User talk:Rudolf Pohl

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! - Darwinek (talk) 10:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Vote
Rudolf, You were recently contributing to articles that are in the scope of the new project WP:KRISHNA, I thought you may want to check the proposal of merger and cast your vote in relation of the additional section to article Krishna. Thanks. -- Wikidās-ॐ 14:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Bundenbach
Thank you for this edit – I used LEO for this translation, but had better cross checked it with wikipedia slate and shale! --Cyfal (talk) 07:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Paraná Basin
Thank you for your "Reworking" of English. The article is better written now. On the other hand, you included a lot of red entries in one editing. --GeoPotinga (talk) 20:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Pyrenees
Hi Rudolf, I undid an edit of yours, because it added text to a redirect page not to the actual article. DuncanHill (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Shear Zone
Hi Rudolf, thanks for restarting the shear zone article, I'd been meaning to do that for a long time. I'll try to add some inline references wherever I can. I should dig out some of my field photos and maps (if I can find where I put them). Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 19:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I have my thesis, but the pictures are all rephotographed plates from sets of originals stuck to an A2 board. The original pics are somewhere in my cellar, the only question is where? I'll check my thesis to see if any of the pictures or diagrams would be helpful at that somewhat lower resolution. If I don't start adding references (or anything else) within the week, feel free to give me nudge. Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 18:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

2011-02 geology in fr:
Hello, User:Mikenorton said that you know structural geology and french language. Are you interested in editing Expansion terrestre‎? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 22:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Ruhpolding Formation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links to Oxfordian, Slide, Formation, Dogger and Type locality

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Radiolarite (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Sedimentation rate, Newfoundland, Dissolution and Compaction

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Radiolarite
Good job with the rewrite. However, there are a couple of Harvard ref tags in the article with no reference provided in the ref section. Dunbar & Berger (1981) and (Casey et al. 1979) in the "Sedimentation" section. (Garrison & Fisher 1969) and Iljima et al. 1978 and (De Wever & Origlia-Devos 1982) in the Diagenesis section. Could you provide reference details for those - thanks, Vsmith (talk) 15:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Radiolarite, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Tethys, Scraper and Horst (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) 11:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Merlis Serpentinites (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Fault, Limousin, Uplift, Serpentine, Type locality and Deformation

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Saint-Mathieu Dome, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Fault, Lias and Autochthonous (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) 12:32, 27 January 2012 (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) 13:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

A page you started (Nontronnais) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Nontronnais.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process.

I've linked to the French and German Wikipedia articles on this topic and added a tag on the talk page.

To reply, leave a comment here and ping me.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Blythwood (talk) 20:58, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Périgord noir, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Domme ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/P%C3%A9rigord_noir check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/P%C3%A9rigord_noir?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

June 2019
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Lorence G. Collins‎, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 07:38, 22 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Dear Doug, what are you on about ??? All the research Collins has done can be consulted on his website which has been in existence for decades ! I'm merely summing up his key results, okay ? And I'm also in touch with Lorence, so he knows what I'm stating ! And if I get something wrong he'll correct me ... User:Rudolf Pohl 11:38, 22 June 2019 (UTC)


 * ... and cutting out the literature, what sort of sabotage is that I would like to know ??? I shall be putting it on again, don't you worry - till it sticks !!! User:Rudolf Pohl 11:48, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Lorence G. Collins. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Doug Weller talk 15:24, 22 June 2019 (UTC)


 * You are violating basic policy - WP:VERIFY and no original research. You need independent - secondary - sources meeting WP:RS to discuss his research, not your own analysis of it and its importance. Note that we generally avoid statements about importance, etc unless they are independently sourced. See WP:PUFFERY. I note that you seem to be saying you are going to WP:EDITWAR. That's a very bad idea, especially when you are violating policy. Doug Weller  talk 15:27, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean by unsourced ??? Just go on Collins website - and you and everybody can read his results !!! I was just drawing out the essence, the major points of his research, that's all. And I shall get the backing directly from the author if need be, he knows what I'm doing. Wiki policy or not - if you write about a painter you surely show the painting. And if I write about a researcher I shall give a summary of his/her results ... I'm not hung up about this Doug, really - if you don't like a nicely rounded out article just say so. To me it just seems a shame to be so stubborn ... what for really ??? Why such a narrowed vision ? Greetings User:Rudolf Pohl 21:05, 22 June 2019 (UTC)


 * At least you left the publications this time, thank you, great, that's a start ... I got the "results" section ready now, so if you insist (and subsequently sleep better) I shall contact Lorence G. Collins to have a read and then give his go ahead... can't do more than that ... it certainly will be sourced then, directly from God !!! User:Rudolf Pohl 21:32, 22 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Rudolf, it's a pain, but we need someone else to have summarised his results before we can use it. Is there anywhere that Collins' work has been written about in those general terms, perhaps at the time of his retirement from teaching?
 * As far as the papers are concerned, for an artist we generally only show a handful of the pictures and likewise I would expect just the most important papers (perhaps by number of citations) to be listed. Mikenorton (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2019 (UTC)


 * thanks. Yes, it may seem odd but that is just the way we work. What things about a subject do independent reliable sources think are significant? Just as we don't let the subject of an article write their article outside of a few technical things perhaps. Doug Weller  talk 20:50, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay, meanwhile I have contacted Lorence Collins and he has replied the following:

"Collins' models for the metasomatic origin of some kinds of granitic rocks are supported by two prominent geologists who are igneous petrologists − Andrew Putnis now in Australia and Arthur Sylvester in the United States, and they have included him as a co-author in publications that are regularly referenced by geologists around the world.
 * Putnis, A., Hinrichs, R., Putnis, C. V., Golla-Schindler, U., and Collins, L., G., 2007, Hematite in porous red-clouded feldspars: Evidence of large-scale crustal fluid-rock interaction, Lithos, v. 95(1), p. 10-18. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229146362_Hematite_in_porous_red-clouded_feldspars_Evidence_of_large-scale_crustal_fluid-rock_interaction
 * Sylvester, A., and Collins, L. G, 2008, K- and Si-metasomatism created K-feldspar megacrystic granite in the outer shell of the Vrådal pluton, Telemark, southern Norway [abstract], Session: MPN-03 Mineral replacement and mass transfer in hydrothermal systems: From the nanoscale to the megascale;  oral presentation at the 33rd International Geological Congress, Oslo, Norway, 6-14 August, 2008 http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/Abstract%20Vradal2.htm

Collins' articles are read in Linkedin by as much as 25 to 70 times each week by geologists from around the world, which is most unusual for this quantity of readings per week, and these geologists commonly go to this Wiki article for a summary of his research and a list of publications that apply to their particular country and local rocks. I hope that this is helpful and the Wiki Board will now allow the insertion of your Results section as well as the many publications. Your Results section is well-written. I have made some editorial suggestions, adding some punctuation, word changes, and word explanations." So the "Results" section is ready and updated now with links - waiting to be published. I am sure it will improve the article a great deal. If you still think it is biased in any way you are always free to add your changes at any point ! User:Rudolf Pohl 16:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Rudolf first apologies for misspelling your name - now fixed, I have no doubt personally that you are providing an accurate summary of the results, but we need someone who has done so in print that can then be cited. It's all about verifiability, so that anyone can check any statement made in an article. Mikenorton (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Honestly Mike, I don't get it !!!! Do you want me to write a scientific paper about the research of Lorence Collins now ???? All this seems kind of ridiculous to me ... Why are you getting so funny all of a sudden just about the results ? Your logic consequently applied and this article wouldn't exist at all ! Is that what you want ? User:Rudolf Pohl 18:25, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Far out and well done, congrats !!! Must be feeling happy now .... Is that what the encyclopedia is becoming ??? A collection of 5.8 million stubs ??? User:Rudolf Pohl 11:45, 25 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Please drop the insults (see assume good faith and read the links you've been given, not just about verifiability but also no original research. These are basic policies and are not new. They aren't optional.  Doug Weller  talk 16:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I am not insulting anybody. The article has been reverted to a stub, that is the simple reality of it !!! How would you feel if someone comes along and puts one of your articles into the wastepaper basket - and all the invested time with it ???? I am sure you would not be very charmed. User:Rudolf Pohl 18:15, 25 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I hadn't noticed that you'd created it. But see WP:OWN. I don't mean to be rude, but as you don't seem to have understood our basic policies, it's not a surprise or a sin that there were serious problems with it. Now you need to find reliable mainstream sources discussing him/his work and build it up from there. Note "discussing", not just mentions. Use the talk page. Doug Weller  talk 18:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay Doug, fine. Now the Article "Lorence G. Collins" is about science and a living scientist. So what do you do when you were to write a contribution about let's say Einstein's relativity? You get the original paper of course, (you learn German - joke), you digest it and then come up with an abstract of this theory which you present. Same here. EVERYTHING I state in the article can be found in Collins' papers and online publications, there is nothing whatsoever I have invented or made up, not a iota (this is even confirmed by the author himself). In science the standard practice is that you always write your paper with an answer and reply section at the end. So people can leave comments there, and if they completely disagree with your results/conclusions they are free to write - their own report with their own results. So that's how it works in science.

