User talk:Mav

Meow - princess Mougie proclaimeth from the nerve centre of her empire Template:Add Cat scratch fever

Older messages are in talk archive 1, talk archive 2 and talk archive 3, talk archive 4, talk archive 5, talk archive 6, talk archive 7, talk archive 8, talk archive 9, talk archive 10, talk archive 11, talk archive 12, talk archive 13, talk archive 14, talk archive 15, talk archive 16, talk archive 17, talk archive 18, talk archive 19, talk archive 20,talk archive 21, talk archive 20,talk archive 22,talk archive 23,talk archive 24,talk archive 25,talk archive 26,talk archive 27,talk archive 28,talk archive 29

---

FACs needing feedback view •
Five Nights at Freddy's: Help Wanted	Review it now
La Isla Bonita	Review it now

Mount Garibaldi

Hi Mav. Since you seem to be the creator of the Mount Garibaldi article and have contributed to many featured articles, would you be interested to try and get Mount Garibaldi featured? I've been a major contributor to some Canadian volcano articles (e.g. Mount Garibaldi, Mount Cayley, Mount Meager, Tseax Cone, Anahim hotspot, Mount Edziza) but haven't got any featured yet and probably most of them should be; the Tseax Cone was the source for a tragic eruption during the 18th century that killled 2,000 Nisga'a people. If you're intrested bringing Garibaldi or the other volcanoes I listed above to featured status, contact me on my talk page.

Note: I have been wanting to get some of these articles featured and I'll try and do my best to bring these to featured status, but it's hard for me to do so because I'm almost the main one who works on them. Black Tusk 02:34, 26 2008 (UTC)

I just expanded the history section. As for Meager and Cayley, I don't know what's needed for those volcanoes. Meager almost looks just as good as the Garibaldi article, but Cayley probably needs some expansion; I'm currently working on the "eruption scenerio" for that article.

As for information, if you can't find anymore infomation in your library, search google; that's where I found most of the infomation and there's probably still lots to add (e.g. climbing, climate, recreation). Black Tusk 18:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Mav, can you put something in the article where the eruptions came from during Garibald's three eruption phases? I'm asking you this because you seem to have been the one who added the infomation. I think Atwell Peak was the source for several pyroclastic flows. Black Tusk 01:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll take another look. --mav

Thanks. Just letting you know Mount Garibaldi is a current featured article candidate. However, there's problems with some of the references and it's getting questions and comments about the article and probably needs more WikiProject Volcanoes members involved in the dicussion and fix problems in the article to make it Featured Status. Black Tusk 22:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Old peer review

Here is a peer review that slipped through the cracks and was never archived. Meow. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 10:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hacked?

Was your Wikipedia account hacked? I've noticed that you've put just white spaces to several articles, and I'm reverting them. Warut (talk) 09:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Not hacked - I'm just reviewing the articles up to that point. --mav

Oh! Sorry for my misunderstanding! Warut (talk) 16:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It's OK. I normally make small, but valid edits when reviewing. In the future I'll make sure to put something like 'reviewed' in the edit comment field. --mav

Pre-historic smelting of tin.

As a geologist, would you say the description of high tin-content cassiterite in the article smelting is NPOV and accurate? (" The process through which the smiths learned to produce copper/tin bronzes is once again a mystery. The first such bronzes were probably a lucky accident from tin contamination of copper ores, but by 2000BC we know that tin was being mined on purpose for the production of bronze. This is amazing, given that tin is a semi-rare metal, and even a rich cassiterite ore only has 5% tin. Also, cassiterite looks like any common rock, and it takes special skills (or special instruments) to find it and locate the richer lodes. But, whatever steps were taken to learn about tin, these were fully understood by 2000BC.") I am specifically interested in your view of the wording: "cassiterite looks like any common rock, and it takes special skills (or special instruments) to find it and locate the richer lodes." Is this in your view relevant and accurate? How sophisticated knowledge are we necessarily predicating here, to identify a likely source of tin? -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 23:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

