User talk:Woudloper

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:Woodwalker)
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is part of WOODWALKERS user space.
Nuvola filesystems folder home.png Replacement filing cabinet.svg Nuvola apps kpdf.png Nuvola apps knotes.png Gtk-ok.svg Nuvola apps bookcase.png
Home Archive NW Europe geology Alps geology Done Book shelf

Thought I'd pick on you![edit]

Long time no talk!

Finally made some time and so a got in a trip to the library to read up again on geology, which raised a question (beyond many others) with respect to tectonics... to whit: Does current thinking still believe that continental plates are different than ocean basin plates, iirc Granite versus Basalt (bur my source is 1983, so to be questioned!) More to the point, this edit as I closed it, got me to thinking about relative densities... Just how does basalt change volumetrically from magma to lava to solidification? Just what would account for episodic floodings, and erosive exposurings in a region and so forth.

Ice is supposed to be unusual in that it expands on freezing... what does Basalt do? Is there believed to be a thick layer of even denser rocks in the upper mantle, accounting for the inland bending up/uplifts credited to and of subducting oceanic plates (accounting for the Rockies, and I presume the Alps) in the escalator models of sea floor spreading. I'm referring to the models which show ocean basin plates sliding under continental plates and moving the continents along. // FrankB 16:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Frank, I hope I can give you some answers. Sure, the Earth's crust (better is: lithosphere, that includes the stiff part of the mantle that sticks underneath the crust) can be divided in continental, oceanic and intermediate crust/lithosphere (see this article, or this). The continental crust is lighter and floats better on the (plastically flowing, weak) asthenosphere. A bit confusing here is: there are two subdivisions of the Earth's layering: crust/mantle (has to do with the chemistry) and litho-/asthenosphere (had to do with stiffness).
Since the mantle can flow, differences in density are wiped out fast and, as far as I know, there are no large lateral density contrasts within the mantle or core of the Earth. When a tectonic plate subducts into the mantle, is is compressed and becomes denser itself. By chemical reactions (metamorphism) in the rock, oceanic slabs can get so dense that they can sink al the way to the mantle-core boundary.
Mountain building (orogeny) is caused by plate tectonics. Subducting oceanic crust can drag a continent along to a subduction zone beneath another continent. Mountains form when the two pieces of continental lithosphere collide. Since continental lithosphere is light, it doesn't want to subduct beneath other continental lithosphere and the whole lithosphere/crust thickens instead. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "inland bending up"?
Basalt is a composite of many chemical components. Deep in the crust it can have all types of volatiles (fluids, gasses) dissolved in it due to the high pressure. But when it rises, these gasses and liquids "exsolve" from the mixture and the volume increases dramatically (that is what can make volcanism explosive). This is even more so with granitic or granodioritic magma than with basalt. When lava (basaltic or other compositions) solidifies to rock it becomes denser (unlike ice). When solid basalt cools, it shrinks a little, causing joints to form in the rock (see for example: columnar jointing, typical for basalt).
Best regards, Woodwalker (talk) 10:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer(s) above!
Interesting "just found out"... Continent building doesn't seem to be mentioned here (or plate tectonics)! Ahem. Check out Wrangellia and see if I stumbled editing Wrangellia Terrane. (Both saves pending)
"crust/mantle (has to do with the chemistry) and litho-/asthenosphere (had to do with stiffness)." --- Ahhh, says I. Makes sense too, as different fields take a look and bring their own perspectives. I Own I've been thinking by 30 miles down, I been thinking everything was more or less plastic, if not liquid. That there is density gradients and plasticity gradients makes sense too; this book (1983) I've got referred to both "convective cells", as I'd always thought likely, as well as the table cloth conveyor plate movement... which I gather is the preferred model and lead hypothesis-theory of today.

re: subduct beneath other continental lithosphere and the whole lithosphere/crust thickens instead. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "inland bending up"?

From a TV show graphic on NATGEO or Science Channel... Displayed the "Table cloth" of the Pacific Basin plate subducting under the coast then bending up to trap a magma pocket and then push up and bend back into contact with the North American plate ca below Colorado and the Continental Divide/Rockies... I believe the 'theory' being demonstrated was why there were differences in the orogeny of the southern Rockies from the Northern and middle rockies... 'IIRC, with salt on it!' Kapish! <g>
From what you are saying on the densities, it's a wonder continental drift and tectonic activity isn't even faster. Is there any accepted "depth" when it's agreed or believed that the basaltic plate has basically vanished in a remelt? That would impose a limit, I'd think! Cheers! And thanks again. // FrankB 20:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Frank! I think continent building and accretion (geology)/continental accretion are good candidates for a redirect structure, they're basically the same thing. There is a difference between a microcontinent and a terrane: the first refers to a small piece of continental crust that usually existed somewhen during geological time; the latter refers to what is left of it now (without suggesting an independent plate tectonic past directly). Something like: "the Wrangellian terrane used to be the microcontinent Wrangellia during the Permian". I think that in most cases, these things are close enough to use redirects.
Currently, the leading theory about flow in the mantle is that it flows as a single convective cell. The lithosphere floats on top of these convective cells and is slowly deformed during the floating. The mantle is for 98% solid, so almost no liquids there ;-), it "flows" by plastic flow processes.
The TV-series: I am not familiar enough with the geology of the Rockies to know the theory you describe. If it is true, I would say it is not a very common process in plate tectonics or mountain building. Usually a subducted oceanic slab of lithosphere sinks straight down into the mantle (that is at least what results from seismic tomography seem to show us so far).
Subducting slabs do not vanish in a remelt, because: the mantle is not liquid (so mixing is rather difficult, hence that layered-cake idea for the mantle); and because oceanic crust has a basaltic composition, while the mantle has a peridotitic composition. So the slabs stay chemically different from the surrounding mantle for at least quite some time. What exactly happens with these slabs when they reach the lower domains of the mantle is unknown. Some scientists think they pile up and form the mysterous D"-layer on top of the core-mantle boundary. Woodwalker (talk) 12:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Caledonian orogeny[edit]

Hi Woodwalker,

Looks like you've made a good start in sorting out this article. I will attempt to chip in as and when.

I've extended the area affected to include North America. I know that not everyone agrees with this, but to leave out the Acadian has always seemed artifical to me. Anyway, keep up the good work, this page has been in dire need of a complete rewrite. Mikenorton (talk) 20:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mikenorton. Thanx, I always like feedback. It took some time to make the images and find good sources. My intention was to write another paragraph (will be no. 2) to give a small summary of the different branches of the Caledonian/Acadian orogeny (Scandinavia/Scotland/Appalachians/etc) and their structure/terranes etc. For the Appalachians, the main article could remain Acadian orogeny. On the other hand I'm afraid I won't have time to write more soon. Woodwalker (talk) 01:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi again. It's good that you've managed to do so much, this is one of the articles that I've always meant to have a go at. I'm still part way through an attempted huge expansion of the Geology of Norway article, although I haven't uploaded it yet as half of it consists of bare section headings. That needs a big section on the Caledonides and it is hard to know where to start as it's something that I probably know too much about. Generally I end up doing small tasks while putting off the major ones. I look forward to reading the next paragraph. Mikenorton (talk) 09:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
More discussion on this subject continued at Talk:Caledonian orogeny. - Woodwalker (talk) 12:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


I've continued the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geology/Periods. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 15:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Geochronologic/chronostratigraphic names and capitals[edit]

Can't argue with the decisions of the IUGS/ICS, except to point out that they are wrong..... Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian are all adjectives and like all adjectives they need a noun to be complete, so that if the noun is not regarded as part of the name, then it becomes a grammatic and logical absurdity, and if it is part of the name then it should be capitalised. But as we all know, absurdity is part of our culture. ciao Rotational (talk) 17:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure, I find they are sometimes used as nouns too. For example: During the Ordovician, global temperatures dropped and so on. But I am not a linguist, so perhaps you're right about the IUGS being wrong. Woodwalker (talk) 17:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Geology regarding the North Sea[edit]

Hello there. Thank you enormously for your contributions and comments! I believe they have been addressed, but now the geology section needs to be completely re-done as it focuses currently on one event of geology only the glaciation of the Cenozoic era.

I have added comments on the North Sea talk page in reply to yours and then adjusted the North Sea article. I am not a geologist, but have tried to learn as I go and attempted the writing of the North Sea Geological History. I hope I haven't mucked up too badly in this endeavour. I don't think I have properly added the main items you listed (infill/stratigraphy of the Triassic/Jurassic grabens, Cretaceous inversion, and Tertiary reactivation). I thought by making an article North Sea Geological History then it could be summarised into the North Sea article.

I have added what I could about the Triassic/Jurassic grabens in text form, and added one graben image from wikicommons. It was easier to read about in the citations of the Glennie and Trosvik articles as they had images of the North Sea evolution which explained the concept better than words.

I have found it hard to add about the Tertiary-Quaternary period, as many of the online geological sources focused on the geological history as it pertained to petroleum rich sources. So I have not too much about the continental and North Sea developments of the Cenozoic era...which is when the North Sea was actually forming into the present day North Sea and actually really held water. See also the comments made on the North Sea GA review which have been added to a discussion here...Comments on geology Pilcha said he would open scientific journals which I could not access to help develop the more modern geological history of the Cenozoic era.

