This is an archive of past discussions with RockMagnetist. 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.

Hi RockMagnetist, good to see someone who actually knows this stuff contributing. I split off magnetostratigraphy from the main stratigraphy article and added plate reconstruction with a section on magnetic pole data, so both of those could use being looked over if you have the time. BTW (by the way), I don't want to curb your enthusiasm but we don't yet have a Geophysics WikiProject so I think that a Paleomag one is a little premature for now. Sadly there are very few geophysicists actively editing here - quite a few geologists like me that use geophysical data in their day job though. Cheers, Mikenorton ( talk) 22:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the welcome, Mikenorton. I was thinking about outreach and realized that a lot of the top Google hits for paleomagnetism subjects are Wikipedia pages, so that says something about where my priorities should lie. I've spent the last few days looking for paleomagnetism-related Wikipedia pages and some (like rock magnetism) were the stubbiest of stubs, while others (like paleointensity and environmental magnetism) don't even exist yet. Your magnetostratigraphy and plate reconstruction are among the best, so I'll be doing a lot of triage before I worry about them.

As for a WikiProject, that's not for the immediate future. At the moment I just have a list page in my user space, but eventually a WikiProject might be a good tool for measuring progress. I might just be able to manage a paleomagnetism project, but geophysics sounds too large for a single person. Do you know how the geology WikiProject got started? RockMagnetist ( talk) 15:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply

WikiProject Geology was started about 3½ years ago, when an editor just went ahead and created it. If you do want to go ahead at some point, then look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide, which explains the process. To be effective you need a group of editors involved ideally, it becomes less effective if it's down to just one or two editors. WikiProject Geology gets along OK, as there are enough of us out there to keep it reasonably effective but I find that WikiProject Earthquakes has very few active participants and is less effective because of it.

I too started editing when I realised the poor quality of many of the geology pages (back in 2006), as I knew from my children they were increasingly being used as primary sources by school kids (and even undergraduates). Quality is generally a lot better now, although geophysics pages are often still lacking, I agree. Anyway this place can be a timesink and occasionally you come across difficult editors, but I think that overall the experience is good. Cheers, Mikenorton ( talk) 20:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply

BTW I indented your reply above, which is the normal style on talk pages. There is a fair bit of etiquette to learn but most editors don't get upset with newcomers and will just help out. Mikenorton ( talk) 20:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks. Now I know how to indent! RockMagnetist ( talk) 21:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Also I've put a speedy deletion tag on that page that you created by accident. Mikenorton ( talk) 20:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks for that too, and sorry for making it necessary. RockMagnetist ( talk) 21:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Not a problem, it was deleted within a couple of minutes after tagging - a nice clear case for deletion. Mikenorton ( talk) 21:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Hey RockMagnetist! Sorry for getting back to you so late. I have added the reference to William Fuller Brown's death date on his wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpinna85 ( talk • contribs) 19:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks, Dpinna85. So his real claim to fame was that he knew a poet! And here I was thinking it had something to do with magnetism ;) Don't forget to sign your contributions to talk pages (just add four tildes). RockMagnetist ( talk) 21:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page User:List of paleomagnetism articles has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 15:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply

A recent addition to Brunhes–Matuyama reversal article should be of interest to you. The addition based on a Science News blurb is questioned on Talk:Brunhes–Matuyama reversal as the article it is based on is not yet in print and may be controversial. Thanks, Vsmith ( talk) 14:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I had a look at in and commented. RockMagnetist ( talk) 16:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC) reply

We need more geologists around. Welcome to Wikipedia - a constant work in progress :) Res Mar 18:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Hello, ResMar. Thanks for the welcome. RockMagnetist ( talk) 02:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC) reply

I noticed your move by "cut-n-paste" of the natural remnant magnetism article so I undid it to do a proper page move. In the process I missed the magnetism/magnetization bit --- so that also can be fixed with yet another page move. Note that to preserve article history WP frowns on "cut-n-paste" page moves. Sorry 'bout the confusion I seem to have caused - wanted to get it before any more content was added. And yes I should have left you a note here first, apologies, Vsmith ( talk) 02:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Quite o.k. I'm impressed by how quickly you respond to page changes. I considered doing a page move, but I wasn't sure what happens if you try moving a page on top of an existing page. I think I tried that with rock magnetism and ended up with two pages. How do you recommend I proceed in this case? RockMagnetist ( talk) 13:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC) reply

