User talk:Awickert/Archive 2

New user
I have just joined en.wiki and I know that your reserch about sediment in river. I also do this topic (Holocene period) in the graduate school of Kyushu University. Nice to meet you!Tranletuhan (talk) 04:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message - it's nice to meet you too. I'm interested broadly in river channel change, the deposits that the channels leave behind, sedimentary basin filling, and interactions between mantle and surface processes. I've worked a bunch on those types of articles here, so if there's anything you want to work on, I'd be happy to join in if you leave me a message.
 * And as a side note, I actually studied Japanese in high school, but it's been a while, and I could never read very well anyway. Hope you have better luck with it than I did - you'll need it more!
 * So what are you interested in?Awickert (talk) 10:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It's nice when I know that you studied Japanese. Before I came to Japan, I worked at University of Technology-Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam, in Faculty of Geology and Petroleum. I am translating the topic "plate tectonics" into Vietnamese, I would like to find follow articles:, and could you please to help me?

I wirted down some interesting in my talkpage Tranletuhan (talk) 02:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. Do you mean you need to find where they are, or you'd like me to send them to you - I can help with either (except I can't send the first article, since it's in a book, not a journal, and those aren't online).
 * I don't see anything on your talk page - are you sure it saved?
 * Awickert (talk) 02:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh - right - you mean your userpage. Great. If you ever need a hand with anything English-wise (geology terms, etc) or if you want a second opinion on anything geology-related, I'd be happy to help. Awickert (talk) 02:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank for your prompt reply, could you please send the arcticle No2. and 3 to me by e-mail?. Thank you so much, anyway I am studying Enlish from native English speaker. I also moved the contents to talkpage, not userpage.Tranletuhan (talk) 04:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * OK - I'll email them soon - though should you have have access via your university that you can set up? I've read the plasticine one - it's pretty impressive how similar they are. Awickert (talk) 05:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

River
Lets take this debate out of the edit comments and make it more rational.

Human activities in rivers and floodplains have dramatically increased the risk of flooding in many areas. Straightening rivers allows water to flow more rapidly downstream increasing the risk of flooding places further downstream. Building on flood plains removes flood storage which again exacerbates downstream flooding etc. etc. Building levees (by which I assume you mean flood-banks) only protects the area behind the levees not further downstream. They can also increase flooding upstream because of back-water pressure as the upstream water has to squeeze between the levees.  Velela  Velela Talk


 * OK - here - I'm moving this to the talk page to make it more useful to other editors. Will reply there. In essence, yes, I agree, but I think that clarification would be helpful - placing something like your above statement on the article, for example. Awickert (talk) 10:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Delamination (geology)
Hi, you promised :-) a reference last Oct. for Delamination (geology). Got one yet? I've fixed a bit, but don't have any references handy. Vsmith (talk) 14:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh... also fixed dubiousness mess in palaeochannel. Added to talk there -- I wasn't aware of the function after a pipe in the template:dubious tag before... always more to learn :) Vsmith (talk) 14:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, my promises. Sure - I've got to head out to do some work, but then I'll be back and take care of them. Awickert (talk) 17:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OK - did the refs, will return for paleochannels.
 * Sorry about the dubious tags, they sounded right, but I should have used fact tags, especially since I screwed them up! I'll fix things in the article and remove them soon, though. Awickert (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

A taunting
Just trying to get you out of the sand and the mud. Kablammo (talk) 17:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey - I also do some geophysics... which probably makes me doubly despicable to you hard rock folks :-) Awickert (talk) 18:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much
Nevado del Ruiz, as you probably know, passed FAC thanks to you. I don't know if you have the same experience in the area of earthquakes, but do you feel that 2005 Qeshm earthquake is sufficient enough to meet FA criteria?  Ceran  thor 19:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem - I think you give me too much credit, as the whole thing was basically written when I got there - I just fixed some of the science, cleaned up the writing, and re-organized the paragraphs. But thanks. I actually work on neither earthquakes nor volcanoes, so I guess my expertise is similar in both areas :-).
 * I looked at the article. I think it does a pretty good job on the consequences of the earthquake, though it could be helped by pictures and/or closer maps of the destruction and the epicenter, if this is possible. As for the geology, I would suggest that a figure of the moment tensor solution be added, along with maps and/or diagrams, etc, of the motion along the fault. A geologic or tectonic map might be helpful in this regard, or perhaps an earthquake hazard map prepared by some public agency. These could be hard, however, since it's both underwater and likely in Iranian territorial waters. The location of the hypocenter would also be useful. The writing looks mostly pretty good - I'll clean up some scientific stuff if/when I expand it. I haven't checked the sources at all, so they could have what I'm looking for.
 * I am scaling back a little bit from Wiki, so I'd prefer not to push this to FA right away, but to sit on it and do some edits and expansions.
 * Awickert (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. It's fine.  Ceran  thor 21:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Unsolicited advice
Ponder DFTT at your leisure. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments about existance of Pangea
Hello,

Thanks for the comments about the existence of Pangea. I went ahead and removed some of my comments from the Gah! section.

I am still not convinced that you could have a stable system with a single continent on one side of the planet, and a deep ocean on the other side of the planet without some kind of an outside force.

Looking at the Geoid page, a couple of quotes: "Sea level, if undisturbed by currents and weather, would assume a surface equal to the geoid." "Being an equipotential surface, the geoid is by definition a surface to which the force of gravity is everywhere perpendicular."

So, I'm trying to visualize what that means if the continents of the earth were aligned on one side. I still think that would tend to shift the center of gravity towards the supercontinent. This would shift the "perpendiculars" to the gravity so the level of the geoid would be lower than the level of the ellipsoid, and it would cause a lowering of the sea level opposite to the supercontinent, and a raising of the sea level at the place of the supercontinent, which would effectively sink into the ocean.

So, it jut doesn't seem as if the ocean would be able to compensate on long term (millions of years) for the uneven rock distribution without some kind of an outside force.

So, I had another hairbrained idea, which I had kind of alluded to earlier on the Pangea page, but it didn't really make sense at that time.

What if 350 million years ago, the Earth and the Moon (same moon we have today) were locked in a geosynchronous orbit of about 1 revolution every 27 modern days.

That would create the force to extrude a "supercontinent" from the oceans, centered around whatever was the heaviest part of the earth. Or, perhaps even having the force to coerce continents to coalesce into a supercontinent.

It would also mean that we would have very long, and cold nights, and very long days, somewhat like the moon experiences now, but somewhat tempered by the atmosphere. Of course, there would still be solar seasons too.

Cold blooded animals would essentially be forced to hibernate every night (which would last a month) as the earth would cool.

There would certainly be a competitive advantage for the evolution of warm blooded animals, as they could hunt at night, or react to dangers or changing situations at night while the cold blooded animals hibernated.

Another thing is that ovulation cycles and breading with mammals would naturally synchronize with the month long days... about every 3 or 4 weeks.

Then... What would happen if the Earth was grazed by a large celestial body... for example Venus.

And, then Earth which had month long days, suddenly had 24 hour days.

Cataclysmic earthquakes could happen. Super continents could be ripped apart. Continental drift could rapidly distribute the continents around the globe.

The month long hibernation periods would be shortened to a few hours a day. However, monthly ovulation cycles might be retained.

Anyway, pure speculation, but it does help fit some ideas together.

- Clifford ---Keelec (talk) 12:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll reply more when I have time - the issue is that you're just thinking of the surface. The continents are supported by less-dense crustal roots underneath such that "floating" in the asthenosphere is a good 1st-order approximation. When you include the crustal root, and the dense mantle under the oceans, you'll see that there isn't a mass anomaly when you take the whole earth into account. Whole-Earth mass anomalies are generally because of density anomalies in the mantle, which do cause up to 1 km long-wavelength surface topography. Awickert (talk) 17:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand the core of the earth is far more dense than the crust, and could easily shift the center of gravity of the earth, although that would still be somewhat of a stretch of imagination. If you look at the geoid map, there certainly is some variability in the gravitation field.  What is clear is that certain features can be picked out with either greater gravitational pull (+) as might be expected, or less as would be expected in some cases (-), such as the Rocky Mountain Chain(+), the Andes Mountain Chain(+), Tibet(+), the Mississippi Valley(-), the Appalachian Chain(-), the Continental shelf(+) in the Atlantic, as well as some of the deeper parts of the ocean(-).
 * [[File:Gravity anomalies on Earth.jpg]]
 * There certainly is a lot of variability in the map, and not all can be accounted for by surface elevation. It might be interesting to see an overlay of tectonic plates, or active volcanic regions (both complicated by the influence of elevation).  There is certainly a large area of high gravity around Greenland.  New Zealand is also showing up as high, although I was reading that the region around New Zealand might be considered as a lost continent.


