User talk:Chris.urs-o

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Your place or mine ...?

I generally prefer unbroken discussions. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it here — my talk page — as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. Similarly, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there.

At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.

Thank you!

Welcome[edit]

Hello, Chris.urs-o! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Button sig.png or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! DuncanHill (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines

The community

Writing articles
Miscellaneous

Mineral identification[edit]

Hi. The streak of the mineral I discussed is most likely white, and any cleavage may be thin and roughly rhombus-shaped, and I have replied to the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/January 2011 post. Any idea what it might be? I am unable to do further testing at this time. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 02:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

IRC invitation[edit]

Because I have noticed you commenting at the current RfC regarding Pending Changes, I wanted to invite you to the IRC channel for pending changes. If you are not customarily logged into the IRC, use this link. This under used resource can allow real time discussion at this particularly timely venture of the trial known as Pending Changes. Even if nothing can come from debating points there, at least this invitation is delivered with the best of intentions and good faith expectations. Kind regards. My76Strat 08:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Thx, can be everywhere, I'm not Hercules yet ;D I'll have a look later on ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 11:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Reviewer permission[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Volcano metapage[edit]

I'm trying to, posibly, put togethor a template to organize that confused mess that volcano info is. I've made a draft in my sandbox. Feel free to add anything or edit it as appropriate (read: fix it up and we can use it as a scaffold). ResMar 05:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems ok for me Resident Mario, no new ideas from me, yet. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 11:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

2011-03 Wilson 1966[edit]

Hello. In Timeline of the development of tectonophysics#CITEREFWilson1966 ("Did the Atlantic close and then re-open?") http://www.geology.cwu.edu/facstaff/huerta/g501/pdf/Wilson1966.pdf is a dead link. Do you know some copy of the article? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

No, sorry :( --Chris.urs-o (talk) 02:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, I'll deal with that. Another question, if it doesn't bother you: In your opinion, when the scientific consensus said that Plate tectonics theory (or successor) was true? late 1960s? mid 1970? sooner? later? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I got the impression that or Nature and Science doesn't want their articles online or the universities don't want a high load from the www. The US evolution is different from the alpine one. The alpine (a very recent collision orogeny) one has Marcel Alexandre Bertrand, Hans Schardt, Alfred Wegener, Otto Ampferer, Émile Argand, Augusto Gansser-Biaggi (Ammonites in the Indus-Yarlung-Zangpo suture zone), R. Schwinner, Alfred Rittmann. The US one (US East coast is an old crust) has Wadati-Benioff zone, 1951 Subduction, 1953 Great Global Rift with the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, Dec.1960 Harry Hammond Hess, 1962 Stanley Keith Runcorn. But the closure was Ninkovich et al. 1966 ("Paleomagnetic stratigraphy, rates of deposition and tephrachronology in North Pacific deep-sea sediments"), Vine 1966 ("Spreading of the Ocean Floor: New Evidence"), Wilson 1968 ("A Revolution in Earth Science"). Thrust faults need thrust. A. Rittmann and H. Hess knew Felix A. Vening-Meinesz team's research on gravity anomalies. Subduction, gravity anomalies and thrust faults imply on plate movements on a large scale. Mid-atlantic Ridge is too much of a coincidence and doesn't confirm land bridges. The evolution was "no crust movements on a large scale, 'coz there is no mechanism"; then "no crust movements on a large scale, but we aren't so sure"; and then "there are crust movements on a large scale, but there is no mechanism, only speculations". --Chris.urs-o (talk) 21:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Chris. Thought I might comment that "scientific consensus" is seldom something that can be given a specific date. (There are exceptions.) It is a matter of evidence and interpretations of evidence accumulating, and at some point the proponents are more persuasive than the opponents. For plate tectonics this process played out through out the sixties, though I know of one comment about the "currently popular" theory of plate tectonics as late as 1976. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I think the top professors of the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics and the International Association of Volcanology and Chemistry of the Earth's Interior accepted it as a fact at the end of the 70s, and they lead the peer-reviewing process... --Chris.urs-o (talk) 22:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
  I think those professors "lead" only in that they may be more prominent, and presumably more authoritative. But be careful to not give the incorrect impression that they take a vote or something, and that decides the issue. Publishers often invite known authorities (professors or otherwise) to write review articles that summarize the current understanding of some topic, But it is the general acceptance (and citation) by peers that eventually determines what is accepted. Which often takes a while to play out. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
The head of these scientific organizations and the editors of scientific peer reviewed papers work quite close Johnson. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 11:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

