ceran thor 19:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments on the talk page. I was pretty excited to find some amazing images in a source I hadn't seen before. See here. So I wanted to point these out to you and see what you think. Carcharoth ( talk) 23:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
That was a stand up thing you did there. TheGoodLocust ( talk) 02:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
For your great work on helping to get the David A. Johnston article to FA status, you deserve, at a minimum, this barnstar. The article was excellent and it is contributions like this that make wikipedia a useful, insightful, and topical source. Please keep up the great work! Remember ( talk) 16:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC) |
Awickert and Ceranthor, David Johnston was one of those TFAs that makes one proud of Wiki-- which doesn't happen often enough!! I was ashamed and embarrassed once when we ran an article about a deceased person on her birthday, in which we made unnecessary, gratuitous comments about her mother-- imagine the mother having to see that on her lost daughter's birthday! Your work restores my faith in the possibilities to highlight good work on the main page. Congratulations! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Or were you formerly employed directly by an Oil Company, or indirectly (as a Sub-contractor or employee of a Subcontractor) by an oil company?
69.171.160.130 ( talk) 10:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I made no accusation. I asked a question. And it was a reasonable question.
This would apply to Wikipedia guidelines about the neutrality of Editorship of the article-- and does fall under Wikipedia policy.
So since the article applies to your Wikipedia-required neutrality as an editor-- I'd like to ask what the answer is.
Please be aware that a false answer could easily be revealed later by a criminal fraud investigation or a civil investigation.
Back on your stated concern about treating BP fairly--
It's very odd that an article about the BP corporation (which has been found by the US government to be responsible for the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster, and so is way past being merely a 'suspect' in the disaster) would 1) have the section about the current disaster given a hard-to-recognize, and hence hard for most people to find, section title, and 2) that this section, pertaining to the worst oil disaster in U.S, history would constantly be pushed to the bottom of the list of environmental mishaps.
Common sense, not paranoia, raises legitimate questions about the article being aggressively spun.
75.166.179.110 ( talk) 16:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
He's a witch! Burn him! William M. Connolley ( talk) 18:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Awickert, I see that you've got friends here in the oil business.
Have a great day!
75.166.179.110 ( talk) 20:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
There is a certain user who is worrying me about their YEC-led edits to geology articles... I am no admin, but is there anything constructive we can do to temper the user? Or am I just overreacting/paranoid? I am afraid of him slipping some veiled YEC propaganda in an article under our noses. I only come to you because you seem to be one of the heavy hitters in geology on Wikipedia. Qfl247 ( talk) 22:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, especially for being "that guy"! I am no admin... I have to rely on users such as yourself with more chops to resort to drastic measures if needed. I got sucked into the debate as well; you are right that the way to fight it is with the rules of WP, not in an endless loop of arguments on deaf ears. I just hope that we don't have to resort to a semi-protect on certain pages... hopefully we can fend him off the old-fashioned way. Thanks again! Qfl247 ( talk) 21:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
P.S. Thanks for eliminating the debate on the talk pages with the WP:Noforum message... that was getting annoying!
Really? That would actually seem fun, but I am an evil heathen. Maybe one day I'll get the power to do that kind of stuff, and then get sick of it too... Well anyways, it is always good to converse with another sed person on here. You do a great job, I hope people like that don't discourage you enough to back away from this. Qfl247 ( talk) 22:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello! I appreciate you guys' honest efforts to remove fear-mongering and bias in the science articles (I know I am attempting to do the same thing from my perspective), but I do ask if you could consider my petition to include at least some of the answers that mainstream science has to YEC challenges. I admit that I am not a scientist, and my technical training is null, but I think it is okay for me to request more discussion of the debate in science articles. I am going to refrain from editing the traditional science articles, and will concentrate my efforts mainly on Catastrophism and other topics. Please fill me in on your efforts to increase the neutrality of the encyclopedia. You can debate with me on my talk page ( talk) 03:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Thanks - looks a good start - I'll see what I can do... Babakathy ( talk) 07:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
GW sure got nasty. We haven't talked a while, and if this a bad moment, I'm alright with waiting. It seems kind of odd that some of the editors seem experience an abrupt change in habits. For example FinScribe, Dalej78, and Macai all abruptly stopped editing two years ago, 2007, and then picked right back up again with minor exceptions. Some also seem to be unusual well-versed in policy, although it's not beyond inconceivable bounds. Whether this is because of the e-mail incident, a perennial pattern, or a new Scibaby (+ friends) tactic. I don't know. In terms of political progressivism in the media, it seems time to me, now that the presidential election's over, that they're going become more conservative again. I was wondering if you had any thoughts in mind. I don't like seeing the wrong version of the article locked, but IMO it's acceptable to wait until it blows over. The number one deterrent for flamers is boredom, so write in a very dry, unemotional, logical tone. Well that's my two cents, how about you? ChyranandChloe ( talk) 05:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
The media goes through cycles, pretty predictable ones too, I took political science. To sum it up, presidents receive the greatest approval during and after the election, which declines during the house elections. Names have changed, so have positions, but with a few excpetion it's been like this for the past fifty years.
My problem is that I look for errors in their arugments, which is a sure way to turn their ego against you.
I feel like I'm being really cold, which apparently is the opposite of encouragement and an aweful way to improve the community. I'm probably getting too much practice with alliterations, [1] which works better than bolding to get your point across. Well those are the happenings, how about you? What do you think? ChyranandChloe ( talk) 08:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Para poder, fuerza e energia! Or, when facing a wreck, Toddy! I hope this cheers you :) User:Tim Vickers might be able to help on that RSN hypothesis issue; he has a calming effect on such discussions, in case you want to knock on his door. Saludos, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh good grief. What is this all about? Send me a mail? William M. Connolley ( talk) 09:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Re this, I don't have 49 minutes to watch the video, so I can't answer, but the video is used to source the statement that he is supportive of Chavez ... does he actually say something like that in the video? Or is that the viewer interpretation? The video *is* a reliable source for what Weisbrot says, but not interpretation of what he says, as that would be OR. I haven't watched it, so can't comment, but if he says something that supports the statement, the time on the video should be indicated. The SOP on Venezuelan articles is just to revert and hope no one will take the time, rather than discuss and improve text (which generally means leave cleanup to others and keep only text that supports one side of the story -- sorta like the reviews of South of the Border (2009 film)); hopefully that will abate a bit now, at least on one article. It's hard to know what JRSP and Rd2332's standards of interpreting policy are, since what applies in one case doesn't seem to apply in another; I'm trying to figure out how JRSP wants the text written, and what he wants attributed, but simply reverting isn't the way to go. Best, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 05:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Courtesy, I mentioned your original edit here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Since you and I were having an exchange about the phrasing/sourcing of Weisbrot's "support for Chavez policies", please feel free to continue that conversation in the new Reboot section, Sandy's unilateral declaration that everything is resolved notwithstanding. Rd232 talk 11:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Do you have any thoughts on this and would you care to add your name to any part of it? Any suggestions on launching it properly and getting lots of input would also be valued. MalcolmMcDonald ( talk) 14:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
FYI, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2007–2008 Nazko earthquakes/archive1 SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Any objections to my copying our "civility" discussion (which was deleted by WMC as "unhelpful) to a collapsed copy on my talk page? Good rhetoric should never go to waste. :-) Proofreader77 ( interact) 23:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Bottom line, I may certainly be discussing "civility" in the future ... but not about that pleasant exchange — which I honor by rescuing it from oblivion. :-) Cheers. Proofreader77 ( interact) 00:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
GW's cooled down quite a bit, for un-cool comments we've got a protocol and a template. You and Boris worked on the article "Climate change", Count Iblis asked something I think is interesting, see Talk:Global warming#Stratospheric cooling. Thanks, haven't talk to you in a while. ChyranandChloe ( talk) 02:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I put a quote in the "Relation to Mountain Formation" section from Jackson and Bates. It is quoted by Ollier & Pain. You may have noticed in earlier discussion that there are a half-dozen or so references that seem to treat orogeny as including stuff not related to mountain building and excluding stuff that is. So it seems reasonable to me to include some heads up on that score. Brews ohare ( talk) 14:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Here is a recent discussion. Brews ohare ( talk) 14:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Seems like we've both been looking into Ollier. He's also on Inhofe's list of deniers or whatever, thought the name was familiar - he wrote a paper comparing Global warming to Lysenkoism or some such. Interesting -- rejects climate change and plate tectonics. I'd like a copy of the Dahlen and Suppe paper, I'm a GSA member, but don't have access to old special paper articles. PV = nRT Cheers, Vsmith ( talk) 02:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I'd be happy to do that, but am not versed in how it is done. Maybe you can point me in the right direction? Brews ohare ( talk) 03:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
...lurking... cf Wikipedia:E-mailing users: you need to provide an email address in your preferences in order to enable emailing others. Rd232 talk 11:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I have activated this feature, so I think you can now send me those articles. Thanks for your help with this feature. Brews ohare ( talk) 16:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm proposing a change here. I believe you added the words I'm proposing to change, so I thought I'd let you know. -- SPhilbrick T 01:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Andy:
Thanks for contributing to the action concerning mitigation of the sanctions against me. Appreciated. Brews ohare ( talk) 17:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Awickert. Have you used Citation bot lately? I cannot get it to work well for me: if I ask to commit edits, it won't do it. If I ask it to not commit edits, it strips all of the <ref> out of the article, and I have to pick through the results by hand.
(Unless there is a secret working copy of it somewhere? I use http://toolserver.org/~verisimilus/Bot/DOI_bot/)
Thanks! — hike395 ( talk) 07:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Hey. Since you did good reviewing the 2007–2008 Nazko earthquakes article, are you willing to review other articles that I might bring to FAC? There is at least two articles I am willing to put effort into for FA class, one of which I have already started. The Milbanke Sound Group on the Coast of BC has been one of my areas of interest recently and I looked for as such information as I could. But it turns out the volcanic group has not been studied too much so there is not much known about it. This includes its age, last activity and origin(s). I posted all the information I found about it in the article, so most if not everything known about the group is in the article. The other article I am willing to turn into an FA is the Magic Mountain hydrothermal field on the Explorer Ridge west of Vancouver Island, which is currently only a stub. I will do a major expansion to this article when I am done collecting information to change it to at least B class if not more. Lots of the content is public domain so it can likely be just be copied and reworded a bit. BT ( talk) 23:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Did I ever ask you to review (or did you from a generic request) the geology sections of Everglades and St. Johns River? If not, are you willing to do so? I was informed that you are somewhat willing to give advice on geology matters. I read geology texts with bravado and fortitude, but the reality is that I usually end up saying, "Dude, what?" to the sources and biting my lip, praying, and holding my breath while I'm trying to interpret it. I appreciate what you can do. Thanks. -- Moni3 ( talk) 14:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm in self-imposed purdah on most aspects of climate change editing, including discussion of conduct issues. However upon seeing your report on this editor at ANI my first thought was that you might want to consider taking it to the climate change probation enforcement page.
There are without doubt some editors who openly soap-box a minority science position, most of them from a state of ignorance. I encountered this editor yesterday and was shocked at his candor about his own motives.
A case can probably be made that he is engaged in an attempt to subvert Wikipedia's science coverage to advance his favored position to the detriment of the neutral point of view, and that his hostile and warlike posture is a calculated gambit. Such a case could probably be best made, and appreciated, by those who have now devoted a month or so to observing Thegoodlocust and other problem editors at work on Wikipedia. Tony Sidaway aka -- Tasty monster 16:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
About T:GW, a good deal of their motivation comes from responses to their post, which is what drives forums. We're not a forum. Unless it's clearly about an edit to the article, nothing bad happens (unless its tied to your ego) when you ignore them. This doesn't imply a complete abandonment of talk, just to remember what we're here for. ChyranandChloe ( talk) 08:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I had to look up logs and specks. Interesting. I haven't heard that phrase used.
Old fruit my be acceptable in Britain, but it is a mean slur in the U.S., equivalent to calling someone and old fag, and not the cigarette kind. So it should probably be avoided alltogether here since there are editors from all parts of the English speaking world. Among friends, maybe it should get a pass, but accusations of malicious editing were also leveled that got the same defense. So there does seem to be a double standard. On the other hand, I understand that there are cultural and language differences. For example I find the whole "have a cup of tea" thing insulting, that doesn't fly where I come from. Maybe it has something to do with us dumping the lot of it into Boston Harbor? I don't know. I have noticed British editors often misunderstand my patented brand of American gringo humor, so I guess it goes both ways. Well, cheerios. Enjoy your tea and crumpets. :) ChildofMidnight ( talk) 19:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
cf Talk:Venezuela_Information_Office#VIO_employees_discussion, and please exercise BLP caution and do not rush reinsert contentious material without sufficient discussion. thanks. Rd232 talk 17:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Well how'd it go? You had ~2 months. Res Mar 19:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your recent contributions to one of Wikipedia's Venezuela-related articles. Given the interest you've expressed by your edits, have you considered joining
WikiProject Venezuela? We are a group of editors dedicated to improving the overall quality of Wikipedia's Venezuela-related content. If you would like to join, simply add your name to the
list of participants. Please see our
list of open tasks for ideas on where to get started.
