This is an archive of past discussions with User:Awickert. 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 Awickert, thanks for letting me know of mis-connections. Have stopped and want to understand accurately. All my (mis)-efforts started with riparian zone 'issues' as a landscape architect - conservationist (ie: Los Angeles River challenges) trying to inner-link to headwater - watershed - water basin - river bed - river bank - etc. terms/article titles. Was a bit hard to find all of them, and then Euro-N. America differences-confusion entered, and well..... over category cross referenced aplenty, per your message. I'm so sorry for your revert work needed now. Is there a 'non-scientific nomenclature' category for non-specialist people to have a common search location, such as Category:Water and the environment, that would not be misleading or offensive ? I apologize for stepping on limnological and hydrologic toes, let alone all the other categorical ones pasted in, and respect your expertise. Thank you ! ----Look2See1t a l k →03:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
P.S. Please do feel free to slap me with your talk page's Trout..... Looking at the List of watershed topics article, could that one possibly have a plethora, or just a few, of North American & European category links at bottom ? Would never have found it through its singular Category:Water divides. Did realize my huge mistake with Limnology, so its the study of limericks..... gotta go to change every one of its links to Category:Vernacular poetry....Cheers----Look2See1t a l k →03:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I hope that you're kidding about the limnology bit, or we'll be at it again!
I see your predicament. I will check the categories you've created and the discussion at your talk first, so I can give you an informed response. Awickert (talk) 03:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
No (Mikenorton) You Would Not Qualify for Editing Such an Article, Good Faith Would not Be Sufficient to Cover You
Let's consider your quote--
"I work as a consultant for various oil and gas companies, but I can expect you to assume good faith that my edits are neutral (not that I've ever edited the BP article) unless you have proof to the contrary. Mikenorton (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)"
So (to answer your question) you would not qualify to edit any such article, based on a very clear conflict of interest. Wikipedia guidelines would preclude that.
The "Good faith" assumptions that you are asking for would not be enough to cover that.
Well you're plain wrong on that, if it's any of interest to you I led a single field trip lasting 3 days for BP working as a sub-contractor in 2004, which gives me exactly no COI if I wish to edit on BP related articles. Anyway I'm not interested in writing about companies, it's the geology that interests me and, like Awickert, that's where I spend most of my time on Wikipedia when I'm not distracted by editors with an axe to grind pursuing pointless witch-hunts. Mikenorton (talk) 09:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
To Awickert RE Question About Conflict of Interest (Re Your "Deepwater Horizon [Gulf Oil Spill]" article Edits)
Awickert, I did nothing wrong by asking you that question (about conflict of interest re the "Gulf Oil Spill" article.
Wikipedia says that one should not be editing an article about a company that they are employed by--
And that's the question that I asked.
The fact that you don't work for an oil company would have been enough of an answer--
Instead of your very insulting and defensive responses.
But I am still curious (If I understood you correctly) that since your coworkers DO at times handle projects for oil companies--
And also since your field (sedimentary processes), is (as you yourself stated), often a key field in the oil industry--
If those wouldn't still constitute conflicts of interest (as far as your continuing to edit the "Gulf Oil Spill (Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill)" article is concerned).
You also clearly have friends in the oil industry (posting here on this page)--
Are they people that you sometimes work with, or hope to work with?
I don't know the answer to whether any of this meets the Wikipedia threshold of 'conflict of interest'.
(Thereby precluding you from any further edits of the "(Gulf Oil Spill)" article.
Well, I feel insulted by the fact that you instantly suspected that I was up to no good. And the fact that I gave you my initial answer that I didn't work for an oil company, and then you decided to ask again, means that you suspected that I was lying.
You are wrong about assuming good faith (read the guideline), and it is ironic that you bring it up. Try it on for size.
I'm afraid that you have exhausted my good will, which is very short with anonymous folks who make accusations, call me a liar, and legally threaten me. You'll have to do better than this here, both in learning how WP works and learning how to deal with other human beings, if you want to work with me. Awickert (talk) 06:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Feeling insulted is your interpretation.
You said-- "I'm afraid that you have exhausted my good will".
Is that a threat?
You also said--
"You'll have to do better than this here, both in learning how WP works and learning how to deal with other human beings, if you want to work with me."
Are you offering me something if I comply with your wishes? Sorry, that doesn't work for me.
Look, I just asked some simple questions about a possible conflict of interest-- in editing the "Gulf Oil Disaster (Deepwater Horizon)" article.
I have no interest in talking to you any more-- because you get very upset about these questions.
I'll speak to an admin and see whether you are in conflict of interest or not--
Look at the above conversation. You asked whether I was involved with oil. I gave a review of the situation that led to the deletion of your talk page section (as I thought you deserved an explanation) and said no (as well as that your suspicion of my motives was in my opinion, inappropriate). Then you went and threatened me legally for no good reason (if what you say here is true, than you had what you wanted) and reiterated your questions about my involvement. That you have exhausted my good will is a simple fact, and is due to the style of your interrogations.
Right, well I am an admin, and I am telling you (the IP) to grow up. There is no conspiracy, there is no organised CABAL of biased editors. Every individual editor brings their own small bias that is unavoidable, however they are not organised into a deliberate team of agenda-sharers. It is you who are trying to push fringe theories, bias, agenda and general disruption upon the article, and you are bordering on making legal threats and journalistic involvement which will make you very unpopular on this website. This is a place run by volunteers who will not appreciate your sentiment. Stop it now. SGGHping!10:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, this silly harassment must stop! If Awickert has a COI just because he's a geologist and "obviously" must have "connections" to the oil industry, where am I... I worked as a geologist for an oil company back in the '70s, but currently my son-in-law is on a ship in the Gulf cleaning up that mess. So I must have conflicting COIs or COI2. Anyway, don't let the POV pushing anon's blather bother - just delete the nonsense, have a laugh and/or a beer and onward with good editing. Vsmith (talk) 13:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Considering the earlier legal threat, if this IP continues to harass Awickert, the editor needs to be shown the door. Waste of time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks to all of you for your remarks here (those who I know well and those who I don't know so well). I think it's high time I disinvested myself from these shenanigans and just wrote articles. This has served as an excellent reminder. Thanks again, Awickert (talk) 03:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Stunning!