That could certainly be worded to be more encyclopedic and less chatty. But I'm not familiar enough with that mineral to say if it is NPOV or not. --mav

Cambrian explosion task force

Hi,

I'm posting this message because you're listed as a participant in WikiProject Geology. I've set up a task force aiming to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the Cambrian explosion, and I was wondering whether you may be interested in helping out? If you would like to help in any way, you could cast an eye over the task force page and see if there are any articles or tasks that take your fancy! Any contributions would be greatly appreciated. (After that I might be tempted to join you on getting period pages up to a good status...)

Best wishes,

Smith609 Talk 15:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Helium Featured Article Review

Helium has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Itub (talk) 09:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Oxygen

Hey, there is an issue about the article, and is about one of the references you added. I am not sure exactly what is the answer, so please see the talk page. Nergaal (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Rating

Hi Mav. Could you take a look at Garibaldi's article and see what its current rating might be? It's currently GA but it has been expanded and better organized since it was last reviewed. It's also very similar in structure to some FA volcano articles (e.g. Mount St. Helens and Mount Pinatubo). I'm not saying it's FA status, but the article looks nearly complete; the introduction probably needs expansion because of the article's great size and expansion about the indigenous people (which does in fact have several sources of infomation for expansion). Anyway just asking you because I know you have made several contributions to FA articles and you said you would love to collaborate if additional source can be found. Black Tusk (talk) 04:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

With that being said, there seems to be more infomation about Garibaldi's ancestral activity in a book called Volcanoes of North America: United States and Canada and about Canadian volcano monitoring on the Geological Survey of Canada website. Black Tusk (talk) 05:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Certainly is GA, but I'd like to see an expanded lead section and more book references before this goes to FAC. Thanks for the book suggestion - I've added it to my Amazon wish list. Side note: I wish there were more (and longer!) books like that. One of the reasons I add more to the element articles than anything else is due the relative ease I've had in finding several good books on the subject. --mav

The book is actually being used as one of the references in the article if you want to have a look. I have also recently created and majorly contributed to the Mount Edziza volcanic complex article which is already 43 kilobytes long and GA status. Maybe this is this something you would find interesting as well since it's a huge volcano (an area of about 1000 km² and consists of about 775 km³ of basalt, trachyte and rhyolite) that is studied in detail and is a long-lived volcanic center ranging in age from about 7 million years old to present. It's a volcano that can catch someones interest since volcanoes don't usually last for 7 or 8 million years. I'm sure that can be turned into a FA no problem since there appears to be lots of infomation about it, see here for example. I have also completed a new map of the volcano as Image:Mount Edziza volcanic complex2.jpg. Give me your thoughts ;-). Black Tusk (talk) 05:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

And I ment to tell you there appears to be some conflicting infomation about Garibaldi's ancestral activity in the book I mentioned above compared to your original version of the article for some reason. Maybe when you get the book you could figure something out. Black Tusk (talk) 02:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I used the first edition of Fire Mountains of the West by Harris. I just put the revised 2005 edition on my wish list (along with some other volcano books). I've been bogged down with chemical element articles and FARs lately (not to mention work) but really need to switch focus back to geology. Hopefully soon... --mav

No problem. The infomation is actually fine, but some sources seem to consider Dalton Dome as the final stage of activity insted of Opal Cone being the last. I searched the area on Google Earth and I had no luck finding a crater or lava flows at Dalton Dome. However, Opal Cone seems to have a small summit crater with a long dacite lava flow; see Image:Ring Creek lava flow.jpg. Black Tusk (talk) 03:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I recently received a couple books on N. American volcanoes and will be coming back to this area before too long. --mav

You are invited...

to join the Volcanoes Wiki! Questions can be directed to my main user page. MeldshalP (talk) 14:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

hey

hey this is jesse jills son its been awhile since i have seen you i was just wondering how things were going? btw very impressive wikipage jessebdawg (talk) 11:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC) jessebdawg

