User:Geologyguy/Archive3

History of Earth
Hello. I appreciate your recent addition to the intro paragraph for this article. I was merely attempting to try to provide an honest as possible description for this theory AS a theory and try to stay away from describing it as observable fact. I take it you are trying to, as well. However, I still feel that your addition is slightly biased, for the following reasons: Using the term "plausible" denotes that it has an appearance of truth. I'd like to stay away from any idea of this being "truth" because, frankly, we just don't know. Also, the use of "observed" facts seems slightly misleading since there are many "facts" made based solely on some inference rather than on observations. Having it worded this way in the introduction may influence new readers that the theory contains ONLY observations, and that these observations are then facts. Indeed, there are many things within the current scientific theory that is mere speculation and I feel it would do only good to suggest it as such. I'd like to have this article presented very honestly and without bias. When there is a fact, based on an observation or experiment that can be reproduced, then we should definitely state that. But the distinction should be made between that and "observations" that really weren't observed. This way, a new reader will have all the necessary material presented in an honest and unbiased way and allow him/her to make their own interpretations of it.

I have gone ahead and taken out our two last changes to the introduction that we have made. I have not made these changes in any attempt to sabotage information or belittle this theory. In fact, I hope that we can work together and come to some agreement as to how the introduction should be worded to not mislead. Please comment on my talkpage and I look forward to working with you on this article.

Best, Aglassonion (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Replied on Aglassonion's talk page. Geologyguy (talk) 15:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hydrogen vehicle
hi, we where just discussing the issue on User_talk:Mion. Mion (talk) 15:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If you can do anything to clean up that article, I would be very happy, as I have tried unsuccessfully in the past. The article is full of unrealistic marketing by pro-hydrogen folks who won't acknowledge that producing hydrogen for use in cars would actually result in more emissions than current gasoline engines, since the hydrogen has to be produced from fossil fuels, as a practical matter.  The best way to reduce emissions now is for the government to require car manufacturers to reduce emissions by using currently available technologies, like hybrid engine technology, and to encourage the commercialization of PHEVs and battery electric vehicles, as well as the use of public transportation and conservation (driving less!).  Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I can try (not right away), but I am not really very knowledgeable about the field (but maybe that makes me objective??) . Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Montana Atlas & Gazetteer
Do you have a copy of the Montana Atlas & Gazetteer, or know an editor who would have one? Willow Creek Pass (Montana) could well use a reference from it to demonstrate, for example, the surrounding countryside and the road (if there is one) that goes through the pass. Nyttend (talk) 04:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I did what I could - cheers Geologyguy (talk) 15:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I love my Ohio and Pennsylvania and Indiana ones, and I figured that the Montana would be just as useful :-) Nyttend (talk) 22:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa
Well, not this time anyway it seems...my effort to regain my adminship was unsuccessful, but your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 07:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks - and all the best to you. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 15:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been flagged as "spam"??
I've been flagged as spam:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:66.11.86.29