It was all worth it. 66,000 page views! I guess we can thank all the other websites who posted memorials for that. ;) Great work. I am amazed that you and Carcharoth were so helpful (eventually, you both did much more work than I) and I am ever so grateful. Thank you both very much. ceranthor13:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Fantastic! This is definitely one of the highlights of what I've done here, if not the highlight. Thanks for suggesting! Awickert (talk) 05:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
History of the Rove Formation
History of the Rove Formation is my first article; you helped me with the mechanics of uploading images in early March. It has been submitted and passed the PR and GA. About a month ago I tried to submit the article for FA. I did something wrong (surprise !!) and SandyGeorgia said it wasn't nearly ready for the FA process and to ask you for comments, if you're willing.
Would you look at ONE section and comment on that section? Right now I'm not sure of how much more work I want to put into this article – I have to keep in mind that the process is an incredible learning experience and will strengthen my other articles. Anyway, I would truly appreciate the time you put into critiquing one section and I WILL address any of your concerns. Thank you. Bettymnz4 (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to be out of town for most of the weekend, but I'll see what I can do. Is there any particular section that you'd like me to look at? Awickert (talk) 23:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Nope - whichever one strikes your fancy - OR if it's easier (which I doubt) do a quick-and-dirty review of the entire article. My intent is for you to do what is the least time-consuming at this point for you. (Have a great weekend!!) Bettymnz4 (talk) 12:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I just did the Penokean Orogeny section. I tried to give descriptive edit summaries as I worked through it. We may have a problem though: you state in the lede that the Rove Fm. was deposited before the Penokean, but the article I read and cited say that it was at the same time. Any idea of what's going on?
Also: the article centers around the Rove Formation, but its scope seems much broader. Would it make more sense for this to be a "Natural history of the Arrowhead Region" article, and spin off an article called "Rove Formation"? Awickert (talk) 05:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your work on this!! I didn't really expect an answer until after the weekend. I see that I have a lot to absorb AND fix. I do like to cap Orogeny after the specific name; I will go through this article and my other articles to decap orogeny, terrane, etc. from the articles I've written since.
I just decapped words such as orogeny, formation, province, group, fault zone, etc. from my articles posted to WP. As I continue to work on the articles on my userpage, I'll decap those, too.
Oh no! Some of these are always capped; Formation and Group certainly are; not sure about Province. With relatives over the weekend, so won't be on very often... Awickert (talk) 00:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I will carefully read your comments and fixes so I can incorporate the concept behind them in the rest of this article and in my other ones. I probably won't do any substantive work until after the weekend, our daughter and granddog are home for the long weekend.
As far as when this layer was deposited, I'm rewriting the Penokean orogeny article on my user page and the sources I'm using say this layer of the Rove, Virginia and Thomson formations was deposited during the Penokean orogeny. I haven't clarified in my head EXACTLY when, yet.
As I mentioned, this is my first article and I'm not trained in geology. When I saw the Rove region as a red link, I decided to write an article on it since it is about 90 miles from where I live. At that time I didn't know that the Rove Formation was a sedimentary layer, so I wrote about the entire history. I've struggled with the title; since this isn't about the entire Arrowhead Region, how about "Natural history of the Rove region"?
Again, thank you for the work you put into this; seeing how much revising needs to be done, I'm glad I asked you to do just one section!!!lol Actually, my first impression is that it basically needs a lot of tightening up; I was concerned about a lot more research. Bettymnz4 (talk) 13:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
to Awickert from User:Bettymnz4 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can 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.
{{subst:if|||
{{{message}}}
||subst=subst:}}
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
My time here is very limited for the foreseeable future; I've promised too many people too many things here, and work has picked up quite a bit. Gosh, I wish I had all the time in the world, but I don't :-(
If you would like, I will happily give you advice, copies of scientific articles, and anything else I can provide. I grew up in St. Paul, so topics on Minnesota (and Upper Midwest) geology (and everything else) have a special place in my heart.
The article overall looks pretty good. I spent an hour on the section because I'm a perfectionist. I think that you're right: it basically needs a lot of tightening up. Where the sources don't seem good enough or seem to contradict one another, or on other general factual issues crop up, I should be able to help.
Hey, enjoy your break and come back refreshed. Write "your" articles and ignore the trollish and selfish behavior around here. Seems that you are such a friendly and helpful chap that everyone wants you to do their bidding -- gotta focus on making editing here fun, and that may mean saying "no" at times and maybe ignoring the ungracious. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 13:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm bad at all of that, but you are 100% correct. Thanks for the words of wisdom; I should be back editing at full-ish strength by late July (if everything goes as planned with research). Awickert (talk) 15:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Lithology
Hi Andy, I've added some more to this, not sure if I'm getting the balance right between detail and overview. Anyway, I'll keep at it on an irregular basis - don't feel pressured to work on this straight away (but eventually would be good :-)), we're in no hurry. Do you think that a few examples (taken from the literature) would be good to illustrate how it works in practice? Mikenorton (talk) 10:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
The AGI Glossary of Geology (1960 2nd. ed.) defined lithology as the study of rocks based on megascopic examination of samples. from the preface (p vii) of Kern Jackson's Textbook of Lithology McGraw Hill, 1970. I recently found an old copy of the book -- I had used it quite a bit while whetting my teeth on rocks back in the early 70s. The book and the AGI glossary would be good refs. Vsmith (talk) 11:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I remember you mentioned these AGI sources. Those sound great. I will also see if I can check out a copy of geology in the field. Awickert (talk) 13:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I can also offer from the American heritage science dictionary - 1. The scientific study and description of rocks, especially at the macroscopic level, in terms of their color, texture and composition 2. The gross physical character of a rock or rock formation ; from the Dictionary of Civil Engineering - 1 The science of rocks that is devoted to the only macroscopic study or to the study of only sedimentary rocks. 2. The study of the nature of rocks constituting a geological formation; from the Environmental engineering dictionary - 1. Mineralogy, grain size, texture and other physical properties of granular soil, sediment or rock, 2. The character of a rock described in terms of its structure, color, mineral composition, grain size and arrangement of its component parts - all those visible features that in the aggregate impart individuality of the rock; Encyclopedic dictionary of Archaeology - The description of rocks on the basis of such characteristics as color, mineral composition and grain size, also the physical character of a rock; Dictionary of Geology (Ghosh 2005) - The systematic description of rocks, in terms of mineral composition and texture. So, overall a fair degree of agreement, even if most of them come from related disciplines rather than geology itself. Mikenorton (talk) 14:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
That's good to hear! I'll check around for sources (such as that which Vsmith suggested) to treat the subject more comprehensively. I'll also see if I can find some copyright-free classification schemes. Awickert (talk) 15:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Just thought maybe if you have the the time you could take a look at this GVB-related article. I fixed some problems in it yesterday that we corrected in the Garibaldi Volcanic Belt article, so I bet there is not as many problems in this article than there was in the GVB one. Its also not as lengthy, so we should be able to go through it together faster than the more complex GVB article. BT (talk) 00:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
BT: I'm really sorry. I do look at your articles because you're so excited about them and do so much good work. But the honest truth is that I'm not all that interested in volcanoes! The end result is that reading over those articles feels like work, and I don't have too much fun.