Also Pilcha the reviewer will help to re-do the geology section as noted here geology GA review focussing on the Mesozoic and Cenozoic Coastlines and North Sea as water in the midst of Pangea. SriMesh | talk 03:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Woodwalker, many thanks for the help you've being giving at Talk:North Sea --Philcha (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Woodwalker, many thanks for the additional content about evolution of the coastlines. Can you please provide references, in the style of the ones I'ved used in "History of the coastlines", for all the points you've added. I know you normally work on Dutch WP, but English WP is getting stricter about refs all the time (for example most Featured Articles promoted before 2007 would now fail Good Artcile reviews). --Philcha (talk) 22:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you also for your help. I have added citations, as I recognised the content you have summarised were in some of the other articles from the geology article. I also eliminated the other paragraph which had remained, as the Strait of Dover opening was quite nicely summarised above, and the fuller text was not needed. Will keep puttering on the geology of the North Sea article after doing more tweaking on the GA review of the North Sea proper article. Kind regards. SriMesh | talk 01:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The Special Barnstar

SpecialBarnstar.png The Special Barnstar
Thank you for your help on the North Sea article SriMesh | talk 01:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
@SriMesh: Wow, thank you... it's my first barnstar. I feel a bit undeserving since Philcha did most of the editing at the North Sea article. I will make a tectonic map of the North Sea area later (at the moment I am working on a map of northern France first). To cover the geology of the area well, maps and cross-sections are needed.
I have access to most geologic magazines and if necesary I can look things up for you, just ask me when you are uncertain or have a question. B.t.w.Mike Norton will probably know about the geology of the North Sea too.
@Philcha: SriMesh already added a source. My original sources (probably better) were:
I am a bit puzzled with the English Wikipedia's reference system. I usually keep my notes separated from the full refs.
I also replied on the talkpage. Regards, Woodwalker (talk) 08:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Geology sketch-maps of Cornwall[edit]

Hi Woodwalker, thanks very much for your kind comment on my talk page. There are several other maps there too. Best wishes, Andy F (talk) 14:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

merge Lower Lias and Blue Lias[edit]

Hi! I'm slightly baffled by the goings-on with these articles today. Originally we had Blue Lias, essentially a geological and anglocentric article. Then Abyssal developed it by adding a section on its fossil record (great) then moved it to Lower Lias, leaving Blue Lias as a redirect. Hard on Abyssal's heels Pyrotec recreated the Blue Lias article (without Abyssal's fossil addition) and linked Blue Lias to Lower Lias and vice versa. What Pyrotec intended is not entirely clear to me, but it may be a reaction to the perceived change of tack from geology to palaeontology. I could be wrong - your guess is as good as mine or probably better. As it stands the Blue Lias article appears to be a subset of the Lower Lias article with no defining features of its own to warrent its separate existance, so I'd support a merger proposal. If you want to go ahead the mergeto and mergefrom tags are a useful way of advertising it. -- Timberframe (talk) 01:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I am actually not totally sure they are synonyms. There may be a difference in the region where the two are found, even though their ages are the same. Because the content of the two articles is the same I see no reason yet not to merge. Woodwalker (talk) 08:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Update: here I found some more information: the Lower Lias at least includes deposits of upper Sinemurian to Pliensbachian age. That means the "Lower Lias" represents a different time span from "Blue Lias", which has its top in the lower Sinemurian. The two names are definitely not the same so please do not merge yet. I will try to figure it out. At the moment I think "Lower Lias" could better be a redirect to the yet red Lias Group. Woodwalker (talk) 08:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I think I understand it after reading this and seeing this. The Blue Lias Formation is part of the "Lower" Lias Group, together with a number of other formations. So "Lower Lias" is an inofficial subdivision of the Lias Group (together with "Middle Lias" and "Upper Lias"). I'm now convinced it should be a redirect to Lias Group. Woodwalker (talk) 08:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I have been watching these moves with interest. In response to comments from Timberframe, there is a small discussion split across the Abyssal and Pyrotec talk pages. However, I'm happy to record that what has been done today is a big improvement.Pyrotec (talk) 09:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I responded at Abyssal's TP. Woodwalker (talk) 10:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
To answer your questions: I have no idea. The book I used as a sourced never mentioned the Blue Lias at all. :/ Abyssal (talk) 11:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all who've contributed, we now have the much needed Lias (group) article to pull everything together and Blue lias in its proper place and context. Good work! One loose end is White lias which I've tentatively linked from Lias (group) under "see also", if any of you can place it better within the article please do so. The White lias article itself needs to be developed along geological lines. -- Timberframe (talk) 15:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Google helps here too. This abstract gives information on the rank and stratigraphic position of the White Lias. At least this author proposes it to be regarded as a formation. His proposal shows that in the official British stratigraphy, the White Lias is a part of the Lilstock Formation, which in its turn is part of the Upper Triassic (Rhaetian) Penarth Group (which is immediately below the Lias Group). I am curious if his proposal is now accepted. I also found this great description of the whole Penarth Group including information on the status and historical use of the name White Lias. It seems that in 1980, the name was replaced with the "Langport Member" of the Lilstock Formation. Another link: here are some interesting tables and pictures of the White and Blue Liasses. Woodwalker (talk) 16:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Capitalised titles[edit]

Hi again! I was about to change "Lias Group" to Lias group" per WP:MOS but noticed that many of the two-word tems linked from that page (Helwell Marl, Doniford Shale, Early Jurassic) also capitalise both words. I've run into (and hastily out of) a minefield on this subject in the context of common names for animals, where there is no consensus and a lot of heated debate; is there a similar debate / convention for naming geolgical features and eras? -- Timberframe (talk)

Hi Timberframe, I am not totally sure if it is "correct English", but I think stratigraphic names and names of geological ages should be capitalised, like geographic names (the Jurassic, or the Lower Greensand Formation). That's what I see in my books, and Google at least seems to suggest so too (try a random formation or age name). Following this rule, there are some oddities. It should be the "early Silurian" but the "Early Jurassic": in the first time unit the "early" is not part of the name, but it is in the second. Period/stage/era/epoch/age/series/system/eon is never part of a name, formation/member/group always is: Jurassic system, but Lias Group. It can seem odd, but it's as far as I know the usual spelling in geological literature. Woodwalker (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Woodwalker. I'll leave well alone. All the best -- Timberframe (talk) 20:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Page moves[edit]

Replied at my talk page. CIreland (talk) 20:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Get rid of national boundaries[edit]

I hope you don't mind, but your comments about the Template:Geology of Europe resonated with me, so I used it to start a discussion at Template talk:Geology of Europe#Get rid of national boundaries. If you object, I will simply remove your copied statement, and apologize. Either way I would appreciate your help in populating a decent Geology of Europe template. --Bejnar (talk) 03:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


We seem to have some inconsistencies around epochs, so I tend not to trust our articles in that area too much. I recently learned about oxygen isotope stages. It seems that this is exactly the same thing as marine isotope stages, so I put that in the article. Obviously it would be better if a geologist confirmed that this is correct, or corrected my mistake. Moreover, the literature that I am reading at the moment invariably uses OIS rather than MIS. Provided I am right about them being (essentially?) synonyms, do you think it would make sense to rename the article? --Hans Adler (talk) 21:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Hans. I'm not 100% sure they are the same thing, I am not a stratigrapher. I contacted Tom Meijer about your question, he probably knows since he is a Quarternary (bio-)stratigrapher by profession. Please expect an answer in a couple of days. Kind regards, Woodwalker (talk) 11:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I just got a reply from mr. Meijer. Translated it says: They are the same thing. At first the name was "Oxygen-Isotope Stage", but most researchers now use "Marine Isotope Stage" to show the scale is based on marine/ocean stratigraphy (he emphasises this because on land other scales are used, such as the Greenland ice core scale, mammal stages, Blytt-Sernander/pollen, etc). I use the latter name myself. Some people overdo it rather by using "Marine Oxygen-Isotope Stage" but that is uncommon. I will try to include this extra information in the article marine isotope stage. Regards, Woodwalker (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Brilliant, thanks. It seems that the prehistory people haven't followed the general change. I know a similar situation in mathematics, where my field is the only one still using an obsolete term. By the way, if you are interested in Doggerland, you are welcome at my sandbox. I am not rewriting the article in situ because I think it can make a great DYK, and for that I have to blow it up fivefold within a week. (Stupid rule.) --Hans Adler (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


About: template at Margarethe Selenka; see also: User talk:SatuSuro

Nothing personal about your edits! Thanks for a new and interesting article.

The issue with large blocks of text when I see them in articles associated with Netherlands East Indies/Dutch East Indies/Indonesia - is not so much controversial - as the probelmatic multiple issues of:

  • No cites in the blocks of text - is it a copyvio?
  • No cites for assertions - how do we know its is not OR or some other issue?

I am not in any way making any assumptions that you have done that in any way in your article - it is a reflex action - apologies for that.

A possible resolution to the issue, which in turn appears to be in line with MOS regarding citations - is

  1. Placing a Notes section inside which reflist is placed for the points that are cited.
  2. Creating a References section below from which the main info can be found as in WP:V - but is not actually cited in the article.

