User talk:GEOGOZZ

April 2015
Hello, I'm Luk. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Meteorite with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. -- Luk  talk 21:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi GEOGOZZ, thank you for your message. No problem, mistakes happen! We try to catch them as they go. If you believe your image is of great quality, by all means, don't hesitate to upload it and share it with the community! However, I think that we have a quite a few pictures of meteorites already! So make sure that you tag it correctly so users can find it (Wikimedia Commons is our repository of images related to articles). Cheers! -- Luk  talk 21:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the image (File:Lost City Hammer Stone.png) as it is rather a poor snapshot of a man holding a blurry dark object. Also the "reference" you added was to a website which offered meteorite samples for sale and quite obviously failed the requirements of WP:reliable sources. Vsmith (talk) 00:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Meteorite image
Regarding your recently uploaded image File:Australian shaped meteorite.jpg: could you provide a bit more informaton to the image page. Such as date and location of fall/find and composition...? the current sort of shaped like the Australian continent is rather lacking. Vsmith (talk) 00:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC) Hello, Vsmith, I've just updated meteorite image. Thanks again! GEOGOZZGEOGOZZ (talk) 01:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Micrometeorite image
Hi GEOGOZZ, I left a note on Media Commons at File talk:Micrometeorites.jpg. I wondered: How can this be a picture of micrometeorites? It appears to depict material that crumbled away from a block of composite material on the right, perhaps asphalt concrete. The particles show no signs of melting or other transformation from passage through the atmosphere--they are sharp. Normally, micrometeorites are vary hard to identify amongst other particulate matter. Has a subject matter expert confirmed their classification? It would be best, if you replied there. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 18:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi HopsonRoad, you are right, but I thought a micrometeorite could be as large as 2mm. There are many references to collect micrometeorites under a downspout. There are a few of the very tiny "rounded-shaped" ones in the mix. That is why I grouped them as small meteorites and micros. Thank you for your assistance.
 * GEOGOZZGEOGOZZ (talk) 01:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your candor, GEOGOZZ. There may very well be micrometeorites among those particles, however the picture does not illustrate their presence very well. Nor is there reliable confirmation that those round particles include micrometeorites. If you suspect that some are, perhaps you could photograph them under a microscope and confirm their provenance by comparing them with other images of micrometeorites. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 01:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, HobsonRoad. Good morning, wherever you are. I thought the exact same thing last night before going to bed. Therefore, sleep had to wait until my curiosity was satisfied. I modified two magnifying glasses and created my own microscope. It was something I learned from the professor on Gilligan’s Island. LOL! Seriously, though, it allowed me see the “specimens” more clearly. Believe it or not, I quickly found two spherically-shaped ones. One was rusty and the other was shiny, revealing the possible presence of Fe & Ni. Many other irregularly shaped ones were chondrites, for I clearly saw the chondrules in them. Anyway, I am going to collect more samples from several other downspout splash blocks and analyze them the same way. I will try and get some good resolution pics. If they are good enough, I will add them onto the micrometeorite page. If you feel that they are not good enough, I will remove them. I’m looking forward to this new research project. By the way, I really enjoyed your meteoroid to meteorite animation. Did you make that? It goes very well with “tail” meteorite that is next to it. Can you create an animation replicating the fall of that meteorite, meaning showing off the “tail?” Good day, GEOGOZZGEOGOZZ (talk) 12:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC) Here's another "tail" meteorite of mine. GEOGOZZGEOGOZZ (talk) 12:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response and your enthusiasm about this topic, GEOGOZZ. Some articles have a grab-bag of images that create redundancy rather than expand the envelope of what's illustrated. I would encourage inclusion of images that are either better than what's in the article or expand the representation of the topic. For guidance, please see WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE.
 * As to the animation, that was the work of Wikimedia Commons User:Anynobody; I only wish that I had that skill!