I think I'm also getting burnt out here, because (1) I keep on helping other people with articles that they are writing and don't have time to do my own (this is the minor reason), and (2) I'm really tired of dealing with the nasty attitudes here. I think it's starting to affect the way I work in this place. So I'm looking to clear my current to-do list (at least the part that is "for others"), and then take a break and hopefully be my much-more-positive self when I return.
All what really needs to be looked at are the sections Petrography, Lava flows, Volcanic hazards and perhaps the introduction. These sections are not the same as on the GVB article. The sections that have similar information from the GVB article are Formation, Subglacial volcanoes, Eroded edifices, Geothermal and seismic activity, Human occupation, Early impressions and Protection and monitoring.
You say you look at the volcanology articles I contribute to, yet you say you are not all that interested in volcanoes. Why bother look at something if you are not all that interested in it? And if you do look at articles I work on I do not see why you can not check this article and see if there is anything awkward in the text. If you are not the scientist that can do this then I guess you are not the user to count on just like so many other people on Wikipedia.
I am not excited about anything. The reason I seem to add or link stuff to Canada-related volcanology articles on other articles (if that is what you mean) is mostly because Canadian volcanism is not known enough and the articles do not normally get attention apart from myself. Canada has a much longer history of volcanic activity than most other places on Earth that get attention on here. The oldest volcanics in Canada I am aware of date back about 4.2 billion years ago during the Hadean eon when the Earth was nothing but a ball of molten rock. So seeing the negatave side from you (especially from a geologist) is a put-down sorry to say. BT (talk) 07:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Whoa, hold the phone there! Sometimes people do things that they don't particularly care to do to be nice to other people. That's the case with me and volcanoes on WP. But I'm really busy at work and don't feel like I can continue to do things here (volunteering) that I'm not excited about and stay happy. It takes me ages to fact-check volcano articles because I have to read the original papers, etc., since I am not a volcanologist. I'd be happy to read the articles and learn something, but the editing process takes at least 10-20x as long.
I'm sorry to hear that you're not excited about anything... I hope that things turn around for you.
I did not mean this as a put-down. Many, many geologists work on things other than volcanoes. I work on rivers and flexural isostasy. I think volcanic activity in Canada is very interesting; in fact, I grew up near the greenstone belts from sutures of island arcs with the Superior Craton. It's just that volcanology is not my passion, and spending my time here doing that to help various folks out means that I can't spend my time here writing articles that I want to write. I'm really bad and awkward at saying "no" to people, but that's what this is right now. I think your work and articles are great, but just can't continue as your personal copy-editor.
By the way: At least as long ago as 4.4 Ga, the Earth seems to have had stable surface water, so the "ball of molten rock" idea has gone by the wayside. If you could point out an article about the 4.2 Ga volcanics, I'd love to see it... are these the 4.28 Ga model age ones by Hudson Bay? Awickert (talk) 14:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes they are, in the Nuvvuagittuq greenstone belt in Quebec. I did not mean these volcanics were formed when the Earth was molten, I was referring to the eon (Hadean) they were erupted/formed.
I understand what you are saying and I am not trying to get you to be my "personal copy-editor". The reason I wanted you to copy-edit the GVB and Cayley field articles is because I am working to get those to FA class and I don't think my writing/grammar is great enough for it. BT (talk) 09:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
OK - just be careful though with the "age" thing: instead of a crystallization age (a la U-Pb), it's a Sm-Nd "model age" for melt extraction from the mantle. At least Steve Mojzsis' group thinks that they were likely remelted and recrystallized after this time, making the "oldest rock" still the Acasta Gneiss.