 * Thinking more... For Pangea to exist without an outside influence (like moon in geosynchronous orbit as proposed above), then the oceans would have to have uniformly higher density/gravitational pull, and the continents would have to have relatively lower density/gravitational pull, the opposite of what we observe today.


 * I keep coming back to either Pangea did not exist, or the the earth and "a moon" or "the moon" were locked in a geosynchronous orbit, and something changed such as the rate of the planet's spin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keelec (talk • contribs) 21:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * OK - so one by one.


 * First, I'm not talking about the core, I'm talking about the crust and uppermost part of the mantle. Maybe there's an article on isostasy on Wiki - you should check it out. If not, go for buoyancy. What this means is that the continents are supported by light material, such that the overall pressure on the Earth is equalized: it's analogous to putting an ice cube in water: it will float with about 10% above the surface because it is slightly lighter than water.


 * You're correct in saying that this is related to tectonics: well, tectonics and mantle convection. Many of the geoid highs are at subduction zones, where cold, dense, oceanic lithosphere is plunging underneath other pieces of lithosphere, giving an overall positive density anomaly. Other geoid highs, like Iceland, are due to mantle plume activity.


 * However, you're not correct in the geosynchronous moon/water and rock changing densities thing. This is because of the mass anomalies in the Earth being related to mantle convection (including subduction) processes, since the oceans and the continents are equally isostatically compensated. This is why it seems counterintiuitive, because it's all about what's going on in the crust and middle to uppermost mantle than about what's going on at the surface. Now on Mars, for example, where things aren't isostatically compensated (thick lithosphere), there are clear mass anomalies between the northern and southern halves.


 * However, even if what you say is true, I don't think there would be a huge mass anomaly by unsupported continents on one side of the Earth, compared to the whole Earth. Just comparing continents to water and with 3km mean oceans and 1 km mean topography the continents, with density of water at 1000 kg/m^3 and continents at 2700, I don't think that this would be very significant in terms of the overall moment of inertia of Earth. Even considering that the surface is where there is the greatest radius from the center of mass, this is 4 km and the radius of the Earth is about 6400, with denser material in the interior.


 * Also, the planetary interpretation that you propose is totally out there, and as far as I know, definitely not supported by any orbital mechanical models. Maybe this is your point, though, since you're speculating among the implausibles.


 * Also see here for a long-wavelength geoid map, which is more representative of continental-scale anomalies: the one you gave here is a shorter wavelength (thus capturing subduction zones). This continental-scale anomaly map shows absolutely no correlation with the landmasses.


 * So while I see the intuitive logic in what you're saying, there's quite a bit more information that goes into the solution. Hope this helps - tell me if it doesn't. Awickert (talk) 22:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

albedo effect
Hi, and thanks for the input on the albedo effect edit I made. I'm a new Wiki user, so still learning the ropes. I put the reference back in, but at the end of second paragraph. I couldn't find the "refs" you talked about, but will try again. Thanks again... Harperdog (talk) 18:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Sioux quartzite update
Hi Awickert - I know I said that I'd look into adding some sourced stuff to the article this weekend, but unfortunately, it would seem that I've somewhat over-estimated my sources. I haven't been able to find much of anything in the two sources that I currently have access to, and as it appears that you share my hesitation about adding large amounts of unsourced content to an article, it looks like the history/economic impact part may have to wait. All hope is not lost, however - I'll take a look the next time I'm back in Sioux Falls (should be within the next couple of months) and I'm thinking that although the info we wanted wasn't available in books about the state, I have no doubt that it should be available in books about the city. (As I'm currently living in the Twin Cities, I think that Sioux Falls-centered books will be hard to find up here.) Anyway, I'll try my best to find something, it just might take a bit longer. Regards - Alexius  Horatius 00:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note - I grew up in St. Paul, actually - great place. I've found some pre-to-early European settlement stuff about the natives' use of it on the Pipestone National Monument site at nps.gov; I'll add that at some point. If I find anything, I'll let you know. Awickert (talk) 01:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

GW Earthquakes
I don't recall the paper offhand, or even if there was one. The media got it all wrong of course. -Atmoz (talk) 21:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait - the NewScientist article was just about quakes in glaciers? Or is this totally unrelated? Awickert (talk) 00:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have access to the NS article, but I think it's about the glacial earthquakes hubbub that made the rounds last summer. I could be wrong though, as I can't read the actual article. :-) -Atmoz (talk) 01:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I really hope that this isn't what the NS article is about - if it is, the intro that I could read totally misrepresented the topic. And if it did represent the topic, I'm sure it either sensationalized or didn't live up to its opening. I really want to know now. Awickert (talk) 05:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Watch your warnings
This was not vandalism; the editor was updating the article with a cross-reference to the article they created on physics envy and requesting help integrating it. You may want to consider WP:OAGF. Sincerely, Skomorokh  23:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at their other contribs, I guess you're right - it's not vandalism - I'll modify my note on their talk page.
 * But really - creating a new section in the article space, putting in a note for help in template form, not being able to form a coherent sentence - it sure looked like strange vandalism on first glance to me. At very best, it was useless. When I change my TP comments, I'll ask the user to take the issue to the article's talk page. Awickert (talk) 23:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, reading your link, sorry about that. Looks like I've just been too embittered by the climate change and pseudoscience nuttiness that I've been dealing with lately. Awickert (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries, it happens to us all. Some editors take a little longer to get it than others, and it behooves us to give them a little leeway while they acclimatise. Patrolling is a thankless task, I know. Regards, Skomorokh  23:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks for dropping me back into reality, and keeping me from being unkind to an user who has nothing to do with the POV-vandals and sockpuppets who have been insulting me over the past week or two. Awickert (talk) 23:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Surprised
Hi, I am not a vandal. Please do not litter my talk page thusly!!!! I know articles can be tagged "orphaned" if they are never blue linked so I simply try to not have my article befall such things! I am not experienced nor knowledgable about policies at wikipedia but I am learning and my article before was not deleted even though a user at first thought so. Please be careful! Much love, etc. Linguistixuck (talk) 23:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that - I made the wording a bit nicer; just please be careful about the appropriateness of your additions: requests for help and ungrammatical sentences making up an entire section of an established article is not encyclopedic. If you would like to talk to other editors and/or ask for assistance, the talk page is the place to do that. Awickert (talk) 23:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I am for sure sorry! My grammar is good though my style I am told needs work. My Girl Friend Lira is teaching me some English things which I need much after coming here from University of Heidelberg a few years ago where I was not speaking Arabic my native language either. This is a great country!!! Much love for the New Year!!!!!! Linguistixuck (talk) 23:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * OK - well, if you're not sure of the grammar or style, feel free to drop a message on the article's talk page. I'm willing to help as well, if you ask. Sorry about the confusion again, Awickert (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!!!! I now have friends in this webpage! Much love for the New Year!!!!! Linguistixuck (talk) 23:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Happy New Year to you, too. Sorry about your intro to the site - the AfD and me - hopefully things will get happier in the future. Awickert (talk) 23:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!!! Things are always happier when they tend towards well. I am a happy wikipedian. Much love for the New Year! Linguistixuck (talk) 02:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

More GW
Thanks for the tip re: CharlesRKiss -- I should know better than to get involved in such discussions, as it was clear from the start that he's not likely to be persuaded by argument. A happy first Sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox to you too. Agathman (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

help!
can you give Long_term_effects_of_global_warming a good slapping before someone comes and turns it into a redirect? Andrewjlockley (talk) 16:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but over here, it's time to go to work. I'll give it a good look. Also, I don't know what you're trying to accomplish on Easter - perhaps you should be editing the article for its namesake pagan holiday - but I'll keep that conversation on your talk page. Awickert (talk) 16:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

RFA
Have you thought of going for admin? You're the only editor who I can honestly say has been completely level headed and reasonable in every spat. You're a credit to the WP project, and you should be recognised.