Hi Jesse! Nice to hear from you again. :) --mav

Yeah I was thinking of making an article about Mather Youth Academy. And there have been a few articles I've wanted to edit but couldnt find any sources for bibliography or whatever.Have you heard from dee lately? My mom said she thought she was moving back to Sacramento but wasnt sure. U got an email? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessebdawg (talk • contribs) 06:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion at WT:FAC

My reply (which comes 23827 pages later, since I made the mistake of sleeping for 8 hours instead of keeping up with the discussion), was:

I support whatever works for Sandy and the active reviewers. If you're going to go with a shorter timeframe, I think the prize for best idea (among many) above goes to User:mav (with 22 FAs btw): "I've never really understood why FAC does not require an article to have recently gone through a successful PR or a WikiProject A-class assessment or a GAN or whatever prior to submittal to FAC." I'd support either a requirement or a recommendation. If all of the 4 review processes (FAC, PR, A-class and GAN) encourage the others to produce tight descriptions of why the article passed, including why the sources are good for what they're used for, and all encourage the others to start new reviews by reading the summaries of the previous ones, then we could save some time and have better reviews. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence. :) --mav

Pr request

Could you look over Nevado del Ruiz? I've been working and picking at it for a while, and I finally want to bring it to FAC. Thanks. —Ceranthor (formerly LordSunday) · (Testify!) 23:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure - I'm not familiar with mountains/volcanoes in South America but I'll give it a shot (at least by the end of the weekend). --mav

Hi Mav!

One of my favorite pages here on wikipedia is the wikipediaholism test. Did you know that you are the first editor that is still active on wikipedia as of 10/7/08 to edit that page? In other words, you were the first editor to edit that page, and you are still active on wikipedia. And I beleive you've been contributing since 2001 or 2002. That's a long time! Just wanted to say hi. Drop my talk page sometime! Thank You- entertainU (talk) 03:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

This wikiaddiction looks like it will be a lifelong obsession. :) My goodness is there still so much work to do. Thanks for the note. --mav

FACR

Mav, you posted at one or more of the recent discussions of short FAs. There's now a proposal to change the featured article criteria that attempts to address this. Please take a look and consider adding your comments to the straw poll there. Mike Christie (talk) 20:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. --mav

Old page histories

Hi Mav. For a while now, I've been working on fixing very old (circa 2002) cut and paste moves, at first on place names, then in other topics. I've noted down some observations about page history, including page history that has disappeared from Wikipedia, at User:Graham87/Page history observations.

Your name popped up often while I was doing this work, because you enforced the naming conventions so consistently by using the only available method, cut and paste moves. I found a tool that listed the articles created by a user, and used this URL (which takes a long time to load), to find articles where you made the edit with the lowest ID number (which often isn't the first edit for some of the early stuff). I think I've corrected all the cut-and-paste moves on that list.

How did you makethis edit? I thought that the move function was introduced in late August 2002, and before that, only cut and paste moves were possible. How about this edit, which you probably didn't make? Was there something screwy in the software that munged the page histories when moving a page? Graham87 14:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

IIRC the move function was first enabled for admins but it was experimental and did not always work cleanly. The screwy things you see are likely the result of that. --mav

Wyoming picture

I saw your picture of Kemmerer, Wyoming, taken in June of 2003. If you have regular access to Kemmerer, could you please get a picture of the Lincoln County Courthouse in the city? Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 19:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure - although it might be some time before I re-visit that part of the country. --mav

Heelllpp

Its monday morning here and I really shouldn't be on the computer but I have a problem at FAC with major depressive disorder...some of the harvard formatting isn't working, and can it be done with cite book instead of citation format? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the content of the references are the major referencing issue. If those are resolved, then I can help with any technical referencing issues. --mav