If it's a copy-edit as opposed to a fact-check, there are tons of people that you could ask who would probably be able to get to it well before I would. Awickert (talk) 13:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I have been meaning to create an article for large magmatic events in Canada since at least April. So far I have about 70 events listed. Should greenstone belts be considered features formed during large magmatic events? If so they could be listed as well. BT (talk) 07:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I would say they probably should if you want to put the scope out that far. Since they are metamorphosed island arcs, and those form during accretion and subduction, I think that they would count. Awickert (talk) 07:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
OK. Just thought I would double check. I have a few of them already listed (e.g. Abitibi, Temagami, Flin Flon, Yellowknife, Florence Lake, Hunt River). The article is going to include other types of igneous features like dike swarms (e.g. Mackenzie dike swarm), flood basalt plateaus (e.g. Coppermine River basalts and Chilcotin Group (?)) and sill swarms (e.g. Winagami sill complex). Since you mentioned island arcs and subduction, the Garibaldi Volcanic Belt, Pemberton Volcanic Belt, Great Bear Magmatic Zone, Taltson Magmatic Zone, Coast Range Arc, and other subduction-related features would probably count as large magmatic events as well. From reading the paper here, its clear that greenstone belts can be formed by numerous processes: Flood volcanism on submerged (shallow water) continental platforms, submarine volcanic plains, diverse volcanic sequences, continental felsic volcanic centres and late alkaline-shoshonitic sequences. BT (talk) 08:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that all sounds good. As to the greenstone belts: I had no idea that they included flood volcanism as well - thanks for the ref on that, I'll read it over when I get the chance. Awickert (talk) 14:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the hello! Nice to meet you too. I think you'll find that I have a sort of touch-and-go relationship with the global warming articles, as in I touch them briefly and then do other things for a while... so not sure how much we'll see each other. But thanks for the hello nonetheless. Awickert (talk) 05:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Just thought I would alert you that I just did an expansion for this article. It is the largest magmatic event I am aware of..... BT (talk) 00:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the alert! I might have to look over that one. Its something I've wanted to read about for a while. Awickert (talk) 19:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm likely still going to do some work on it. The information I posted was kept in my database since around January or February because I did not have the time to post it. The related Coppermine River Group article is likely going to get a total rewrite and expansion as well. BT (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
OK - fantastic! The article is again outside my professional expertise, but if you want a reviewer, it's close enough to home that I'd be happy to do it. Awickert (talk) 03:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Sure. I will give you a notice when I am finished with it. I posted the Mackenzie Large Igneous Province on Template talk:Did you know for a DYK fact on the 15th and it happily passed. So it should be on the main page sometime. BT (talk) 05:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Public poll: should I have my full name display instead of my username?
[Consensus reached: no name change.]
Since enough of you know my full name (Andy Wickert), should I make this display when I sign things on talk pages? All interested parties are welcome to discuss. If there is no interest, I will just do whatever I please :-). Awickert (talk) 16:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Don't change your sig. I hate people who do that. But do put as much of your identity as you care to disclose, or links to, on your user page (which you already do) William M. Connolley (talk) 17:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Just do whatever anyway, its your handle, ∴ your choice (hey, I just found those 3 triangular dots in the math & logic markup set so had to use 'em) anyway, I'm in agreement w/Stephan - only wordier. :) Vsmith (talk) 17:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Only if you want this to be the top hit when anyone googles you. Do you really want every prospective employer to see your contributions here first? (INSTAAR, huh? Heard so many stories about that place from Pat Webber who, iirc, used to be the director and may have helped found it.) Guettarda (talk) 22:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
INSTAAR, yes, though I'm in the tall building and often on main campus (and do geomorphology and geophysics instead of paleoclimate like most of the people here - and not even necessarily of arctic or alpine regions), so the number of people I interact with there is limited. I've heard of Pat Webber, but never met him. He was director for a long time at very least. But good point! If you want to chat about the place, feel free to continue here or via email.
All right folks. The consensus is clear. Thanks for your input. I will remain Awickert. But just to confuse you all: --Andy Wickert (talk), 22:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
IM Pei Review
I appreciate the offer, but I think it's pretty solid right now. Your comments are of course welcome, but I think we've had lots of quality eyes on it already. Cheers! Scartol • Tok00:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Unless you were making an offer to review as in decide if it meets FAC criteria and then vote to support or oppose. If that was the case, then please do weigh in! Thanks. Scartol • Tok00:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking more option A, but glad you've had things go well. I'll do option B if I get the chance. From what I see so far, I don't see any reason why I wouldn't support. Awickert (talk) 01:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi. You have removed the section regarding seismic activity, referring to it as "weasly". However, I have discussed the addition of this information before any of it was added, and although it is controversial the wording could be fixed to make it more suitable for inclusion. I also see that a section on "volcanoes" is included, but this is only a part of the seismic influences of climate change, and if anything should be included under the seismic activity section rather than having the entire section removed, please discuss. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU)02:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. My issue was that it wasn't in the original form you put it in (which was far more workable). It was in a this-questionably-reliable-source-says-this, and they-say-that, etc., etc., which I think made it a very weak and weasel-word-filled section that seemed like it questioned its own points. I intend to add more of it back in soon, but only got through the volcanoes today.
Note also that "seismic" is not really the term to be used for all of what was in that section, which also included magmatism and geomorphic effects.
As this is Wiki, I should remind you that you are free to put material back in there - I will not feel offended! I was simply being WP:BOLD in removing and changing. Awickert (talk) 06:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm +/- done now. Didn't add much more because I couldn't find sources that I was satisfied with for some of it. If you find things and want my input, feel free to ping. Awickert (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
The current section on earthquakes only mentions a numerical modelling study, and lacks information on any observed or inferred effects of global warming on earthquakes and increased seismic activity. I remember a discussion on the main global warming talkpage a while back that referred to a single non-peer reviewed study that described an increase in earthquakes around the world that was attributed to global warming but that was rejected for inclusion as there were no other reliable sources. (There was also another one about the Earth exploding due to the effects of global warming on nuclear reactions in the core, but this was also rejected for obvious reasons.) ~AH1(TCU)22:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Next collaboration
Hi Andy. Dunno if you're still interested in working with me on some volcano articles - hopefully you're not too bored. For the anniversary of Nevado del Ruiz's eruption on 11/13/10 I'd like to have either Armero tragedy or Omayra Sanchez on the main page (since NDR was already featured). Would you be interested in working on one (or both) with me? Others are welcome (Carcharoth, if you're interested, I bet you could find some awesome sources!) ceranthor01:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I could definitely help you with one at least. I probably won't have time until September, though I might be free for a bit at the beginning of August. The tempo of my real life work has increased quite a bit since last year. Awickert (talk) 02:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
To start, maybe you could include some information about his theory? I don't see much information available on him online, but I do see some of his papers. ceranthor12:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Nope - nothing. Are you sure he is even notable? Neither of the refs say anything about him (the first link sends me to the main page of that site), and my initial searches fail to produce any highly-cited paper of his. Awickert (talk) 16:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
