User talk:Paul H/ArchivePage 1

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 19:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Tollmann's hypothetical bolide
Hi. Thanks for your edits to Tollmann's hypothetical bolide. I have slightly toned down the language. At times I think you crossed the line between presenting evidence and arguing a case. Also you were overlinking, that is linking the same word many times. For example the first mention of Holocene should be a wiki link but subsequent use of the word Holocene should not be linked. I've fixed that. Anyway take a look at the page and see if I've damaged anything. Zeimusu | Talk page 05:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Peer review/Geology of the Capitol Reef area/archive1
I would love some feedback from a real geologist. :) I'm just an enthusiastic amateur. --mav 22:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Dholavira Ancient Metropolitan City
Dear Paul H. I have visited your user page and discussion page. I would be thankful for comments on Dholavira Ancient Metropolitan City. Many Photos are also available on link.

Regards vkvora

Concretion image removal
Hi, Paul. I'd like to discuss the removal of the image from concretions page. I believe that the image, which shows concretion and tektite of the same shape is very interesting for understanding origin of concretions and adds a value to the article, if for nothing else at least by forcing viewers to think. Often concretion are forming around something. That image could help to understand how concretions get their strange shapes. I'd like to learn your opinion, please. Thanks.--Mbz1 16:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

Coconino Sandstone
Paul, your comment at Talk:Coconino Sandstone is being cited there to show that "at least one" conventional geologist supported marine origins of the sandstone. It's obviously an extreme minority view, but I've supported the idea of briefly mentioning the creationist claim and noting that it's been refuted. You've said that "it is true that one conventional geologist, Dr. Glenn Visher, back in the 1990’s argued that the Late Paleozoic Coconino Sandstone, and Mesozoic Navajo Sandstone, were both deposited underwater." From a couple of later notes I've found, it's clear that he was being quote mined and his controversial papers referring to the Navajo were being misquoted. Any comments? . .. dave souza, talk 16:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Old and Young Earth Creationist are quote mining as Visher's comments, which consist of a single paragraph and a couple of figures in a college textbook, on the Coconino Sandstone. He never did publish any detailed discussion of why he specifically interpreted the Coconino Sandstone to be marine in origin. There was only a detailed paper, which was published in the Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, on why he interpreted Navajo Sandstone to marine. That paper generated several detailed replies from other geologists, who disputed in great detail the interpretations, which were also later published in the Journal of Sedimentary Petrology. In case of the Coconino Sandstone, Visher confused parting lineation with parting step lineation, the latter which is very common in eolian sandstones, and is 100 percent wrong in implying that the shells and bones of marine animals having been found in the Coconino Sandstone. (None have been found in the Coconino Sandstone.) Also, his methodology of using grain-size curve to interpret depositional environments has been proved to be unreliable. That he uses his grain-size curves to argue for the marine deposition of the Navajo Sandstone show how unreliable, even useless, it is for determining depositional environments. Of course, Old and Young Earth Creationists, in their quote mining, neglect to mention that the arguments made by Visher about the Navajo and Coconino Sandstone have been discredited and abandoned by conventional geologists. I cannot find any conventional, noncreationist geologist, whom currently regards the Coconino Sandstone as having accumulated underwater. When the arguments against the marine origin of the Coconino Sandstone and above facts were publicly noted, a certain Young Earth creationist simply falsely accused me of "ranting". Paul H..
 * Thanks very much, I've removed the quote mined reference from the article and referred to your helpful reply on the article talk page in explaining my action. Will aim to expand the article to briefly outline the explanation based on eolian processes, unless someone beats me to it ;) . . dave souza, talk 17:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Wilderness Diarrhea Getting Killed
Paul:


 * Hmm...'bout all I know from geology, I read it in John McPhee.....
 * But....am looking for some contituency, and given your recent visit to Slide Mountain, it seems remotely possible you'd be interested in this. Wilderness Diarrhea is getting merged into Travelers Diarrhea by a couple of zealots who seem to have no concept of outdoor interests.

I get around a lot in the outdoors and rarely treat water, but WD article had some good stuff.