I have made some contributions and edits in the past about actual relevant web pages to certain articles, but don't feel that I should be flagged as spam. How do I get unflagged? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Junewarren (talk • contribs) 16:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Have you read the articles linked in the comments on that page - WP:SPAM, WP:EL, WP:COI, and WP:3RR and the links provided by Hu12? The best way to avoid this is by not adding such links as violate those policies and guidelines. If you mean, why are the "relevant" external links you added considered spam, please read the linked pages. Relevant has very little to do with it. If you mean, how do you get rid of the messages on the user page you linked above, my own view of it is that you do not - but there is no hard and fast policy about removing things from your own user page; you can also archive the page to a sub-page of that user page. I've had a few negative comments (two, I think, in 8000+ edits) which are still on my talk pages in the archive for anyone to see. Also, you will get a somewhat better hearing, I think, if you use your user name rather than editing anonymously through the IP address, and always sign comments on Talk pages (not articles) using four tildes - ~ . Hope this helps - Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 16:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Geographic information system
Hi, I see you've just reverted the date of Lascaux following presumed (creationist?) vandalism. I was about to do this, but looking around the web the accepted date for Lascaux seems to be in the 15-17,000 range rather than the 35,000 stated in the GIS article - Lascaux puts it at 16,000. Pterre (talk) 13:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I did it with that presumption. Our Lascaux article seems to have it right - the official cave site says between 17,000 and 15,000. So by all means change it on the GIS article. Thanks ! Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 14:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with you at all
I don't agree with you at all. First of all you seem to be working in geological context, which makes your judgement less credible to deal with hydropower subjects. Moreover, you jump to flag people as spam contribution without any substance. I rather find your intervention in hydropower subject as spam intervention. Please leave that subject for other experts who knows better about the subject. I am not convinced with your justification to delete my contribution. That's why I insist because its unfair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wuhawater (talk • contribs) 15:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not a "contribution" - it is obviously advertising. Again I refer you to WP:SPAM, WP:EL and WP:COI. Feel free to put it back - others will certainly remove it, and ultimately you run the risk of being blocked and having your site blacklisted. (For anyone who might be interested, this discussion relates to persistent addition of spam links to Hydropower). Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 15:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Its not my site. Forget it any way. The link has no any relevance except complementing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wuhawater (talk • contribs) 11:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism reverts
hi Geologyguy - So I've noticed your excellent work reverting vandalism! Do you leave warnings on the talk pages of vandals? If not, are you interested in doing so? I find it very helpful to have a full warning history available so that I know when to look for administrator help in blocking a vandal. If you want to start leaving warning notices and need any tips or guidance let me know. de Bivort 16:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh nevermind. You clearly know what you're doing w.r.t. all this. Actually I'm curious then - why do you not leave user warnings? Cheers. de Bivort 16:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi and thanks - I guess I'm mostly just lazy, regarding the user warnings - rationalized because so many are one-time first-time only-time vandals. I recognize very much the value of the warnings, and I feel somewhat guilty about not doing it... is there an easy or automatable way to do it? Many thanks - Cheers -- Geologyguy (talk) 02:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Reverting relevant and useful material
Please don't revert my edits or links due to illegitimate claims. Please open the link and read it first. A discussion on relevancy would also be appreciated before you go undoing relevant and useful links.Mrjphillip (talk) 23:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * A link to a search engine, and a collection of pictures, is in my opinion not appropriate for an external link. Provide content in the article, not links. But I will not be doing anything more about it; we'll see if anyone else removes it. (For anyone interested, this discussion relates to external links on Cedar City, Utah‎ ) Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 21:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This link is not a search engine according to WP:EL. I have also followed recommendations according to WP:EL. It is an archive of pictures that can be searched. In my opinion it is approppiate. i feel this is a valuable asset for the interested reader. i respect your opinion and appreciate you leaving the link there. thank you. Mrjphillip (talk) 23:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Reverting Vandalism
Hey, I want to compliment you on your speed in reverting vandalism in Ohio. However, in the future, you may want to check the page history after reverting the last edit because sometimes you miss something like you did in this edit (there was another edit by the same user further down the page). Also, you will want to warn the user on their talk page after reverting so they will be aware that we do not tolerate vandalism and so other users will know that they have previously vandalized if they do it again. (you are supposed to add a higher-level warning for repeat offenses. the full list of warning templates can be found here.) Again, thanks a lot for helping to keep vandalism on Wikipedia to a minimum. Thingg &#8853; &#8855; 03:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup, I saw that one I missed a bit later. Thanks for the help and the warning list. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 04:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Rollback
Hello Geologyguy, I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see New admin school/Rollback and Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck. Acalamari 17:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much and sorry for the delay in replying - I was away from the computer a few days. I appreciate your trust and will explore the tool soon - if it's too much for me I'll let you know! Thanks! Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Basin
Hi Geologyguy, I just wanted to say thank you for creating the article on the Boulder Batholith. I found it this winter while working on Basin, Montana, which made GA this morning. The batholith article was most helpful, and I was glad to be able to link to it. Finetooth (talk) 18:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank You!! Always nice to have done something useful!  Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions for List of basic Earth science topics from a new-to-Wikipedia Geoscientist
This is my first post to someone else's user page; please pardon any faux pas and advise. I write to you because you seem to have been involved in earlier revisions of this page, you seem to be active, and you are a fellow IU Geology grad (BA 1992, MS 1997), though I took my classes at IUPUI.