Hydraulic geo-nonsense
I'm trying to find a home for the oxygenation bit of this. There's nothing relevant under eutrophication, river oxygenation, etc. Where's all the stuff on WP about this topic area? I'm struggling to believe that I'm the first person who's looked at the topic of water oxygen improvements on WP. Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll have a scout around - I think the first stop will be looking at the list of articles that link to dissolved oxygen; you're welcome to beat me to it. Awickert (talk) 00:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Lake aeration Andrewjlockley (talk) 09:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, ha! And maybe there could be something with Oxygenation (environmental) as well, or you could create (an) article(s) on this topic that link to that page - looks like that area of Wiki is sparse and hard to find. Awickert (talk) 05:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Welcome! (Re:Hawaii workgroup)
No, it really belongs in the user namespace for two reasons. First of all "Volcanism of Hawaii" is far too narrow of a scope. What about Volcanism of California or Volcanism of Oregon etc.? "Volcanism of the USA," that I would agree with. Secondly, the goal of the project to propel "Volcanism of Hawaii island" to featured topic status, not to improve the more general topic (although that's happening anyway; see the Emporer seamounts, all de-redlinked and expanded).
 * Welcome to the club! There have been quite a few major discussions, as indexed at the bottom of the page. I see by your talk page that you're an actively involved contributor to geology articles; good :) Right now the major activity is me and Vid are finishing up Loihi for its FA nom. Hawaii hotspot and Kohala (mountain) have also been touched (be me), and the former is on its GA nom. Res Mar 13:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * All right - sounds good. Volcanism isn't my specialty, but I'll run through the articles whenever I get a chance and see what I can do. Awickert (talk) 16:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Trouts on Long term effects of global warming
I've already spoken with Boris (per mail) and Atmoz. But i think i should ask you as well.... If you think or feel that i'm going to far or being unfair here, then please feel obliged to slap me with a trout (or sledgehammer (your choice ;)). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been avoiding that page (and climate in general, for the moment). Took a look at the talk, seems all right. Call me if you folks need anything (support, artillery, airstrike :-) ). Otherwise, I'm pretty busy between IRL work and making contribs on stuff I know about (for a change!). Awickert (talk) 04:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Loving the challenge. Don't agree with you on all those banners, (species extinction still needs one clearly) but I will be working hard to meet your exacting standards!  Andrewjlockley (talk) 19:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * WMC has arbitrarily deleted & userfyed this page. Totally unacceptable IMOAndrewjlockley (talk) 01:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no beef with it. Take it one section at a time, assume you know nothing, and look at the suggestions of others. Basing things on RS doesn't mean just quotes: it's a whole style of writing. Nudge me if you want a suggestion with a section. Awickert (talk) 01:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 2 areas of work- 1) detagging, surely they can come off now. 2) species extinction.  needs a banner still.  I need to find sources for long term species loss.
 * can you pls have a look at my tag/banner comments which are in caps at User:Andrewjlockley_/Long_term_effects_of_global_warming. I'm not goign to de-banner/tag cos I want a 3O on this, or to have KDP do his own removals. Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion
Water oxygenation needs your wisdom of solomon. Was Kim justified in deleting the stuff moved from HGeo? Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that it was way too much material that was off of the main topic, as per WP:UNDUE. Which brings up: where to put it? I'm not sure. Do you have a good category it could be stuck into? I would suggest something, but maybe userifying it for the moment and getting ideas from others on where it should go would be good. Awickert (talk) 01:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Also: don't think too highly of my opinion. Much of my general un-cranky-ness stems from my lack of knowledge in the topic. While sometimes less gentle, the words of other editors will serve you better. Awickert (talk) 01:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Your other title seemed to be OK, what do you suggest for this new one? 'Large water bodies aeration projects', as that's what the section was called?  Any other ideas? Andrewjlockley (talk) 02:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the issue; I'd typically think something like that, but I'm unsure about its generalization. Large hydraulic engineering projects have taken place throughout human history: dams, canals, irrigation, etc. So that seemed like a valid article title. Aeration seems like a different story - a more recent thing. I know some folks in stream restoration do think about this, but only on a small scale, but your article is the first I've heard of it on a large scale. So I'm just unsure about it, while I was much more sure about the hydraulic engineering stuff. Awickert (talk) 02:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well if you haven't heard of it, it's probably well worth an articel! Keep pushing WP's horizons! Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

ice sheet collapse
This IMO needs to go into sea level rise, ice dynamics and current sea level rise, doubles plus a few GW ones too. What's your thoughts? Andrewjlockley (talk) 11:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What in particular about ice sheet collapse? The Mitrovica gravity paper is getting done with its marination cycle, after which I'll actively add it in. Or do you mean other things about timing, etc? Or is this just a more general a-section-should-be-added? Awickert (talk) 16:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7240/full/nature07933.html Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, people who do paleoclimate in Nature-style journals often include some outrageous staement in the abstract that attracts attention, but never appears in the article itself. So it goes for their "2100". Their time resolution is still on the kiloyear scale. That's the issue: there's a lot of attention to the analogy between the last interglacial and the holocene, and I think it's probably a good analogy, but no one has found a way to see whether these periods of sea level rise occur over a decade or a millenium. It's really unfortunate. A huge bummer. What you can take away from this paper is an example of the intense effort to nail things down across the last interglacial, and a few more good data points on what happened, though without the proper resolution. Awickert (talk) 01:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Er.... so does that mean you don't think that nature is an RS? I kinda thought it was pretty much the inspired word of God? Is the study too fresh, anyhow?  Andrewjlockley (talk) 03:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Nature is a reliable source. I think the abstract misrepresents the article in order to attract attention, and when the abstract isn't backed up by the article, the 2100 thing just can't be used. This is honestly one of my biggest gripes about the popular short-format journals. Abstracts are supposed to be a summary of the article: that the editors let things get into the abstract that are neither supported by nor addressed in the article is (I think) irresponsible to the general public, many of whom have access only to the abstract. Awickert (talk) 03:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This phenomenon isn't only restricted to the short-format journals. Authors seem to get more leeway in sections titled 'discussion' as well. -Atmoz (talk) 04:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * True, true. It's a pile of crap all around, but it particularly pisses me off in the abstract. A discussion is always taken with a pinch to of salt or more, depending on field, and is sort of buried. But the abstract is all the ordinary scientifically-interested person can see, so what can they do but (gasp!) expect that the article is actually summarized by the abstract. What a notion. Awickert (talk) 04:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * One of my most common remarks when reviewing is "abstract doesn't summarize the paper." I think sometimes people write the abstract first and then write the paper, instead of doing it in the proper order and writing the abstract last. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 08:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * How Boris find time review papers? Boris still making quotas for harvesting grain? Awickert (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, what CAN be used on WP from this article? Andrewjlockley (talk) 12:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I answered that above in my first reply. The text. Awickert (talk) 16:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

