User:Geologyguy/Archive3

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)

Thanks... I'll try. You might consider posting to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology as well. Cheers and thanks - Geologyguy (talk) 17:42, 25 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)

Hi Black Tusk - just got home from a trip, I will try to check this out later today. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 16:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It's also confusing because there are two other large ash deposits called the Mount St. Helens Yn Ash and the Mazama Ash, which were erupted from Mount St. Helens and Mount Mazama (the Bridge River Ash was erupted from Mount Meager) and they all overlap each other. See here. Black Tusk 01:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

How is the external link spam? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abdomen&oldid=194310076

First, it is a wiki, which is not a reliable source. Second, you added the same thing to 6 pages. Third, it has little to do with the scientific content of most of the articles you added it to. Fourth, Wikipedia is not a list of links. Please read WP:EL, WP:SPAM, WP:NOT, and, if you are connected to the site, WP:COI. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 02:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

Thanks for stopping by. Yes, I couldn't read the whole thing but it didn't really help the article and seemed like a blog. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 14:59, 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.

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)

It is a wiki, so it cannot be a reliable source. If you care about the fact that people are coming from Wikipedia to your site, then it seems to be primarily linked to promote your site. That is not allowed. There are thousands of sites that are "relevant" to Wikipedia articles, but we don't include them, either. The fact that it is your site is a violation of the Conflict of Interest policy. See also Wikipedia is not a list of links, WP:SPAM, and WP:EL. If you want to discuss an individual link on a particular page, bring it up on the article's talk page. If others feel the link is warranted, they will add it. You should not. And in any case, adding the links to dozens of pages certainly constitutes spamming. You should add content, not links -- as near as I can tell, you have added nothing at all to the encyclopedia, just spam links. You had a polite notice of this from User:Mumia-w-18 on January 9. Please stop adding spam links - you run the risk of having your account blocked, and the site blacklisted. Thanks Geologyguy (talk) 18:48, 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)

The link does not add to the article. It is not about petroleum (nor any of the many other pages you added similar links to) - it is there only to promote itself. There are thousands and thousands of pages that are perfectly good, and relevant, and useful - but we don't list them either. We don't normally provide external links as tools for research; such items might be listed as references if something in the external link was used to create the content in the article. Wikipedia is not a list of links. See also WP:SPAM. You have done good by mentioning the link on talk pages, but you need to wait for reaction (like a week or longer). And even if there is no reaction, that does not necessarily mean "go ahead;" placing a note on the talk page does not constitute discussion. Add content, not links. Under this username, at least, you've added nothing to the encyclopedia, just promoted Time magazine. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I realize that it can't promote on google, and its not likely to add significantly to TIME's traffic, so the idea that it is there for promotion is limited. It is there for its research purposes, because people who want to further research the article. There are real uses for links adding external links that have other sources and those that provide a medium for expansion beyond Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not the end all be all, and I think we both understand that, but shouldn't we show people where other information and resources can be found and at least provide some context for further research? I think so. I looked over this and can't find where I went wrong. I already explained how I'm not promoting, or is that the only reason? --Kevindkeogh (talk) 20:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If we we show people where other information and resources can be found, then as an example there would easily be 5000 external links to the Petroleum article. Why is your link better than any of those? Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 21:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand that someone needs to exercise discretion with these External Links. I cede authority to you because this is "your page," you are doing all the work to watch it, you should describe the parameters because you know it best. The reason my link is better is for a couple reasons. 1. Its more than one article. I am not linking to 1 story, I'm linking to a bunch. The page I was linking to was a gateway to 70 years of articles on the Oil Industry. 2. TIME is a reputable source, one of the most reputable in the news-world. 3. The reason that we need some sort of External Source is that wikipedia is not the last destination for some readers, and the political element is an important one. The link provides a way for the casual reader to learn beyond the wikipedia and see some real first hand sources from 70 years ago, something that isn't always the easiest thing to find. Wikipedia is a fantastic first step, but I think we need to allow for truly valuable sources to be placed in the External Links section. --Kevindkeogh (talk) 21:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It is certainly not "my page" - dozens of people, probably hundreds, watch it. Put it back if you like and see what happens - or, more properly, see what discussion comes from the talk pages. As an aside, the fact that you are "linking to a bunch" is virtually the definition of spammy activity. Others reading this, please feel free to weigh in. I am by no means any kind of authority, just an editor like 6 million others. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 21:52, 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)