The article I wrote for Wiki has been sitting there pretty much unchanged for many, many years now. Noone ever found anything major wrong with it, otherwise they would have responded asking for a change/rectification. Why should I go via someone else's comments/mentions/discussions when I got the source, which is still alive and even corresponds with me ???? If you want to know a child's father you surely - ask the mother - as simple as that. Of course you are free to disagree with Collins - but then you have to add on another section ... and there you will have to work through secondary soures ! I have got nothing against secondary sources by the way, don't get me wrong - if you help me finding them ... Catch you later ... User:Rudolf Pohl 22:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

One last statement: Mike said: "…we don't let the subject of an article write their article outside of a few technical things perhaps." So, it seems to be apparent that Mike believed that Lorence Collins wrote the article that subsequently was deleted almost 95 percent. Collins did not write this article. I did, and I did it independent of him, although he supplied some information, corrected errors, and provided some images. Also, Doug said: "…we need someone else (meaning someone other than Collins) to have summarised his results before we can use it. Is there anywhere that Collins' work has been written about in those general terms, perhaps at the time of his retirement from teaching?"

The answer is that: Yes, there is someone else who wrote an independent summary and an evaluation of Collins research after he retired, and that is what I wrote for Wikipedia when I discovered his various papers and recognized their unusual value that the Wikipedia audience should know about. There are no other such summaries and evaluations that have ever been written independently in any other place or put into "talk sites". Therefore, I already did what follows your policy in the original document that was essentially deleted. I think the problem and misunderstanding is indicated above in that both of you thought that Collins wrote the article. User:Rudolf Pohl 16:43, 26 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Because of the huge number of academics that potentially could have articles written about them the project has developed notability guidelines - see Notability (academics). Now that I've looked through Collins's publications I am not clear that he does meet those guidelines - very few other papers or books seem to mention his work. I see that the article has been nominated for deletion and I'm not sure that it will be kept for that reason. Mikenorton (talk) 17:06, 26 June 2019 (UTC)


 * If you would like to preserve an intact wikisource backup of an article (it may work with minor modifications on a wiki with less strict requirements), an easy way to do it is using  replacing spaces in the title by underscores and specifying the revision for oid.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 17:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Lorence G. Collins


The article Lorence G. Collins has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG"

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. &#x222F; WBG converse 16:22, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Our verification and no original research policies
WP:VERIFY states that "Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations. Your analysis doesn't quallify.

no original research says "does not publish original thought. All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves.}}

"Outside of Wikipedia, original research is a key part of scholarly work. However, Wikipedia editors must not base their contributions on their own original research. Wikipedia editors must base their contributions on reliable, published sources.

Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are to the topic of the article, and  the material being presented."

Obviously both those links expand considerably upon what I've posted above. The fact that no one has noticed the problems with the article is irrelevant. Doug Weller talk 19:02, 26 June 2019 (UTC)


 * So after all this destructive scything going on, what about some constructive energy ??? How do you want to proceed ? Discard the article altogether, keep it merely as a stub, or have a rewrite ? Obviously you guys are neither geologists or petrologists, otherwise you would be aware that Lorence Collins is quite a key figure in the ongoing debate about granitoid genesis - just by the way .... But that is probably beyond your scope.

User:Rudolf Pohl 16:23, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


 * No-one is trying to run down Lorence Collins's work. He just doesn't seem to meet the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia and very few geologists do. His publications are only referred to in a few other papers and those are mainly ones written by him. I may be missing something here but I'm not seeing evidence of him being a "key figure" or surely other geologists would be referring to his work a lot more than they do. For what it's worth I am a geologist and I looked at lots of myrmekite in the time when I worked on deformed granitoids. Mikenorton (talk) 15:51, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Aha, good Mike. Didn't know you are actually a geologist ... So what were your conclusions about myrmekite then ??? Symplectites or more to it ??? User:Rudolf Pohl 17:05, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 5
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Appinite, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fault.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 12
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Appinite, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Trias and Sardasht.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)