If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page. We look forward to working with you in the future! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Awickert:
Thank you so much for your support and well expressed commentary on the recent unblock action on my behalf. As a completely outside uninvolved editor, your views are not suspect of being partisan, and carry weight. Brews ohare ( talk) 01:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I sent a message to David Tombe here, but it's really to you all. Thank you for your support, not because I give a rip about being punished by a bunch of bottom-feeding wannabe politicians, but because you all see and recognize something that was totally wrong and against the spirit of Wikipedia, and you rose up and stated such long before I even thought about it. Trusilver 18:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Hey Andy, I'm preparing Cerro Azul (Chile volcano) for FAC and it needs some looking over. Would you mind reviewing it to see if it's comprehensive and make sure that it makes sense? You helped me a lot with Nevado del Ruiz and I'd be glad to get your help again. :) ceran thor 16:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) So how are we looking towards FAC? The article's improved sh*tloads since last week. When I do nominate, be prepared to be a co-nom or something. You'll at the very least be recognized. ceran thor 22:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
The title I asked for gives the wrong map.
Last year you had downloaded a similar map with a VERY similar map. Hyper-linking brings up your map, rather than mine.
In Commons, under Geology of Minnesota:
5th row, 1st column is your original map 11th row, 1st column is my map.
I don't know how to rename.
Also, I downloaded another map and put it in the Geology of Minnesota - Grand Portage route. If you see any problems, I'd appreciate knowing about it.
Thank you for your invaluable help!! Bettymnz4 ( talk) 23:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
"Mine" is titled "Ne mn geologic map,j 189,672 bytes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettymnz4 ( talk • contribs) 01:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC) Bettymnz4 ( talk) 01:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
the web address for the second map is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Grand_Portage_route.JPG
As of now, it doesn't availabe. Does it take a while for an image to be "posted" to Commons?
thanks again
Again, thank you for your help. Bettymnz4 ( talk) 01:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I was using the wrong source for that information and have corrected it. Thank you for the offer on sources. I may be taking you up on that. Cla68 ( talk) 01:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah yes, you must be referring to the rock dab... you're welcome. Had you been a new user however (I checked), I probably would have reverted that page back to a redirect, being as it's a dab page with only two items. Regardless, thanks for the kind words. Happy editing! -- WikHead ( talk) 08:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Well the rewrite seems to be a little bit more than to just "attributed and expected effects". What do you think of this discussion: Talk:Global warming#Rewrite of attributed and expected effects, and other changes? ChyranandChloe ( talk) 23:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you so much for taking care of the alt text. I'm trying to find that one image - there are plenty that look like it on flickr, but none are it. ceran thor 17:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I'll be sending this to you and Ruslik. Unfortunately, I'll be on vacation this Thursday morning so I'll be leaving you guys for a week to fend for yourselves on the FAC. Seeing the excellent work you've already done, I think you'll be fine. Hopefully the article will pass while I'm gone! ;) ceran thor 11:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Andy,
As it seems that we're the only ones interested, how about we work on this together? I've started on a draft at User:Mikenorton/Sandbox, although there's very little content as yet. I'm thinking of this in terms of the experience I gained from logging hundreds of metres of Devonian red beds and metamorphic/igneous basement core back in the early 90s, where the description was based on a standard set of characteristics of: base lithology with qualifiers of colour, grain size, grain/clast shape, bedding/fabric type/scale, small scale structures etc. If you have any thoughts on this I would be grateful and feel free to get in there, rename sections, move stuff around and add as much content as you like. Cheers, Mikenorton ( talk) 07:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Since you appear to be one of the contributors to this article, I thought I would point you to this proposal. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Taking a different route this time, perhaps we could collaborate on David A. Johnston? I would be really psyched if we could get it to FA for the 30th anniversary of the eruption (May 18, I think). What do you think? ceran thor 23:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey. Are you able to review this article sometime? I just remade and expanded this article today so it could use some looking at before I do something with it like bring it to FAC. BT ( talk) 20:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Cerro Azul was promoted today! Thank you for all the amazing work you put into helping me research, polish prose, and polish it again so that it was accurate. Without you and Ruslik (and of course Malleus, Ruhrfisch, and any other copyeditors), it would never have gotten this far! I'm looking forward to improving Johnston even more; he was a great guy who really deserves a great article, and we're on the way to that. ceran thor 23:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm winding down for a few hours, so I thought I'd point you to some more thoughts I've put on the article talk page. I'd like to get some fedback on the other pictures I've found before uploading, as it would be more efficient to upload pictures that are useful, rather than borderline one. If you have time, could you let me know what you think, and which images are still needed and it is best to concentrate on? Thanks. Carcharoth ( talk) 20:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, just ran across this article, Megamullion, and did some fixin', the article still needs work. Added a couple of refs, but don't have access to either of them - just abstracts, look like interesting articles. I see that you had edited it last fall - so thought with all your free time... :) Cheers, Vsmith ( talk) 23:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