Hi Beagel, I will try. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 20:24, 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)

Thanks - I recently was entrusted with Rollback, and I looked at Twinkle but was put off by the concerns about interaction with ZoneAlarm, which I use. Maybe later, for Huggle. Many thanks - Cheers, Geologyguy (talk) 22:11, 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)

Hi Black Tusk. I'm slightly familiar with the anomaly and its similarity to Sudbury. As the second ref on the article (this one) suggests, the nature of the anomaly would not indicate to me a source from the rift, nor from the iron formations, but from something deep within the basement. If it is like Sudbury it could be a second metal-rich magma-filled impact crater. The magnetic anomalies are very similar. So I don't think that the anomaly represents the rift basin, per se. I would guess that the Huronian basin is simply superimposed upon the older feature that this anomaly represents. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 20:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

My mistake, I misread the infomation. The rift basin is related to the Huronian Supergroup, in the vicinity of the Temagami Magmatic Anomaly. I agree it's probably a second metal-rich magma-filled impact crater; similar magnetic anomalies. It's a bit interesting to me since I live in Temagami. Are you slightly familiar with the Temagami greenstone belt as well? I'm trying to find the origin for that as well, but no success. Black Tusk 21:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Could it have formed at an ancient oceanic spreading center? I know there's some pillow lava formations in some places in the greenstone belt. Black Tusk 17:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with that particular area, but greenstone belts are usually thought to represent old spreading centers. Their alternating nature (granite-greenstone belts) probably means some complex of oceanic and island arc crustal material, which typically seems to get caught up in some mega collision and becomes incorporated into continental crust. Hope this helps - cheers Geologyguy (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That helps to explain the different rock types (e.g. basalt, rhyolite). Since I'm not technically a geologist, I don't really know how greenstone belts are formed. I read the greenstone belt article before I asked you how this greenstone belt might have formed, but I didn't really understand it that well (I'm not an expert of the subject). I'll probably be adding some detail to the Temagami greenstone belt article soon anyway, so I hope that will help to explain the geology in the Temagami area (banded iron formation, pillow lava, etc). Black Tusk 17:45, 12 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)

I think there's some pyroclastic material as well, so it very well be related to arc volcanism. But if there's oceanic volcanic rocks (i.e. the pillow lava), they must have erupted beneath water. Most island arc-related volcanoes originate from the ocean floor right? If so, maybe an island arc collided then fused onto an ancient continental margin and became exposed after millions of years of erosion. The pillow lava I know is rounded and eroded, but that's because it's millions (Precambrian) of years old. It looks similar to the Precambrian pillow lava here. Black Tusk 19:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

A lot of island arc volcanics are not submarine - consider all the volcanoes of Japan and Indonesia. Nonetheless I think you are correct that certainly SOME could have been submarine - in fact they have to have been, as you point out, for the pillow lavas. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 21:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean it that way. I ment the early stages of island arc volcanism; (1) the volcano is a seamount, (2) the volcano becomes larger from repeated eruptions, (3) the seamount eventually becomes an island. For example, see Ferdinandea and Kurose Hole. Black Tusk 21:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes, in early stages it would largely be submarine, and involving oceanic crust (or oceanic crust plus sediment piles). But as the arc evolves, lots of other rock types can be generated, or added through accretion. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 22:24, 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)

Hello - just that as tertiary sources, things like encyclopedias are not the best references to use in another encyclopedia (Wikipedia). I do very much appreciate all the work you have done on the article. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 19:38, 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)

If, as you indicate, the link is to "your" site, then you should not be inserting it even if it were appropriate, per WP:COI. You also replaced what appeared to be an acceptable German government research site with your commercial link. The site itself appears to me to be nothing but a list of links to magazine articles and such, making it (at best) a tertiary source to be avoided. If there is any information germane to the Wikipedia article within all those magazine articles, then the content should be incorporated into the Wikipedia article and the primary (magazine) source cited. Add content, not links. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 13:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)