MED usgswrd
I retried signing up for the geology project, I think (or at least hope) that I got it right this time. Your assumption about my employment with USGS WRD is correct. I work for the PA WSC. Michael E. Degnan, Jr. 18:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep - looks like it worked this time. That's great - I actually look at USGS water data pretty frequently myself. Awickert (talk) 19:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Lapse Rates
If you are intereseted in lapse rates, perhaps this program will help. It will show (animate) a full year of temperature data for the city of your choice. Q Science (talk) 07:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey - thanks! I'll check it out. Awickert (talk) 07:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Weirdness!!
I did not revert your edits. I don't know why the history shows that I did. My contributions does not, but the page history does. This is weird! (I don't like it either.) Lady  of  Shalott  05:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * replied at your talk page. Awickert (talk) 05:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Now it is showing up in my contributions. Even weirder. I'm still thinking this is some sort of bizarre technical glitch. In case I'm wrong though and I somehow actually did it, it was entirely accidental, and I didn't even know I did it. I don't know how that could have happened, but apologize if it did. All I can say at this point is that I certainly did not revert you deliberately. :/ This whole thing is really strange. On that note, I need to go to sleep. Lady of  Shalott  06:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sleep is what I was doing. No worries. Awickert (talk) 13:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

new article
is it worth creating an article on intentional fossilization? Andrewjlockley (talk) 15:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Google says it doesn't exist, so nopers. Awickert (talk) 19:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I AM NOT RUSHING YOU, In case you did not notice I respoponed to you on talk:Moon
I AM NOT RUSHING YOU! In case you did not notice I respoponed to you on Talk:Moon--Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. Awickert (talk) 17:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Favor
Recently I delisted Material properties of diamond due to lack of referencing, but, amiably, NIMSoffice fixed up the whole article in two days. I feel bad for delisting it in the first place, so can you review the next GAN? I'm asking this because you're a geo guy. Res Mar 21:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure - I've never done a GAN before though, and will be gone snow surveying for the next 2 days, so it might have to wait until I'm back. Awickert (talk) 21:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. All the best-Res Mar 21:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No prob. But if another user just dealt with all the issues you pointed out, would you be able to just re-promote it? Maybe GAN isn't like that... Awickert (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

GAN material properties of diamond
User:Resident_Mario has delisted that article but was happy with my revisions and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NIMSoffice&curid=19378289&diff=289333323&oldid=289328151#GAR. recommended] to renominate it. I fixed the DeBeers ad campaign (gosh, I thought it is known so much that does not need a ref.) and renominated under WP:GAN Physics and astronomy. Best regards.NIMSoffice (talk) 00:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note and the edits - I've never done a GAN before and will be gone for a little while. Awickert (talk) 01:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Double diffusive convection
Just in case you missed the comment on WMC page, and thanks. It is an interesting topic though so happy reading. --BozMo talk 11:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Didn't miss it, but thanks, Awickert (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

And now for something completely different
I think the thread at Talk:Effects of global warming is derailed enough, so I'll post my little anecdote here. You're reply reminded me of a home game I was in awhile back playing Hold 'em where quad aces lost to a royal flush. Luckily, I didn't have quads. Unluckily, I didn't have the royal flush. Anyway, good luck with your field work. And remember your comrades doing computational/theoretical science crap, and who haven't been in the field since, um... ever. Sounds like fun. Bring us back a moon rock. -Atmoz (talk) 07:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, have a great time Andy, get yourself completely recharged by communing with some real rocks for a change. I'll try not to feel too envious (unsuccessfully of course) as I sit in front of my computer screens interpreting poor quality seismic data. Mikenorton (talk) 14:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks guys - I actually do mostly computational crap too, so I'm excited - I'll be around for the next 2 weeks, then off, then around for a month or so, then off again, probably. I actually weaseled my way into the field for that second time by being rock ID bitch technical assistant for a friend. Should be great. I'll take pictures if you guys want them - Grand Canyon tributaries (June) and the Bighorn Basin (July). Awickert (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If you happen to see any nice examples of small-scale faulting where the offset is unambiguous, the Fault (geology) article could really use them and any of small-scale thrusts, duplexes etc. for the Thrust fault article would be good too. You can't see the displacement direction on any of the images that we have to date; if I could get to some outcrops on the Somerset coast that I know, I could take them myself but I never seem to find the time to go and none of the companies that I work for have been persuaded to run a field-trip there. I don't quite feel like taking a week off just to take pictures to illustrate articles, I'd rather get someone to pay me to go there (did someone mention mercenary?). Anyway, don't go out of your way, but if you happen to see any, that would be appreciated. Mikenorton (talk) 16:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * All right - I'll do that. I used to have some greats, but my (idiotically) un-backed-up hard drive crashed :-(. I'll do that, and if I get some pretty good ones, send you versions that I mark up as well.
 * I did just take a couple good ones of small-scale extensional faulting associated with brittle-regime folding in the Fountain Formation here in Colorado - I'll put them on Commons when I upload them.
 * Good luck on becoming a mercenary; in all seriousness, I met someone who retired and now organizes (and of course, goes along on) alumni trips for university geology departments... future career? Awickert (talk) 16:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually been a consultant for over twenty years now (shudder) but most of my old research field areas have sadly been of little interest to anybody - western Norway and northern Scotland just aren't either warm enough, dry enough or exotic enough to tempt most people, now if it was somewhere in the south of France, I'd be beating them off with a stick I expect. I should have been a sedimentologist, my sedi colleagues seem to tour the world looking at turbidites - Spain, Italy, Argentina, New Zealand, South Africa, Spitzbergen not to mention lots of places in the States, ah well, mustn't get bitter. Have fun! Mikenorton (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow - is this seismic/structure/petroleum off of Norway and Scotland? I personally think that those are some of the more scenic places on Earth, but I did grow up in the frozen North. I'm half sedi/surface processes (where I get to do fieldwork), and half geophysics (and geophysicists are cheap because you stick them on a computer and come back in a year), so I feel the pain.
 * Well, if you ever end up in the states, drop me a note and I can give you some info and/or good sources for the regional geology. Awickert (talk) 18:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My research in both Norway and Scotland was on Devonian extensional tectonics and their link to sedimentation. I have since then worked on the Mesozoic basins of the NW european atlantic margin, for various companies, from the Charlie-Gibbs fracture zone in the south to the Gakkel Ridge in the north, lots of really interesting and bizarre structures associated with the multi-phase rifting, not to mention the amazing intrusions of the NAIP. I intend to write articles on many of these basins but I find it difficult knowing stuff that hasn't made it into the literature yet. Nice website BTW. Sorry that you missed your first trip to the field, better luck next time. Mikenorton (talk) 11:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've always been interested in the Arctic Ocean ridges - if you ever do write it up, let me know - I'd love to read it (as long as your company is OK with it being published...). Yeah, I got this nasty infection and fever and crap - feeling better now. Hopefully my website will get better within a couple weeks - I'll try to start actually adding content (papers, posters). Awickert (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Catastrophic climate change (disambiguation)
Was this the page in question? Catastrophic climate change (disambiguation)? It is now unprot. Sorry for the delay William M. Connolley (talk) 22:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem - I was never motivated enough to be pushy about it. Awickert (talk) 22:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This needs to be a DAB page, not another article. See Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). -Atmoz (talk) 20:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