If that is the case, I will try to put a notice on the article that its notability is in question...--Gniniv (talk) 06:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
OK - sure - or even better, you could try to find more references to him. I certainly could have missed something in my cursory search. Awickert (talk) 14:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Dentren. I'm in the middle of a project with a quickly-approaching deadline that has me working 12-14-hour days, and as of Saturday I will be gone in the field for 8-9 days, after which I will finish the project I'm working on and then fly out to build and install it... maybe sometime in August if you can't find someone else in the mean time / don't mind waiting a looong time? Sorry I can't be more help right now. Awickert (talk) 03:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
OK - I'm a sucker and it looks short and interesting. I've watchlisted it, and if I get some downtime I will do it. No promises. Awickert (talk) 03:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I would estimate completion of a review of that at ~2 weeks. So if you feel it is good enough, you might as well just post at FAC, and I will comment in due course. Awickert (talk) 22:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Andy. I saw you were around today - I've been working on Armero tragedy, if you could drop by and help me a bit that would be greatly appreciated. I know you're supremely busy, so no problem if you can't. Thanks! ceranthor17:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Ceranthor, I just took a look at this article because I'm part way through turning the list bit of the landslide article into a list of landslides. One of the sources I was referring to called this 'one of the world's outstanding landslides disasters', as it wasn't part of the list, I thought I'd better add it - small world huh? I'll have a look through it this evening and see what I can add. Mikenorton (talk) 18:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Right you are! I have been around. This weekend I'll be helping Dentren with the volcano article he was working on. I will take a look through Armero Tragedy when I get the chance; it is on my radar. Let me know if there are books or journal articles that you want as sources. I'd be happy to get those and add some text that encapsulates what they say and/or give them to you. Awickert (talk) 22:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
A good amount are actually available online, believe it or not! I've bookmarked some five or six possible resources which look promising. I would really appreciate it if you could - don't bother if it's a pain, I don't necessarily need the first one - possibly get [1] and [2] for me? The first one's something which may not be worth adding to the article, but something that piques my personal interest... the second one I'd really appreciate if you could get. And perhaps [3]? Thanks as always, you're the best! ceranthor22:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
1 and 2: no luck; will try interlibrary loan. The University of Colorado doesn't give us access to all that much outside the standard journals...
3: Google Scholar search "Display of the Nevado del Ruiz Volcanic Hazard Map Using GIS"; it is available online in PDF. Awickert (talk) 00:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Scratch that! Wow, I wouldn't have thought it was as easy as just clicking on the slightly obscured PDF link... *red cheeks* ceranthor01:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
If you can tell me something specific that you need, I may be able to help you with it. In any case, since you are planing on bringing it to FAC (right?), I will happily review. Awickert (talk) 04:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for making me a "reviewer", whoever you are
A couple of days ago, I reverted something that was flagged and discovered (I've been living under a rock) the flagged revisions trial.
Thank you! I tried, but couldn't figure out how to find out who it was. I'll send them a thank you note.
I feel very sedimental about my rock. Awickert (talk)
It shows up under user rights management at the top of your User contributions page ... at least to us powerful mop wielders, but I guess it may not be visible to you ... hmm ... it should be, you should be able to see who messed with your rights ... mebe 'nother great wrong to right ... but 'tis past my bedtime now - g'nite. :) Vsmith (talk) 03:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Nope, no luck. There is a "user rights" link at the bottom of "contributions", but it doesn't say who changed things. My watchlist does, but I can only get it to go back to late-ish June. I've been all but convinced that applying for a mop is a bad idea (i.e., at worst, a ticket to an online angst-party), but it could be fun to see what can be done. Good night! Awickert (talk) 03:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Don't worry Sandy, VG is usually quite good with the accuracy. I'll read it over too, looks like a interesting piece. ceranthor21:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Looks unlikely that I will get to this one unless it lasts >2 more weeks. I am mostly away from the internet. Sorry, Awickert (talk) 17:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Ouch, that one hurt me in the gut :P Way to root for non-wikiholics! Personally I'm a wikiholic survivor. I edit with the whim and the ways of the wind...ResMar03:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Just took a look, but it will take too long for now to piece together (a) whether it should be merged with something else, and (b) what should be done with it. It looks like there are a few good eyes on it at the moment, Awickert (talk) 18:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I was just about to plagiarize this when I saw your revert. Would you mind if I adopted it, perhaps in slightly edited form? If you'd rather not be associated with it I won't mention where it came from. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
You are more than welcome to, and I'm happy to be associated with it. I meant it all, and I'm glad you liked it. It will probably go up on my User:Awickert/Curmudgeonly opinions sometime. I just thought for a bit that I wanted to open that debate, and then quickly decided that it was better off closed. I'm home with my family and would rather spend time with them and friends without thinking about WP. Awickert (talk) 03:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision
Please note that contributors should not be voting here. I'd appreciate it if you'd remove your !vote (and reword if appropriate). What we are looking for is constructive criticism (such as alternate wordings or alternate remedies) . If you aren't around I may remove your !vote myself, and you might want to then modify your comment. Thanks. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 14:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for removing and notifying. I wasn't intending to vote, but I'm not all that familiar with the protocol - oops! I just bolded it up front to express my deep feeling that this is a horrible idea. Awickert (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
It is like when the whole class doesn't get to go out for recess because of the one student who put the whoopee cushion on the teacher's chair
Why thank you. I have, incidentally, put a whoopee cushion on a teacher's chair (and no, the whole class was not punished). Awickert (talk) 07:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
We need an experienced geologist to expand the relevant section on this article, if you or someone on wikipedia has this expertise, we would really appreciate it...--Gniniv (talk) 09:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Erm... what about it? It's the most recent magnetic reversal, and therefore the big limitation on using paleomag to date things that are pretty recent. Or do you mean that I should expand it? :) Awickert (talk) 12:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Expand of course :) Seems the Sci News blurb says "Not all experts are convinced..." and it hasn't yet been published ... so may need "balance"? Don't know much about it - have invited our new "expert" user User:RockMagnetist to take a look and jump in. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 14:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
OH! I should have looked at the talk page. I will comment later today. Glad to hear that there are new experts arriving; goodness knows that we need them! Awickert (talk) 17:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, UTC is GMT without daylight savings. Google brings up this converter and a UTC clock. Also, if you open a UNIX shell, you can type "date" for the local time and "date -u" (or "date --utc" or "date --universal") for it to give you the date and time in UTC. (Maybe this works on Mac too, not sure what the DOS shell command is). Awickert (talk) 14:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. I took undergrad. structural geology from him (mumble) years ago, at Rice, which I think was his first teaching job. I remember being impressed by his wearing out (some number of) field boots mapping Mt. Charleston, W of Las Vegas. I didn't realize until years later that the silicified carbonates there are very hard on the old-style hard-rubber Vibram soles -- not to mention shoe leather!