 * After a couple of weeks of calm discussion, I went ballistic and no longer want to participate. Rational voices might help.

These guys have irrationally convinced themselves that WD isn't a legitimate topic for a Wikipedia article.


 * I've pointed out several bomb-proof arguements to no avail. I'd say the strongest is the vast number of published articles that discuss WD as a separate concern from TD. They are both environmental health topics, and obviously the context of each are far different.

Calamitybrook (talk) 14:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

This reminds me of a message, lacking any telephone number, name, or any other contact information, I once found on my answering machine at work in which a friendly female voice said:

"There is a hole in your fence. Your cattle are in my yard."

My yard does not have any fences. I only own a cat. Cattle and other livestock are not even permitted in my subdivision. Paul H. (talk) 01:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk: Sodom and Gomorrah
Just a friendly warning. Editing talk pages is generally frowned upon. --Kraftlos (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

LGM?
Can you explain this ?

thanks, William M. Connolley (talk) 22:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

In the early and late 1980's North American geologist found that there were very serious, to the point of being unfixable, problmes with the Nebraskan Stage (glaciation/glacial), Aftonian Stage (interglacial), Kansan Stage (glaciation/glacial), and Yarmouth Stage (interglacial) classification system. The problems included tills, which were classified as Kansan in one area occurred below tills classified Nebraskan elsewhere; there had been 11 glaciations, not just 2 glaciations (the Kansan and Nebraskan), during this period; the volcanic ash bed, which used to correlate Kansan and Nebraskan tills turned out to three different ash beds that differed in age by hundreds of thousands of years; and so forth. Basically, the assumptions used to define these stages and correlate the tills associated with them proved to be wrong to the point that these stages lost their usefulness and meaning in terms of interpreting Quaternary history. As a result, in the late 1980s, the Nebraskan, Aftonian, Kansan, and Yarmouth stages were merged into a single Pre-Illinoian Stage, which contains 11 glaciations for North American. North American Quaternary geologists have abandoned the Nebraskan, Aftonian, Kansan, and Yarmouth stages as useless and meaningless stratigraphic terminology. Thus, the Kansan Stage is no longer either recognized as being valid or used by geomorphologists and Quaternary geologists in North America. The Kansan Stage (glaciation) is antiquated terminology that has been discredited and discarded as having any validity.

For the details, go see:


 * Aber, J.S., 2006, Regional Glaciation of Kansas and Nebraska, Emporia State University, Emporia, Kansas.
 * anonymous, 1997, Glacial Map of North-Central United States, Work Group on Geospatial Analysis of Glaciated Environments (GAGE), INQUA Commission on Glaciation, Emporia State University, Emporia, Kansas.
 * anonymous, 2000, Pre-Wisconsin Glaciation of Central North America, Work Group on Geospatial Analysis of Glaciated Environments (GAGE), INQUA Commission on Glaciation, Emporia State University, Emporia, Kansas.
 * Boellstorff, J., 1978a, A need for redefinition of North American Pleistocene stages. Transactions of the Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies. vol. 28, p. 65–74.
 * Boellstorff, J., 1978b, North American Pleistocene stages reconsidered in the light of probable Pliocene-Pleistocene continental glaciation. Science. vol. 202, pp. 305–307.
 * Hallberg, G.R., 1986, Pre-Wisconsin glacial stratigraphy of the Central Plains region in Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, and Missouri. Quaternary Science Reviews. vol. 5, pp. 11-15.
 * Richmond, G.M. and D.S. Fullerton, 1986, Summation of Quaternary glaciations in the United States of America. Quaternary Science Reviews. vol. 5, pp. 183-196.
 * Roy, M., P.U. Clark, R.W. Barendregt, J.R., Glasmann, and R.J. Enkin, 2004, Glacial stratigraphy and paleomagnetism of late Cenozoic deposits of the north-central United States, PDF version, 1.2 MB. Geological Society of America Bulletin. vol. 116, no. 1-2; pp. 30-41; DOI: 10.1130/B25325.1

Also, go see Pre-Illinoian Stage. Paul H. (talk) 19:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and you might want to look at Talk:Oligocene... no-one else is :-( William M. Connolley (talk) 22:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest?
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam); and,
 * 4) avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. --Ronz (talk) 02:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I second this concern. Insertion of links to your own work has become excessive. Before you add more, ask for an opinion at the conflict of interest noticeboard. ✤ JonHarder talk 22:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * First, given that the Quaternary geology of Louisiana is my specialty, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to add links up-to-date publications about the geology of southern Louisiana without referencing my own publications. If you will look at the publications that I have added, none of them are self-published. Before publication, as is official policy of the publisher, they have all been intensively peer-reviewed by geologists both inside and outside of the publisher.