CH[edit]

Thanks Chris for the hint about wikipedians in CH. If I'm at home, I'll attend the meeting of the suisse romand in Nyon on Aug 20th. Maxwyss (talk) 11:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)MaxWyss

U are welcome. Another hint, don't tell what u are as u did on talk:earthquake prediction. We are all quite "anonymous" here, anybody is able to write what u did. Show ur expertise instead, list the major problems of the article. I'm glad to help u to sort these things out. The article is on my watchlist now. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 11:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Another thing, if u don't mind it too. Could u check section: User_talk:Chris.urs-o#2011-03_Wilson_1966 and my Timeline of the development of tectonophysics, when u have some available time. My question is did France, Belgium, Netherlands, Switzerland, Austria, the head of the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics and the International Association of Volcanology and Chemistry of the Earth's Interior accept the Plate tectonics much more than USA before 1966 (Vine, F. J. (16 December 1966). "Spreading of the Ocean Floor: New Evidence". Science) ? I feel they accepted the African plate thrusting the Alpine orogeny for instance, but I can be wrong. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 11:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

sorry for my retardness[edit]

The comment was made by a different user which made it hard to tell. Sorry! Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) (Shout!) 20:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok :[ --Chris.urs-o (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Physical cosmology[edit]

Dear Chris, Sir/Mrs Vsmith made an accusation of spam and deleted a serious scientific information under this ad hoc accusation. I understand this is not spam, this is an attempt to share a knowledge shared within a serious network, Nature Connotea. Why this behaviour, blocking the page under a such agressive accusation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.162.246.170 (talk) 14:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

It's only a block for anonymous IP edits. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 14:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
You may perform a DNS reversal. My IP is not anonymous. May you revert Sir/Mrs Vsmith edition, since there is nothing wrong with that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.162.246.170 (talk) 14:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
You said it's only a block for anonymous IP edit. But this was not the reason stated by Sir/Mrs Vsmith. I was accused of persistent spam. When did I put the information before, to be persistent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.162.246.170 (talk) 14:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
2011: 27 edits (13 minor edits), of which 6 were reverted; this gives 15/12 constructive/waste of time edits in 2011. Semi-protection expires 12:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC). You didn't logged in, you aren't an autoconfirmed user. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 14:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank You for your information. But I was accused. Furthermore, my edit was totally constructive. This is not a fair and correct behaviour, since I did not violate any Wikipedia policy. 150.162.246.170 (talk) 15:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

symmetries[edit]

Hi Chris.urs-o!

I put an answer on Vsmith's talk page. I am a solid state chemist and not a geologist and I am much more used to thinking in terms of space groups as descriptors of solid phases than the H-M point group/crystal classes. Imho point groups should be used to describe things like local symmetries like atoms or so, not for materials that have lots of translation symmetry. Of course that presupposes that the structure be known... Otherwise we can not always give the right space group. In that case giving the crystal class or the unit cell is all we can do. For known structures however I think the space group should be given. Jcwf (talk) 00:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Thx. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 14:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

IUPAC on mineral list[edit]

I've modified the IUPAC listings on List of minerals P-R (complete) (P and Q so far) to remove the numbering break as we don't need each IUPAC name preceded by a 1 - by using a <br/> and removing the newline for each. Put 'em in parens too. Ok? Vsmith (talk) 14:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

%#@! It wasn't nice to have an edit conflict, but I try to be a nice guy. As u wish my Lord ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 14:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry 'bout that (the edit conflict :), all those number 1s jest bothered my sensibilities... Should the IUPAC names with wikiarticles be linked? Vsmith (talk) 15:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Don't know, really. When the chemical formula is simple, the IUPAC name tells a lot by itself, that's why I'm adding it. Many minerals names are already redirected to the inorganic substance, the mineral article links it anyway to the inorganic substance and only a few inorganic compounds have an article. I think no, with exceptions to the rule. I see the list as a tool, which minerals were known before 1800, do the 150 more important minerals have an article, and so on ... Note: the names are based on the empirical formulas, some hydroxyls are actually acids that aren't fully neutralised. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassador for geology class[edit]

Hi Chris! Thanks for your interest in becoming in joining the ambassador program. The next step to officially apply to become an Online Ambassador, and then you can sign on to support that geology class. Let me know if you have any questions. --Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 15:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Hawaii hotspot[edit]

I'm going to try and restart this old project, and your comments would be highly appreciated. Thanks =), ResMar 02:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello ResMar, nice to hear from you. I'm sorting Commons:Category:Uncategorized NOAA images, with some Commons:Category:Seamounts ;) But Commons:Category:West Mata got duplicates :/ Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 05:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Maybe, it isn't so good when you try again that you already tried. Is nothing here (Seamounts of the Pacific Ocean) for you? Or here (National Marine Sanctuaries)? There are prophecies that expect men to be able to trigger a rupture in the San Andreas fault and in the New Madrid Seismic Zone, this could be risky for Yellowstone hotspot magma chamber and the Great Lakes too, respectively. Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you just said, but this piqued my interest. ResMar 23:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok ;) and there is a Commons:Category:Black smokers too ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 11:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to see if I can't write an article for all those with images which don't have one yet. ResMar 14:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
What do u want to be? Journalist, scientific writer, bestseller author? =) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 16:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
You might overvalue the Hawaii hotspot. I better tell you that time is ending a cycle and beginning a new one. San Andreas fault (1906 + 101= around 2007); The Senator (tree) (16 January, 2012; 3,400-3,600 years old); Maya calendar, completion of 13 B'ak'tuns or roughly 5,125 years (21 December 2012); rumours tell that White Star Line wanted to make news (a too fast RMS Titanic struck an iceberg, 15 April 1912), rumours tell that Carnival Corporation & plc wanted to make news too (a too fast Costa Concordia struck the Isole le Scole, Scola piccola, 13 January 2012). --Chris.urs-o (talk) 12:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Siberian Traps[edit]

Chris.urs-o, why do you keep taking Siberian traps off the tasks list? RockMagnetist (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Because Siberian Traps got coord now, Boss (",) I think that the task is done --Chris.urs-o (talk) 15:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
So they do! I was fooled because the tag was still there. If you don't mind, I'd like to put Siberian Traps back in with a check mark, so people can see that work is getting done. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Coord is something minor, embarassing even ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Maybe so. I'll leave it as it is, then. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Probably better, I don't like the place cluttered (",) I got fooled too, I didn't find a tag --Chris.urs-o (talk) 16:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

WP Geology in the Signpost[edit]

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Geology for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Tabebuia/(Roseodendron)[edit]

In this edit you changed an image caption from Tabebuia donnell-smithii to Roseodendron donnell-smithii. That image is identified (at this site) as Tabebuia donnell-smithii by the photographers, Forrest and Kim Starr, who work as biologists in Hawaii. I am inclined to accept their designation as authoritative. Could you explain your basis for changing the species name? -- Donald Albury 00:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Based on "The Plant List" (Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew and Missouri Botanical Garden)
Tabebuia donnell-smithii Rose is a synonym of Roseodendron donnell-smithii (Rose) Miranda [1]
Bignoniaceae got revised, see Commons:Handroanthus, Tabebuia, Tecoma and Roseodendron
  • Susan O. Grose und Richard G. Olmstead: Taxonomic Revisions in the Polyphyletic Genus Tabebuia s. l. (Bignoniaceae). In: Systematic Botany, Band 32, Heft 3, 2007. S. 660–670.
  • Olmstead, R. G., Zjhra, M. L., Lohmann, L. G., Grose, S. O. & Eckert, A. J. 2009. A molecular phylogeny and classification of Bignoniaceae. "American Journal of Botany" 96 (9):1731-1743.
  • Pace, M. R., Lohmann, L. G. & Angyalossy, V. 2009. "The rise and evolution of the cambial variant in Bignonieae (Bignoniaceae)." Evolution & Development 11(5): 465-479.
  • Pace, M. R., Lohmann, L. G. & Angyalossy, V. 2011. "Evolution of disparity between the regular and variant phloem in Bignonieae (Bignoniaceae)." American Journal of Botany 98(4): 602-618.
Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 04:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. Now, should that image stay in an article about Tabebuia? -- Donald Albury 12:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Historically yeah. Bignoniaceae needs probably a major revision, this is a nut-shell. I began too many projects already :[ Let's wait and see for a while ;) Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 12:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I understand. Fixing something in one article leads to fixing a couple of other articles, which in turn ... -- Donald Albury 00:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Tropical Families and tropical genera, I thank you your collaboration.[edit]