 * BTW, I am in Vermont. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 13:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, HobsonRoad, thanks for recognizing my “enthusiasm!” How’s the weather in Vermont. Here in OK it was a nice day, in the 70’s. Anyway, I spent the day working on my research project. It was a bit tricky, working with such small objects and trying to get just the right images. I lovingly named the two meteorites Horton and Who, after Dr. Seuss story. LOL! Anyway, I feel that the edit I made expounded on the topic, revealing to anyone who reads the article that you don’t necessarily have to go to Antarctica to find MM. I’m sure they are preserved in a much better condition than the ones I found. I even attached a link that will instruct school children how to do what I did. Oh, well! I hope you like it. GEOGOZZGEOGOZZ (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, GEOGOZZ. I added a sentence, linked to your IceCube reference in the text about how amateurs may collect mms. I also edited the caption to conform to encyclopedic style, while preserving the particulars at the original image. I'm curious; are your mms magnetic? Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 22:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, HobsonRoad, how are you? Thank you for reviewing and making such fine revisions! I wholeheartedly agree with your changes. I really like your sentence! Wow! We made a great “team” on that project! And yes, the mms are very magnetic. In fact, in that photograph, they are setting atop of a magnet. It was a lot easier to take photos of them being motionless. The image on the right is another shot of the mms. I like it more, because it reveals the shiny side of the one meteorite. however, the image was a little blurrier. Anyway, Cheers and have a great week, GEOGOZZGEOGOZZ (talk) 23:04, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Mineral inclusion
I've removed your image, File:Meteorite that proves holes are from iron nickel.jpg, from the Inclusion (mineral) page for a couple of reasons. First, it wasn't related to the metallurgy section and secondly who says the fracturing was caused by the inclusions? (see WP:OR) More importantly for the image: what is the origin of the stone and where found? What is the mineral composition of the main green phase? Where is this info published? Those questions are for the description on the image page and needed for clarity and proper usage in WP articles. Vsmith (talk) 13:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pantherophis alleghaniensis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Live Oak. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Your meteorite images
Nice username. But your meteorite images need sources. I haven't heard of some of yours, and the ones I've seen don't look authentic to me. Further, claiming a rock is a meteorite is WP:EXTRAORDINARY. Also...don't upload pictures of God in the clouds, please. Geogene (talk) 01:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've been nominating all of your meteorite images at Commons for deletion as hoaxes. I can understand why someone would mistake foundry glass for a meteorite. It's dark-colored and funny looking and magnetic if it contains dissolved iron. But I'm having trouble understanding how some of those hoaxes were made/found by mistake. Like those pebbles that were polished and then coated with molten iron. How does that happen by accident? Geogene (talk) 03:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Geogene, nice username, as well. First of all, I must mention that your messages that you sent me were rather inciting. My goodness, the only kind thing you had to write was “Nice username!” Everything else was “hoax, hoaxes, etc.” Wow! Come on, now. You never even met me. I’m sure there are people out there who are hoaxsters. I’m not one of them. I understand that Wiki needs references that I don’t yet have. I’m currently working on a meteorite-theory paper that I am planning on submitting to a university that wants to publish a paper with me. Hey, it’s fine that you may not agree with me regarding my “possible” meteorite collection. I don’t expect everyone to. But when you make the unwarranted claim that I broke foundry glass in a parking lot, or polished sedimentary rocks and then poured molten iron them, that is wrong. What’s the saying, “Everyone is ‘INNOCENT’ until proven guilty!” I could go on and on, but I really have other things to attend to. I just wanted to let you know and Vsmith and HobsonRoad and JorviS, that the uploads that I shared on Wiki were meant to enlighten the minds of meteorite scientists that there are undiscovered meteorites out in field that are very rare, indeed. Look, I knew this day was coming, but I didn’t think it would come in such a mean manner. Lighten up a bit when you don’t agree with somebody else. Sure, it’s easy to be the proverbial “doubting Thomas.” It takes “faith” to understand science to begin with. What I mean is this: Without theories, science would not exist. Just ask Einstein, Wright bro’s, NASA, etc. etc.! I end with this: Not one single “rock,” out of respect to you Geogene, I won’t call them meteorites, was tainted, painted, polished, broken. They were naturally found out in my yard. My two youngest children and I found thousands of these specimens during 2006-2009, all varying in shapes, sizes color, magnetism, fusion crusts, flow lines, etc. Some were above ground and others were below. I literally got in trouble with my wife for