 * They all meet the criteria for verifiability and reliability. For example, references to hard copies of the geologic maps that I provided links to all can be found in either Geologic Quadrangle Maps (1:100,000) or Open-File Geologic Quadrangle Maps (1:100,000). Hard copies of the information circulars, to which I posted links are listed at Public Information Series. The links to the PDf files of the posted publication are officially online at Maps and Public Information Series.


 * This just points up one of the great weaknesses of Wikipedia--the vast majority of editors are just armchair enthusiasts. The anonymity that is one of the "pillars" of Wikipedia is one of its Achilles heels--"anybody" can edit.  This means that the true specialists, like you and me, who have the credentials and the expertise to add true quality material are actually discouraged from adding anything.  I suspect that the editors above who "caution" you have little real interest in your subject matter, but are simply monitoring their bots that patrol Wikipedia automatically without any real human interaction.  This is not unusual.  There are a number of interesting articles out there that point out that Wikipedia has all the earmarks of an MMORPG (Massive Multiplayer Online Role Player Game).  You violate the "rules of the game" by posting content (whether high-quality, peer-reviewed or not) and those whose point-score is higher than yours feel like it is their responsibility to protect the game by reining you in.  I've dealt with the "game referees" before, so I'm a bit jaded on the possibilities of Wikipedia to be a real on-line encyclopedia.  I'm one of the world's authorities on the Central Numic languages, but I can't even write those articles because I'd be citing myself too much for Wikipedia's comfort zone (or, heaven forbid, writing my unpublished results).  (Taivo (talk) 06:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC))

Bosnian pyramids
Thanks for your contributions to the article. As you can probably guess from the note above, I'm concerned that you may have a conflict with the material. Your choice on what you want to disclose and otherwise approach the situation. If you like, it could be discussed in WP:COIN.

As for the material you added to Bosnian pyramids, I think it can stay though it should be trimmed down and given better context. It would be best to discuss this on the article talk page eventually, though we can start here if you'd like.

Again, thanks for the contributions. --Ronz (talk) 03:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have revised the paragraph about the stone balls to provide context and improve POV. The journal "Science", from which one of the citations comes, is certainly a reputable and verifiable source of published scientific information. If Mr. Osmanagić and his colleagues had any specific disagreements with the interpretations presented in the letter to Science, they were perfectly free to submit their own rebuttal to the comments and data about the stone balls published in it. In addition, the Houston Gem and Mineral Society newsletter, although a popular newsletter, is edited by people, who are knowledgeable in geology and very careful not to mislead their readers, who are also knowledgeable in geology and often archaeology, by publishing junk science.


 * Given the nature of the controversy about the "Bosnian pyramids", the people, who are most knowledgeable about them are going to also be people with very specific opinions about them. Thus, just about all of the people, who know the most about them and most able to write about them will have a strong opinion, on either side, about their validity and, thus, might be suspected of having "a conflict with the material". Similarity, the fields of avocational, professional, and alternative archaeology are very tight-knit communities where people interested in the same subject typically have some sort of personal relationships. Again, on this basis, I would judge that just about anyone commenting on the "Bosnian pyramids" might be suspected of having a "conflict with the material". It would be helpful, it you could specify the type / nature of "conflict with the material" that you are concerned about.Paul H. (talk) 14:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, being an archaeological geologist, who works frequently with the lay public, I have had, for more than a decade, an interest in the geology behind pseudofossils, pseudoartifacts, and pseudoarchaeological sites, i.e the "Phoenician Fortress and Furnace" of Oklahoma, the "Paluxy Mantracks", the "Meister Print", the Yonaguni "pyramid", the "ancient Chinese city" found at Cape Dauphin, Nova Scotia, and so forth and how to differentiated intelligent design from natural processes in the creation of objects. As a geologist, I have a natural interest in concretions, which are fascinating for the information they can provide about paleoenvironmental conditions and diagenetic processes.Paul H. (talk) 15:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for responding so quickly. Nice to have someone with your knowledge and expertise contributing here. --Ronz (talk) 16:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've started a discussion here. --Ronz (talk) 22:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Ribero-Meneses, Atlántida en el Norte de España
(Spanish): Sorry. My level of English is poor. Thank you very much for your time.