Hi, I thank you your help in tropical flora. I hope your help again in the future. Best regards Curritocurrito (talk) 09:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Thx, I don't think that I did a lot. Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 10:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Explorer Ridge[edit]

I just removed the Commons Explorer Ridge category on two photos (File:Expl2366 - Flickr - NOAA Photo Library.jpg and File:Tubeworm community) that you added in January. Be aware that the Juan de Fuca Ridge and the Explorer Ridge are not the same thing. They are separated by the Nootka Fault between the Explorer and Juan de Fuca plates. Volcanoguy 15:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 16:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Silicate perovskite[edit]

Hi Chris, I recently started Silicate perovskite as a companion to Ferropericlase, but I'm not sure whether it has a place in the List of Minerals - what do you think? Mikenorton (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I don't really know. I never edited at list of minerals, only the IMA recognized species at list of minerals (complete). As I understand, these minerals don't exist on Earth, "only" in the lower mantle. The mineral groups on list of minerals are IMA/ Mindat.org recognized groups. Doesn't seem the right place to be. My two cents. Any ideas? Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 16:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, and understood - I thought you were likely involved in all the lists of minerals. You're right of course, they only exist 'in Earth' :). The List of Minerals is more of a bucket so I think that it deserves its place there, being the Earth's most abundant mineral (or at least its magnesium form). Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Pepper and plate tectonics[edit]

Hi Chris. Just saw your edits in the plate tectonics section of the List of important publications in geology. I had no idea of the book by Pepper, so I thought I'd read up. But now I'm not sure it is appropriate for the list. Sure enough, it does predate the Wegener, but I also found this by Bullard (who should know): http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.ea.03.050175.000245 (I hope you can get that).

Bullard points out that 1. this was a children's book, 2. it was recycling Snyder's ideas, and wasn't original, and 3. wasn't actually trying to advance a theory of continental drift, just noting the closeness of the fit of the coastlines. I'm not sure this should be on the list, but wanted to get your thoughts before just taking it out again. The Snyder is apparently a crackpot book (according to Bullard) as well, not trying to actually advance a cogent plate tectonic theory, so I don't think we should sub that in either. My money remains on the Wegener. This would be interesting info to put into Timeline of the development of tectonophysics, though.

Thanks! I'd like to hear your thoughts! DanHobley (talk) 18:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi DanHobley. Pepper is listed already on the timeline of the development of tectonophysics ;) Snyder is useless, only its map is a breakthrough. Pepper didn't influence scientific opinion, one reason might be that Lyell was busy updating its book after Darwin (Krill 2007, 2011). Pepper wanted the readers mentally flexible, so he cites alternative point of views. Krill's intro says Pepper's idea is continental drifting (Fixists vs. Mobilists in the Geology Contest of the Century, 1844-1969; intro only). He (and Evan Hopkins) were the first, so it should be cited. He had the overview, he was brave enough to be fair to an unorthodox view, so it doesn't matter that it isn't a geology textbook. Thx for the nice paper, Bullard didn't know Alfred Rittmann (1951), a paper in french. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
The book helps to understand the origin of coal and lignite on Jameson Land, Banks’ Land, and Melville Island, Albert I Land, Nova Scotia and British Isles. It's the origin of an idea, an idea always grows if it's true, regardless that it isn't main stream. Pepper was an autodidact on geology, with some tutoring by Evan Hopkins. Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you[edit]