I would like to suggest a change in the List of basic Earth science topics page, but I'm unsure how to go about it and was unwilling to just make the change without conferring with more experienced users. Specifically, I have a problem with the use of the term 'Lithosphere' to indicate all solid material below the pedosphere and cryosphere. I have taught introductory physical geology for 15 years and the way I describe the 'solid' portion of the earth is to explain that geologists divide the earth in two different ways it based on two properties: composition and mechanics. As I'm sure you know, compositionally we have: In terms of mechanics, we have: Since the term lithosphere is commonly used to indicate this more brittle, uppermost portion of the mantle plus the crust, I find that to use lithosphere by its most literal sense (rock layer) could cause confusion for some. I would propose using the term geosphere to mean the whole of the rocky portion of the earth, meaning 'c' from Bates & Jackson Below, there could be the list the sub-layers in relative order, perhaps even giving an image showing how the two ways of dividing these layers relate to each other.
 * iron/nickel core
 * iron/magnesium rich silicate mantle
 * granitic/basaltic crust.
 * solid inner core
 * liquid outer core
 * solidish lower mantle
 * gooey asthenosphere
 * brittle lithosphere.

Is this something that I should just change and see what kind of response there is?

On a related note, I am interested in soil and noted that one of the requested topics in the WP:SOIL area is the term 'argillic', and adjective that is usually used with respect to a soil horizon. Are adjectives usually given a separate entry in Wikipedia? I did add the term to Wikitionary, as it was missing there. Thanks, Vince Fhernly (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello - sorry for the delay, I was gone a while. The best place for this would be on the Talk:List of basic Earth science topics page. I'll copy this to there shortly. Thanks Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Some Kook Farms need attention
I'm new to Wikipedia, but I've been dealing with the religious anti-science brigade for some time on other sites. I don't have the scientific background to really go toe-to-toe in some of these areas (my talent lies in rhetoric) so I often ask for assistance from the professionals such as yourself. Expanding earth theory is a pet favorite of some of the more extreme creowarriors, so I thought I'd check the page out. There is another page on the same subject called Growing Earth Theory. Both reek of fringe, and need more people like you for a reality check. If you have the time or inclination, please give it a look. Thanks... Aunt Entropy (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks... I'll try. You might consider posting to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology as well. Cheers and thanks - Geologyguy (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

North Saskatchewan River
Hi Geologyguy. Does the gravel on Image:NSRGlacialFlats.JPG look like volcanic ash to you? There's a large volcanic ash deposit called the Bridge River Ash that appears to fan out east-northeasterly as far as westernmost Alberta in the vicinity of the North Saskatchewan River. Black Tusk 22:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Black Tusk - just got home from a trip, I will try to check this out later today. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 16:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's also confusing because there are two other large ash deposits called the Mount St. Helens Yn Ash and the Mazama Ash, which were erupted from Mount St. Helens and Mount Mazama (the Bridge River Ash was erupted from Mount Meager) and they all overlap each other. See here. Black Tusk 01:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

revert
How is the external link spam? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abdomen&oldid=194310076
 * First, it is a wiki, which is not a reliable source. Second, you added the same thing to 6 pages. Third, it has little to do with the scientific content of most of the articles you added it to. Fourth, Wikipedia is not a list of links. Please read WP:EL, WP:SPAM, WP:NOT, and, if you are connected to the site, WP:COI. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 02:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

About rollback
You're welcome! Glad it's been useful! Acalamari 02:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sundaland
I saw that and was wondering about the motivation behind adding Graham Hancock bit, thanks for dealing with it. I wonder how accurate it is anyway.--Dougweller (talk) 14:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for stopping by. Yes, I couldn't read the whole thing but it didn't really help the article and seemed like a blog. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 14:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello
I just saw you revert an edit on Comet, and your username just struck me. Have a good day, and may the vandals fail... J.d ela noy gabs adds 18:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC) 

J.d ela noy gabs adds has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

about links to Wikidot project
Thanks for your remind, Geologyguy. Here you find the explanation I gave to the first note by Mumia. I'did not receive any comment from him, so I thought it was all right. What do you think?

"Thanks for your advice and sorry for answering you so late. I’m also the Administrator of the young Wikidot website “Himetop – The History of Medicine Topographical Database” and, as you can imagine, I’m trying to make of it a reliable source of historical medical information.

In fact, every item of the database – generally dedicated to a too specific subjects for a Wikipedia page (as discussed and stated by the Wikipedia community on the past months) – a monument, a home... - has a photographic documentation and precise address to making it reliable and useful.

I can add that I’m seeing from the Stat Counter connected with Wikidot that quite many people are passing from the Wikipedia pages to the Himetop ones, so it seems to me that this kind of specific deepening may be useful to someone interested in this particular subject.

Do you think that my explanation can solve your doubts?