I do hope that is sufficient explanation - and apologies for being so eager to tag new arts - the Indonesian project has many questionable ones!

cheers SatuSuro 12:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I see the advantage of templates, I think they do a great job. So nothing against your edit either. Actually I already did put a notes and a reference section at the bottom of the article before you added the template. Can you please indicate what sentences or assertions in the article need an inline citation? Best regards, Woodwalker (talk) 15:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Permian Basin (Europe)[edit]

Just made a stub, Permian Basin (Europe) for you to play with. Now the redlink won't be an excuse for reverting a future move of Permian Basin. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 22:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep up the good work![edit]

GDBarnstar1.png The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
This barnstar recognizes Woodwalker's contributions of elegant geology diagrams, as well as other substantive geology content.--ragesoss (talk) 06:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much :-). If you find any errors or mistakes in my diagrams, please report them to me so I can fix them! Kind regards, Woodwalker (talk) 12:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for permission to use photographs[edit]

Hi Woodwalker - I am brand new to Wiki (other than looking stuff up) and found your beautiful photographs. I am a printmaker [1], and I would be interested in using some of your photographs as source material. This would mean that I would create artwork based on the photograph with the intention of selling the resulting work and entering into art competitions. Please let me know your thoughts. Thank you, and I apologize in advance if this is not the correct way to do this!! Ploverwing (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC) Amie (ploverwing)

Most of my pictures have a GDFL license, which means you can use them (i believe, I am not a lawyer) for commercial uses as long as you mention the source. I am not sure what that means for artwork - you have to ask an expert I think... Woodwalker (talk) 19:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I guess why I'm asking is that it's challenging to make a concrete specific reference in a piece of art; obviously in text, or html, I could provide an appropriate reference. If you were to provide permission, that would be acceptable (I believe) from a copyright release for specific use. If not, that's fine too. Whatever you like :) Thanks for getting back to me on this. --Ploverwing (talk) 06:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


Now blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Wikkid (talk · contribs) - thought you might like to know. dougweller (talk) 19:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing me. I saw he now uses an IP-address to edit. Woodwalker (talk) 19:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
It's an honor to be considered your sockpuppet. Awickert (talk) 07:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Hilarious. The honour is all mine! :-) Woodwalker (talk) 20:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Expanding Earth[edit]

My error just dawned on me, and I went back to fix it only to see you'd got there first. Thanks. Fences and windows (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem, you're welcome. Many geologists I know presume Wegener invented plate tectonics, so you were in good company for a while :D Woodwalker (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Great American Interchange image[edit]

Hi Woodwalker, nice work on the G.A.I. image. I have a couple suggestions for tweaking it if you're inclined to spend any more time on it: (1) move the fish down somewhere near the Yucatan/Central America; (2) move the armadillo to where the opossum is now; you could move both the opossum and the ground sloth north to make room for it. The idea is to place those groups that never got very far north nearer the southern part of the map of N. America. Regards, WolfmanSF (talk) 02:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions, I will change it. It won't take much time, most time went into drawing the animal silhouettes. If you have more ideas or suggestions please tell me. Regards, Woodwalker (talk) 07:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I just uploaded a new version. Is this what you meant? Woodwalker (talk) 00:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Subsystems (or subperiods)[edit]

Check out the following pdf file: The Carboniferous System. Use of the new official names for the subsystems, series, and stages., my understanding is that the 2004 decisions made an exception for the Mississippian and Pennsylvanian stratigraphic subsystems. The current debate is about the beginning of the Quaternary, and indeed if there even should be a Quaternary. - Parsa (talk) 20:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, it's a good find. I found one publication (Menning et al. (2001): The optimal number of Carboniferous series and stages, Newsl. Stratigr. 38(2/3), pp 201–207.) that prefers to classify the Mississippian and Pennsylvanian as series/epochs, to avoid the anomalous situation of the Carboniferous being the only system in the geologic timescale having major subdivisions at the subsystem level. However, that was in 2001, before the timescale of 2004 was published. Conclusion: there are possibly some authors out there who like to call the two units series, but the subsystem rank seems to be the official status. I will change that in the articles.
I'm aware of the debate about the Quarternary. I think the IUGS recommended that it should become a third system in the Cenozoic era, together with Paleogene and Neogene and with its base at 2.588 Ma. Woodwalker (talk) 21:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually fairly neutral on the discussions. I'm just trying to follow the current international standards, but they seem to be in flux right now. To me it seems a bit odd having 1 Carboniferous system, 2 subsytems, 6 series, and 7 stages. For some reason unknown to me, the stratigraphers did not like Upper and Lower Carboniferous. They seem to have adopted the US periods as subsystems and divided each of these into 3 series (epochs). Just using two series actually does seem easier doesn't it? It also seems more logical to follow the argument of the Quaternary geologists in starting the Pleistocene at 2.588 Ma. But then, I'm a physicist, what do I know? - Parsa (talk) 02:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Appendix template[edit]

Can you please weigh in at User_talk:Gimmetrow#Appendix template? I can't see a purpose for this template, and it's creating small and non-standard text sizes and other issues that don't conform with WP:MOS or WP:LAYOUT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Question for you[edit]

Hi, Woodwalker. I am working on an article and find myself stumped by a question related to geologic age. The question is: what is the name of the ancient ocean which covered the southeastern portion of the United States 200+ million years ago? Please let me know should you happedn to know the answer or if you can point me toward someone who can prvide the answer. Thank you. Majoreditor (talk) 02:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Majoreditor! A body of water covering a continent is usually called a sea, not an ocean.
You have to be more precise with your question, because names can differ for different periods and regions. I took a look at paleogeographic maps in the book the Earth through time by Levin (1987). In these maps, the Appalachians and eastcoast all the way down into Georgia, were not below sea level from the Silurian (430 million years ago) till the Cretaceous (100 million years ago). The Appalachians were an active mountain chain during most of the Paleozoic. About 400 million years ago, they were bordered to the south by a deep oceanic trench called the Ouachita trench (more or less situated where the Gulf of Mexico is now). Except for the Canadian craton and the Appalachians, North America was covered by a shallow sea. For the Devonian period this sea is called the Kaskaskia Sea, for the Mississippian Levins map just calls it a "vast inland sea". About 330 to 310 million years ago, the south of North America docked to Gondwana (South America + Africa) and most of it became dry land. In the Pennsylvanian, the southeast of the US was above sea level. During the Permian, a rift basin developed in the present-day Gulf of Mexico. Still, the southeast of the US remained land during the Permian and Triassic. In the Jurassic, a shallow sea developed in the southern states, Levins map indicates there: ancestral Gulf of Mexico begins to form. During the Cretaceous, sea levels rose and most of the southeastern US (like the rest of North America) were covered by seawater.
It appears the name "Gulf of Mexico" is used from 180 million years ago onward. I am not sure what body of water you mean and to which sea in Levins book that corresponds. If you need to call it something, "the sea which covered the southeastern US 200 million years ago" will always go of course. Woodwalker (talk) 09:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Critical taper[edit]

Thanks for finally making this article; been on my to-do list for ages. Awickert (talk) 08:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention, I saw you removed some errors. It's in this form just a start, there has to be something more about tectonic development op forelands/wedges there, but I simply didn't have the time to write more. Woodwalker (talk) 08:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Geology of the Western Carpathians[edit]

I have started to translate article about geology of Western Carpathians form Slovak. I would like your help with checking the grammar, if it is possible.--Pelex (talk) 14:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Great! I will help where possible. Woodwalker (talk) 08:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


Even hier een reactie, vanwege de blokkade. Ik ben het wel met je eens hoor dat de blokkade volgens de regels is en MM daarin haar gelijk heeft. Wat moeilijk vast te stellen is of het echter werkelijk wel is zoals het lijkt. Op basis van de voor handen zijnde gegevens op wiki:nl, zoals overwegend door MM zelf zijn opgesteld, lijk ik indd een notoire vandalist. Er is echter mailverkeer geweest en de informatie daarin houdt ze achterwege. Wie heeft er gelijk? Ik heb zelf zelfs echt geen idee meer, maar wel dat mensen die niet zelf betrokken zijn bij de kwestie nog moeilijk kunnen achterhalen wat kip en ei is en waar de werkelijke oorzaak van alle problematiek ligt.

Echter die ontsnappingsclausule zoals jij voorstelt, is geen mogelijkheid. Ik begrijp en waardeer dat je daarop aanstuurt, maar ik weiger pertinent om kopieen van paspoorten en andere persoonlijke eigendommen af te staan aan Ronald B. Dat doe ik gewoonweg niet. Wie garandeert mij dat hij er naar mijn wens eerlijk mee omgaat? Alleen de douane en de politie krijgen zulke papieren in handen op aanvraag en omdat ik dat als burger verplicht ben in sommige gevallen. Ik vind die eis buitenproportioneel gezien de omvang van het probleem en er niet toe doen.

Ik begrijp wel waarom in sommige blokkade gevallen deze werkwijze gehanteerd wordt, maar in mijn geval is het een onzinnige maatregel. Wat schieten ze met die wensvervulling op? Constateren dat 171.3 Yuri Landman is? Dat had ik zelf aan aangegeven en daar is geen identificatieplicht voor nodig, omdat ik immers in de hoofdnaamruimte sta.

Door deze vervorming is er wederzijds nog weinig sprake van AGF en rest mij enkel de werkwijze zoals ik die huidig handhaaf. Ik begrijp dat dat wrevel oproept en heb ook begrip als je 'tegen' me bent. MM's werkwijze lost zoals je ziet tot nog toe weinig op. Enkel meer onnodig geruzie. Het is handiger om eens te gaan praten en zoeken naar een oplossing. Ze mogen mijn id hier komen bekijken, maar opsturen doe ik niet (bijvoorbeeld). Ik ben tevens bereid om heldere afspraken te maken, niet opgelegde gedwongen afspraken zoals Oscar aanvankelijk probeerde, maar waar we beiden tevreden over zijn.

Ik heb gevraagd om mediation of een curator tot meerdere malen aan toe. Die is nooit toegekend en bij het id-probleem dat per mail werd gevoerd, gaf MM aan dat ik geen onderhandelingspositie had en dat ik gewoon moest voldoen aan hun voorwaarden. Dan is mijn reactie 'tja 143x of 146x geblokkeerd staan maakt ook niets meer uit'.

Je opmerking dat ik de werkelijkheid verdraai (met de vele edits over mijn werk neem ik aan) oid vond ik waardevol en hierover wil ik graag met je in overleg. Het is inderdaad zo dat ik zorg voor een overdistributie van onderwerpen gerelateerd aan mijn werkgebied. Laat dat een mooie opener zijn om ook helderheid in te scheppen wederzijds.

Ik hoop dat je eens kunt meedenken om meer rust te creeren op jullie nl-versie. Wie goed doet, goed ontmoet.

