User talk:Fulguritics

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

A malicious user is deleting large sections of the photo and text additions to the article 'Fulgurite' without providing evidence for these revisions, continuing a personal dispute with the author of those sections that this user has evidentially-supported entirely by conjecture and reference to a very small number of uncited images bearing superficial resemblance to certain material included within the established typological breadth that is inclusive of the products of lightning. All images are of materials equivalent to or involved in current research conducted by several scientists, internationally. The Ann Arbor-area fulguritic material is identical to recovered fulgurites that are curated at University of Michigan, recovered between 1984 and 1986.

--Thaddeus Andres Gutierrez 22:17, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Your photos show typical slag from the 200+ years of mining on the Kennesaw Peninsula. I have analyzed many such specimens. The presence of your images on a Wikipedia page other than Slag is problematic. Instead of invoking a Wikipedia Admin, we should call in a neutral fulgurite expert. You have already asserted that your claims run contrary to "accepted science." The edits are factual. -Meteoritekid (talk) 08:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Please discuss this on the article's talk page. If you fail to reach agreement I suggest you seek dispute resolution.  Philg88 ^♦talk 08:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that we should appeal to a neutral expert in fulgurites to settle this dispute, although wholesale deletion without first appealing to authorities in the field is not an accepted protocol for Wikipedia editing. Slaggy fulgurites based on clay and rock are not scientifically-controversial. Here, I will firmly assert that none of the material featured in the portion of the article 'fulgurite' I have personally edited was derived from within 700 km of the Upper peninsula of Michigan [Ann Arbor/ypsilanti, MI are located in SE Michigan, near the border with Ohio, in a region not known for iron foundries or ore mining, with local geological exploration limited to a marginal fossil fuel exploration effort and the mining of limestone, sandstone, and shale], and contrary to claims made by a fellow Wikipedia editor, I made no claim where I appealed to any narrative of persecution by scientists, or otherwise portrayed this vitreous material as instantiating exception to theory contrary to established physical views. This fact has previously been doubted, where I was called a liar, purportedly as I was fabricating context. The user is conflating my words with those of another person, who believes that many institutions are not remaining objective when examining a series of samples this additional party found that he believes to be meteorites - a claim that has been refuted by at least three laboratories.

The variety of sets of scientific views for which fulgurite materials provide limited evidential dismissal are threefold, and these claims do not affect the identity of any samples imaged within the article as I expanded it: 1. nanodiamond and diamond-like carbon found at hyperbolic levels above incidental cosmic background proportions in alluvial, lacustrine, pallustrine, and fluvial sediments may originate from lightning impacts into water saturated carbon-rich organic residues, which has been experimentally replicated; fullerenes, shocked quartz, and some unpublished reports of diamond do support the likelihood that certain impact markers may have a more prosaic origin 2. micro-spherulic objects, magnetized or not, associated with the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis are found in sediments enclosing fulgurites (Types II and IV) that produce exogenic (Type V) fulgurites, and as such, also constitute empirical evidence that discounts the central "marker" for Younger Dryas comet airburst forcing of the Bolling-Allerod/Younger Dryas stadial event in the Northern Hemisphere.

3. Several extensive deposits of convoluted, siliceous vitreous objects that lack tube structure are supported without consistency as quasi-impactites; their impact interpretations have already been challenged in publications (many of which are cited in the 'fulgurite' article), where the uniqueness of certain impact markers (shocked SiO2, metallic globules, glassy carbon, etc.) stands as an impediment toward the dismissal of extraterrestrial impact origins. These hypotheses are indeed challenged by fulgurite experts very explicitly, where chemical evidence alone shows strong correlation between non-sand fulgurites and these ostensible impact glasses.

Also, contrary to the claims made by an arbitrarily-dismissive and self-certain detractor, none of the materials presented in my edits of the 'fulgurite' article are especially metal-rich. SEM-EDX studies of samples of these objects (performed by Paul Steinhardt et al. at Princeton and also by researchers at the University of Oslo), and those in the more accessible literature (E. Essene ^[1], K. Block ^[2], M. Pasek^[3], etc.), identify local and surficial regions of samples that are enriched in iron. Aluminum, and titanium silicides and very small (<100 micron) Fe^0 globules within silica-dominated matrix material that show metallic reduction and heterogeneous concentration of reduced mineral structures, but these objects do not exceed a bulk mean of 3-5 at% Fe - consonant with their host rocks and sediments, with Ca, Al, and Ti levels are also roughly identical to their host sediments. SiO2 wt% in these fulgurites, other fulgurites of the same types (cf. Block-Pasek et al.), and in pampas/Rio Cuarto glass, Edeowie glass, and Dakhleh glass hovers between 56-96%, consistently, and in predictable proportions relative to structural zoning along transects of the amorphous matrices (cf. M.L. Joseph 2012 ^[4]).

The imposed criticisms of the Ann Arbor fulgurite materials reflect two other possibilities - that he/she is purely mistaken in regard to superficial comparisons - blinded by smugness and a lack of intellectual humility, or that materials submitted to him/her for initial identification as potential meteorites indeed included slag from the abundant hematite ore mined in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, or a combination of slag and other objects which were all dismissed by association with no further analysis. How recently where these materials submitted, I might ask? Was the said Phd "expert" in slag that has deleted portions of a Wikipedia article on fulgurites as knowledgeable at the time of submission of said materials as he/she claims to technically be currently? How does one explain the presence of woody material and spongy fused and quenched amorphous carbon among these "slags?"

One must admit that research on fulgurites is scant, with most published on the topic within the last 10 years and/or in non-English language journals.

Is there an ironic self-fulfilling prophesy conceived of by the dismissive "expert" at work to naively reject arguments that are not, in fact, being advanced by the author here? Except for some superficial resemblance, there is no anthropogenic slag imaged in the former version of the article.

Thaddeus Andres Gutierrez 19:39, 27 October 2015

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Thanks for uploading File:Mount Lykaion Ash Altar fulgurite Type II.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Fulgurite

added a link pointing to Hieron

Paleolightning

added a link pointing to Reduction

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cosmic distance ladder, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dispersion (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Edeowie glass, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mineralization (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Byzantine mints, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Andronikos II (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)