I was doing my routine vandalism patrol on my watchlist when your page move showed up. Moving a page over an existing one requires administrator assistance unless the existing page is just a redirect with no significant history. Vsmith ( talk) 14:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Natural remanent magnetism gets quite a few more google hits than Natural remanent magnetization from a quick check 74K vs 57K. Natural remanent magnetisation gets 15K. However if magnetization is preferred in the field it can be renamed. Then there is the US/British z/s bit to contend with. What are your thoughts on it? Vsmith ( talk) 03:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Consider the pages magnetism and magnetization. They are consistent with my understanding of the terms: magnetism is the phenomenon while magnetization is what you get when a material is magnetized. I also have several textbooks on paleomagnetism and rock magnetism and they all agree with me. As for the other usages, redirects can take care of them. RockMagnetist ( talk) 13:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Moved the page to natural remanent magnetization per your comments. Vsmith ( talk) 14:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks! RockMagnetist ( talk) 14:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Remanence is plagued with synonyms. It's a nuisance when you're writing about it! RockMagnetist ( talk) 13:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Well i be... I'm learning. Never used that Template:Copied - don't recall seeing it before, but then I hadn't done any merges for quite awhile. Old dogs learn new tricks. Good job. Vsmith ( talk) 03:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Unlike me, you probably don't have to look at the instructions when you move a page. RockMagnetist ( talk) 12:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Adams-Williamson equation is an orphaned article, i.e. no or very few other articles link to it (actually just the list of mathematics articles). If you know of other articles that should link to it, you should create those links. Michael Hardy ( talk) 02:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC) reply

I have two articles in my user space that will point to it. I hope to move them out soon.-- RockMagnetist ( talk) 04:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi, we met recently discussing about inertial frames. Now, I would appreciate if you could give a look at the article Weightlessness (particularly its second paragraph), to my (reverted) edits to it, and to the endless discussion with Sbharris concerning the question whether weight is a force. Thanks. -- GianniG46 ( talk) 08:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi RockMagnetist, you may be interested in this link to the recent changes list for all the articles that are part of WikiProject Geology (assuming that you haven't found it already). It's a quick way to keep an eye on a lot of articles, without having to watch them individually. Mikenorton ( talk) 10:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the tip, Mikenorton. I'll keep that in mind. RockMagnetist ( talk) 12:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors The latest GOCE backlog elimination drive is under way! It began on 1 July and so far 18 people have signed up to help us reduce the number of articles in need of copyediting. This drive will give a 50% bonus for articles edited from the GOCE requests page. Although we have cleared the backlog of 2009 articles there are still 3,935 articles needing copyediting and any help, no matter how small, would be appreciated. We are appealing to all GOCE members, and any other editors who wish to participate, to come and help us reduce the number of articles needing copyediting, as well as the backlog of requests. If you have not signed up yet, why not take a look at the current signatories and help us by adding your name and copyediting a few articles. Barnstars will be given to anyone who edits more than 4,000 words, with special awards for the top 5 in the categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". >>> Sign-up now <<<

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 09:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I've reverted part of you latest edit here (I've left in the reference to Science Watch with the info on it being the 6th cited journal on climate change). However, I have remove the 5-year IF, immediacy index, etc, leaving only the usual IF. There has been a long-standing consensus in the WP Academic Journal project to include only the IF, because (whatever its failings may be), it's the index everybody looks at. Nobody pays much attention to all those other indices (they're not even used on publisher's websites) and go against the spirit (and perhaps also the letter, no time to check right now) of WP:NOTADIRECTORY. Hope this explains. -- Crusio ( talk) 15:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks for explaining that, Crusio. I'm not sure I agree with the consensus, but I'll start a discussion on the project site instead of editing the article again. RockMagnetist ( talk) 15:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC) reply

• OK, sounds good. -- Crusio ( talk) 15:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Hello, I have added to your discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Academic_Journals#Is_one_impact_factor_enough? a wikilink to the previous discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals/Writing guide#Impact factor only the most recent?. I am informing you, because I was not sure if you have known about that. Have a nice day. -- Snek01 ( talk) 16:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Snek01, thanks for pointing that out. RockMagnetist ( talk) 05:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Hello RockMagnetist, thank you so much for your notice. I deleted all templates to prevent issues with categories. Have a good day, Jacopo Werther ( talk) 08:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply

You're welcome. I think your page looks nicer that way too! RockMagnetist ( talk) 16:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply