User talk:Zimbres

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! --Bhadani 15:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Litchfieldite
Hey there, Zimbres. I noticed you added Litchfieldite to the list of rocks. We are trying to keep the list, especially for igneous rocks, to modern nomenclature, for instance the IUGS standard. Look for a good site on this attached to the Lamprophyre page in the "see also" section. To me, Litchfieldite is not a true rock type, but a name derived from a type locality. It is also not really a true igneous rock type, because all the examples are metamorphosed nepheline syenites.

It would, to my mind, be better to move Litchfieldite into the main article on nepheline syenites, unless there is some particular petrogenetic difference bwetween the two (aside from metamorphism, which at this time, seems the only distinguishing feature between nepheline syenite and litchfieldite).

I also note that a lot of the example localities are brazilian, and so are you, which is good; we always need more rocks and regions described. However, you could probably move the individual occurrences to their own pages, or (preferrably) under an umbrella page of the South American alkaline province or similar. Try to keep type examples out of the page which describes the rock.

Thanks for your input, Rolinator 09:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Hi, Rolinator, thanks for your suggestions. I've note that my English was also corrected and I would thanks the good soul who made that. For these days I'll be buzy but soon as possible I`ll work on this article in the way you proposed. About the classification of litchfieldites as "igneous rocks" I desagree, because for me and for a lot of brazilian researchers, the metamorphism has impressed some characteristics that is unique to these rocks, as, for exemple,the subsolvus paragenesis of pure albite and microcline; and so on. Anyway, I think it is a matter for controversy and I would like to reach a point of convergency with you and others non brazilian geologist, about the best way to put these facts in an ecyclopedic space. Think lietchfieldite as an orthogneiss, like some granitic ones.

I think Wikipedia is a grateful challenge for us to speak beyond the academic circle.

Zimbres 12:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Earth cutaway
By all means fix this image! I'll send the files if you work in Adobe Illustrator.

A tag has been placed on Uvite, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. 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.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template   to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Nick—Contact/Contribs 03:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Point Loma geology
Hello, and thank you for your interest in Point Loma! I'm sure you are much more expert than I am about the rocks of Point Loma. You have corrected me about the age of the Cabrillo Formation.

I based my information on several published references from local geologists. For example   They say that "Point Loma peninsula is also capped for much of its length by one of the same mid-Pleistocene terraces you see on the mesas directly east across the bay. Only in the steep cliffs of Pt. Loma, especially at its southern tip, can you see a thick section of late Cretaceous (about 75 Ma) conglomerates and mudstones beneath the terrace deposits."

Looking closer I find that the description from the city of San Diego - - describes the Cabrillo Formation as 70 million years old, which would put it in the same age range as the Point Loma Formation. However, say the Cabrillo Formation "crops out" in various places in Point Loma - in other words, it is not the surface rock here.

So I think there must be three types of rock here: the Point Loma Formation along the sea cliffs, which is late Cretaceous; the Cabrillo Formation overlying it, also late Cretaceous; and the overlying, much younger rocks (0.5 to 1.0 million years old), described in the article by Monte Marshall, forming the surface of Point Loma. whose name I don't know.

That interpretation is supported by the item from the San Diego State geology department, which says "throughout the mapped area, the Cabrillo Formation conformably overlies the Point Loma Formation. The formation is 81 m thick at its type locality, where it is unconformably overlain by Pleistocene deposits."

I will rewrite the section to show this new information. Please let me know if you think it is correct now, and thanks for your interest - and especially for the photo!

--MelanieN (talk) 00:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)MelanieN

Pedra da Gávea
I was wondering if you could do me a quick favor. I've been working on Pedra da Gávea on and off for about a year now, and I've been focusing on the pseudo-archaeology aspect of the article mostly. However, I've started to expand on the geology part and to be honest, I don't know as much about geology as I do anthropology. I was wondering if you could do a super-quick unofficial look-over/peer review to make sure I'm not writing anything egregious (I already got into some hot water awhile back for making a dumb mistake regrading Neoproterozoic and Meso-Neoproterozoic rocks). Thanks!-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   05:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)