Mvrgr83.87.171.3 (talk) 16:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear Yuri Landman, since this is the English Wikipedia, I prefer to answer you in English. I presume you understand me all the same. More important: the other readers here know what we're talking about this way. The use of blocks is to make sure an unwanted user doesn't participate in a project for a certain amount of time. The reason should always be to protect the project from the disruptive actions of that particular user. Longer blocks are in some cases technically difficult to permanently implement because the user is able to keep editing with sockpuppets (either new accounts or IP-addresses), as seems to be true in your specific case. The current guidelines and system at wiki-nl have no alternative solution to this problem than to keep blocking new sockpuppets whenever enough evidence is collected against them by our admins and checkusers.
Without time to analyse your case in detail, I collect the main reasons for your blocks were persistent self-referencing, self-advertising and misuse of multiple sockpuppets. I trust such misuse is not falsely claimed by my colleagues so I cannot help you at the moment. You could however apply to the Dutch arbcom, but without any change in your behaviour the chance they will listen to you seems small to me. Best regards, Woodwalker (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your clear explanation. Indeed my expectations will be the same regarding the steps to the Dutch It's a catch 22 situation. I'm blocked for sockpuppetry, but when I use new sockp. and not use my normal name I get blocked again asa they recognize me. Working under the name YL leads again to a block. I won't share my id-card with a website I can't trust (based on what happened this is my opinion, sorry and without having the wish to be rude). The best thing for both of us is investing my time as much as possible outside the Dutch wikipedia and mainly on to inform people about my work and all related topics, so it can be included by neutral editors as a useful source (in case I'm regarded a reliable source of course). I understand large amounts of my knowledge consist of OR, especially within our native language, and are COI, so I'm reserved nowadays to add them too soon on Wikipedias without decent external neutral sources (papers, magazines, etc.). Thanks for your trustful and polite answer. With kind regards, (talk) 08:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Hoi Woudloper,

Ik zie dat je goede reacties geeft bij Cumulus tav rechter en beul. Dat is voor het eerst dat ik iemand zie die dat aankaart. Klasse. Dit is namelijk ook in mijn geval wat er gebeurde. MM blokkeerde ineens zonder waarschuwing met 1 jaar. Oscar legt de blokkade om tot oneindig, omdat ik me met de verwijderingsnominatie van de [Moodswinger] bemoeide. Ik had dat artikel zelf aangemaakt. Achteraf ook op en vervolgens nomineerde Croucho het wegens copyvio van hypercustom. (kip en ei situatie). Ik stelde Oscar en MM op de hoogte per mail dat er geen sprake van copyvio was. Dat werd achtergehouden omwille van tegenwerking ten aanzien van mijn COI. MM stelde zelfs dat er sprake van copyvio was (wat dus een leugen is). Daarop kon ik niet anders dan zelf in verdediging gaan als aanmaker van het artikel, omdat de weerwil tegen YL zo groot is, dat er niet meer naar feiten (te vinden op Google eerste tien hits), maar op basis van emotie. Door zelf in te grijpen toverde Oscar het jaarblok om tot oneindig. Erin uitmondend dat ik nu enkel nog via sokpoppen kan werken. Er is geen contact met mij gezocht om dit met goede afspraken naar elkaar toe op te lossen. Je mag het niet met mijn huidige handelen eens zijn, maar je rechter-beul verhaal is een rake constatering. (talk) 10:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Overigens aanvullend. Als je bezwaar hebt tegen reacties via deze en, dan begrijp ik dat en zal mijn situatie niet langer op deze wijze hier invoegen. Het is niet mijn insteek om jou tot last te zijn. (talk) 10:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Dear Yuri Landman, I have no objection to your edits here so feel free to contact me this way. Nevertheless I can't really help you either, but by repeating my advise to contact the Dutch arbcom, especially if you are willing to compromise your behaviour according to the guidelines of the Dutch Wikipedia. Best regards, Woodwalker (talk) 10:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay thanks, I will try that. -Even in het NL sorry. Hoe doe ik dat dan? Ik sta volgens mij met mijn mailaccount geblokkeerd en kan als dusdanig voor zover ik weet geen contact leggen met hun. Ik heb wel een mailadres van CaAl.- (talk) 12:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
You can contact the Dutch arbcom by sending them an e-mail. Their e-mail address and other information can be found at their home page. Best regards, Woodwalker (talk) 13:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Pleistocene revision[edit]

I noticed that in your 28 July edit to the Pleistocene article you indicated that the decision is now ratified by the IUGS. However in the section /* Dating */ you left the sentence The International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS) has yet to confirmed any change in time period for the Pleistocene ... and you did not provide a citation for the IUGS approval. --Bejnar (talk) 22:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bejnar, this IUGS decission affected not only the Pleistocene article, but also the articles Quaternary, Gelasian, Pliocene, etc. I changed all those articles, after reading this message on the Quaternary's TP. If you want to have a direct source, the last version of the ICS/IUGS timescale should do. I don't like bothering readers with news items/sites for sources.
I seemed to have missed that particular sentence. Thanks for noticing and changing! Woodwalker (talk) 14:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Reflist[edit]

Nothing much really. The references are rendered smaller without using a special added <div clas = "references-small"</div>, and it allows you to use columns. --Spotty 11222 17:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the answer. Seems a small advantage to me. I'll try to use the template from now on. Woodwalker (talk) 17:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

London Basin[edit]