tearing up the front lawn, looking for them. It was a little like “gold fever.” The metal “rock” with a tail is legit. That one is my “special” one that I sort of use as my “calling card,” if you will. I spent the last 10 years writing a book series about these discoveries and God-cloud photo. Both were “miracles.” Both were signs from God for me to warn people that His Son is coming back soon in “Clouds of Glory,” and that an asteroid/comet is coming, too! None of my claims were meant to make me famous or wealthy. I’m not opposed to that that, but I did what I did because I am concerned for mankind and how and where they will spend ETERNITY. I was going to remove the “rock” images on my own until I got some kind of certification for them, which may be never, but I will leave that up to you. You can let your conscious wrestle with that and do what you need to do. Apparently, I’m the newbie and you’re the bosses, so what else can I do? Go for it! If there were a category for “suspect meteorites,” I would have placed them there, but there’s not. By the way, Geogene, you wouldn’t happen to be GEO Notkin of the “Meteorite Men” fame, would you? I have a lot of respect for him and I have learned a lot from watching his program a gazillion times, especially the subject of meteorites exploding and then reforming a “mild lighter color” fusion crust in midair. I even spent a day, writing an email to you regarding my “rocks.” (I never received a reply.) Now, if you are not, please let me know, because I don’t want to think of him in such a way as you have so far presented yourself. If you are and you tell me no, well, then, who is the “hoaxster?” If you tell me yes, then I probably will delete all of your e-books off of my Kindle and never download another and turn the channel whenever I see another episode of “Mean Meteorite Men!” By the way, Steve Arnold looked at my “tail” meteorite photo seven years ago and really thought I had something and advised me to have it tested for Ni. With that off my chest, I hope you have a great weekend, in spite of how you tried to upset mine!!! GEOGOZZGEOGOZZ (talk) 18:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not one of the individuals you have mentioned, and do not know them. Try not to speculate on who anybody here is in real life--there's an important rule known as WP:OUT that prohibits it. This is protect Wikipedia users from real world harassment for what they do here, and also to protect people that aren't on wikipedia from defamation by possible association with wikipedia editors. I probably should not have used the word "hoax", but there really are people out there that put false information in Wikipedia in order to see if they're caught. This false information is sometimes harmful in the real world because, unfortunately, people tend to take everything here as factual, including people that ought to know better. Please be sure to use sources that prove a meteorite is genuine before posting, in my opinion, these look like they are not. But I'm more confident in my opinion in this subject than the average editor probably is, and so I feel I really had to take them down. Otherwise, it's a matter of time before they get published in school science textbooks, etc. Geogene (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Geogene, I apologize for sounding so bent out of shape and jumping to conclusions about you being someone else. I am not like that. Please forgive me. I guess I’m just a little fed up with trying to be taken seriously by individuals in this particular field and being dismissed as a hoaxster. It is a little like Ellie in the movie “Contact,” where she spends 13 months trying to get support for her science project and everyone laughs her off. I don’t blame you for being skeptical. I know Wiki really has to watch their stuff like a hawk. It is sometimes just hard to swallow when things you worked on and uploaded to Wiki get questioned and then removed. I guess that is why I like it so. I referenced it immensely while writing my book. The Pub Domain pics are great. Anyway, I will do what I can to “certify” my “rocks.” Hopefully, they will be confirmed! If I may, I would like to explain my theory a bit to you? In order to do so, I will use the “green rocks” as examples. My theory is this: This rock has dark areas that I feel as though is the fusion crust. It also has lighter “dark” areas that should be totally green like the other sample. My theory is this: If they exploded into fragments soon after hitting the atmosphere, a dark fusion crust would have first formed and then, if it were still high enough in the air, a fusion crust would have begun to reform, but ran out of sufficient friction, speed to make it real dark. Most of these green and blue ones have that same characteristic, as if they all blew apart at different altitudes… The iron inclusions that are visible on the fractures and even through the fusion crust melted first, because iron-nickel’s melting point is lower than silicates, then the silicate material melted and the metal coalesced into tiny balls. When they exploded, the metal left a hole on fracture sides. I’ve found quite a few tiny and not so tiny iron-nickel fragments in the same area. The tail one was, as I mentioned, really noticed by Meteorites Australia and Steve Arnold. I know they aren’t a cert sheet, but they emailed and mention that it was really cool. I mean, look at its aerodynamic look. It is perfectly shaped like an Apollo capsule, Space Shuttle. That’s why I thought it would be beneficial to