AJL Argh!
Sorry for bursting in like that :-) I had to vent some frustration. In regards to this discussion, can you please look at this. If i'm not entirely mistaken (seems not), you've been pointing this particular thing out to AJL as well. I do not think he has learned anything... Sorry. Thoughts? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not to forget this little gem, that right now just made me cry out in frustration... --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oof, I have no idea where to start untangling; might just jump into the fray. Home internet is dead, so until I get that working, I'll only be available when I'm at work (like now). Awickert (talk) 19:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Commented on abrupt; saying something useful on runaway seems to be beyond me currently. Awickert (talk) 20:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My trouble is, that he has returned to the exact same behaviour, that was claimed to have been a resolved chapter, in the above. Which was afaict was the main reason that he didn't get an RfC on his back. Its back to the usual synthesis on articles, misinterpretations of references, inferring that the future will be as the past, and mixing up of long vs. short timescales. (on top of that, add: with the exact same references that he always uses, and by now should know by heart) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * OK - internet back. I'll look into it. Trouble is, I don't know those references super-well either; I'll have to read them more thoroughly than I'd otherwise enjoy in order to feel like I could really tell if it's synthesis or no on my own. That's not to say I don't trust you and your opinion - I very much do - but I'd rather have my thoughts be independent than jump into the fray echoing you. There's another similar problem: I've stopped even watching those pages, and there's some massive interplay between the text and the talk page that I'm missing, so it's taking me a while to assemble the essential info to figure out what's going on in the debate. (Other than "yes it's synthesis" "no it's not" "aaaaaaargh".)
 * I think he is better-behaved than before (he no longer at least immediately noticably contradicts the refs), but I haven't read the text either so I'm not sure what's going on....
 * That's not to say I don't want to help, I will, it's just to say aaaaaaaaaaaargh, another time-sink. Awickert (talk) 01:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not the bogeyman! I tidied up ACC to clarify short/long issue.  Kim, I think that is the fundamental issue with the runaway and the 'abuse' of B&A as a ref.  Am I right?  Andrewjlockley (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Infobox geologic feature
Just pinging you here regarding the Infobox geologic feature idea, per your request. See here for a refresher. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Survey 2008
Don't know if you've had a look at Survey 2008. There was a message on the main page and they got some 130,000 participants. Wonder if you were interested in the results. ChyranandChloe (talk) 22:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, completely ignored it. The results are sort of interesting; one thing that I would have appreciated is if there was a question about what types of information they typically looked up on Wiki, to guide editorial activities. I saw your linked message; I don't think I'd have anything useful to add or say. It certainly isn't scientific, and seems to have been poorly-written, but that doesn't seem to make it totally useless. Thanks for pointing it out to me though - I certainly appreciate it! Awickert (talk) 22:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm, if there were a question about information types it could be cross-correlated with page views to have some kind of control on the type of Wikipedia-reader responded. Awickert (talk) 22:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Now you've got me thinking. I think you're looking for this:, , . ChyranandChloe (talk) 22:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's not what I was looking for, but nonetheless interesting. What'cha thinkin' 'bout? Awickert (talk) 23:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (outdent) How to build value, and how to COIs are managed. WP:PROCESS was originally started by some guy who's got an arbitration with a possible injunction hovering over his head. So I've kind of took charge of rewriting it to what I think the essay should be about. Above were some material I dug through, I like it, it's a good break from the Surgeon General, CDC, and WHO. I'm planning on making my mark on Passive smoking, which has a real neutrality issue and a semi-active COI. I kind of took on Global warming to see how you guys took care of COIs. Splette's and I are almost done on whether or not we're going to keep the See also section. Other than that I'm kind of interested on knowing a bit more about WMC, he's published, but he hardly writes, instead he seems more interested in blocks and edit wars than value. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh - so I stay out of process and all that, so that's new to me. I like your flowchart. I'm glad you're reaching a consensus about the see also; I don't care a whole lot about that stuff, but I'm glad someone does. AFAIK, William is responsible for a lot of text in a lot of climate articles back in his early years here, but now has stepped back to a more administrative role. I can't say I blame him; after these years I'd be sick of the POV-pushing garbage too, and I think that he does a good job of being an even-handed and effective admin. Boris was also very involved in the earlier days; I think Kim may have been too, as well as some other folks. I mostly try to maintain sanity on the talk page whenever I feel like I can say something useful, often because my patience hasn't been frayed away by years of tough stuff on that article. Awickert (talk) 05:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Remember when you told me "Mean people make much much more unhappy than idiots"? I think I might have a come back. I'm starting to get sick of people yelling "tobacco company" whenever the article forgets to say "tobacco companies r evil". Finally got a draft for the "studies" section in Health effects of tobacco. How it is on your end? Heard Andrew got in some trouble. Again. ChyranandChloe (talk) 07:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, ya, part of the evil tobacco industry, are you? :) Oh, man, yikes. I spent way too much effort a while back dealing with people who think the Earth is expanding. Y'know, I've been staying out of wiki-climate-land lately, and enjoying it. Our dear Mr. Lockley does seem to have continuing altercations that leave me completely befuddled; I'm trying to figure out what's going on, but my interest is rapidly diminishing. Thanks for the note, Awickert (talk) 13:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm start to really hate being accused for working for a tobacco company. So far, I generally work alone when it comes to interpreting the science; Vuo, the other guy who watches this article, just seems to stick around just to be smart. I'm starting to like the IPCC better than the Surgeon General, their reports actually have color. Getting MastCell involved. You probably deal with this quite a bit. Can I ask for your counsel? ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I commented there.
 * It is very frustrating. My best advice is:
 * Stop and think: This person is making statements about me, someone they've never met, that require some kind of clairvoyance. Would the kind of person who would make up lies about someone else be someone I'd, like, chill with? (No.) So is it worth my emotional energy to care that they do it? (No.)
 * But you may still want to defend your good name. I've used the following approaches.
 * Aggressive: "What you are writing is libel and you are not assuming good faith. If you keep doing it, I'm going to pick you up by the britches and give you a massive wedgie as I hand you over to some admin to teach you manners / toss you out of the project."
 * Shock value (perhaps specific to me on global warming): "Ah, dude, I actually work with petroleum geologists. So what is my bias, exactly? Non-self-delusional?"
 * Calmly stating that they are wrong, and then moving on.
 * Completely ignoring the accusations and plunging straight ahead, usually demanding rigor in citations from both parties involved (myself and them).
 * In this situation, I think that you're handling it well: forging ahead while stating that they are making false accusations and not assuming good faith. If their response is nice and addresses the issues on the table, I'd say drop it and be happy. If not, drop me a line and I will be nasty there.
 * Hope this is helpful, Awickert (talk) 09:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (outdent) Thanks, this helps. You're a petroleum geologist? ChyranandChloe (talk) 16:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't quite say that, did I :) ? I work with petroleum geologists. I do fluvial processes, depsitional processes (hence the mutual interest: I want to know how the system works, they want to find oil and have $$$), and the relationship between lithosphere flexure and mantle flow due to surface loading (i.e., ice sheets, sea level) and surface processes. I would generally call myself either a sedimentary geologist (putting me close to a petroleum geologist) or a geodynamicist-lite. Actually, AFAIK, none of the petroleum geologists I work with are global warming denialists; they're just of the opinion that until we have viable alternatives and the correct infrastructure, we need fossil fuels. Awickert (talk) 17:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Somehow it feels like this could have gone better if I started with "paragraph two in th lead needs to be verified" rather than "anon's sources do not check out". It would certainly be more fair. Thanks. So what do geo-dynam-icist-lite + sedi-men-tar-y geo-log-ists do over memorial day weekend? I had a some barbecue and friends. Watched a few movies. Celebrating the end of the school year (until the summer semester starts). Messed with the world's larger compendium. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Pretty much the same deal. BBQ, doing nothing, movies, eating, going running with the big black mutt. Oh, and downloading massive datasets from NOAA. And Wikipedia, yes. Lots of thunderstorms here, so not as much outside. Awickert (talk) 09:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Why do I deal with this? WP:WQA could of had him removed. Maybe it's optimism bias. Maybe I haven't learned my lesson. Certainty is elusive. Why I use a twenty percent alpha level with sixty percent power when I'm faced with heuristic decisions. I will be wrong. Knowing when your wrong is as important as staying stubbornly right. Thanks. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have optimism bias too, but that bias is in hiding this weekend, hence my hacks at Runaway climate change. If the IP harasses you again on your talk page after your explanation, I will start being aggressive in removing him/her(TM).

