User:Geologyguy/Archive1

=ARCHIVE 2006-July 2007=

Welcome!
I see you created an article Misty fjords and that you are a geologist. You may be interested in joining the WikiProject Protected areas, an attempt to coordinate all protected areas worldwide in standardizations for protected areas. To coincide with the official name of the protect area page you created, I have moved it to Misty Fjords National Monument. It is important that we also not timestamp on the article pages, only doing so in talk pages and on the discussion pages. Let me know if I can be any help to you on future editing as I have been around awhile.--MONGO 09:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

-

Thanks very much. I'm basically a newbie, and I appreciate your revisions greatly.

--Geologyguy 15:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:Ak7.jpg
When you upload images you hold the copyright to, please be sure to tag them with gfdl, otherwise we can't be sure of the copyright status of the images and may have to delete them at some point. Thanks for your contributions. --Gmaxwell 03:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

re:Glacier NP
Thank you for your kind comments. I was born and raised in Montana, so I am very familiar with the park, and that does make it easier to write about it. It would be nice to come home, but my work keeps me elsewhere. I'm sure I'll see your work and help as I can. Happy editing!--MONGO 17:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Geophysical survey article
Thanks for your input regarding the "Geophysical survey" article. It has been moved to Archaeological geophysics. When I wrote that article, it was to replace a rather poor one that dealt only with archaeological applications and was linked only from archaeological articles. The Geophysical survey page is now wide open for a really good general article on the subject that I, as an archaeologist, am not qualified to write. ---Tapatio 15:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for doing that. I'll try to work on the more general article, but it will not be immediately. Cheers --Geologyguy 15:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Amchitka
Hi Geologyguy,

Amchitka is a current featured article candidate. What's needed is a section on the geology of the island, and I wondered whether you might be able to assist? If you could help by summarising this source - and any others you think appropriate - it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Jakew 21:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Gondwana
Thanks for the correction with Gondwana. Nurg 09:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Glacier
re: "The Great Lakes formed approximately at the end of the Pleistocene period, when the glacier-carved lake basins were filled with melt water from the retreating ice sheet."
 * I was just about to revert that myself, but I wouldn't call it vandalism, exactly. It's a true statement; it seems more like a kid trying to contribute, albeit a bit sloppily. -- Jim Douglas (talk)  (contribs)  23:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification! Cheers Geologyguy 00:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Yellowstone
Yes, it has been very difficult to resume working on that article, expand the sections, add better references and the like when dealing with that editor. I posted on the arbcom case some information regarding his edits, especially the one where he removed an entire section and then deliberately altered the spelling in the remaining section. While an accidental removal of a chunk of text can be explained as an accident, altering that spelling is clearly vandalism. Anyway, maybe in a few weeks I can get back to the article and resume where I left off and all assistance to make improvements are always welcome. Thanks.--MONGO 21:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

CamperStrike has been confirmed by checkuser to be a blocked editor evading his blocks and has now been blocked indefinitely. Expect to see some other anon or trolling IP's to make an effort to continue to stir up trouble on Yellowstone and related articles.--MONGO 13:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting! Maybe that page can settle down now! Thanks.  Cheers --Geologyguy 14:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

AMK152's Geotimeboxes
Thanks, I could use the help in reverting. I also found a couple of articles that didn't have their proper footers, so it is not just two steps back. I have left discussion on some of the associated talk pages, see for example Talk:Pliocene. I am hoping that I can find a project page where this discussion would be appropriate. --Bejnar 02:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps on the Template_talk:Geotimebox page? Geologyguy 02:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Butte
No problem -- it sounded like we were trying for the same result! --Walor 16:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Susquehanna River older than Atlantic Ocean
I was deeply puzzled by that paragraph of the Susquehanna River article, and spent some trouble trying to find someone to review it: 1 2. Unfortunately, there is no WikiProject Geology.

