User talk:Woudloper: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 08:05, 17 August 2009

Thought I'd pick on you!

Caledonian orogeny

Subperiods

Geochronologic/chronostratigraphic names and capitals

Geology regarding the North Sea

Geology sketch-maps of Cornwall

merge Lower Lias and Blue Lias

Capitalised titles

Page moves

Get rid of national boundaries

MIS/OIS

Apologies

Permian Basin (Europe)

Keep up the good work!

Request for permission to use photographs

Sophergeo

Expanding Earth

Great American Interchange image

Subsystems (or subperiods)

Appendix template

Question for you

Critical taper

Geology of the Western Carpathians

Hoi

Content deleted Content added

Inline

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

More discussion on this subject continued at Talk:Caledonian orogeny. - Woodwalker (talk) 12:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi, Woodwalker, many thanks for the help you've being giving at Talk:North Sea --Philcha (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The Special Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		Thank you for your help on the North Sea article SriMesh \| talk 01:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@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:

Ziegler, P.A.; 1990: Geological Atlas of Western and Central Europe, Shell Internationale Petroleum Maatschappij BV (2^nd ed.), ISBN 90-6644-125-9.
Glennie, K.W. (ed.); 1998: Petroleum Geology of the North Sea, Blackwell Publishing (4^th ed.), ISBN 9780632038459.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I responded at Abyssal's TP. Woodwalker (talk) 10:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Placing a Notes section inside which reflist is placed for the points that are cited.
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 Satu Suro 12:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

		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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Thanks for noticing me. I saw he now uses an IP-address to edit. Woodwalker (talk) 19:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's an honor to be considered your sockpuppet. Awickert (talk) 07:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hilarious. The honour is all mine! :-) Woodwalker (talk) 20:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I just uploaded a new version. Is this what you meant? Woodwalker (talk) 00:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

This page is part of WOODWALKERS user space.

NW Europe geology

Alps geology

Book shelf

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thank you very much for your clear explanation. Indeed my expectations will be the same regarding the steps to the Dutch Arb.com.. 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 hypercustom.com 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, 83.87.171.3 (talk) 08:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]