Cool to bump into another of BCB's old students. I'm also seriously over-committed now, to even think about taking on a new project.... Best regards, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Will you be at GSA?
To my talk page stalkers (and visitors): If any of you will be at the Geological Society of America meeting in Denver and would like to say "hello", drop me a message here (or via email). On the chance that we actually get a critical mass, we could all hit a bar (or poster session) together.
On that note, if any of you are editing geology-related articles and want me to find some particular scientist for you, let me know and I will keep my eyes open. Awickert (talk) 03:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Template Geological period
Hello Awickert,
I do not fully understand this, but I think you should comment out the {{Geological period}} template in your talk Archive 2 #Quaternary? It is a year and two months old now and your archive still shows up in the [[Category:Periods with timeline in infobox]] . I suppose you have finished dealing with the matter. Thanks for your consideration. --Fartherred (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Huh. Nice to be mentioned in a good light, though not at the expense of others. At the possible risk of blowing my niceness-lead, I generally stay away from arbcomm because it's usually just a lot of ... well, maybe I'll try to stay nice after all :). Suffice to say that I think the CC case is a worthless angsty waste of time, energy, and WP's servers. The same issues will remain when it is over, and a not-entirely-deterministically chosen smattering of editors will be sanctioned by the bureaucracy.
Checked your diffs; I'll keep an eye out to see what develops. As for the "list of involved editors" that I'm in, I don't think that something like that is good or useful, though it is not quite a CIA file. Awickert (talk) 02:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I think it is very different from the Chavez situation. Well, both are ugly in their own way (CC is worse IMO). In GW/CC there seems to be the problem that a bunch of folks who know nothing about the science decide to show up and start changing the articles, insulting everything in their path; I have no patience for belligerent ignorance and ignorant soapboxing, which has caused me to edit those areas less. Clearly this is not the case for all editors, but it is the case for far too many. The Chavez articles are a more even-footing POV-war in which almost all the sources are (or can be construed as) POV, leading to a nasty push-and-shove in which (IMO) the articles end up with a pro-Chavez POV. Awickert (talk) 02:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
The similarity is the battleground and the fact that Chavez editors decry maintream reliable sources; the difference is that mainstream reliable sources don't do science very well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
True, true - I didn't think of that. One can respond on Chavez: "the government sources are biased", which (having been to Vzla) I find to be a strong argument. Some newspapers do do science well, but sadly it is the crap reporting that (why is anyone ever surprised) makes "brand new predictions", is flashy, and gets attention. Awickert (talk) 02:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
If you click on the "paintings/prints" tab there, you can get The Muppets!
"This" #1 is interesting; I've been whacked with WP:PSTS several times before to the effect that I shouldn't be using journal articles because they are "primary sources", and I should use the newspaper instead. Oof. #2 reminds me of this game of telephone pictionary that ended with, "with our resistances combined in parallel, we can summon Captain Planet!" Have you seen this?Awickert (talk) 03:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Mmm... Wikilawyering vs. deep-fried food and fresh milkshakes? That's a tough one. Let's see, if Wikilawyering were this guy and deep-fried cheese curds were Mike Tyson, and they were put in the ring together, do you think that Tyson would bite his own ear off just to see how it tasted? Awickert (talk) 04:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, aren't you in a fine mood tonight! (Did you mix up Tyson and the Wimp, or is my brain scrambled? Tyson probably *would* eat cheese curds... I haven't had the pleasure yet.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I started trying to write something that made logical sense, and then I gave up. How do you even bite your own ear?
I'm allergic to malls. And polyester. And aspirin. And probably cheese curds if I ever eat one. I tried to reverse your writing only to discover the genius in your version. I like the idea of Tyson chewing his own deep-fried curd while the wimp walks out of the ring. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Parece como cada día hay un centro comercial nuevo en Venezuela. Que socialismo. Y quién cambiaria un parque de diversiones en un centro comercial... sin prioridades.
Hugo estatiza sin planes, sin nada. Sabes que ahora no va a dar dinero a los estados y cuidades que tienen gobernadores y alcaldes de la oposición, ¿no? Solo quiere ser un héroe revolucionario, con dinero por sus amigos, y no le importa si la gente no tienen trabajo ni hogar ni comida en tanto como se votan por él. Awickert (talk) 07:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
It is a farce with a smokescreen of outdated rhetoric. If only la revolución would actually address socioeconomic equality in an intelligent, sustainable way... but I don't even know if that is the mission of its leaders. Awickert (talk) 21:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Well I guess there is the obvious reason, then. Awickert (talk)
Howdy Andy
I'm editing Barstow Formation. Feel free to stop by. The internet is a large place; funny how geology is so small.
I think I'm going to get my masters in Geophysics with its use in petroleum geology instead of Paleo. I think I'll go back for straight research much later in life. We should keep in touch.