Hi Woudloper. In your improvement of this article, so far as I can see you have removed any reference to the basin as a syncline. Was this intentional? The basin is described (for example in Sumbler) as 'a broad, gentle, synclinal fold, open to the east'. Pterre (talk) 09:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Pterre, I have read the same sentence (the London basin is... a syncline) in another book too. However, as far as my geologic knowledge goes, a basin can itself never be a syncline. I can't make sense out of it. It is possible that the basin was (at a later stage) subject to folding. Or perhaps folding was even syn-depositional. But in both cases the basin is itself not a syncline. It is also possible that tectonic subsidence in the middle of the basin was faster than at the rims (probably the case with most basins), causing the sedimentary layers to curve up toward the rim - the resulting structure could look like a synform. Or perhaps... something else was meant. Since it wasn't clear from the text what was meant, I wasn't able to make sense out of the text. I removed the sentence altogether - it is (imho) clear nonsense from a geologic point of view. Woodwalker (talk) 13:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
As someone brought up in London I've always thought of it as a syncline, albeit a strongly asymmetric one. The underlying Cretaceous layers (particularly the Gault formation and Chalk group) are clearly folded from their original position. For example again in Sumbler (which is a publication of the British Geological Survey) there is a general sketch cross-section across the region "showing the form of the London Basin syncline" (Fig 2 P5). Bennison & Wright (The Geological History of the British Isles, 1975) say (of the Palaeogene and later) "These strata are now preserved in four synclinal structures: the London Syncline (or 'Basin'), the Hampshire Basin, the Paris Basin and the Belgian Basin." Pterre (talk) 18:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
OK, here is a more recent ref: Ellison et al, 'Geology of London' (Special memoir for 1:50,000 sheets 256, 257, 270 and 271), British Geological Survey 2004, P 80: "The geological structure of the district is relatively simple, being dominated by a broad north-east-trending syncline (the London Basin)". I don't have access to a roomful of current textbooks on the subject, and I did not study geology in London beyond A level, but that's good enough for me. Pterre (talk) 22:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
..and take a look here. Note the annotation 'Axis of London Basin Syncline'. Pterre (talk) 22:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Dear Pterre. The sentence 'the basin is a syncline' is from a geological POV rubbish. It seems some BGS-guys have been a bit uncareful in formulating the nature of the structure. I find the sentence in Bennison & Wright (a new 2005 version of that book is partly available at Google books) way better: 'These strata are now preserved in four synclinal structures' explains it all. Why not use their exact wording, since it is an elegant description of the structure of the basin:
  • There was a (structural) basin in the Palaeogene;
  • This basin was, during that period, filled with sediments (strata);
  • The strata have been folded in a large, wide syncline.
The only question that remains for me is wether folding was syn-depositional or post-depositional. From a geologic point of view this is an interesting question and if we stumble upon the answer, it should somehow also be included in the header of the article (imho). Best regards, Woodwalker (talk) 07:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I guess we'll just have to disagree about this; call it a synclinal structure if you wish, but to describe it (simply) as a sedimentary basin as at present misses the point about the syncline in the Cretaceous strata, the artesian basin, etc. Pterre (talk) 11:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I think you don't see what I mean. My concern is not with the content but with the terminology. The word 'basin' has three definitions: a structural/tectonic one, a sedimentary one and a geomorphological one. All three seem in some way to apply to the London Basin (and the exact boundaries of the London Basin may differ depending on the definition!). The word syncline only has one definition, a structural one. The original sentense called an apple a kind of pear.
I agree with you that the synclinal structure is essential and should be discussed, preferably in the header of the article. But a syncline is in itself not a sedimentary basin. It is a structure on its own. The occurence of a syncline at the core of a basin is, however, usually not accidental. When strata are folded, someone may of course think the synclines will form a basin. In nature though, uplift is never quick enough to create structural basins in this way, certainly not at the scale of the London Basin. Erosion will remove the anticlines and sediments will fill the synclines almost instantly (instantly in geologic time). As folding continues, so will erosion and sedimentation. Eventually a structure will form which is both a structural syncline and a sedimentary basin (a basin in the sense of: a place where sediments have accumulated). This model is called syn-tectonic deposition (or syn-depositional folding). As far as I see, this may well be the case for the London Basin, but I am not sure since we haven't found conclusive information in the sources yet.
There is another way how the strata can be folded into a syncline: pre-tectonic deposition (or post-depositional folding). It is important to find out which of the two models applies. The test will be that in a syntectonic basin, the strata will wedge out in the direction of the edges, while in a pre-tectonic basin, the strata will on average have the same thickness at different distances from the core of the syncline. The outcrop pattern on the geologic map doesn't show the difference, because the map is not detailed enough.
That the older strata of the Chalk are also folded by the syncline is clear, but I don't see what that has to do with the basin on top of them? Woodwalker (talk) 13:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Because the basin is not only the depositional one - the London Basin includes the chalk etc, out into the Chilterns and North Downs. This is referred to by all concerned as the London Basin because it is a basin in form, not defined from a geological dictionary. It is also generally synclinal in form. The use of the terms 'London Basin' and 'Syncline' together dates from (at least) the 1889 memoir ("The great syncline of the London Basin, which extends from Marlborough in the west, and is lost under the German, Ocean to the east.") and is echoed through to the 2004 one. Not sure what you have against the BGS, who continue to be the main authority on the area, but this is repeated by countless other references (I am sure you can find them). You may be strictly technically correct about usage of the terms 'basin' and 'syncline' but remember we are a tertiary source, and should follow the published literature. Pterre (talk) 16:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I have nothing against the BGS, in fact I think you should try to find in their publications what the relation between the basin and the syncline is (syn- or post-depositional). Even if we are a tertiary source, we shouldn't copy rubbish (like we don't copy typos from a source), there are enough good sources out there that do make sense and can be used in the matter. I don't like original research so my best guess as a geologist looking at the map in your link (syn-depositional) is not good enough. The sentense 'the baisn is a syncline' is clearly a misinterpretation or a mixing of different meanings (geologists are good at that), perhaps partly because they are writing for specialist readers. The sources I can find myself here in Switzerland are in fact two BGS publications. They describe the London Basin as a Palaeogene sedimentary basin. The syncline is referred to as the 'syncline of the London Basin', or the 'London Basin syncline', perhaps because nobody saw the need for an original name. They never claim the syncline and the basin are the same thing.
You assume the London Basin is also (by a different definition) a geomorphological/physiogeographical basin. Perhaps you could look for a source which confirms this assumption too, cause so far I can't find one (my local geology library isn't stuffed with books on British geology). If there are indeed two definitions (which is perfectly possible) we should explain this clearly in the header too.
A geomorphological basin does not include any stratigraphic units, it is just a landform of a certain aerial extend. The Chalk or whatever unit cannot be part of the morphological basin, though its outcrops can possibly be found in the basin. The Chalk is also, according to the BGS booklet about the geology of the UK I have here, not part of the sedimentary basin, because that is Palaeogene in age. In fact the lithofacies map for the Late Cretaceous in that booklet doesn't mention the London Basin, which seems logic to me: in that epoch it didn't exist yet. Woodwalker (talk) 20:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
OK how about this, from Trueman, Geology and Scenery in England and Wales, Chapter 5, the London Basin: The London basin is a structural basin.. The northern limit of the basin is the comparatively simple scarp of the Berkshire Downs and the Chilterns.. On the other hand, the Chalk of the North Downs dips to the north.. the basin is asymmetrical with its axis [i.e. the axis of the syncline] generally nearer the southern edge.. The features of the chalk margins have been briefly described in the previous chalklands chapter, and this will not be repeated here. It is sufficient to refer the reader to those pages, and remind him of the topographical effect of these features and of the varying chalk dip... The Tertiary rocks which lie on top of the Chalk in the centre of the basin.. (etc)
This account is now rather dated but clearly indicates that the 'London Basin', as a term in use for at least 120 years, refers to the whole synclinal structure and not only to the Tertiary infill. It is with this definition in mind that I originally started the article. Pterre (talk) 16:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
As you can see from his article, while this is inevitably a simplistic (wikipedia-level?) description of the basin, it is one written by a President of the Geological Society of London and a Fellow of the Royal Society. Pterre (talk) 17:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, I still don't read it the way you do, perhaps because of my background in structural geology. The last sentence implies you're right, it suggests the Chalk is part of the basin. The problem with structural (and other parts of) geology is that most of the terminology has only become more definite since the 70s (with the work of people like Ramsay the need for better definitions became direr). I found similar confusion in the stratigraphy section of Wikipedia, were the words series, stage, system, period, formation etc were used at liberty for any unit of rock. The source for these articles was in many cases the Britannica 1911: in 1911 those words didn't carry the specific meaning they have today. It could well be we've stumbled on a similar thing here. During my study, I learned the modern vocabulary, and I can say that I would certainly never call a basin a syncline. They can exist together, even (as seem to be true for the London Basin) one can trigger the other's formation, yet they are not the same thing. I will try to find this type of basin with a syncline in its core in my own books, it may have a name.
There are some other interesting points about your quote. The basin is also a basin in the structural sense. The axis of the syncline is said to be the same as the axis of the basin. That is good, it confirms my guess that the basin is syn-tectonic. The scarps formed by the Chalk are referred to as the margins of the basin. Maybe there was already some subsidence during the deposition of the upper chalk (although I don't think so, the middle Palaeocene is missing everywhere in England, as far as I know). More later - Woodwalker (talk) 20:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for butting in to this discussion but I thought I might throw a little light onto this (or not of course). The London Basin sits on the London Platform, part of the London-Brabant Massif. During the Jurassic and early Cretaceous it was the footwall to a set of south-dipping normal faults that formed a large half-graben basin, the Weald Basin. In the Palaeogene (possibly also during the late Cretaceous, it's certainly the case on the Isle of Wight structure) the basin was inverted, creating the Wealden dome and forming the asymmetric syncline that we see now. There is evidence that some of the earlier extensional faults within the London area were also inverted, such as the Greenwich Fault (which I live right on top of as it happens) which has a related anticline on its southern side. So the steeper southern flank of the syncline is caused by the inversion whereas the gently dipping northern flank is not directly related to this, being a much more regional effect. This doen't solve the problem of the naming, although you can think of the London Basin as a mini foreland basin, sort of. Mikenorton (talk) 14:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

@Mikenorton: no apologies needed, your information is most welcome. Correct me if I'm wrong: what you're saying is that the inversion created an assymetric syncline (accomodation space for the London Basin's sedimentary infill) north of the elongated dome structure of the Weald in Kent and Sussex? The article needs a section on tectonic history and the above could be copied into the article (except for you living there, which is NE information) imho.
I wouldn't call it a foreland basin. I'm living on top of one myself and while there is an orogen in the background here, that is not the case in London (sadly, the Weald doesn't have any skiing resorts :-P ).
Not exactly, but I have skied down the slope in Greenwich Park a few times (on cross-country skis admittedly) :-)
I have been searching for sources but can't find a type or class of basin in which the London Basin would fit. Einsele's book about sedimentary basins doesn't bring me any further, the closest thing is a continental sag basin, and it's certainly not that. The thing I thought of myself is a piggy-back basin, but I think it's not exactly that either. Perhaps the guys that described all the difficult structures didn't invent a way to describe a relatively simple one like this because it escaped their attention? Woodwalker (talk) 18:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I happened to be looking through the 3rd Petroleum Geology of NW Europe conference volumes for another purpose, when I came across a paper on the geology of southern England with a nice cross-section running from just east of Portsmouth to the western end of London, showing the structure that I described above. There are a few basins formed between neighbouring inversion anticlines, but the London Basin is the only one bounded just to the south. I'll scout around for a word myself, not that I'm that impressed with some of the basin classifications out there. See also this [2], the latest from the BGS; note it's based on boreholes only, there are no seismic lines across London (other than short high-resolution engineering ones). This was the other source I used for my earlier comments.
Stop Press, in the Bally and Snelson (1980) classification, this would be a type 2.3 or Chinese-type basin resulting from block faulting in the hinterland of a continent- continent collision, but I see that Einsele doesn't think it worth a separate classification. Examples would be some of the basins in Wyoming, which are sort of similar to the London Basin. Looks like we're still in need of a term from inversion related basins, I'm not sure I could use 'chinese-type' basin and keep a straight face. Mikenorton (talk) 19:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Overview map of the Channel and SE England.
Dear Pterre, Mike: I haven't found anything new but decided to draw a large scale geologic map for overview (see right). I'll place it in the articles where I think it's necessary to illustrate the geology. A cross-section could be a nice addition too. Best regards, Woodwalker (talk) 16:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Nice map, I'll have a go at producing a cross-section, prod me if it doesn't appear soon. Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 16:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, your flower structures are excellent too! If you like, you could apply the same colours. I used:
Quaternary: 254 245 212
Neogene: 255 243 140
Paleogene: 255 219 150
Late Cretaceous: 198 223 107
Early Cretaceous: 145 220 145
Jurassic: 150 200 220
Triassic: 195 160 170
Permian: 220 135 105
Carboniferous: 135 148 148
Devonian: 135 095 075
Early Paleozoic: 085 138 123
Proterozoic: 140 085 085
Proterozoic (Cadomian) intrusives: 160 000 050
Late Paleozoic (Hercynian) intrusives: 225 050 050
It's not the ICS geochronologic standard, I find the colours they use too bright for a map on my screen. I made the older systems darker, to have the locations of the massifs stand out. Regards, Woodwalker (talk) 17:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for those, it will be good to be consistent. Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 18:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Cross-section from the English Channel to London
Here's the section, I think that it helps explain the geometry reasonably well. The section line runs just east of the Isle of Wight to the western part of London. It's a 5:1 vertical exaggeration, I prefer natural scale but it does serve to emphasise the geometry, even if all the faults look ridiculously steep. BTW there's a meeting of the PESGB next week that I hope to attend in which someone will try to argue that all these structures (including the London Basin) are a result of post-Oligocene extension, which makes no sense at all. I'll let you know if anything useful comes out of that, but I very much doubt it.Mikenorton (talk) 23:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Simply great! It looks nice and fits with the map. Perhaps there should be a colour for undifferentiated basement, but I don't think that's necessary in this section. I discovered that the Portland-Wight monocline is in fact a continuation of the Bray anticline in France (the anticline shows some Jurassic, right under the word "Paris Basin" on my map - next time I update the map I'll add this anticline). The section also nicely shows the inverted nature of the Weald Basin and would be illustrative for general use (in the article about tectonic basin perhaps). Woodwalker (talk) 03:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. The Portland-Wight and Bray anticlines are connected by the Pays de Bray fault, which can be traced right across the channel. I'll add the section to the inversion as well. Mikenorton (talk) 10:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Metamorphic Facies[edit]

Hi. Thought I should apologize for seeming to pick apart your fine article on metamorphic facies. As you can probably tell, it is considered really important to me. If those are your diagrams, they are wonderful!