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
For your efforts at formatting and completing the entries at the many pages of List of minerals (complete), I award you this barnstar. I hope it's not too much of a bottomless pit. Chris857 (talk) 03:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Thx Chris857, very kind of you. Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 03:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Around 5,000 minerals isn't a bottomless pit, but near. If I do c. 200/ week, I might finish the review. List of minerals named after people needs a review too, Wikipedia/ Wikimedia like any household/ library in use, is a bottomless pit! Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 12:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks very much for your kind comment on the Levee talk page EdwardLane (talk) 18:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 18:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Minerals[edit]

Sorry for taking long to reply. In regards to your question, the quote from the book is as follows:

(...) choosing the minerals to be included in a field guide poses certain problems. Almost all experts will agree on the first 150 or so species, but beyond that point the choice becomes extermely personal. Some species are very beautiful but also very rare. Others are more widespread, but are not often collected because they rarely make attractive speciments. (...)

The book describes 232 mineral species. I'm not keen on transcribing the full list out, but I can say that most of them are the common rock-forming minerals, or the ones that are less common but popular among collectors. For examples, about 20 minerals of the 232 are inosilicates, of which a bit over half are common (think augite, hornblende, etc.), and the remainder are pretty or have interesting chemistry. Then there are cases like crocoite, which is only there because of its bright red colour.

Hope this helps. Maxim(talk) 19:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Thx. Does the book has a page index? Can you scan? Would you scan the page index? --Chris.urs-o (talk) 02:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
There is an index, but it mixes a bunch of rocks, mineral species, varietes, and alternate names. Again, I'm not keen on on scanning, as it would take longer than manual transcription. Other lists of important minerals can surely be found on the web. Maxim(talk) 11:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Ohh, "I'm not keen on on scanning, as it would take longer than manual transcription". How come? I'd transcribe it from JPEG images. True, I found some on the net. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 16:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm working on it User:Chris.urs-o/Sandbox.009#Important minerals --Chris.urs-o (talk) 19:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Infobox mineral[edit]

Was this supposed to be a sandbox edit as the edit summary said? I've undone it for now. Vsmith (talk) 21:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have discussed it on the talk page. No, the edit summary was meant as transfer from sandbox.
Chemical formula and molecular weight imply on a molecule. I don't like this assumption for polymers, it's misleading. Chemical formula of the repeating unit and molecular weight of the repeating unit, or chemical formula (polymer) and molecular weight (polymer) might be better. Tectosilicates, phyllosilicates, inosilicates, silica family, phyllo-hexaborates, ino-diborates, tectodiborates, phyllo-aluminofluorides, ino-aluminofluorides, tecto-aluminofluorides, alloys, might be examples of polymers. I think the infobox's label should be changed.
Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 04:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Seems I was editing Spherocobaltite and something was amiss. The unit cell (or was it symmetry?) field wouldn't show up when I viewed my edits. so I took a look and noted your edit and figured maybe it wasn't ready to go live :).
Guess I'm a bit confused about your "formulab" bit. To me the formula is not a molecular formula as very few minerals are molecular, but rather an empirical formula (smallest ratio of elements) of the compound. To me the molecular mass or molar mass is rather irrelevant for minerals given the common substitution involved. If used should simply be Formula mass. I never use that field as it seems useless. Vsmith (talk) 14:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
PS... how come this page has no section edit tags? Vsmith (talk) 14:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
No idea. I thought that it was a new Wikimedia version, but your talk page still has edit tags :[ --Chris.urs-o (talk) 16:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I fiddled a bit and removed the signpost link and portal thingy and the section links re-appeared. Vsmith (talk) 17:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Thx. You seem to like scripts (",) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 17:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Formula mass, and Chemical formula
(repeating unit)
sounds better. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 17:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
formula mass seems to be more standard in chem texts as the mass of one formula unit (altho it redirects to molecular mass on good ol' WP), repeating unit tho I know what it means it seems odd - how many users would know what it means? Vsmith (talk) 17:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Seems most minerals are either ionic salts or covalent network solids in which repeating units or formula units works, but it seems most are hung up on molecule/molecular which are irrelevant in mineral chem. Vsmith (talk) 18:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Formula mass is acceptable for me, molecular weight for ionic crystals is a no go. I changed that. [[Chemical formula]] <br/>(repeating units) would be positive. I didn't realise that molecule/molecular is irrelevant in mineral chemistry with ionic crystals. I just didn't think it to end. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Meteorite minerals[edit]

Hello Chris,

Many thanks for your help with my request at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rocks_and_minerals#Category:Meteorite_minerals.