(outdent) Some thoughts on Global warming. It's starting to look like tag-teaming, and hive minding—from which TeH nOmInAtOr's post looks like it's trying to bait it. I don't think it's a good idea to reply. The proposal is foundationless from the start, which is consistent with his earlier post. The question is completely ambiguous. When we attempt to qualify or dismiss his assertions, he can make an annoying case about it. Other than that, the talk page is over 166kb. Here's some code if you want set up an automated archiver complete with archive box, simply add it to the lead:

It's set at fourteen days. Thinking about Federalist 10 and 51, how a government is constructed to allow majority rule while protecting minority rights. And, of course, the Surgeon general's laundry list of conclusions. How about you? ChyranandChloe (talk) 07:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for thoughts - you're right, shouldn't have said anything. I even thought that before I wrote.
 * Thanks for archiving tips too (and even giving me the code!), will do.
 * Thinking about life and making a simple model for pressure-driven fluid flow. Awickert (talk) 09:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Andrew seems to be gone . I need to hang with you guys more. Learn a lot of new stuff like the Dunning-Kruger effect. Thinking about the parthenogenesis of Ebola hemorrhagic fever (EHF), the Dunning-Kruger effect, and how to improve Global warming controversy. How about you? ChyranandChloe (talk) 23:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * He does seem to be gone for the moment. The Dunning-Kruger effect is one of the greatest - and also because if one knows about it, one may always believe it applies to the other individual in a debate as per its own definition. I think it's marvelous.
 * Hnag with us? You're welcome to post here as often as you like, or email me; I'm chatty as often as I can afford to be. Currently not thinking about Wiki too much - mostly about numerical model stability. Good luck with Ebola and GW controversy; the first is nastier, but I suppose the Wikipedia debate over the second must be worse. Awickert (talk) 01:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Loihi FAC
Loihi, take two. Res Mar 00:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, will take a look, über-busy at the moment, and leaving very soon, Awickert (talk) 01:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Is my (Emmette Hernandez Coleman) debating disruptive?
On my taklpage, Jack Merridew has expressed concern that my debating may be disruptive. Because you were in a debate with me, you are in a semi-unique position to comment on this issue. Feel free to express you're opinion on User talk:Emmette Hernandez Coleman. You're input is welcome and appreciated in advance--Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Please respond on my talk page--Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 12:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies
Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change. If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 15:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Replied to your email. Awickert (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Well-earned, have fun in the field :-) Mikenorton (talk) 08:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks William, Mike, ya bet I will. Awickert (talk) 08:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Expansion of the Conglomerate article
Hi Andy, when you're back refreshed from the field, perhaps you could cast your eyes over a structural geologist's attempt to expand the Conglomerate (geology) article. Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 17:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it'll be great, but I'll see what I can do. I see something at least which may be a Brit/'Merican geo-English issue, in that "fluvial" and "alluvial" are synonymous here at least. I see what you're doing though - rivers vs. fans. I'll take a harder look in the morning. Awickert (talk) 06:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually I was mainly influenced by 'Facies Models (edited by Roger Walker), which has separate chapters on 'Coarse Alluvial Deposits' (by Brian Rust) and 'Sandy Fluvial Systems' (by Roger Walker and Douglas Cant), so a bunch of Canucks in this case. Looking at the way I organised that section, it would probably make more sense to reverse the order i.e. glacial - alluvial - fluvial - shallow marine - deepwater marine, to go with the flow, as it were. Mikenorton (talk) 13:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds good - upstream to downstream. Oh, you know, I bet that I know what's going on with fluvial/alluvial - I'll see if debris-flow processes on alluvial fans, for example, are considered to be fluvial. If they are, I'll combine the two; if not, I'll separate in some way that meshes well with more literature than just "Facies Models". Awickert (talk) 15:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Minnesota
Hi, Awickert; I'm glad to see you back for a bit between trips. I've noticed your excellent edits at Leopoldo Lopez. Do you happen to have Minnesota on your watchlist? A new account has been making changes that I'm not able to keep up with, and reverting without communication; many of the regular editors aren't around. Perhaps you'd be able to watchlist it? Saludos, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 15:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh - for some reason it disappeared from my watchlist. Not that I was watching my watchlist anyway. I'll have a look. Re:Lopez, I'm just starting to put minor additions of info on Vzla articles; the context seemed to have been missing from that section. Awickert (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: WP:SFD for Geology-stub/doc
Hi Awickert -looks like you completely misunderstood the nominations I made at WP:SFD - please check the reply there. Grutness...wha?  01:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, it looks like I did. I was confused by WikiProject_Geology. Thanks for the note. Awickert (talk) 01:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm going off of memory here
But you seem to be mischaracterizing the NASA article a bit in your edit. Has anyone mentioned that they admit their "corrections" aren't anywhere close to perfect (and in fact quite significant)? That is mentioned in the article and quite relevant.

Also, and this isn't sourced, but just for your benefit, the obvious problem with their methodology is that when they are "correcting" urban temperature recordings with rural temperatures they are inadvertently measuring warmer areas (since rural areas tend to be inland while urban areas tend to be more coastal).

The sentence that I wanted to remove was that silly POV nonsense about these things being relegated to "popular literature" and not in any scientific papers. TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm actually going off of the Hansen paper rather than the NASA report, and I believe that I did not mischaracterize, though it is possible. Responded at AN/I. Awickert (talk) 08:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Review of revert hisotry
I've decided to review your revert history of talk pages and here are some interesting highlights I've categorized.

1) Possibly controversial reverts:
 * June 18 - Talk:Global warming
 * June 21 - Talk:Glacial history of Minnesota
 * June 12 - Talk:Solar variation

2) Most likely funny and/or understandable reverts:
 * May 11 - Talk:Earth
 * May 11 - Talk:Proterozoic

3) Self reverts:
 * See June 18.
 * April 29 talk:erosion

4) Clearly vandalism & good reverts:
 * April 16 - Talk:Global warming
 * April 16 - Talk:Global warming

After all that, on April 3, I found a really interesting comment which you left. Perhaps this editor has affected you in a way to start immitating his actions. It says "please do not delete statements in an ongoing thread - it makes it look like I'm replying to nothing - you can strike them out". I trust you understand, from this previous example, that it is not well appreciated when someone removes comments from a talk page. The principle, I believe is about respect for the other persons comment and question. (So long of course as it's respectful and not obvious vandalism such as the "funny & understandable reverts" or the "Clearly vandalism" reverts.) It's about respecting the other persons idea/comment. Hence removing someones comment feel just like if I removed my own comments and left the thread looking empty as though youu're "replying to nothing." Except, in this case, at the talk:Glacial history of Minnesota, the thread is completly deleted and no one even sees my question anymore. So the feeling can only be existensial for the editor that has provided it (ie.: not felt by others). Anyways... the question I was getting too is: why does the article Glacial_history_of_Minnesota say Minnesota? You've alluded to an answer but revert your changes and removed the comment. I've asked my neighbor who studies in this kind of stuff and she indicated that it's because the glacier most likely finished in Minesota. Now my question, which is why I find it rude to remove peoples comments from the talk page, because, now we're talking about the articles content, Is: "How is this explained within the article?" --CyclePat (talk) 15:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi CyclePat. I'm sorry that you feel bad about my actions; I'll try to explain from top to bottom.


 * Under possibly controversial, the first one was clearly against WP:NOTFORUM, basically someone sticking in their opinion that global warming is a big problem, but not making any suggestions for improvement (and using very bad grammar...), so I reverted because that talk page gets filled up very quickly. I'll leave your glacial history example for the end, as it's the point of this. In the third example (I'm guessing this, I removed a post by an IP that was a personal attack against another editor.


 * As for the revert of your comment, "Why only Minnesota? It seems like some POV.", it really rubbed me the wrong way, and seemed like you weren't assuming good faith and being pretty rude by instantly asserting that the article was breaking NPOV. I don't think it falls under the same category as my revert of the removal of discussion, because that was a previous post in an ongoing thread that had been replied to. It also was very much WP:FORUM in its composition. Now that you've explained on my talk page, it seems like you do have a reason for what you say, but I'd suggest a happier phrasing in the future, like "Why is there no article about other states/provinces? Is the glacial history of Minnesota unique, or is it just that nobody wrote the other ones." I like positive tone. :)


 * So for now, I'm self-reverting and putting your comment back on the page. I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings. I've been spending more time than is healthy around the global warming set of articles, onto which rants are constantly posted and I've become a bit more trigger-happy as a result; I'll do my best to slow down with that.