The paragraph, as written, seems extremely unlikely. Perhaps you know someone who can take a look at it and make an authoritative decision. I would be really grateful if someone could clear this up. -- Dominus 01:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I read your note on the Geologic Timescale project talk page -- I definitely agree that the paragraph in question seems unlikely, but I don't know myself... so I added the "citation needed" tag for the time being. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable than us will come along and either confirm or (I expect) delete it, and I'll keep my eyes open about it as well. Thanks for the original notice.  Cheers Geologyguy 01:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not know about the Susquhanna in particular, but there are rivers in the Appalachians that pre-date the opening of the Atlantic. The French Broad River among others has its headwaters near the Blue Ridge escarpment, and flows west across the crest of the Blue Ridge mtns to the Tennessee river, then onto the Ohio. Any river that starts on one side of the mountains and flows to the other through an eroded gap must be older than the mountains. in the case of the French Broad river, its flow away from the Atlantic way probably initiated in the Triassic, when doming of Pangea occurred prior to continental rifting. The Blue Ridge escarpment represents the original rift, eroded back from the shore. See similar relations in Brazil and India. Geodoc 05:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Good work!
WOW! Thank YOU! It is a real honor to get my first barnstar from an editor that I respect as much as I do you! Thanks very much. Cheers - Geologyguy 22:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My pleasure.--MONGO 07:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

deletions of otispa
rockhead (aka:Geologyguy), good u r watching my op-eds,your first comment was re the content of my webpage oiljetpump.com. I notice the Schlumberger dictionary is added to several articles... the schlumberger web page is a STRICTLY commercial page with information. I have no problem with such an approach. What i have a problem with is rockheads who favor one commercial site over another.

secondly, i decided to add a comment from an AAG web page to see what you would then do. it was also deleted using a different pretext. I will appeal your actions unless your deletion of the AAG link is restored by Feb 28/07. opa —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Otispa (talk • contribs) 16:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Feel free! (copied to Vsmith) Cheers Geologyguy 17:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

ok rokhead... you say If oiljetpump.com is your site then you are simply not allowed by Wikipedia policies to link to it, we're not here to promote your business so i say ...

If "Schlumberger" is your site then you are simply not allowed by Wikipedia policies to link to it, we're not here to promote your business, "Schlumberger".

You are aware that Schlumberger is a "for profit" commercial enterprise, no? So please provide more clearly the difference between referencing to an article residing on the Schlumberger web page and referencing to an article residing on oiljetpump.com??

Also i ask you to show where i am selling anything on your oiljetpump.com ? .. as best i can see the site is information only.

ok, for the GSA page, i will reference you to slide 11 of http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/viewHandout.cgi?uploadid=6 and it reads "Upper Ordovician Zone, Clean Carbonate, Western Latvia"

and what may i ask was the article about?????

da ordovician, no??? or yes????

but you say it lacked relevancy??? please explain....--Otispa 00:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

ps... since you do not use any variant of your christian name but rather go by the psuedo "geologguy" it seems rockhead is also suitable alias.--Otispa 15:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Answered on his talk page. Geologyguy 17:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Mountain
I was thinking about creating an article on Hollowtop Mountain to have as a companion to Mount Jefferson (Montana). Since these two peaks are so close to each other and I see you added a great deal of information on the Jefferson article, I thought maybe you might help us distinguish the two peaks. Do you have any images of either summit?--MONGO 08:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I definitely have some of Hollowtop and have had it on my (back burner) list to add to WP. Mt J is not so distinctive in appearance but I'll see what I can find - I have a few thousand pics of the Tobacco Roots. Cheers Geologyguy 15:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Blue Helmet,
a white flag and a flak jacket. Why on earth does plate tectonics get vandalised so much? Any way, thanks for not 'shooting' me edit and keep up the good work with the protection. Regards, Fred 03:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! There are indeed so many (who knows why?) it's a bit of a battle to be sure to keep the ones that are OK.  Cheers Geologyguy 03:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No worries, just I recognise it must be tricky work. I will put a note on the talk page first, next time. Cheers, Fred 04:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, maybe I missed something - did I do something to your addition of the link to S. Warren Carey? If so I didn't mean to - I did (I thought) revert an edit right after yours by a vandal adding "albert einstein" somewhere on the page... I don't think that removed your edit.  As far as I'm concerned, your addition of the Carey link was appropriate.  Cheers Geologyguy 04:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No. Not that I'm aware of. A random, yet genuine, thankyou day. I corrected a previous comment, in case clarity was the cause of your concern. I'm unwatching your page, feel free to comment on mine.  Regards, - Fred 04:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