Two questions:

  1. Can you suggest any specific minerals from Commons:Category:Minerals with non-Earth type localities that should also be in Category:Meteorite minerals or (perhaps easier) Cat them yourself? I'd be happy to do it but it's really not my specialism.
  2. Is there a need for a new(?) Infobox for minerals like Antitaenite or Plessite which do not warant the standard box? I'm thinking something very simple which explains why they don't fit the IMA scheme. Although you wrote a summary at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rocks_and_minerals#Category:Meteorite_minerals there's nothing in the articles themselves to explain this; plus I have this weird idea that there should be an Infobox on (almost) every article.

Thanks again.

-Arb. (talk) 11:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. First point: you could check on Mindat.org if one of the minerals shows of on many locations. Second point: IMA rejected mineral species and mixture of minerals don't need an infobox mineral. Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 15:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
That's a grand fix to Antitaenite; your wording is spot on. Following up your above, for my further education would you explain briefly why IMA rejected ... minerals don't need an infobox or point me at an explanation. Thanks. -Arb. (talk) 22:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Don't know the details of the IMA decision on this particular case, but there is no "rule" stating that IMA approval is required for a wiki infobox to be used. There are examples of previously valid minerals with infoboxes here that IMA has "abandoned" for various reasons. Anyway, a perhaps abbreviated infobox could be added to antitaenite based on available data with a note re: IMA rejection. Additionaly, it seems we need a ref for that non-approval. Mindat just says "rejected". Vsmith (talk) 01:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
After a bit more thinking, seems we do need some details of that IMA decision for the article. If it is a mixture of two phases, then we can't really refer to it as a "mineral". Vsmith (talk) 01:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
@Vsmith, we both know that the IMA does mistakes. But if the IMA doesn't approve antitaenite and there is an article on antitaenite on Wikipedia, then we're asking for trouble. It was rejected on a peer review, it might be not notable enough. Addicionally, sources of non approved mineral species are scarce.
Antitaenite, a variety of paramagnetic taenite. An infobox mineral is possible for a variety. Ref.: Mössbauer Spectroscopy of Meteoritic and Synthetic Fe-Ni Alloys (2004), University dissertation from Uppsala, Yassir Ahmed Mohamed Abdu.
A rock or a mixture of minerals doesn't need an infobox mineral because it isn't a mineral species. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 03:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
That makes sense. And for a rock there is always {{Infobox rock}}. -Arb. (talk) 11:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
@Arb. The problem with articles on mineral mixtures or doubtful/ questionable minerals is that you have less references available. The article might end merged or deleted. Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 11:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Karl Hugo Strunz[edit]

Thank you for you help, and wow that was fast :) --Tobias1984 (talk) 12:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thx you too ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 12:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Did you know nominations/Karl Hugo Strunz, thx ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 18:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
My pleasure! Do you think we can still come up with an image of Strunz for Commons? --Tobias1984 (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
As even de.wikipedia.org doesn't have an image, it's difficult. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I wrote a friendly letter to the TU Berlin. Maybe they can help us out. --Tobias1984 (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Let's hope, the article is on de.wikipedia.org since 17 April 2006 without an image :[ --Chris.urs-o (talk) 09:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

SG[edit]

Just a note, specific gravity is unitless as a ratio of densities. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Oops, I learnt that density is unitless and specific gravity isn't. Ok, thx --Chris.urs-o (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that decimal point on combeite, SG of 2844 - must've been neutron star stuff :) Vsmith (talk) 02:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

YW. I had to intervene, it was too high :o) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 04:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Ixiolite papers[edit]