Howdy Kevin! Funny how it is... you've found my #1 or #2 way of wasting time... I'll be sure to stop by. Are you sticking around town for your master's? Awickert (talk) 05:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I can't decipher that one and will be out of touch for a bit starting eaaarly tomorrow. Maybe by the time I return, the vision will clear. Awickert (talk) 20:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Come now, that wasn't hard to decipher. I simply meant "I'm open to suggestions." You guys would make terrible, terrible cytologists =) ResMar00:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
You missed your chance :) I don't edit articles on Nam and only rarely military stuff (USMC occasionally). Like Tilman I was an economic geologist (diff. I was; he is) and once worked for an oil co. - Kerr-McGee, but they're defunct so... And a long time ago. Anyway your input there was appreciated and on target. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 02:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Can't imagine you'd want to edit articles on 'Nam, but I took the liberty of mentioning you and Pete because I didn't think that you (or he'd) mind. I'm running towards more the academic side now, but I am conflicted as to whether to go to industry, at least for a little while. In any case, thanks for your support :) Awickert (talk) 05:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Er... I would have to go and mention the other stuff - zat mean I've got go look up some refs to support my top o me head comments? I'm always getting myself in trouble :) Vsmith (talk) 03:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
And, yes, sedimentary usage is far more common - so will likely dominate the article w/ only brief note of other stuff (assuming I can support my blabbing). Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 03:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, assuming you can support those, roundness (geology) could also become a redirect to a few other articles. But here I go making plans without first making those articles; seems to be my consistent mistake here. Awickert (talk) 04:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the invitation, but I am not all that interested (well, yes I am interested in the broad sense of the word, but not enough to put in the work to make a FA on a mountain that I know next to nothing about). Sorry! But I don't think I'm any big loss because I know so little. If you need someone to take a look over geology/hydrology/glaciology/whatever-else-that-is-not-living-ology for a "does it make sense" check though, I'd be happy to help. Awickert (talk) 21:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
No problem at all, and thank you! It is something I have thought should be done for a looong time, but I am oh so unversed in Wikipedia space editing that I never did it myself. Awickert (talk) 01:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree. It is really important, and has been a most unhelpful situation for a long time. In response to KillerChihuahua's concern about the increase in length, I've tightened parts of the wording to address her concern; the difference is now down to 21 words. Does it look okay? --JN46611:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Still support; don't know where SV is coming from, but hopefully we can figure that one out, because the lack of such a policy has ground me down. Awickert (talk) 16:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Proposal 5 may be an easier one to get through, because it has attracted significant support, and does not go out of its way to denigrate media sources as potentially "wrong"; it merely says that scientific sources are the most authoritative, which is undoubtedly true. As for SlimVirgin's position, she presented it here, in some detail: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Evidence#Statement_by_SlimVirgin. Do read it and try to understand her concerns.
If you want to try for her Suggestion 7, we do need unambiguous examples of actual misreporting or misinterpretation in high-quality media sources that were used in Wikipedia and caused a problem -- I don't believe SV required these to be current, they could also be from a while back. But this is a higher burden of proof, and to be honest, I think going down that road is a more risky approach to fixing the policy. We may end up with nothing implemented at all, especially if the examples presented turn out to be debatable.
In my view, problems with press sources are more rarely about a source being flat-out wrong. They are more commonly due to the fact that they are anecdotal, recentist, and have a narrower focus, causing WP:Undue problems that are difficult to negotiate on talk pages as editors will insist that "A reliable source has said this", especially editors that lack an overview and good understanding of the science. The source need not be wrong, it may just lack perspective. This is where scholarly sources are stronger, and thus "more authoritative". Science articles should primarily reflect the edifice of scientific knowledge, not the ephemeral and ever-changing preoccupations of the media. Hope this helps; we can discuss this further. (I've made SV aware of this discussion and invited her to join in, if she feels like doing so.) --JN46601:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I think that you are right; suggestion 5 seems better, and come to think of it, those are indeed the more common problems with newspapers.
I get SV's point of view, and I think that we could really have a good conversation about it. I just read her section on oh-no-not-that-arbcomm-case, and it is one of those that really does make sense (as in, it is internally consistent and not full of complaining). To her, I would say that (a) yes, we should be able to use reliable press for things about scientists, the broader impacts of science, etc. But I will maintain my great preference for the specialist literature in writing purely about science. I think (or at least hope) that she and I could find middle ground. In any case, I'm far less... um, intense, than much of the rest of the climate change crowd (maybe because I'm not a climate scientist per se, so it's not about my work), and that should make this a little more pleasant : ).
As you (pl) may have noticed, I haven't been on much: combo of work and "real life" has kept (and will keep) me from leaving more than a handful of comments on these issues, usually with I'm-not-doing-enough guilt-stricken edit summaries. But you all are more than welcome to use my talk page as a testing ground to work things out, and I should be able to drop in at least once a day. Awickert (talk) 17:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, you recently supported a talk page proposal (proposal 5) to update WP:V, concerning the use of academic and media sources. The proposal has attracted a good amount of support, however a concern has been voiced that implementing the proposal represents a major policy change that would require wider input first. The discussion is at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Current_status; it would be great if you could drop by. --JN46622:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Chester R. Longwell cites Reginald Aldworth Daly: "...seeks to substitute sliding for drifting, assuming that broad domes or bulges form at the earth's surface, and on the flanks of these domes the continental masses slide downward, moving over hot basaltic glass as over a lubricated floor."
No ideas at the moment, though I will think and get back to you about those papers. AFAIK current thought is that ridge push is important as is slab pull, though an (unknown) amount of the slab pull forces are dissipated in interactions with the viscous mantle. Mike [Norton] knows a ton more than I do about tectonics. Awickert (talk) 03:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry - looks unlikely that I will do this any time in the near future. But I will keep the message here so I feel guilty about it at least. Awickert (talk) 07:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
ACN discussion
Put a hat on it: silliness from others, and sadly, from me too.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I knew that would happen. Thanks for the notice. WMC's comment drew my attention to it since BozMo and I were having a little fun on his talk page. I would not have seen that without his bringing it up. OTOH, my revert is based on my own knowledge of general circulation (and other) models. OTOOH, WMC and I have sort of similar backgrounds and will therefore make similar edits in situations like this. The closeness of his talk page comment and my edit was fortuitous: I check WP about once every 12 hours. The verdict: proxying or no? Dunno. Awickert (talk) 07:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
And regarding this, what it is is a determination to put one's POV-pushing misinterpretation of initial conditions into an encyclopedia. Awickert (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Let me clarify to any tps I may have: I sincerely hope that I am wrong and that the ArbComm decision improves the climate change articles and editing environment. My worry, voiced above, is that without the regulars, cantankerous as they indeed are, new users and sockpuppets will have free rein. But I'll refrain from judgement for the moment. Awickert (talk) 18:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Mmmm... OK. The paleoclimate ones are based on reconstructions, and those are the ones that I know. I will be more careful though; thanks for the advice. The blatantly obvious socks piss me off too much for me to engage in constructive conversation.