Many thanks, again.Luca Borghi (talk) 17:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)"

Luca Borghi (talk) 18:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It is a wiki, so it cannot be a reliable source. If you care about the fact that people are coming from Wikipedia to your site, then it seems to be primarily linked to promote your site. That is not allowed. There are thousands of sites that are "relevant" to Wikipedia articles, but we don't include them, either. The fact that it is your site is a violation of the Conflict of Interest policy. See also Wikipedia is not a list of links, WP:SPAM, and WP:EL. If you want to discuss an individual link on a particular page, bring it up on the article's talk page. If others feel the link is warranted, they will add it. You should not. And in any case, adding the links to dozens of pages certainly constitutes spamming. You should add content, not links -- as near as I can tell, you have added nothing at all to the encyclopedia, just spam links. You had a polite notice of this from User:Mumia-w-18 on January 9. Please stop adding spam links - you run the risk of having your account blocked, and the site blacklisted. Thanks Geologyguy (talk) 18:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I need your opinion !
Hi, Geologyguy! My name is Victor. I am very fascinated Wikipedia user and I hope that my knowledge will be useful here. I take a keen interest in real estate and mortgage and now I'm working at the article Fizber (internet company). Some days ago it was nominaded for deletion. So I extremely need your detached opinion about it here - Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_March_1. Thank you in advance. :) -- Prokopenya Viktor (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

TIME Collection
Hey,

I got you message and I am still wondering why you retracted my edit. I looked over the rules regarding external links, and have been a wikipedia editor for quite some time, though under a different username. If you wouldn't mind, I would like an explanation as to why you deleted my addition. TIME is a reliable source, the Archives provide valuable first-hand context that I have found missing in the article, and the collection is a good tool for further research into the Petroleum field. --Kevindkeogh (talk) 19:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