 * And to answer your question: the Laurentide ice sheet actually spread across a wide region, and its southernmost terminus was generally in the Minnesota/Wisconsin region. I'll see if I can explain this better within the article in the next few days. Awickert (talk) 18:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello Awickert,
 * I'm sorry about the way the POV comment was worded and I agree with the way you've worded my question. It feels much more peacful in tone. Also, thank you for your appology and excellent reply. As alluded within my selection of your reverts (with the majority being consider good/funny/understandable) and as clearly demonstrated in your afformentioned comment, I can tell your intentions are of good nature. Thank you again and I look forward to working with you and your positive incites regarding this article. Please keep in touch. --CyclePat (talk) 13:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi CyclePat - thanks for your kind response. As for myself, I'm sorry for causing drama, it's something I do my best to avoid. I'd be happy to work with you in the future, and feel free to drop a note on my talk page about anything in the geology/geophysics wiki-world that seems unclear. And if I do anything that seems unfair again, grab the biggest trout you can find, and whack. Awickert (talk) 17:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

the fishy subsection (above was just to perfect to continue)

 * Hello again Awickert, Thank you for the great sense of humour. I just wanted to give you my best of regards and thank you for the good laugh. Also, it's the first time I hear the trout expression. LOL. I was hoping to let you finish the afformentioned thread ((since your reply is quite elegant and perfect)... (actually I'm making this a subsection as I type... okay back to typing...)) But, I just found a template here on user:Anonymous_dissident header page, with that same "fishy" expression. :) I just though you would like to know! --CyclePat (talk) 17:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, thank you very much. I have a different trout on my user page; I like the other one too. I don't think I have much to say on the thread before, sorry. I'll try to start working on the glacial article soon. Awickert (talk) 20:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem with that...
The problem with what you suggested is an admin. The admin that goes by the name of Blaxthos is a rapid partisan liberal [Struck by Awickert (talk), please no personal attacks on my talk page] who oversees the political pages with an iron fist. He doesn't allow any dissent and makes the most asinine statements and attacks to "rationalize" his viewpoint.PokeHomsar (talk) 19:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm unfamiliar with that admin. Could you show me the pages in question and a couple of diffs? Also, which of my comments is this a response to? Though we may agree or disagree with others, "rabid partisan liberal" is a personal attack, which is something to avoid; I would suggest striking it. Awickert (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Making a page showing the coverage of global warming. I've tried to do similar things in the past. Blaxthos blocked them.PokeHomsar (talk) 20:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but that's not a lot to work with; could you show me the text? I'd be able to give you my opinion, at least, on it's sourcing and possible reasons why it should (or shouldn't) be deleted. Awickert (talk) 21:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

HIstory of climate change science
Hi Andrew, thanks again for offering to fix the references in that sandbox article. I've not received any other feedback, but do you think I should go ahead and make a new article out of it at this point?Brian A Schmidt (talk) 13:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like you did. I'll see you there. Awickert (talk) 08:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Or I guess not; you already took care of the references, and I do not know enough of the subject matter to do anything useful. Awickert (talk) 08:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Quaternary
Hello, Could you please check two templates in some acticles as follow. It is seem to be not correspond in the Cenozoic era. Ex. in Neogene- Quaternary is not a subdivision of Cenozoic era, but in the template Phanerozoic eon, Quaternary include in that. Thank you. Geological period

Phanerozoic eon [originally showed whole template, but put this page in the category. Awickert (talk) 00:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)] --Tranletuhan (talk) 03:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note. As I'm sure you know, but to restate for clarity, the Quaternary is part of the Cenozoic. There is some nomenclature debate as Quaternary is the last commonly used piece of earlier terminology in which periods were the Primary (Paleozoic), Secondary (Mesozoic), Tertiary (still used in the US of A today - pre-Quaternary Cenozoic), and the Quaternary. I'll check out the pages when I get time; my sense is that we should follow the ICS and use Quaternary. Awickert (talk) 20:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

LATER: Edited to rmv template cat Awickert (talk) 00:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Your edits to Herrerasaurus cleared up all of my confusion. (It just happened to be the FAC that I decided to comb through for grammar, style, and clarity.) So thanks a ton, Awickert (talk) 19:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, actually I was just about to thank you for your work on the grammar and for pointing out areas that needed clarification. I think there's still one tag left, which I will work on today. And if you see more areas that need work, please feel free to point them out or work on the article yourself. I greatly appreciate your work, Awickert. Firsfron of Ronchester  20:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose you're watching here since you re-posted it; I'll be getting on to the second half of the article sometime in the near future. I'm sure you'll see it when I do. Like before, I'll fix everything I can, but with my limited knowledge, I'll probably need to drop tags on anything technical. Awickert (talk) 20:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, I look forward to it. Thanks again. Firsfron of Ronchester  20:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Mummy Cave
Thanks so much for the offer! Wanting to have access to the document as soon as possible, I asked another user for help. He's already made it available, so I have it now, so don't worry about doing anything more. Nyttend (talk) 15:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Totally unrelated to the cave — what does "Uff-da" mean? The last time I was anywhere near Minnesota, I wasn't yet walking :-)  Nyttend (talk) 15:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. It's a general expression of "wow", "yikes", etc. I don't think it's even real Scandinavian, it's just popularized Minnesotan. Awickert (talk) 16:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Article on Global Change
Hello Awickert!

Thanks for the offer to write an article on Global Change. Unfortunately I won't have time to, at least not in the next months. I know some sources and also have some knowledge about the topic (through my study of Geography), but I won't be able to handle such a comprehensive topic in the next time. What if in the meantime you (or someone else) remove the forwarding to climate change, so people don't get wrong information, because these are really two different things, just sounding similar. Maybe this way someone feels the urge to write something.