compare on “Atmospheric Entry” page. If you can do that one on “good faith,” waiting for its cert, that would be great. Oh, well, gotta go. Once, again, I am a man on a mission who wrote something that I later regretted. I hope you weren’t offended by it! :) GEOGOZZGEOGOZZ (talk) 20:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC) Oops, Geogene, here's the green rock photo I mentioned. GEOGOZZGEOGOZZ (talk) 20:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * A couple of thoughts on that. Nickel-iron actually has a higher melting point than most silicates. It's true that you can get a secondary fusion crust if the body breaks up early enough after the first (primary) crust forms and there's still enough time and heating to form one. I don't know about metal coalescing out of the melt into tiny balls, there's just no time for chemical separation. The luminous flight (where there's enough heat) is usually over with pretty quickly (seconds). Very rare, anecdotal accounts from people that witness a fall and immediate recovery indicate that when they reach the ground, they usually aren't hot. So, the stuff that melts to form the fusion crust only has time to re-freeze as a thin, crumbly glass coat from molten, and then quenched rock. As far as aerodynamics, I'm just not seeing it in the photo. If you Google "Adamana meteorite", there's a perfect example. Geogene (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Geogene, thank you for the Adamana meteorite link, very cool! I appreciate your help! From what I discovered about melting points, Nickel m.p. is 1455 c and iron is 1538 c. Glass, Silicon dioxide is 1600 c. Very fascinating points you are bringing up. Regarding “aerodynamics,” though, look at it like this for a moment. Take a 1000-piece puzzle apart and throw the pieces around in every direction. Would you see the puzzle? No, just fragments. And that is exactly my point. People are thinking meteorites as being a completed puzzle and for the most part, they are. However, when “glass” shatters, what happens? Shards go everywhere, right. Well, these “glassies” went everywhere, in my opinion. Here, I uploaded a few more pics of some other specimens that I have not had time to upload yet. (You should feel special, I went out of my way for you and spent a few hours taking these HD videos and turning them into jpg’s. LOL!) I have gazillions of these things. A new twist to this mystery is the blue-colored rock, for it has swirls throughout. Have you ever seen that before in a celestial or terrestrial specimen? Anyway, take a gander at these and see what you think. Notice the one in particular that I wrote a caption on it. Half of it is totally free of secondary fusion crust look and the other has a mild form of it allowing the swirly pattern to come through. Thanks for your time, Geogene! I really appreciate it! GEOGOZZGEOGOZZ (talk) 00:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

http://www.wired.com/2013/02/why-does-a-meteor-explode-in-the-air/ GEOGOZZGEOGOZZ (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Interesting, I had no idea that glass has such a high melting point. Granite will melt at 1250 C and basalts can melt a little lower than that . As for the blue swirls, I've never seen anything like it from nature. Blue is an uncommon color for minerals in general, and swirling patterns are unexpected in crystalline rock. But it does remind me of some of the pictures of slag glass, here: . Geogene (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Geogene, nice to hear from you again. Thanks for your much-respected insight! Ya, I thought the opposite on that, too, until I looked the mp’s up. Hey, I am currently working on a short video presentation regarding my “meteorite theory.” I am pulling out all the stops, so to speak. I will send you a link to the Youtube vid when I’m done if you want to take a peek. I think I may have found the missing link! If a research institution finds it interesting, who knows, maybe they would like to do a research paper on my discovery??? GEOGOZZGEOGOZZ (talk) 21:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello Geogene, how are you doing? I hope you’re doing well. Anyway, I finally finished my “theory” about my “rocks.” It took about a week or so to put together. I discovered a few new things about my rocks that I never knew existed, one of which is the presence of small particles that resemble chondrules. Since their discovery, 2006-2009, I never really examined them up close all that well. Yes, I used a magnifying glass, but I guess I never really inspected them in the way that I recently did. I downloaded a new photo program one month ago that really brings things to light. Anyway, I will let the video presentation speak for itself. If my theories are on track, my next step is to have a qualified university/organization do a hands-on inspection. Maybe you might be able to recommend someone for me? Ok, thanks for time and let me know what you think about the video. If you don’t want to watch it, let me know. Other than me, you are the first person whom I have invited to watch it, so if you’re not interested, I will select another authority on this subject. Here’s the Youtube link: I hope you find it interesting and enlightening. https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=d2IQPJ0iKCk GEOGOZZGEOGOZZ (talk) 19:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * That's a quality video, but Beethoven's "Ode to Joy" may be too relaxing. I think it's interesting that the specimens attract a magnet, but