En ciencia no es prudente hacer afirmaciones tajantes, especialmente si los autores del estudio no las han hecho y, creo que este es el caso.

Detailed studies of the geology of the Le Danois Bank region have refuted the hypothesis

Viene a decir Vd. que El Cachucho está sumergido desde hace millones de años. Le ruego me indique donde escriben los autores de referencia dicha afirmación.

... totally incoherent and hapzard mishmash of URLs, quotes, and PDF files that are utterly irrelevant to how long the Le Danois Bank region has been submerged omitted for sake of space ...

You have certainly been busy using Google to find all sorts publications and quotes about the Le Danois Bank region. However, none of them, which I can find provides either any significant evidence or constraints concerning their age. In constrast, anyone, who would bother to read the publications, despite the fact they are written in English, that I cited concerning Le Danois Bank region will find that they provide clear evidence that it has submerged under water for millions of years.Paul H. (talk) 01:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

3RR Report at Robert Sarmast
I've added Profsherman's revert history to your report at. Keep your eye there for a resolution. (Taivo (talk) 17:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC))


 * User:Profsherman has been blocked for 31 hours. Check at the page to make sure I reverted to the right place (your last edit).  (Taivo (talk) 18:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC))


 * Dear Taivo, thanks for the heads up and your help.Paul H. (talk) 00:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Fluvial Landforms
Hi Paul H, I noticed you had edited Fluvial Landforms and was wondering if an gravel aquifer was a type of Fluvial Landform??? or any aquifer in fact, as they are deposited by river systems over time ?? If so i will add this to the section.--Yendor72 (talk) 03:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No, neither an gravel aquifer nor any type of aquifer are a fluvial landform. First, any number of nonfluvial processes can create gravel and other types of aquifers. Finally, an aquifer is a buried layer of rock or sediment porous enough to serve as conduit for water. Because an aquifer lies beneath the land's surface, it is not a landform. Best wishes.Paul H. (talk) 17:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Tiwanaku
Could you please consider rewriting your recent edits. Some of them appear to be cut and past from your source. I believe the rules allow a summation with the source and a link which will get the point across just as well. I'm not going to revert them myself but they are borderline copy rights and someone else may feel it is innapropiate. Thank you Zacherystaylor (talk) 18:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you be more specific? I have no idea what you are talking aboutPaul H. (talk) 22:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not a big deal since you cited a source. Perhaps I spoke to soon but there was one or two sentances cut and pasted from this cite without quote marks. Since it is so minor it may not be an issue. I wouldn't worry too much about it especially since it seems to be in line with some of the other sources I read.

After taking a closer look at the cite I noticed the work was done by Paul Harmon. Would that be you? If so copyrights isn't a problem. If you did the investigation yourself perhaps I should be asking you more about it instead of complaining since I haven't been satisfied with the information I have found about it and am curious about some of the un explained mysteries surrounding the cite and contradictory and often foolish explanations to them. Whether you are Paul Harmon or not thanks for bringing this cite to my attention I intend to look closer at it when I get the chance. BTW the links to the captains diary don't seem to be working right now. Good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 16:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I am Not Paul Harmon. Doug Weller can vouch for the veracity of this statement. In fact, I neither know him personally nor have visited Tiwanaku.Paul H. (talk) 17:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem forget the subject sorry I brought it up since it is to trivial. Good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Rainwater Basins
I added your data from Carolina Bay to Rainwater Basin.Miglewis (talk) 18:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)