The articles on index mineral, isograd, zone, &c are just describing tools, like a hand loupe or petrographic microscope. The real substance of modern metamorphic petrology lies in this article. The theory is very subtle. Some years ago, when on a mailing list for professors researching metamorphic petrology, I discovered that several well-known people had misunderstandings of it.

I don't pretend to understand it completely; but if you're in Berne, you have a fine research library, other academic experts on it, and some of the best cafes I've ever visited. Don't hesitate to discuss it here or by e-mail.

Because I don't often visit the Wikipedia, you may wish to send me a quick note by e-mail, if I should read something. Any delay is just from migraine. Geologist (talk) 15:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC) (Bruce Bathurst, PhD,

Hi Geologist, absolutely no apologies necessary! You must know a lot more about metamorphic petrology, so I can probably learn from you by reading your remarks. I actually hope to once get a PhD in metamorphic petrology. Unfortunately, some geology content of Wikipedia is still full of blunders and mistakes, even though many articles are quite okay. I didn't have time to focus on petrology yet, because I keep seeing many things I want to adjust first about general subjects.
Please feel free to adjust or add to the articles I wrote, there is no such thing as "my" or "your" articles at Wikipedia. In fact, I just wrote a beginning and I am well aware there could be more. The style of the article (it's basically a list) reflects this. Thermodynamics are not yet well covered, the difference between metamorphic isograds and isotherms/isobars remains vague, etc.
The diagrams were my work too yes. Of course I always use a couple of sources for these. If you see any errors, please report them so I can adjust the diagram and upload a new version!
I have some books about petrology here which I can use as sources (Winter, Philpotts, Best). The university library has a lot of additional stuff and I have digital access to most scientific magazines. The cafes of Berne are not its main attraction though (or perhaps I never discovered the ones you saw), Switzerland is quite a dull country in that sense unfortunately. Best regards and many thanks for your comments here and at the TPs! Woodwalker (talk) 16:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Apologies for the delay, and (more importantly) sorry if Berne's cafés are not what they were. (I like silence & Schlag, so perhaps they are.) My explanations for not editing a couple of your excellent contributions, topics that I once was expert in, are two in number. The first is that my personal library, and the university library down the street, are currently unavailable to me (because of health); I hope this won't always be the case. The second is that metamorphism, plutonism, and many theories are, as you've noticed, tightly connected: it is really impossible to explain petrogenetic theories without correcting and expanding the Wikipedia's treatment of such terms as 'thermodynamic stability', on which they depend. Because the Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, original, authoritative references to all these terms and theories are desirable. This, as you know, involves much work. A re-reading is necessary, for I can't remember how much of my understanding of petrology was explicitly stated by authors and how much was filled-in by me. If I or experts don't touch-up some petrological articles, I've no doubt your growing expertise will someday permit this. However, I shall attempt to improve my health this winter. My gratitude to you is from all Wikipedia users. Geologist (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Ummm ...[edit]

Hi! This edit [3] of yours didn't revert all the vandalism - have you considered applying for rollback? Philip Trueman (talk) 15:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems you're right, I overlooked something. I'll think about applying for rollback, thanks for the suggestion! Regards, Woodwalker (talk) 16:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Geologic timescale[edit]

My understanding is that Wikipedia:WikiProject Geologic timescale is pretty much inactive. What I have seen of your edits, seems fine. I just quickly created the Early Pleistocene stub because the post-Gelasian-addition-to-the-Pleistocene environment meant that the Calabrian article was being mish-mashed. I suspect that Calabrian Stage should be moved to something like Calabrian (geologic timescale), but I'd discuss it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology first. I'll look at more of your work, as time permits. I hope you didn't mind my explication of your comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geology#.22Category:Impact_craters_on_Earth_by_geologic_time_scale.22_.26_.22Category:Impact_craters_on_Earth_by_region.22_were_emptied. Do you known what the agreement mentioned in the Middle Pleistocene article is? --Bejnar (talk) 18:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bejnar, I moved it to Calabrian (stage), conform the titles of other stages like Oxfordian (stage), Anglian (stage), Aquitanian (stage), etc. I didn't mind your explanation at the project TP. Actually, I don't care that much. Imho it is no big concern to have a category more or less, even if the category isn't very practical. I'm not sure what the agreement is about, perhaps the division in subepochs is going to disappear when the four ages are becoming internationally recognized. However, as far as I know most Quaternary geologists prefer to use regional timescales instead of the ICS' timescale, and the Italian names are officially still considered regional divisions. See here for the ICS' latest version, it seems the name Calabrian is now at least official. Woodwalker (talk) 20:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Woudloper. You have new messages at Blanchardb's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


Hi, looks like more problems with terminology. Most sources that I can find either explicitly or implicitly reserve the term tectonite for a deformed rock that has a fabric and virtually all descriptions come from metamorphic rocks (in terms of regional metamorphism rather than anything termed 'dynamic metamorphism'). I have been able to find very few descriptions of brittle tectonites as such, which generally fits with the need for a fabric to be developed (ignoring for the moment 'foliated cataclasites' and 'clay gouges'). I personally don't regard a fault breccia as a tectonite but I'm happy to shown the error of my ways. Mikenorton (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mike, I can be wrong of course. This is what I remembered though. I'll search my books to see if I can find a source. Woodwalker (talk) 18:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


I would like to send you an email. Could you please enable email or give me an email that I can send one to? Thanks. -- logger9 (talk) 23:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done - I enabled the email function. I wasn't aware it was off. Thanks for noticing! Woodwalker (talk) 04:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Please check your email for a message. -- logger9 (talk) 23:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


I certainly was not meaning to insult you or anyone. The section heading, 'evidence', and the first entries (and from my viewpoint most of them) seemed to be arguing the case rather than the balance of the article, although a more careful re-reading shows you discussing the balance. The subject is indeed a fringe subject and needs to be on your watch list - I've suggested starting a new section with a clearer heading, eg 'Article imbalance'. Even moving some of the relevant discussion there. It would really help if you came back. I'm no expert on this although I watched some of its proponents battle it out on Usenet years ago and took part from time to time. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 19:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, graciously accepted! I became a bit demotivated when an admin suddenly told me to stop the discussion. I really appreciate you took the time to read the discussion again and that you have the courage to admit you were wrong. The mistake is understandable, there are plenty of tiring discussions about fringe theories here and elsewhere on the internet. I'll have expanding Earth back on my watchlist. I'm not saying I'm an expert, but I am working with metamorphic petrology and since it seemed necessary I tried to better explain the geologic evidence for subduction. Regards, Woodwalker (talk) 12:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Source info for image[edit]

Do you have any information about the source of this image? I see that you added the image to the Wikimedia Commons in 2007, and I see that the image has a public domain tag. Can you say how we know that it is really public domain? It looks to me like a mid- to late 20th-century illustration, which would probably not be public domain. I'd appreciate any information you have. Thanks. Marco polo (talk) 16:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Marco Polo, unfortunately I'm not sure. I uploaded it to commons assuming good faith in the original uploader. In 2007, I was inexperienced with copyvio and it is possible that I copied his or her mistake. I probably thought it was an old mural and looking at it, I still think it might be. The image was taken from the English Wikipedia (so, from here) and I imagine the local version was deleted when my copy appeared at commons. You should ask an admin to look at the deleted original here to identify the original uploader. He or she (if still here) must be able to tell you why the picture is claimed to be PD. If not, the image should be deleted. Best regards and good luck, Woodwalker (talk) 17:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Polar shift[edit]

Why are you editing the Polar shift page, you have never contributed to the page previously. You seem to be confused, the uncontested state is with the edits, the contested state is without the edits. Please stay within some bounds of reason and avoid tryinmg to add weight to a discussion simply to add weight and without any real interest in the material. If this is misconstrued please feel free to contribute to the page with your vast geological knowledge about polar shift theory Granite07 (talk) 06:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi there Granite07. Thanks for your comment, but I wouldn't call my geological knowledge 'vast'. I just like to write and talk about geology and have a degree in it. Actually, some of the users that edited the polar shift article in the past days are experienced geologists themselves. You may well contact them if you have questions about its geological content.
If content is disputed, such as the presence of these internal links in this article, this has to be solved by finding consensus. Meanwhile, the reader should be informed by a template, or the contested content should be removed temporarily, until consensus is reached. I could also have used a template then, but that seemed overdone for a couple of links in a list. If you're new here, welcome! I'd heartily recommend you to read Wikipedia's guidelines, see for a starter Wikipedia:Five Pillars. Reading them will really help you make editing Wikipedia an enjoyable experience. Regards, Woodwalker (talk) 07:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, being a new editor is difficult, all these strange rules about consensus, citations, and significance. The five pillars should be a good resource from here on out! Always remember that consensus, while important, is also a hairs breath away from group think so I'd like to error on the side of caution. Why haven't you contributed to the page? The weakness is the true significance of the topic is underrepresented on the page. If geologists have edited that page it does not show. How can they not have the deluge even mentioned, it is the core importance of the theory next to the rapid climate change. The admins making the reverts even admitted thay have never read any of the material, they just go by rules-of-thumb and ad-hoc rules to validate edits. Without these two components it is just a mediocre unassuming ramble of a page. I have given the polar shift lecture twice. And the response of the audience both times was interesting, the mix of disbelief and uncontrollable belief, common to all pseudoscience. This page could be truly good with some work and better citations, but I think likley not by my hunt and peck edit style. Granite07 (talk) 11:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I made the revert as an editor, not an Administrator - I haven't used my Admin tools and I have said I would not use them as I'm involved. Where did I say I hadn't read any of the material? Dougweller (talk) 16:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