slag glass might also, because it apparently contains iron pellets. The theory, generally, also involves a lot more melting, smashing, and re-annealing than I'd expect in a meteorite fall. As for testing, Arnold might have given you an up-to-date suggestion on places to have that done. But if it helps, some universities that I happen to know are interested in meteorites include Arizona State, Washington University in St. Louis, and one of the state universities in New Mexico. And you should do have a formal test done, by all means. You might also consider bringing a sample to the geology or "Geoscience" program in your nearest state college for an in-person opinion. State university geologists are accustomed to the local community asking them about weird rocks/fossils they find, especially if it's an outreach school. Most geology professors aren't meteorite experts, but if it's a typical department then somebody on the faculty has probably been there forever, has seen a lot of weird rocks, and probably enjoys handing out opinions. Geogene (talk) 17:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comment and all of the insight, Geogene. I know, I chose "Ode to Joy" in a quick, random sort of way. I just wanted some peaceful music that viewers could concentrate on the content... I will look into those testing organizations that you mentioned. I take it, you meant Steve Arnold? I will assume that and see what he has to say. I dealt with him in 2008 or 09. Alright, thanks again! GEOGOZZGEOGOZZ (talk) 21:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Geogene, another question for you when you have time. I am going to buy one of the prospector quick-check nickel test kits from Amazon for $20. If you dab it on with a swab and it turns pink, nickel. Have you used those before? Regarding this pic I, if these specimens are magnetic and “shiny” metal is not nickel, supposing it is “not” a meteorite, what metal combines with iron that is silvery in color? https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ab/Nickel_iron.jpg/800px-Nickel_iron.jpg What possible Earth rock could have this configuration. Oh, yes, one more thing: The small round objects on specimens, chondrules? Can they be on exterior? I know I mentioned that they attached themselves to the “melt” when things went boom…. A chondrule can only be confirmed via microscope….??? I just spent the last several hours looking at slag glass and I haven’t been able to compare anything that I’ve seen with mine. None of the slag glasses I saw had a thin crust…? In slag, you can have iron, but not nickel. I have several “glassies” that have exposed metal that is “shiny,” not corroded like other specimens. I would imagine that the nickel-iron ratio is not static in meteorites, right? the bigger “shiny/silvery” pieces that I have are magnetic, but not ultra-magnetic. I mean, a magnet will stick onto to surface, but it can be pulled off easier than the large-iron-content specimens. More food for thought…just picking your brain! I hope you don’t mind. Here is a slightly revised version of my Youtube video. I added a few more pics at the end. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIhkyoQTXus&feature=player_detailpage GEOGOZZGEOGOZZ (talk) 00:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's interesting, I didn't know they were selling nickel test kits, but I think that's a neat idea. Some of the old meteorite books have recipes for such things but it's hard to just buy chemicals anymore. I Googled it and found one that claims to be for meteorite identification, also claims to be sensitive down to 10 parts per million--that is way too sensitive to prove something is a meteorite, but anything that doesn't trigger it probably isn't a meteorite. Meteorite metals are going to contain at least 5% nickel, or 5 parts per hundred. I don't think there are any naturally-occurring non-meteorite rocks on Earth that look like your samples. Yeah the nickel-iron ratio varies quite a bit, I think that range is something like 5%-65% nickel. I'd expect a refrigerator magnet to hit an iron meteorite with a "snap" and want to try to stay there, even if it's fairly nickel-rich. But a chondrite that has rusted thoroughly, I don't know, maybe not. Chondrules (as opposed to a speckle of something that looks like a chondrule) could probably be confirmed only by a lab procedure. I'm not sure if common chondrites normally get that far, probably if enough sample can be spared then petrographic microscope slides would be made so it can be classified. On a chondrite you'd typically expect to see visible chondrules on any non-fusion crusted surface. But I'd be surprised to see them floating in a fusion crust, or to see dust re-aggregate on the surface of a fusion crust. Remember that thing is traveling pretty fast, any dust is going to shed its momentum really quickly (much higher surface area/mass ratio) so virtually all of it is going to settle to the ground miles uprange of wherever the main mass comes down. There's also a region of high aerodynamic pressure in front of each fragment that's going to tend bulldoze whatever out of the way. Geogene (talk) 19:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Geogene. Wow! What a wealth of information that you possess about meteorites. Thank you for sharing it with me. As far as the nickel test kits, I had no idea that they existed, too. It sounds like a reaction that we did back in qualitative analysis class in college. I miss my old Hahn and Welcher handbook…enjoyable subject/class. Yay, I got an