New NRHP Collaboration Division
Hey, saw you were a participant in the National Register of Historic Places WikiProject. I thought I would let you know that there is a new Collaboration Division up for the project. The goal of the division is to select an article or articles for improvement to Good article standard or higher. There is a simple nomination process, which you can check out on the division subpage, to make sure each candidate for collaboration has enough interested editors. This is a good way to get a lot of articles to a quality status quickly. Please consider participating. More details can be seen at the division subpage. IvoShandor 11:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Carbonate platform
Hi Geologyguy,

I have no idea who you are, but sure enough you knows something about geology... I am a researcher in sedimentology-stratigraphy at the University of Padova. I had to teach 12 hours of English and so I proposed to my students to expand a geology stub here in Wikipedia. It was Carbonate platform, which in fact is no more a stub now... My students would be happy if someone external could take a look to the article and, perhaps, suggest or make changes (to the style, or to the contents).

Would you do that? It would be great... or maybe you know someone here who could do that. The students were enthustastic about the idea, I am suggesting that if they get some feedback they may continue to contribute.

Thanks anyways, either you can find the time to take a look or not. Cheers, --Kaapitone 20:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello, thanks for asking, and thanks to your students for expanding the stub. It is much better than it was before!  I made a few simple stylistic and English usage changes, nothing major.  Thanks again!  Cheers Geologyguy 20:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

...well, what you just did is beyond my expectations. THANKS!!! --Kaapitone 20:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Mendip Hills
Mendip Hills is currently up for FAC. My only connection with the article is that for the last few days I've been doing some editing & making comments. In general I think it's pretty good, & not far off FA standard.

In view of your contributions to Carboniferous, & your expert knowledge of geology, I wondered whether you would be prepared to cast an eye over Mendip Hills & remove any egregious errors. This would be very helpful for User:Rodw, who submitted the article as an FAC & has worked hard at improving it.

You can see the points that I raised with him at Talk:Mendip_Hills. But there may well be other things wrong with the section: neither of us is a geologist! We'd be most grateful for any suggestions & improvements. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 20:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I will try to help, but I just got home from a 10-day trip and need to get caught up before getting lost in wiki-space again!  Cheers Geologyguy 13:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Welcome back from the real world! I've notified User:Rodw that you're now back in action. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 18:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your explanatory paragraph. It's too late for the FA candidacy but improves the article anyway.&mdash; Rod talk 07:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Ogallala aquifer age
Thanks for updating the Ogallala Aquifer article. I was trying to make the article's content more accessible to laymen by giving an age in years instead of just Miocene/Pliocene. The 10-12 figure came from here:
 * Deposition of the Ogallala Formation began 10 to 12 million years ago during late Tertiary (Miocene/Pliocene) geologic time.

I also found this which states:
 * The principal water-bearing unit of the High Plains aquifer is the Ogallala Formation (OGAL). Sediments composing this unit were deposited approximately 5 to 19 million years ago. The High Plains aquifer also includes older deposits and younger deposits. Older deposits are in the Brule and Arikaree Formations (BRAK).