Please don't editwar with people over removing warnings from their talk page. If someone blanks the warning, even an IP user, then they got the warning. There is no reason to maintain a "scarlet letter" for them. --Jayron32 04:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me. At my home wiki an IP is usually blocked immediately when blanking warnings. But I never agreed with that and this sounds more logic. Can't feel any sympathy for vandal-IPs either though. Regards, Woodwalker (talk) 04:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree that vandals should be blocked; however it is rarely a productive use of time to repeatedly restore blanked warnings, admins know how to check a talk page history and will do so before issuing a block if needed. Anyhoo, carry on and keep up the good work! --Jayron32 04:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Woodwalker (talk) 04:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

GW, Awickert[edit]

Awickert said that I should be nice to you.[4] I don't know, I'm not at all happy about how the discussion is progressing, emphasis how not what. You've cited me for ABF and drowned me in a sea of words, don't assume I'm in good humor. However my interpretation is inconsistent with Awickert's description, and I trust Awickert. You said in this post that English isn't your native tongue.[5] If this is reconciliation and the latter apology, please explain, and please be summarily brief. ChyranandChloe (talk) 06:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear CaC, thanks for your message. I admit I did get angry yes, and apologize if I have been misjudging you and others. I have really nothing to do with this Scibaby sockpuppeteer and wasn't aware of that history. Those were really my first edits on the GW talk page and I was appalled by the way I was treated, especially because most of you seemed to be otherwise good contributors and nice people. While I have made only ~2500 edits, I have been an admin, mediator and FA writer on a sister project, which may explain why I know the policy and guidelines quite well. I believe the most important thing is to get the talk page "detoxified" now. For improvement to be made, we need to discuss the arguments, not the contributors. I believe only intelligent inquiry can lead to improvement of content quality.
I don't have a political POV about the current global warning (if you're worried about that). From a scientific point of view, I assume there is a lot of uncertainty but that's probably nothing out of the ordinary. I'm not sure if my geological background gives me a POV, but it does make me see climate change in a different context. I believe this context isn't given its right amount of attention in the current version of the article. I recognize the fact that geological context has been used in the past by climate sceptics, but I don't think it is necessarily in favour of the sceptical view. At the contrary, a lot of geological observations can be used to illustrate the relation between CO2-levels and global temperature. Regards, Woodwalker (talk) 07:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
There are 473 confirmed Scibaby socks, a standing 133 suspected, and a undetermined undetected number beyond. However, Scibaby does have a specific writing style, and you didn't fit—and it appears that most editors here are from other-language Wikipedias. I don't think you're PoV, and I don't recall ever accusing you of that. My main concern is your comments. You mentioned that because English is not your native tongue your comments may appear verbose.[6] I'm going to frank, they don't "appear", they are.

I realize that most editors are resistant to changing how to they write their comments, and especially when they are actively engaged in a heated discussion with the editor who they disagreed with. However, I believe it's within our mutual interest to resolve how we communicate rather than what. Simply because without good communication, the what never gets across. Because of this I'm not going to into the what, global warming is irrelevant to this discussion. If you're interested, I can go over a couple of your comments and you may to me. If yes, I've got a couple questions:

  1. Implicitly you mentioned to have taken a witting course, and that others lack it, please explain.[7] Because this seems inconsistent to when you said you were a not a native speaker of English and the reasons why your comments appears verbose.[8]
  2. What roles do you see opinion, reason, and process play here?
  3. This might be an obscure essay, but have you read WP:PROCESS?
  4. Are you familiar with George Orwell? I'm not talking about his politics, but his essays on language, which I think one of them fits here.
  5. Anything you think is important here that I haven't mentioned.
If no, I'm fine with that. Thank you for your share of words. ChyranandChloe (talk) 09:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I haven't answered you straight away since I'm unsure what you want from me. Or rather, I see the what but not the why.
  1. I've taken courses in scientific writing (and reading). That's not the same as vernacular English or business English. It's often about subtleties people differ in science, and at that talk page most participants don't understand the subtleties in climatology, nor the arguments. I see contributors arguing over things they don't understand (only some, like W.M. Connolley, do): imho they should keep away from such topics. It irritates me. There is imo, in general, too much talk on Wikipedia and too little reading.
  2. When discussing the content of a neutral tertiary source like Wikipedia, there can only be opinions about sources. The (undue) weight given to sources results in balance or imbalance in the content. Similarly, reason should be copied from our sources, it's not our place to reason by ourselves (WP:NOR).
  3. I hadn't found WP:PROCESS yet. It's a good summary. I like the diagram. What about it?
  4. I wasn't aware of Orwell's essays on language no. I know his political/literary work of course.
  5. I'm still not sure what your intention is.
Regards, Woodwalker (talk) 08:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Orwell wrote "Politics and the English language", what I want you to get out of it is brevity and clarity. You're doing a lot better now, compared to this.[9][10] Yeah it's been a while, most of what I was planning on saying is fresh out of mind. The fundamental point was if you want people to read your comments, in addition to the literature, you need to seriously need to summarize. Commentary on what you believe and what you did ("I'm cool now. I decided to come back. If I leave now, that would mean giving up the ideal of improving Wikipedia's content...") is of little significance to justifying an edit to the article. When you go over two paragraphs, what is important is often lost, and I'm surprised no one cited WP:TLDR. ChyranandChloe (talk) 23:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I got emotional, that's probably why I was overly verbose. But in general you're right I could do with less words, it's good advice. I'll read Orwell's essay.
As for GW, the discussions at the talk page are still mainly about politics (they belong imho rather with the article about the political controversy). Some primary scientific sources are quoted/discussed, yet the relevance and weight of these sources are unclear. Still no sign of anyone looking into secondary scientific literature. If it stays this way, I'm definitely against keeping FA. Woodwalker (talk) 07:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Prosecutions pending[edit]

In the wake of exposes that key scientists fudged data, harassed those who presented accurate data and destroyed records of original data after receiving freedom of information requests, investigations are moving toward criminal charges against some of those involved. Subpoenas of Wikimedia Foundations are likely and criminal prosecution of anonymous operatives who have controlled Wikipedia articles will most likely follow. We could release names and Wikipedia user names of those who are likely to face charges, but that could lead to destruction of evidence and, it is reported from confidential informants working within Wikimedia Foundation, possible flight to avoid prosecution. Those responsible for this attempt to establish a global dictatorship, funded by the same money-traders who crashed several national economies, will escape prosecution. Scandals about the founder's sexual escapades and wanton spending will pale in the light of facts soon to emerge about who really controlled this project and why. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC).

I have no clue what this is about. It may have something to do with the leaked emails in the forgery scandal with the IPCC, since I commented at the talk page of global warming. Why I have the honour of being the only wikipedian addressed by this IP-user boggles me.
Normally, I wouldn't react because the above is a POV statement, without a question or start of a discussion. However, I'd like to make two points clear:
  • I do think Wikipedia needs to become an accurate, complete and precise source for all information;
  • I don't think Wikipedia should strive to become the only accurate, complete and precise source of all information.
If Wikipedia became a monopoly on free knowledge, the information supply on the internet would imho become too vulnerable to advertisement, POV and other bias. Woodwalker (talk) 19:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Bill Hodges (business consultor)[edit]


This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Bill Hodges (business consultor), and it appears to include a substantial copy of For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 05:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Bill Hodges (business consultor)[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg
A tag has been placed on Bill Hodges (business consultor) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Timotheus Canens (talk) 07:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope, I don't object. I just split the text from another article to create an disamb page. It was added there by an IP-user earlier. Woodwalker (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Reference lists[edit]

Hi Woudloper, If you want to learn more about templated reference lists Wotnow (talk has aggregated a great amount of information and tips on both his talk and user pages. My only criteria for a methodology are: - Is it simple enough for me to understand how to edit it? ...Is it as simple as possible for the casual reader to immediately follow and understand? (i.e. no prior knowledge of academic styles required, no araucarian mental gymnastics, no arduous tracing across multiple lists/tables. :) Regards. Chienlit (talk) 14:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Woudloper. On checking for the need to update my userpage links to discussions which have been archived, I saw your comment, and Chienlit's reply here, regarding my attempt to bring the relevant information together in one place. I am gratified that Chienlit considered my efforts worth pointing someone to. The question that naturally arises from this is: how useful did you find it?
Your query on Chienlit's referencing technique provides an opportunity for feedback on the my userpage usefulness. Why you? Well, you've explicitly indicated interest in the potential utility of the technique used by Chienlit to declutter the article of reference material, while at the same time indicating a modicum of healthy skepticism. This makes you a good candidate for feedback.
The page arose as a direct result of, and in parallel with, dialogues with GyroMagician, Kudpung, Chienlit and Maedin. This means whatever they think of its structure etc, they could readily follow my arguments, no matter how well or badly constructed and presented. Conversely, I presume any content review by yourself would be completely afresh. So you'd be reading it without the benefit of any implicit knowledge of related dialogues, and simply trying to make sense of it as it stands. Ideal for feedback.
Therefore, I would welcome your feedback on my talkpage regarding the utility of the userpage. Things like: Overall, could you make sense of it? And if so, was it helpful? Did you find any parts particularly helpful? If so, which and why? Did you find any parts unhelpful? Here I'm thinking not so much any idiosyncratic style adopted by me, but rather, anything that detracted from your ability to make sense of the arguments therein. I won't be offended if you're ruthless in your feedback. I did ask for it! I am quite confident that I have addressed several key issues, either directly myself, via links to other content, or both. I know that from the way the page evolved, with me trying to address various concerns, issues, and pseudo-issues, as they arose. Nevertheless, that doesn't negate the question of readability for a 'newcomer'. I am likely to try to make improvements to the utility of my userpage. So while I can't guarantee any specific changes, I can guarantee to give serious thought to comments from yourself, because my ultimate objective is that the page should make sense to someone reading it for the first time, while retaining a modicum of idiosyncracy. Regards. Wotnow (talk) 03:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

List-defined references[edit]

On the utility of the referencing technique, which I now know is called 'list-defined references', I see that a chief interest for you is the ability to declutter articles by taking out "difficult-to-recognize text" resulting from full references being embedded within the body of the article. This seems to me to be a common concern, which editors have tried to address in various ways, with varying degrees of success or further complication. Expanding the references within the article may help in editing the references, but doesn't address the embedded reference clutter problem. And because it breaks up the article flow even further than when the refs are collapsed together, it does not generally become easier to edit the article. For articles with a handful of references, embedded references are not a serious problem. The problems arise with lots of references, clusters of references, and lengthy references; all of which are sometimes not only unavoidable, but in fact necessary.