Would you like to rejoin discussion at WP:V? While proposal 5 still has more support than present policy on the talk page, the gap is narrowing, and discussion has taken a few new turns. --JN46621:38, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Hm, I'm not sure where to rejoin discussion; I'm at a loss in looking at the page. I'm also barely going to be on for the next several days. Sorry I can't be more help when I'm needed. Awickert (talk) 20:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Suplicandote
AW, I know you know that Armero tragedy will be on the mainpage on the 13th-- there are some comments on the talk page, and I was hoping you could watchlist it and help out with any other commentary that may appear between now and then? We need Spanish-speakers on board, and my plate is full. Saludos, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
W. P. Schellart, D. R. Stegman, R. J. Farrington, J. Freeman, and L. Moresi (16 July 2010). "Cenozoic Tectonics of Western North America Controlled by Evolving Width of Farallon Slab". Science. 329 (5989): 316–319. doi:10.1126/science.1190366.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
White, R. and McKenzie, D. (1989). "Magmatism at rift zones: The generation of volcanic continental margins and flood basalts". J. Geophys. Res. 94: 7685–7729.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
OK. Unlikely that I will be editing it any time soon. Life and work are conspiring to get in the way. Good luck to you if you are - it can definitely be improved! Awickert (talk) 17:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Just thought you like to know I just did a major rewrite and expansion for this article. It is the most complete Precambrian volcanic-related article to date as far as I am aware of. Volcanoguy07:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Check out the discussion I started my talk page about this greenstone belt when you have time. I know you are not much of an expert in igneous petrology but it would be nice if some geologists are involved with my discussion and suggestion. The overall rocks in the Temagami greenstone belt are mostly calc-alkaline (e.g. dacite, andesite, rhyolite, basalt, diorite) but there is also ultramafic rocks (e.g. peridotite and pyroxenite). My suggestion about the origins of the Temagami greenstone belt is subduction zone/arc volcanism based on the rock types. I have not seen anything about the origins of the Temagami belt while doing research so I have not added any detailed info about its formation in its article yet. According the articles, diorite is created by partial melting of mafic rocks above a subduction zone and is commonly produced in volcanic arcs. Andesites are characteristic of subduction zones, and dacitic magmas are formed by the subduction of oceanic crust under a thick felsic continental plate. If this is correct, it makes sense that the Temagami greenstone belt is a product of subduction zone volcanism. Volcanoguy08:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello! Would you be interested in forming WikiProject Jupiter? If so, please show your support by clicking on the link above!--NovusOrator23:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Merry Christmas to Wikipedians who live across the Earth
This holiday is a time for peace, happiness, and mirth.
Since I know that each of you wants nothing but the best,
And gives freely to this project, may your days be blessed.
Have a safe and happy holiday with your family and friends
And if you're worried about someone, it's not hard to make amends.
May you have lots of presents, and maybe say "oh, boy!"
But most of all, I hope you find some peace, some comfort, and plenty of joy.
To everyone I know and don't across Wikipedia: the happiest of holidays!
Hello, Awickert/Archive 5! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!
The year 2011 has brought many changes to the State of Colorado. We have a new Governor and other state officers, two new U.S. Representatives, many new state legislators, and a new Mayor of Denver. WikiProject Colorado is updating many Colorado articles. Many Colorado places, people, and organizations need new articles. Portal:Colorado needs new featured articles.
Anyway you can access [4] for me? I'm writing the article on the caldera and have run rather short on sources that don't concern Chile's general geology. This looks like it would be extremely useful. ceranthor14:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
It's a book, so the interwebs don't have it, and neither does the library. I can do interlibrary loan, but it will take some time (like a week, probably) for it to show up. Let me know if you want me to request it. Awickert (talk) 06:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I didn't look closely enough. It's actually a PhD thesis, meaning that most of it is published in journals as well. Let me find some electronically-available articles and email them to you, and then you can tell me if you still need me to request the thesis. Awickert (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Boris. Ceran, you should think about that. Most scientists I know would be excited to see their work going up on something as publicly-accessible as Wikipedia, and you could get some interesting info from her. In the meantime, I will still find those articles. Awickert (talk) 19:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I've actually found several other articles, so I don't think I'll have to email her, but I still would like some info from that book, unless I can access the Hildreth ref. His work is usually very comprehensive; if you remember, we used him for Cerro Azul. :) ceranthor13:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Can't post it on WP because of copyright, but I will give it to you. Was the problem the PDF or the gzipped tarball? Awickert (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
OK - were you able to get the PDFs out of the tar.gz? Awickert (talk) 05:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC) [Added: just let me know exactly what the issue is and which PDFs it affects, and I will fix it. Awickert (talk) 08:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)]
Ah, you had me thinking that you were having issues with the PDFs. I preemptively re-sent them, uncompressed, as I should have in the first place. I'll make sure to send you a *.zip in the future; I live in geek-land where we are sometimes out of touch with non-unix-like systems. Awickert (talk) 07:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm morally opposed to torture. (In honesty, I have neither rowed nor erged in years, so I'm not sure how much help I'd be.) Awickert (talk) 01:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Do you have a email so that I can esend this to you.
Please erase my email address when you email me.
morbas
Yep - click the "e-mail this user" link at left. I should be able to find any reference you give me, so long as I have the title and date. I deleted your address, but sadly, it is now in the permanent history. I will get back to this topic eventually; time has not been in my favor lately. Thanks in advance, Awickert (talk) 00:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah. I'd elaborate but my good Midwestern parents always told me to not say anything if I didn't have something nice to say :). Ahhh... want it? Awickert (talk) 02:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I think I found a fairly(?) neutral way to put it. He found a bunch of events of variable significance in the geologic past, fudged the dates, and said that they match a pattern of galactic cyclicity. Awickert (talk) 05:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