Though both serious sources the former is not scholarly, and I'm not qualified to judge the latter. You're the geologist in the house, so I'll defer to your expertise. Whatever figure you settle on, a citation would be a good addition to the article. Thanks. --Kbh3rd talk 21:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello - I'm not a real expert on the Ogallala though I've done some work. I would hate to disagree with the 2007 USGS publication you referenced. My real issue when I made the edit was equating "late Miocene-Pliocene" with "10-12 million years ago," as the first ref seems to do - 10-12 million is middle Miocene, at latest.  I did look for a reference to back up my edit, but could not find one online quickly, and my print refs for the age of around 6 m.y. and younger are packed away.  But I will look harder, because you are certainly correct that a ref or refs are needed. If I can't find it, we should go with that USGS paper, though I think they are generalizing.  Cheers and thanks - Geologyguy 21:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Solar System
Hi, Geologyguy. There's a discussion at Talk:Solar System (yesterday's featured article) about plate tectonics on Earth. Could you offer your input there or connect us with another expert? Thanks much, Gnixon 19:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A belated thanks for commenting over there. Much obliged.  Gnixon 20:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Geology Project/Portal
Would you be interested in establishing the Geology Project? This project seems obvious to connect related projects. There is a very nifty portal in Russian Wiki. Please see a request here WikiProject Council/Proposals. Thanks! Solarapex 22:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks, I added my name - I'd be interested in contributing, but based on my participation in other Projects I've joined, I probably don't have time to be much of a contributor. But I'd try. Cheers Geologyguy 00:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Admin?
You do a lot of vandalism reversion and I thought maybe having the ability to do rollback might be handy for you. If you are interested in becoming an administrator, I would be glad to nominate you. You might want to look over WP:ADMIN before you decide to accept or decline.--MONGO 06:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi MONGO, thanks, I really appreciate that a lot. However, I really don't think I have enough broader Wikipedia experience, and more importantly, I know how short my fuse can be with vandals - I suspect I'd be blocking too quickly and too often!  Also, even though I do vandalism reversion almost as a form of therapy, on boredom breaks, I'd much prefer to be able to add content to the several projects I say I'm involved with.  So, thanks, but I think I'll pass for now. Cheers Geologyguy 14:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Certainly, I can't say I blame you! But if the situation changes, let me know.--MONGO 17:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

1906 San Francisco earthquake
Hello, I see you've been fighting hard against the vandals. Thank you! I think it's you and me, kid. There were so many sneaky edits that many had gone unnoticed when we were "fighting the vandals" lol. I think I got most of them, and I hope I did not remove any constructive edits along with many reverts I'd done. I just noticed one in a photo caption, even after I thought I had gone back to a much earlier version. If you would, could you just skim over the article to see if you may see what I may have missed or unintentionally taken out that was essential to the article? Thanks! - Jeeny 01:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And thank you, too! I did go over it (lightly) once after your reverts of the sneakys, I'll look again too.  Thanks! Geologyguy 01:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Got your message. Glad things calmed down, and all is well. Take care. - Jeeny  05:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Mendip Hills (again)
Following your previous help with the geology section of this article can I ask for some more help? Mendip Hills is up as a FA candidate (again) at Featured article candidates/Mendip Hills & hasn't got enough support yet & is likely to run out of time soon. Could you take a look & add any comments. Specifically a reviewer has asked "Following on from the first point, the Mendips are hard to define because they don't stand on their own, there are additional nearly contigious limestone hills going north: Dundry, Bristol (Avon Gorge, etc) and the Cotsworlds. Is it worth briefly mentioning these in the geology section, and saying whether they are part of the same formation, or of different ages/composition?" any ideas? Thanks &mdash; Rod talk 10:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Snake River Plain
I have been doing the edits to the Snake River Plain. I have been creating the images myself with Photoshop. Would you like me to create a new image of the Snake River Plain showing the former locations of the calderas? I believe there are 8. I could also show the outline of what is called the Snake River Plain. I could use the same grey background as my graphics and it would be large, 1024 by 768 or so. It might make the overall article look better. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Metrodyne (talk • contribs) 04:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Hello and thanks for your images - they are very nice. The only thing I would worry about a bit is overloading the article - you nicely added content to accompany your climate related images, so in my opinion you added a lot to the article.  I am prejudiced, but I do think that an image showing the calderas would be useful - it could be linked to the Yellowstone Caldera page and perhaps some related additional pages.  I'm not sure an outline of the SRP would really add much - since the other images portray it so well already.  Thanks for the contributions!  Cheers Geologyguy 12:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Metrodyne> I meant that I could show the 8 caldera locations in the SRP and the outline of what is called the SRP both on one image. I will make and you can be the judge. Just remove it if you don't like. Or, if you know how to email, email me your address and I will send the image and let you edit the page...if you choose to. Both of the images that are there now contain info that is slightly off topic and create a distraction IMHO and the one is a very small image. I can custom build an image to communicate what you want. You can make suggestions of what you'd like to see. I have all the parts and pieces for the image ready to go.

