User talk:Kwinkunks

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Aboutmovies (talk) 10:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Hello strange geophysics-type-person! I also added a bit of a clear-up to his equations page. Now to get back to that derned WOGE...Reynardo (talk) 03:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Hi. I've nominated Karl Bernhard Zoeppritz, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. Reynardo (talk) 03:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC) (actually, it would help if I spelt the guy's name correctly here :-) Reynardo (talk) 12:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, just a heads-up, I've reviewed the KBZ article at DYK and it's a bit short (970 character rather than the minimum 1500 character requirement). I've informed Reynardo, but I thought that I should let you know as well. Anyway, it's always good to see another geoscientist contributing. Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 12:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Kwin, my friend - any chance you can add some more bio details here? I'm hoping the German pages on the internet have a few extra facts. When you can get your nose out of WOGE, that is (*grin*). Reynardo (talk) 14:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I just took another look at it, used another reference for some technical details, and used another translator for the German page. I think it's in decent shape now. Thanks for all the great feedback. Don't know if it's 1500 characters yet... I'm still hunting for some more biographic details (parents, place of death, etc). Kwinkunks (talk) 13:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It's over 1900 characters now. I've suggested an alternative hook at the DYK talk page, which I think more accurately describes how the equations are used. Mikenorton (talk) 13:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't know the protocol here; perhaps I'm just supposed to put suggestions on the DYK talk page? Anyway, I think 'infer the structure of the earth' (or 'elicit...', 'establish...' or similar) sounds a bit better and is perhaps more accurate than 'map underground features'. Small point maybe, I'm just not sure you'd call the upper mantle or the core, say, 'underground features', if you see what I mean. Kwinkunks (talk) 03:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Apologies for not replying earlier, anyone can contribute at DYK, although as article creator you would likely have more to say than most. You were probably right about the hook, but it was on the main page before I read your response. Zoeppritz (or at least his equations) are mentioned by someone I work with at about a rate of once every two weeks, so no doubt about his continuing importance, and now I know something about the man. Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 13:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Karl Bernhard Zoeppritz
Thanks for brightening February on DYK Victuallers (talk) 06:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * *Highfives* Kwinkunks! Reynardo (talk) 12:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for an interesting man! He is now featured on Portal:Germany. If you have more DYK related to Germany, feel free to place it there yourself. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Harry E. Wheeler, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page University of Nevada (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Maritimes Basin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cumberland Basin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Need seismic math help
Hi, Kwinkunks! I have been trying to improve Linear seismic inversion, and have run up against some problems that I hope you can help with, since you list some practical geophysical experience at WikiProject Geology. If you aren't able to help, or don't have the time, I understand, and I'll go on to someone else. But I do hope you can shed some light on these issues with the article. (It also needs some heavy copyediting, but I want to get the rest straightened out first.) Thanks. - Gorthian (talk) 07:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) There are two links to disambiguation pages: one is impedance and the other is sum of squares. I simply don't know enough to tease out which of the meanings are right in these calculations. Would you take a look?
 * 2) The article was downright blue with duplicate links, and I think I've finally cleaned those up. But in the process, I tried to fix a malformed LaTeX markup, here. (It's in the last paragraph of the diff, where I put \Delta instead of $.) I don't know LaTeX, and my math has languished unused for nearly thirty years, so I'm very uncertain that I put in the right notation from the right equation.
 * 3) There are several places in the article where it says "Eqn. \ref{corr_imp}". I think the writer is meaning to refer to a specific equation number, but it isn't filled in. I don't think it helps that the equations are numbered in two different ways: sometimes with wiki markup and sometimes with HTML. I'm hoping someone who understands the math can fill in the right equation reference numbers.


 * Hey ... I will take a look right now and try to fix up this evening or tomorrow morning. Thank you for the awesome notes! Kwinkunks (talk) 12:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I fixed the issues. I removed the sum of squares link completely, as it was already linking to Least squares, which is the important link. I generally don't go for numbered equations, because they can make for rather convoluted reading, but sometimes they do help. There are a couple of handy templates, NumBlk for numbering the equations and EquationRef for referring to them. I wonder if it's worth switching to that method. That way, the references can't get messed up so easily, if someone removes or adds an equation, say. Just a thought. Kwinkunks (talk) 13:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Wow, that was quick! Thank you! I think that article could benefit from those numbered-equation templates; I'll try them out and see how it looks. I'm so glad for your help! - Gorthian (talk) 01:21, 2 May 2014 (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) 14:01, 24 November 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) 14:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Laurie Swim has been accepted
 Laurie Swim, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Mduvekot (talk) 02:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Laurie_Swim help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Favorite seismic / subsurface imagery?
Hi Kwinkunks! Came across your page via Earth Science Stack Exchange and later on, after continued curiosity and research about subsurface sciences, I wanted to ask you a question:

Do you have any favorite subsurface data, e.g. seismic tomography imagery, that you could share?

For example, I study hydrology and am particularly in awe of some watershed DEMs, or the wide variety of trends in hydrographs of different basins. Even that kind of awe inspiring data can be difficult to dig up on the spot, and I imagine hydrology data is more plentiful than geological (due to ease of measuring, though maybe I'm mistaken about that), so no worries if you don't have any particular data to share. Even learning what kinds of subsurface data or imagery you find most awe-inspiring would be appreciated, as I continue digging into the subject :)

Thanks for sharing the scientific insights you're growing! Cr0 (talk) 03:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I spend most of my time working with deep reflection seismic. You'll find links to some open datasets on SEG Wiki. I don't know too much about hydrology but I guess there's probably some seismic, and also resistivity and MT. If you have co-located core or wireline, you can do a lot. Cheers, Matt Kwinkunks (talk) 17:59, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of McKelvey box


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on McKelvey box requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Helen (💬📖) 22:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Comparison of free geophysics software


The article Comparison of free geophysics software has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Per Articles for deletion/Comparison of risk analysis Microsoft Excel add-ins (2nd nomination)/Articles for deletion/Comparison of power management software suites/Articles for deletion/Comparison of XMPP server software"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:19, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Comparison of free geophysics software for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Comparison of free geophysics software is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Comparison of free geophysics software until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 08:19, 19 November 2022 (UTC)