I don't have a wikipedia-site, but you can contact me via email at toni [at] toni-klemm [dot] de —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.14.20.2 (talk) 10:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK; I will do that and make a stub. Awickert (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Great, thank you!--91.14.1.196 (talk) 09:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia
Haven't talked to you in a while, forgot to say welcome back (LOL a week ago). Did you find anything interesting? ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's all right; I've been pretty hosed lately. Yeah, I had a good time. Found interesting wildlife (not related to my work), measured sediment and channels, looked at some other stuff. All in all pretty good, thanks for asking. How's life been for you? Anything fun and exciting this summer? Awickert (talk) 05:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Security guards gazed staunchly as the students mill forward one after the other. Checking photo ID, citizenship, and background the gates open. Yeah, I got into a week long program on composite materials. Since some of that fiber glass or carbon fiber gets put in military planes, and it's post-9/11, they're paranoid. Summer semester has started, I took a few programming classes. Signed up for a bunch for science classes in the fall. Planning a camping trip soon: water skiing, biking, and hiking. Going to be gone tomorrow, got a free pass into the Amusement park! So it's been great, I've been busy. Wikipedia-wise, I hate Health effects of tobacco. Probably saw it coming in January. Whenever someone does something and one of us ends up dissatisfied with it. I get the blame. This gets to be even harder when a topic's PoV is this eccentric. Abd described it as Majority PoV pushing. Thinking about the history, when a topic is this stigmatized, it far too easy just to say, that person's a minority PoV pusher, and far too hard to reverse it. Margaret Drabble describes this probably better than I can, "Our desire to conform is greater than our respect for objective facts." The first question isn't about the content, it's about the PoV; and I am getting sick of personal attacks or attacks that I have to take personally. So Wikipedia-wise, life sucks, I got a Wikiquette alert hang over my head, and personal attacks that'll just ruin your day (or night). Global warming is different though, there's a community. No one person has to take care of everything, and everything is taken care of by at least someone who has some understanding about it. At Health effects, it's just me, an enormous backlog, and people who don't understand and who aren't willing work to get it ("[...]amazed that there are no photos in the article of mouths or lungs that have been affected by tobacco smoking"). ChyranandChloe (talk) 07:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess that was a bit much. I don't know how to handle this, and I guess I'm asking for your advice. ChyranandChloe (talk) 19:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, sorry, I've been swamped and have been bad at my talk page and my email lately. I'll get to you soon... Awickert (talk) 20:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks anyways. PoV got dropped, at least, it hasn't been raised a again. Being attacked like this bothers me though, trying not to let it get to me, but hey: just humans, right? I forgot to ask, it would be inconsiderate of me if I didn't, but if you don't want to talk about this: I'm fine. Don't need anymore dispute or disagreement than you get. ChyranandChloe (talk) 06:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for being polite, but it's entirely my fault for not replying sooner.
 * It sounds like you've been having an awesome summer off-wiki. Enjoy that composite materials course, I was really thinking of being a materials scientist back in the day before I decided to work with geological materials instead. And enjoy those programming classes too; I really need to learn C sometime.
 * I've taken a look at the tobacco page, and it sounds like people are saying that you are taking too much ownership over that page. I can't comment on the content dispute because I won't be saying anything useful. But as far as the personal thing, here is how I would deal with it. I would just take a deep breath and let the bad feelings roll over. Then and only after I stopped feeling too bad to be rational, I would think about what the others are saying, what they seem to think that I am doing poorly, and how I can improve it. I usually give them the whole benefit and assume that they are right starting off, then look back at what I've done to see what I've done and to see if it is justified. Then I think about my perspective, and try to combine that with the other editor's comments to try to get a feel for the situation. Only after doing this (which may take a few seconds, may take a minute) will I respond, and I'll try to address what I feel I might be doing wrong while expressing what I was thinking while I was doing it and what I feel is the best course of action. So basically, I try to make it not personal, but just about bettering our communal ability to edit Wikipedia.
 * That is, so long as the comments are constructive. Although I'm tolerant of a lot, personal attacks are one thing about which I am less tolerant. If you feel that you have been attacked by someone and think that it isn't just in your head but that it was their intent, feel free to contact an administrator (or me; I promise I will do my best to weigh in quickly).
 * Yes, one nice thing about global warming is the community. There are a number of less pleasant things. The community is nice; if you need me to weigh in on the Health effects of tobacco talk page, just ask. Just so you know, that's not a promise of support, it's just to say that I'll read the debate, and say what I think is going on and suggest a way to defuse it.
 * Maybe you need a break - camping is a great way to wind down, and Wikipedia controversial topics are not the most relaxing activity. Hang out with your friends where you are; at least in my opinion it's way more (personally) important to do that than to write an online encyclopedia with people (albeit often neat ones) that you've never met.
 * Anyway, thanks for your patience, and that's my inflated 2 cents. Awickert (talk) 07:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * (outdent) Thanks. I wouldn't expect anything less than absolute objectivism if you weigh in, it's about the dispute, not about the editors. I'm trying to think this through: if you weigh in, without, and if others. We talk quite a bit, and it's probably better if you do not weigh in. Superegoistically: I don't want to bring you down when the attacks on me. What my emotions tell me, however, is otherwise. There is reputation, and that's something when lost, will severly damage any and all future proposals. I don't want to be judged with suspicion every time I hit the save button. This feels like, to me at least, a personal attack; I mean, it's not about content, it's about character. I'm try to write without investing much emotion. I try to take a relax and let the bad feelings run off, sometimes taking a nap until the morning's burning optimism shines in the next day, but this particular case seems so far out there that I don't know what to think of it. It feels like my trial's been decided before it even begun. So what do I do? With the end in mind, there's uncertainty as each scenerio leads to I: don't know the outcome, or the outcome doesn't look good. In cases like these: the best decision is no decision. However that doesn't always lead to any desireable resolution. You can't pin civilty, especially the personal attack clause of civilty, on this issue. When the editor understands the policies, they can check their actions so that those policies are not directly applicable, you need something better. The two of us seem use objectivism that looks for certainty and begins with the question "what" with a neutral conclusion from the answers thereof. WMC uses authority and brevity, which seems to frustrates the editor into either submission or to offer an explaination of their intent, and he goes off that. Boris seems to use WP:SOFIXIT, which works very well in content disputes when you know an attack of any kind can be reverted. Those are the three significant ways I see in editors when they work to resolve a problem with another editor. All of which requires participation, which seems to be in short supply. Bettering the community. I think that's a good foundation to stand on, it's not so easy to do in a text medium than in a verbal or human one. Intent is so much clearer. This is what I think I'm lacking in this dispute: a clearly understood intent. It's easy to understand where Focalpoint and Johnfos are coming from, and this makes it easy for them to make their case. This leads back to, of course, "Our desire to conform is greater than our respect for objective facts." After being attacked by that anon, I guess I can't make a dissenting case without looking PoV; WP:OWN, which is the one currently discussed, seems to extension from that. I think their case is unfounded, in my opinion, when they say that the article's being "defened in an unusual way" is the same as: yeah, because the defense is reasonable. Ultimately it comes down to what we do that's important, thinking it through just helps you make the right decision. My decision is to make no decision. I won't ask you to weigh in, two reasons: (1) whether it'll help is uncertain and (2) I believe you're fully capable of making your own decisions. But I don't think the story ends here. Two people, one's an administrator, they usually understand the situation: Peter Isotalo and MastCell. Asking them for their assessment seems to be the most sensible next step. Well, these are my thoughts in detail. ;) ChyranandChloe (talk) 06:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Huh. That sucks. I'll take a look. Awickert (talk) 08:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Think it's cooled off. How are you doing? ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Glad to hear that. Things are a little too nuts in my real life right now, so I hope that some normalcy restores itself (or is forcibly restored) ASAP :). I've seen all of your economic stuff on the GW article btw, thanks for working through that. Awickert (talk) 08:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Except Enescot is really pushing what I can say with certainty and what I'm guessing is the right answer. Help? ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * On the ice flow part I hope? I can answer that. I think you're alone on the econ part because you're the only one who knows anything. Awickert (talk) 05:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * (outdent) That sounds good. Thanks. Trying to cleanup the prose and reduce duplication in "Environmental" right now. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. If you want a hand / a proofread, you know where to find me. Awickert (talk) 05:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * LOL. Well what I was doing was kind of proofreading, done for the night, go ahead. Was looking at reducing Ocean acidification, paragraph four could replace parts of the bottom half of paragraph 3. ChyranandChloe (talk) 06:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, when I proofread I usually add a typo or two (to keep everything in balance). I'll take a look soon; to bed pronto for me. Awickert (talk) 06:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * (outdent) Wikipedia's new default skin. Since I manage quite a few templates, I guess I better opt-into the beta. Right now we're on the "Vector" beta (preview), next would be "Babaco". Also are you going to follow up on that sea level rise? :) ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, sheesh, the editing page already defaults to the different look. I know some go for a visual appeal, but I'm a real sentimental packrat - for me, nothing should change. It looks so Windows Vista-esque. I think I commented on the sea level thing, let me check what I was supposed to follow up on. Awickert (talk) 06:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I did in fact respond on the talk! Haven't heard what anyone else thinks about it; would appreciate your comment as the sea level number is so important I wouldn't want to change things around on my own. Awickert (talk) 05:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Wind River Basin
Hi. Thanks for writing Wind River Basin. I was working on expanding it and I stumbled across Shoshone Basin which appears to be the same feature. I think we should merge them, but I'm not at all sure which name is more commonly used among geologists. Wind River Basin seems more logical to me, but I'm no expert. Your thoughts? CosmicPenguin ( talk• WP:WYOHelp! ) 13:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Through some quick digging, it seems that Wind River Basin is used much more frequently by geologists. I've actually never heard of the Shoshone Basin! Actually, the earlier google hits seem to use a basin in Idaho as the Shoshone. On google scholar, the hits indicate that "Shoshone" may be used more physiographically (more ecology pubs), while "Wind River" is used more geologically. There are about 30x as many scholar hits for Wind River as opposed to Shoshone though, so I'm thinking that WR is definitely the way to go. And thanks a bunch for your work; unfortunately I know very little about the basin, but I will help if I can. Awickert (talk) 16:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Works for me - I just checked out the merge, it looks good. Happy editing. CosmicPenguin ( talk• WP:WYOHelp! ) 22:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, your thanks go to Vsmith. I just created the stub, he added all the content. Awickert (talk) 22:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, ya'll sparked my curiosity ... so had to learn a bit and did some digging. Didn't know anything about the Wind River, but I visited the Powder River basin looking at uranium mines way back in '77. Now I'm thinking that the Phosphoria Formation needs to be blue ... ain't it fun. Vsmith (talk) 01:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah it is :). I just happened to drive through it on the way to the Bighorn Basin and decided to read a bit about it when I got back - when I realized there wasn't an article. It's really an amazing place, stratigraphically and geomorphically. But that may just be that I love Wyoming in general. Awickert (talk) 03:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)