I know that the original SRP page is about geology but I very much wanted to add the moisture channel info somewhere in wikipedia. The SRP page is the best spot. It required the two images, one to show where the channel is and the other to show the rainfall of the region. I think it is a very interesting phenomena created by the geology. Best,


 * Hello - personally I thought your additions about the climate were welcome and appropriate. As for the other images, why don't you just make them and post them, then others can see and comment too. Thanks very much for your contributions.  Cheers Geologyguy 13:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Metrodyne>OK finally got the images done and posted. Now...I defined the SRP as that area extending all the way to the Treasure Valley near Boise. I am from Idaho originally and I believe they call the plain near Boise the Snake River Plain just as they do in eastern Idaho. The western third of the SRP was not formed by the Yellowstone hotspot, however. I am not a geologist and do not know how it was formed...something else like earlier rifting or something (don't laugh, its a wild guess). But it might be a good idea to point out that only the eastern 2/3rds of what is called the SRP was formed by the hotspot...if you keep these images. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metrodyne (talk • contribs)
 * I made a very minor tweak to help separate the western and eastern plains in the geology section. I know of nothing that can be summarized more concisely about the western plain's geology than what is in the article already. My opinion - your images are great and add a lot to the article.  Thanks. Cheers Geologyguy 01:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Metrodyne>Yes...it all makes sense now. ...to a layman like me, at least. That's interesting, the rift or graben on the western side occurred about 11 million year ago or at the same time the hotspot was there adjacent to it. So the two are probably related. The graben there seems much wider than any of the others around the world (i. e. Great Rift Valley, Death Valley, and Lost River Valley) it’s also kind of pie shaped rather than long and narrow with the wide end near the hotspot. If you try to trace the path of the hotspot, it sort of changes directions by a few degrees there at about the 11-to-12 million year mark too. So maybe it has something to do with the overall north American plate rotation or something. I like to theorize and sometimes I get it right. I had the theory that Yellowstone was a hotspot similar to Hawaii and formed the Snake River Valley long before I ever heard it. I told my geology-major roommate my theory in while in college in 1976. He looked at me like a mental case. And I came up with this theory at least four years prior to this. Of course, I’m sure some geologist had the theory a decade before I ever thought of it. Best.

Don't be a wiseguy
Obviously the kid found the main article for Berkeley Pit and didn't understand it. -- Kendrick7talk 17:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops, too late for that one. Sorry.  Geologyguy 23:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Ordovician
Sorry: I restored the wrong version. --Rrburke(talk) 13:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No worries, I've done that too. Thanks! Geologyguy 13:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