 * It is certainly not "my page" - dozens of people, probably hundreds, watch it. Put it back if you like and see what happens - or, more properly, see what discussion comes from the talk pages. As an aside, the fact that you are "linking to a bunch" is virtually the definition of spammy activity. Others reading this, please feel free to weigh in. I am by no means any kind of authority, just an editor like 6 million others. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 21:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Oil shale geology
Hi. I am planning to nominate the Oil shale geology article for GA. I wonder if you would like to proofread this article before nomination and verify the correctness. There is also one block, which compares deposits formed on continental shelves with lake basin deposits. This block needs reference. Unfortunately I am not able to find the reference myself, so maybe you could assist with this. Beagel (talk) 20:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Beagel, I will try. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 20:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism Reverting
Firstly, thanks for your message. Secondly, do you use any tools? Your monobook.js appears to be empty. If you use FireFox, twinkle is a great browser based program, whereas if you want a much more powerful tool, huggle is the way to go, although I can not guarantee it wont break your computer ;) Both speed up the warning side of things, with the latter doing it automously! If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Tiddly  -  Tom  19:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I recently was entrusted with Rollback, and I looked at Twinkle but was put off by the concerns about interaction with ZoneAlarm, which I use. Maybe later, for Huggle. Many thanks - Cheers, Geologyguy (talk) 22:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Temagami Magmatic Anomaly
Hi Geologyguy. Have you herd of the Temagami Magmatic Anomaly? It's one of the largest positive anomalies in North America. Anyways I'm trying to find out how this structure formed. I found some websites about the structure but don't say anything about its formation. One of the sites said something about one of the oldest well-preserved rift basins on Earth, but I didn't understand it that well (I'm new to the subject). Perhaps it might be the rift basin? Black Tusk 17:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Black Tusk. I'm slightly familiar with the anomaly and its similarity to Sudbury. As the second ref on the article (this one) suggests, the nature of the anomaly would not indicate to me a source from the rift, nor from the iron formations, but from something deep within the basement. If it is like Sudbury it could be a second metal-rich magma-filled impact crater. The magnetic anomalies are very similar. So I don't think that the anomaly represents the rift basin, per se. I would guess that the Huronian basin is simply superimposed upon the older feature that this anomaly represents.  Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 20:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * My mistake, I misread the infomation. The rift basin is related to the Huronian Supergroup, in the vicinity of the Temagami Magmatic Anomaly. I agree it's probably a second metal-rich magma-filled impact crater; similar magnetic anomalies. It's a bit interesting to me since I live in Temagami. Are you slightly familiar with the Temagami greenstone belt as well? I'm trying to find the origin for that as well, but no success. Black Tusk 21:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Could it have formed at an ancient oceanic spreading center? I know there's some pillow lava formations in some places in the greenstone belt. Black Tusk 17:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with that particular area, but greenstone belts are usually thought to represent old spreading centers. Their alternating nature (granite-greenstone belts) probably means some complex of oceanic and island arc crustal material, which typically seems to get caught up in some mega collision and becomes incorporated into continental crust. Hope this helps - cheers Geologyguy (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That helps to explain the different rock types (e.g. basalt, rhyolite). Since I'm not technically a geologist, I don't really know how greenstone belts are formed. I read the greenstone belt article before I asked you how this greenstone belt might have formed, but I didn't really understand it that well (I'm not an expert of the subject). I'll probably be adding some detail to the Temagami greenstone belt article soon anyway, so I hope that will help to explain the geology in the Temagami area (banded iron formation, pillow lava, etc). Black Tusk 17:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure there is real consensus on the origin of the granite-greenstone belts. This Google Books result indicates that most Archean ones represent arc accretion, mostly involving basaltic and rhyolitic volcanic zones (and not necessarily any "true" oceanic or continental material. I guess that is a pretty good way to try to account for the dramatic petrologic alternations within the belts. Afraid I really don't know much more than that - cheers Geologyguy (talk) 18:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think there's some pyroclastic material as well, so it very well be related to arc volcanism. But if there's oceanic volcanic rocks (i.e. the pillow lava), they must have erupted beneath water. Most island arc-related volcanoes originate from the ocean floor right? If so, maybe an island arc collided then fused onto an ancient continental margin and became exposed after millions of years of erosion. The pillow lava I know is rounded and eroded, but that's because it's millions (Precambrian) of years old. It looks similar to the Precambrian pillow lava here. Black Tusk 19:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A lot of island arc volcanics are not submarine - consider all the volcanoes of Japan and Indonesia. Nonetheless I think you are correct that certainly SOME could have been submarine - in fact they have to have been, as you point out, for the pillow lavas. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 21:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean it that way. I ment the early stages of island arc volcanism; (1) the volcano is a seamount, (2) the volcano becomes larger from repeated eruptions, (3) the seamount eventually becomes an island. For example, see Ferdinandea and Kurose Hole. Black Tusk 21:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes, in early stages it would largely be submarine, and involving oceanic crust (or oceanic crust plus sediment piles). But as the arc evolves, lots of other rock types can be generated, or added through accretion. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 22:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Compilation
By "References one through 6 (including 5a to 5j) are to tertiary sources such as Encarta, Encyclopedia Americana, Science and Technology in World History (a text, but more or less an encyclopedic compilation)." do you mean that the wikipedia article Paleolithic is a Compilation or do you mean that one or more of the sources is an encyclopedic compilation?--Fang 23 (talk) 19:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello - just that as tertiary sources, things like encyclopedias are not the best references to use in another encyclopedia (Wikipedia). I do very much appreciate all the work you have done on the article. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 19:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

removed links that are no better than the wikipedia article
Can't agree with you. The whole point of citation referencing in my view is to enable verification of information in Wikipedia. External links are also useful for images where we can't get a free image ourselves. It took me an amount of time to find an image of an obsidian scalpel on a non-commercial site. If I was interested to see this I'm sure others would too. This is why the 2nd ref was entered. Although the first reference probably isn't of a great quality website, the 2nd ref provides something that we don't. I've added another reference from google books which is higher quality and I'm removing Obsidian from my watchlist as I'm not that bothered to edit war. Regards SeanMack (talk) 15:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Granite
In response to your request for me to remove the link in Granite, first of all, I was not the person who added the link. Instead, I merely formatted it as a reference. Second of all, if you even bothered reading the article, you would realize that it does contains information on Ailsa Craig, once a major source of granite. Thanks. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 19:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Bioplastics
Hi. I'm a self-confessed novice when it comes to Wikipedia but have been trying over the past year or so to keep the bioplastics page relatively informative to visitors. To that end I've tried to keep it focused only on plastics derived from plant resources and to explain the energy implications of producing bioplastics, as well as the many different claims made by producers about biodegradeability and the scope of international standards. I can see from the amendment history that you are working to the same end. You have deleted the external link I put in to our plastics magazine website - www.prw.com. I organise the longest running international conference on bioplastics and carry a lot of bioplastics news stories on that website - the reason I included the link. I thought it would be a useful source of additional information to anyone looking to research bioplastics and thought an external link was appropriate for that purpose - am I breaking Wikipedia rules with that? Best regards,Epnedit (talk) 11:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


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