David A. Johnston passed! Excellent work! Now we just have to get through TFA/R... and there's already an article being considered for May 18. :( ceran thor 19:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments on the talk page. I was pretty excited to find some amazing images in a source I hadn't seen before. See here. So I wanted to point these out to you and see what you think. Carcharoth ( talk) 23:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
That was a stand up thing you did there. TheGoodLocust ( talk) 02:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
For your great work on helping to get the David A. Johnston article to FA status, you deserve, at a minimum, this barnstar. The article was excellent and it is contributions like this that make wikipedia a useful, insightful, and topical source. Please keep up the great work! Remember ( talk) 16:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC) |
Awickert and Ceranthor, David Johnston was one of those TFAs that makes one proud of Wiki-- which doesn't happen often enough!! I was ashamed and embarrassed once when we ran an article about a deceased person on her birthday, in which we made unnecessary, gratuitous comments about her mother-- imagine the mother having to see that on her lost daughter's birthday! Your work restores my faith in the possibilities to highlight good work on the main page. Congratulations! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Or were you formerly employed directly by an Oil Company, or indirectly (as a Sub-contractor or employee of a Subcontractor) by an oil company?
69.171.160.130 ( talk) 10:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I made no accusation. I asked a question. And it was a reasonable question.
This would apply to Wikipedia guidelines about the neutrality of Editorship of the article-- and does fall under Wikipedia policy.
So since the article applies to your Wikipedia-required neutrality as an editor-- I'd like to ask what the answer is.
Please be aware that a false answer could easily be revealed later by a criminal fraud investigation or a civil investigation.
Back on your stated concern about treating BP fairly--
It's very odd that an article about the BP corporation (which has been found by the US government to be responsible for the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster, and so is way past being merely a 'suspect' in the disaster) would 1) have the section about the current disaster given a hard-to-recognize, and hence hard for most people to find, section title, and 2) that this section, pertaining to the worst oil disaster in U.S, history would constantly be pushed to the bottom of the list of environmental mishaps.
Common sense, not paranoia, raises legitimate questions about the article being aggressively spun.
75.166.179.110 ( talk) 16:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
He's a witch! Burn him! William M. Connolley ( talk) 18:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Awickert, I see that you've got friends here in the oil business.
Have a great day!
75.166.179.110 ( talk) 20:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
There is a certain user who is worrying me about their YEC-led edits to geology articles... I am no admin, but is there anything constructive we can do to temper the user? Or am I just overreacting/paranoid? I am afraid of him slipping some veiled YEC propaganda in an article under our noses. I only come to you because you seem to be one of the heavy hitters in geology on Wikipedia. Qfl247 ( talk) 22:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, especially for being "that guy"! I am no admin... I have to rely on users such as yourself with more chops to resort to drastic measures if needed. I got sucked into the debate as well; you are right that the way to fight it is with the rules of WP, not in an endless loop of arguments on deaf ears. I just hope that we don't have to resort to a semi-protect on certain pages... hopefully we can fend him off the old-fashioned way. Thanks again! Qfl247 ( talk) 21:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
P.S. Thanks for eliminating the debate on the talk pages with the WP:Noforum message... that was getting annoying!
Really? That would actually seem fun, but I am an evil heathen. Maybe one day I'll get the power to do that kind of stuff, and then get sick of it too... Well anyways, it is always good to converse with another sed person on here. You do a great job, I hope people like that don't discourage you enough to back away from this. Qfl247 ( talk) 22:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello! I appreciate you guys' honest efforts to remove fear-mongering and bias in the science articles (I know I am attempting to do the same thing from my perspective), but I do ask if you could consider my petition to include at least some of the answers that mainstream science has to YEC challenges. I admit that I am not a scientist, and my technical training is null, but I think it is okay for me to request more discussion of the debate in science articles. I am going to refrain from editing the traditional science articles, and will concentrate my efforts mainly on Catastrophism and other topics. Please fill me in on your efforts to increase the neutrality of the encyclopedia. You can debate with me on my talk page ( talk) 03:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)