In case you don't have them:

-cheers :) --Tobias1984 (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Thx :) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 20:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Hi, you helped me with some geology articles. They led to a Chinese geology company, and another topic company associated with editors of those articles. I added a Controversy section edit with reliable sources, but my edit was reverted[2]. It was replaced with WP:OR stuff without reliable sources. Could you check my sources and restore my edit if I did not make a mistake? I am asking another editor who also helped me before. Thanks. KatieBoundary (talk) 15:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

KatieBoundary please take care. Earth Sciences is a nice place to be, as there are less controversies around. You are a newbie, WP:AfD is really a dangerous place for newbies. I'll have a look, but I'm not an expert. AfDs and WP:CfDs cost you a lot of nerves. So really, again, this is not a place a newbie should be. Complicated things like that tend to end up at WP:ANI or even at WP:Arbcom. Cool down, have a good look how User:Spartaz, User:Vsmith and sysops at AN/I work. Dramas wear you down. Have a look at simpler things at the beginning, please. Cool down. See how WP works at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost. Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 19:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Cool down, chill out, calm down... Professional hoaxes are very difficult to prove. Let's make a step by step, week by week approach... --Chris.urs-o (talk) 11:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
LOL. This one does not seem so hard to prove. But who cares, as apparently a whole string of other editors also concluded on that article. It seems like we have WP:N to create an article, and WP:V and WP:RS to add and delete content, so why is there so much debate over whether or not to follow our own policies? They seem both simple and good. KatieBoundary (talk) 00:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Things aren't so simple. We have conflicts in the world and Wikipedia is one of their noticeboards: Tibet versus China, Taiwan versus China, Israel versus Palestine, Turkey versus Kurds, Turkey versus Armenians, Republic of Cyprus versus Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, Anno Domini versus Common Era, mankind versus merciless humans and so on. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 03:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
WP:B, WP:V and WP:RS seem pretty simple. If there are no verifiable and reliable third party sources, why are editors arguing to keep massive articles built entirely without citing a single verifiable or reliable source? I am having problems keeping my AGF at those articles, and when I insisted on having at least one verifiable reliable source, I was called "tendentious" and a bunch of editors opened an admin discussion on me where others jumped on me because WP:V should not be strictly enforced like I did. KatieBoundary (talk) 12:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Yup, WP:AGF is a problem. This is a real world. It is difficult to prove bad intentions. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 12:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Ashio and Sado[edit]

Thanks for working on the Ashio mine and Sado mine articles. I am not an expert on mines and appreciate the expertise. I responded on the talk pages of both in case you want to continue the discussion. Michitaro (talk) 05:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

There are maps, non free.[3][4] --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

What's your opinion[edit]

I'm interested in improving the style guide for wiki project mining. I left a suggestion on the talk page Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mining#An_addition_to_the_style_guide. I was wondering what you thought about it. thanks. John Mortimore Message Me 23:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

List of minerals[edit]

Hello, I see you have been playing with the articles named "list of minerals" :-). I have made the {{List of minerals}} which contains the introduction to the articles. I have put it on the first few articles, and I intend to put it on the rest, if you (and others) like the idea. Christian75 (talk) 23:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems good to me ;) P–Q • U–V • W–X • Y–Z could be left as they are. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
The idea was that:
  • I need smaller sections for maintenance
  • Expanding the mineral homologous series with Nickel-Strunz 9 ed didn't really increase the number of valid minerals
--Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I see you have added the template to the single letter articles :-) I changed the template so it works with the two-letters too. Christian75 (talk) 12:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Ok ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 16:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Gerta Keller[edit]

Hello, This paper could insterrest you, I think.
Blair Schoene, Kyle M. Samperton, Michael P. Eddy, Gerta Keller, Thierry Adatte, Samuel A. Bowring, Syed F. R. Khadri & Brian Gertsch (2014) U-Pb geochronology of the Deccan Traps and relation to the end-Cretaceous mass extinction ; Revue Science ; en ligne le 11 Décembre 2014 (abstract)
A french wikipedian : --Lamiot (talk) 23:44, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Thx. Do you have the full paper ? --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)