As far as I can tell, two referencing techniques get the clutter from the article text. One is the list-defined references which you encountered in the History of the Earth article, and elaborated on in various places which I've tried to bring together on my userpage. The other uses the Harvard referencing templates. Some people erroneously call this the Harvard style. But the Harvard style is about a referencing style and layout, which existed long before Wikipedia and its templates. So they are more correctly called Harvard referencing templates or similar. You'll see from my user page that this too removes bulky references from the body of the article and groups them in a separate reference section. This means of course that 'list-defined references' is not a good name for the other technique, because the Harvard style templates also result in list-defined references. However, that's the name it was given, and as I'm sure you're aware, when viewed with the benefit of hindsight, naming conventions don't always turn out to be optimal. There's plenty of discussion in scientific literature on that very issue.

The bottom line, is you can utilise either the 'list-defined references' technique or method, or the Harvard-style templates. Both will serve the purpose of decluttering the article. You will also see however, that both are two step processes. Both have an abbreviated reference embedded within the article text, which provides the inline citation. And both then have the reference proper grouped in a separate section. The Harvard style also utilises, or can utilise, a separate 'Notes' section. This leaves you with the question of layout, which is really what you want to know in terms of article readability. You'll see from the experiment that we tried in developing the Malvern, Worcestershire article, that we tackled this very issue, using the Shakespeare article to exemplify situations where the Harvard-style templates give a clearly useful return for effort. Comparing this with our own experience of the Malvern article, we found we were better off with the 'list-defined references' technique. Sure we had a handful of references from the same work with separate page citations. But too few to be of concern in terms of which style we adopted, as compared to the Shakespeare, or William Penn articles.

Let's consider an article from your own contributions list. Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo could go either way. You could clearly utilise the Harvard-style templates, which would automatically generate the links from the 'Notes' section to the 'Reference' section. However, with only a few individually paginated references to the same source, you could just as easily adopt the style used in Malvern or say Captain R.T. Claridge (see refs 55-58). It really is not significant which way you go. The criterion I personally would adopt is similar to that of Chienlit. Ease of use. For my money, there's generally less stuffing around with the 'list-defined references' technique in terms of return for effort. I'd only see a return for effort if there was, or I knew there would be, a large number of individual page references to the same source as in the Shakespeare or William Penn articles. However, the choice is yours, and I hope this was of some help. Regards Wotnow (talk) 03:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

BLP applies in all spaces. You don't get an exemption becuase it's a talk page —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Carboniferous European subdivisions[edit]

Hi Woudloper

Is the stratigraphic table one of yours - as appears at Namurian for example? It's just that there's a typo in the title ('subdivions' rather than 'subdivisions')and since this table usefully appears on several pages I wanted to fix it but don't know how to access it to edit it. Cheers, Geopersona (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the typo in the template (hope you don't mind Woudloper) - to make a change just go to the template page {{Carboniferous European subdivisions}} and edit the page. Mikenorton (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Of course! I thank you both. Geopersona (talk) 06:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

AIV report and signature[edit]

Hi. Two points about your report to AIV just now:

  • we wouldn't normally block for a single, admittedly silly, edit from a new user: the best response is a {{welcome}} and {{uw-v1}} or {{uw-v2}}. See WP:VANDAL for advice on dealing with vandals, and a full list of warnings at WP:WARN. The time for an AIV report is when vandalism is still ongoing after a final warning.
  • Your custom signature is pretty but should include a link to your user page or talk page - I had to dig into the AIV page history to find who you were. There is advice at WP:Signatures#Internal links on how to arrange a link.

Regards, JohnCD (talk) 11:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Redaktor Wikipedia 600px.png

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 protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is 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.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


Meta-Wiki Wikix (talk) 15:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Peter A. Ziegler[edit]

Hello Woudloper (Or R. if my guess is right)

I rewrote the page on Peter A. Ziegler. This was a request from the man himself

Cheers and best regards to J. --Moumine (talk) 21:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello Moumine, thanks for upgrading the article about Ziegler. My main source was a small profile at the website of Delft Technical University, perhaps not very accurate. I'm sorry if mr. Ziegler felt incriminated in any way. I have his atlas on my book shelf. It's a very nice and thorough book and a great source of info, even >20 years after its publication. I'm not completely sure who you are (P.?), so I cannot send J. your regards... But please don't use my real name on this wiki, I'd like to keep my identity safe. If you want to you can always contact me by sending me an email (menu to the left: toolbox -> e-mail this user). Best regards, Woodwalkertalk 19:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

GeoWhen Database[edit]

Hello Woudloper: I've been fixing a few links to the GeoWhen Database (as at the Messinian page, for example). It appears that about a year ago you fixed a set of non-functioning links to the source with a set of links which now require a password for access. I've changed a few to the new URL, but it occurred to me that maybe there is something I don't know about the links you placed. Shall I keep changing them when I see them? Best Wishes, Mark Wilson44691 (talk) 11:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mark, when I added these links, they didn't require a password, as far as I remember. It's not a good idea to send our readers to password sites, imho. Please continue replacing them if you like. Regards, Woodwalkertalk 09:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Woodwalker. Will do when I see them! Cheers, Mark Wilson44691 (talk) 14:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


The Armorican terrane and the Armorican Massif seem to be not far from each other :p --Chris.urs-o (talk) 09:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I've opened a discussion on this topic at Talk:Armorican terrane, as I think it a better location. Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 09:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Artikelen van sokpoppen[edit]

Hoi Woudloper, je aanname op de opinie-peilingspag, klopt niet helemaal in mijn geval. Ik sta niet in blokkade vanwege promo, maar vanwege heraanmaken van nieuwe accounts. Ik kan dat voor je opsommen. Hier staat de allereerste blokkade door MM opgelegd op 12 nov 2008. Dat was per direct een blokkade van 1 jaar, zonder ooit eerder een korter blok te geven. Ik kan me er niet aan onttrekken dat die zeer heftige blokkade volgde uit de kritiek 2 dagen eerder die ik hier uit onder een sokpop, waarbij ik indirect een overleg-pag kopregel van MoiraMoira bekritiseer ("ben je een band? maak geen artikel over jezelf aan, maar wacht tot je bekend genoeg bent dat iemand anders dat doet"), hier de link: [11] en haar houding in zulke zaken bekritiseer, zie hier de link:[12] en hier [13]. Dat er naast reeksen nieuwe accounts mijn COI een probleem is, is uiteraard zo, maar niet de reden van MoiraMoira en Oscar destijds. Later is de COI er door MM bijgezocht om haar standpunt sterker te maken ter aangezicht van andere gebruikers. Mijn COI dient terecht gecontroleerd en nagegaan te worden, dat is ook mijn wens (ongewenste bijdragen reverten als er geen goede externe bron is die mijn edit niet dekt). Dat dit er later bijgezocht is kan ik bewijzen. Ik gaf dat immers hier op 10 okt 2008 aan dat ook vanaf mijzelf de wens op controle er is, link [14]. De overige 10.000 edits die ik deed waren niet in conflict met mijn COI en dienen beoordeeld te worden op hun content, niet op de bijdrager. De recent verwijderde SST Records en Marnie Stern (beide vertaald uit het Engels) zijn hier treffende voorbeelden van. Ik heb geen relatie met deze artikelen. Met vriendelijke groet en met waardering voor jou als bijdrager, (talk) 09:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear Yuri Landman, you're either in or out. I have the impression that you understand our project's aim, guidelines and rules. You have chosen not to abide by them but to try to misuse our project, probably to your own advantage or amusement. As far as I know, you are fully aware that your actions don't comply with the aim and rules of our project. If you show no change of insight, you can't be let in to participate. When you don't participate, you can't help our project. Best wishes, Woodwalkertalk 17:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Helemaal mee eens, behalve dan dat er door Arb com zowel als de moderatorsgilde geen antwoord gegeven wordt hoe de blokkade eventueel opgeheven kan worden. Dat is krom aan het systeem dat op NL gehanteerd wordt. Ik ben er nu 'uit' inderdaad en voel me niet betrokken bij de ambities van MM en deelgenoten. Verder heeft dit alles geen betrekking hoe ik tegen u aankijk, want ik heb met u of uw mening geen probleem. Ik begrijp dat u niet mijn standpunt deelt. Ik vond het enkel van waarde om de juiste tijdlijn op te sommen. Prettig weekend en met hartelijke groet, (talk) 20:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Temagami greenstone belt[edit]

Hi. I don't think we have met before, but there is a discussion on my talk page about the possible origins of the Temagami greenstone belt in Ontario, Canada. The TGB article has recently been a major topic of mine and I recently did a major rewrite and expansion for it. The reason I want to know the possible origins of the Temagami belt is because I would like to add some information about the possible origins of the Temagami belt in its article. And as a fan of Canadian volcanism and a local of the belt, it is something I would like to know. I have done research on this greenstone belt several times, but none of the papers and other documents I found do not state anything about the TGB's origin(s). If you can help with this problem, you can join the discussion on my talk page. Thanks. Volcanoguy 21:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I have replied on my talk page. Volcanoguy 21:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


See Meta-Wiki. Wikix (talk) 09:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


Hi Woudloper, I've used one of your maps on an album: Thanks! Although it was released last month, your map is a very new addition. The map has come out a bit strange. I'm happy with it. The map is on a Share A Like licence, which I also have used for the album. That says to attribute the work in the manner specified by the author. Perhaps you have the same view as myself about that ('leave me alone and work it out for yourself'). However, if there is a specific manner in which you would like it attributed (I can edit), or there is some other issue, please let me know thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)