User name
Do you have any big concern people might confuse you with User:Geometry guy?? Georgia guy 21:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I hadn't any until now. Do you think I should? :-) Cheers Geologyguy 21:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Oil shale
Hi Geologyguy. You are listed as a participant in WikiProject Geology, and you have made a lot of good edits on fossil fuels related articles. Maybe you to please consider helping to improve the oil shale article. This article has developed quite well, but some more expert assistance is needed. Thank you in advance. Beagel 17:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll check it out. Cheers Geologyguy 18:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Geology guy, cheers for cleaning up my grammer and struture and the like on the oil shale bits, not really my strong point! as i'm sure you can see. More stuff to come though. Cheers Philbentley 09:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem - it's basically quite a good article, thanks for your work. Cheers Geologyguy 13:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The oil shale spin-off articles are created now. The oil shale geology needs some editing and verification and lot of references are missing. Also relevant sections of the main article should be replaced with new summary sections. Maybe you could assist with this. Cheers, Beagel 19:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I listed Oil shale for the new peer review and and related spin-off articles (Oil shale extraction, Oil shale geology, Oil shale industry, History of the oil shale industry, Oil shale reserves, Oil shale economics, and Environmental effects of oil shale industry) for the peer review. Your comments and edits will be the most welcome.Beagel 17:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Pleistocene megafauna
I have been restoring my own valid edits that someone else insists on repeatedly deleting with no disuccuion. Suggest you inform him to desist.Ethel Aardvark

Septarian nodule
Hi! I created an about Septarian nodules. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septarian_nodule Would you mind looking at it and editing it? thanks!Neptunekh 01:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As you may have seen, User:Vsmith has redirected it to concretion which actually already has more information about septarian nodules. Cheers Geologyguy 03:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Somerset Levels
You previously helped with the geology section of Mendip Hills and some of us are now working on the area next to this ie Somerset Levels & I wondered if you would be kind enough to look at the "Geology and Sedimentology" section? Thanks&mdash; Rod talk 12:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Geology of the Lassen volcanic area
Hi there. I was wondering if you could take a look at the above FAC and comment. :) --mav 14:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Glacier
No problem reverting the trolling. I'm considering getting the Glacier article up to featured level. If you're interested, feel free to help out. It'll probably be a week or two before I make some time in my schedule to work on it. It has a solid base of info, but needs some work still to be featured level.--MONGO 19:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

environmental record task force
Hi Geologyguy, I'm looking at your geoscience and alternative energy edits and hoping you might join this new project--we could use your skills. Please come by and have a look/sign up! Cyrusc 23:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event
I've seen a few of your edits in the K-T article. If you saw it when we first ran across it, you'd have been amazed. It's getting better, and I think with some focus we have an FAC with this article. If you have time to makes some extensive upgrades, I'd appreciate it. Orangemarlin 00:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You've made it LOTS better with the references. I try to do constructive edits here and there, but seems I usually just have time for mindless vandal reversion... I'll try!  Cheers Geologyguy 00:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I assume someone will vandalize it sooner or later with a comment to see Flood geology. Trust me, it will happen.  Well, anything you can do is most appreciated.  If you have time, look back in the edits and you'll note that Alvarez wasn't even cited!!!! I'm not a geologist, but that's one reference I probably know by heart. Orangemarlin 00:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Geology of the Lassen volcanic area FAC stalled due to intro tag
Hi again - you previously voted at Geology of the Lassen volcanic area's FAC. Since then, a tag was added to the intro saying it was vague or misleading. So even though there is consensus to feature this article, it can't because of the tag. Could you look at the intro/lead section and comment on the article's talk page about whether or not to keep the tag? Thanks. :) --mav 13:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on the Uinta Mountains
Thanks Geologyguy for your edits on the Uinta Mountains. I appreciate you clarifying the geology section. I wishi I knew more about the geology of the Uintas, so if you have more to add, it would be appreciated. Thanks again for your help

Featured article candidates/Geological history of Earth
hi, please leave your expert comments on Featured article candidates/Geological history of Earth. thanks, Sushant gupta 09:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Mya, Bya, etc merger proposed to Annum
Please revisit and watch Talk:mya (unit) for merger discussion.LeadSongDog 21:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Greek Agate
Would you mind adding http://www.andinia.com/b2evolution/index.php?blog=6&cat=359 as an external link because I see no other way of adding the info or could you please rewrite the article? It does have to with Greek Agate. Thanks! Neptunekh 21:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)