A. Considering that I barely graduated high school, that is an impressive statistic. Five percent Ni is moderately significant amount. It should be cut-and-dry then, to determine if my specimens got the goods… Thank you for the “ray of hope” you mentioned, “I don't think there are any naturally-occurring non-meteorite rocks on Earth that look like your samples.” That keeps me in the running and inspires me to get to the bottom of this mystery. And for it, I would like to “reward” you with being the first person, other than myself, to view a brand-new bizarre photo that I “accidentally” just took today. While I was outside on the balcony, photographing more specimens, I caught this one at just the right angle and it wowed me. I think it might be something that might inspire the creation of another George Lucas’ character. This one is very small. That’s why I never discovered it before. Didn’t have zoom camera. I’ve already photographed a thousand or so and still quite a few more to go. So far, I’ve contacted geology depts at two different universities, OU and OSU. The head at Oklahoma studied at ASU and he is like the proverbial Missouri Mule type of professor. On the other hand, the State head is very open-minded person, even welcoming me to send in some samples to be tested on his X ray fluorescence analyzer! The fly in the ointment with OU man is the slag glass resemblance. I don’t think he really wants to bother to get involved. He does respond in our dialogues, via email, but his responses are challenging to confront. However, I think he just don’t know what to do with me and my rocks. I think he is hoping that I will just go away, but I won’t. I respectfully, of course, respond to every one of his challenging opinions with my point of view and he then reaches in to his bag o’ tricks and tries to get me to give up. To tell you the truth, I really do think he is perplexed, because he probably feels the same way as you mentioned, “I don't think there are any naturally-occurring non-meteorite rocks on Earth that look like your samples.” Being the head of a geology dept at a major university might unduly cause one to think that he knows it all. I told him that I am not denying that my specimens resemble slag glass. However, I told him, “Why couldn’t a slag glass concoction be out in space somewhere?” Anyway, thanks again, Geogene! Let me know what you think of the “alien” pic I uploaded? Do you think it might win “Pic of the Day” on Wiki? I uploaded it with description that is relatively benign… “A rock specimen that is currently being analyzed to determine whether or not it is terrestrial or extraterrestrial.” By the way, can I quote you regarding what you mentioned, “I don't think there are any naturally-occurring non-meteorite rocks on Earth that look like your samples.” If so, do I mention you as Geogene or Anonymous? GEOGOZZGEOGOZZ (talk) 23:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think Random Internet Guy is going to have much credibility whatever I'm called, and I'm not even claiming any expertise in the subject matter, just giving opinions. But I'd rather be Anonymous. Geogene (talk) 17:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

You could have fooled me. Don't sell yourself short. You seem to know a lot about meteorites. But anyway, I won't mention your name. Thanks Geogene. GEOGOZZGEOGOZZ (talk) 21:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Scofield Bible
Actually, John, the inside-cover states that my Aunt Bessie gave this to my grandma in 1935. So wouldn’t that be considered early 20th century? Thanks for your help. GEOGOZZGEOGOZZ (talk) 12:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Earlier than I would have guessed. Any other chronological markers that might push the date back even further?  Otherwise, we could say, it's a "c. 1935 printing."  (I can't read the name of the school for "Christian workers" that it comes from, which might provide a clue.)--John Foxe (talk) 01:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi John. I will check for you. I am planning on taking a much better photo of that Bible. I sort of did it in a hurry and it shows. Administrator Ellin Beltz pointed it out to me and marked it for deletion. She thought I scanned it, which I didn't. But it deserves better... GEOGOZZZGEOGOZZ (talk) 10:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Good.--John Foxe (talk) 00:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi John. I just replaced old pic for a better one. The inside cover reads 1909 and 1917. GEOGZZGEOGOZZ (talk) 23:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC) The copyright is 1909 1917. Oh, the Bible cover reads, “A Training School for Christian Workers.” Check out the history of Azusa Pacific University. This school was before that one. Didn’t know that… GEOGOZZGEOGOZZ (talk) 23:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi John, thank you for the help organizing the Scofield page. I just uploaded several photos to Commons. I was going to place a gallery of a few pics of special parts of the Scofield Bible, such as the maps, “The Panoramic View of the Bible,” etc. They are nice pics and did spend several hours working on this project. I love the Scofield Bible and I guess I am trying to honor the man responsible for it with more fame than he has already attained. What do you think? You can go to Commons search box and type in Geogozz and look them over if you’d like. Have a great evening, GEOGOZZGEOGOZZ (talk) 02:14, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)