Policy question

Since you have been around for a while maybe you could take a look at this: Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Not censored versus not anarchy. In a nutshell: An Editor made a post that starts off "I am about to make a WP:BOLD edit..." I replied with the "Any edit to this page should reflect consensus" and to please not make edits. The Editor replied back "No - that's not how consensus works on policy pages". Thanks Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds odd. Comment added. --mav

Following up

Not that is did any good but thanks for the response. The Editors reply to you starts off with "I'll edit how I please" and concludes "You don't like it, revert me or take me to AN/I or arbitration.". That Editor aside there is a borderline edit war going on as well with other editors. (Edit History) I am hesitant to "be bold" here because it seems like editing this policy without consensus has been going on for years. Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks like this has been resolved through the reverts of others. Trust in the system worked in this case. --mav

Bryce Canyon National Park

Bryce Canyon National Park has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Niobium

You uploaded the image:Nb-TableImage.png and for the FAC Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Niobium a auther would be nice for the image! Thanks --Stone (talk) 19:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

for "Image:Charles Hatchett.jpg" also. Nergaal (talk) 19:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Added. --mav

PR

Hey Mav, would you try to help me as Nevado del Ruiz is at peer review again? —Ceran ♦ (talk) 00:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions for where I could find sources? See the PR again, please. ;) —Ceran ♦ (talk) 01:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment added. --mav

Another one...

Could you help out at this peer review, too? Thanks, —Ceran ♦ ♦ (speak) 23:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

PR

Can you come back to Nevado's PR? I think I've addressed all the concerns. —Ceranthor 21:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

FAR notice

I have nominated Zion National Park for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cirt (talk) 03:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Plutonium allotropes image

The infobox causes a conflict with the image that creates a blank space in the text. Maybe it doesn't look big on your computer, but on my widescreen laptop it's a very large blank space that is created. I've tried twice to fix it by making the image fall directly below the infobox. If you don't like my solution that's fine, but then you need to find a way to fix it please. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Typo redirect Newton (unita)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Newton (unita), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Newton (unita) is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Newton (unita), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 17:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Ploot oxide colors

Some fascinating stuff on the colors of tarnish on Pu metal. I remember reading that it turned almost violet; the article had gray or yellow. http://arq.lanl.gov/source/orgs/nmt/nmtdo/AQarchive/3rdQuarter08/page3.shtml seems to indicate that the oxide can take many colors. How should we best deal with this in the article? --John (talk) 03:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how exactly to deal with the gray vs yellow tarnish bit but I think you talking about the different colors of Pu in aqueous solution, which is already well-documented in the article. What the solid metal does is going to differ. --mav

No, the link makes clear that it is the solid oxide. --John (talk) 04:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Volcanoes

Hey. Just letting you know I am collecting infomation to try and get Volcanism in Canada to FA status. I already have rewriten infomation for this article stored in my system 60 kilobytes long but tons of infomation still needs to be added. The volcanism dates back at least 3,100 million years ago..... Black Tusk (talk) 02:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Cool - sounds interesting. I'll take a look once you get that info uploaded to the article. --mav

No problem. However, I currently have a section issue. Central Canada includes Ontario and Quebec, but according to the Eastern Canada article, Eastern Canada includes Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland and Labrador. Should Central Canada and Eastern Canada be separate sections or should Central Canada be merged with Eastern Canada? Black Tusk (talk) 05:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess Central Canada is a subdivision of Eastern Canada because Atlantic Canada is part of Eastern Canada as well. I'll make Atlantic Canada and Central Canada sub-sections of Eastern Canada for now. Black Tusk (talk) 06:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I just posed the infomation. A bit lengthy, but should do the job. Some of the references still need information though. Black Tusk (talk) 19:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Plutonium

Hi, Daniel. Congratulations on your latest featured article: "Plutonium". Perhaps you would consider addressing my comments at the article's FAC when you have some time? Best wishes and happy new year. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - but perhaps the article was promoted too soon. Either way, I already blocked out some time on the 1st to address each of your comments. I'll do so through a PR. --mav

Whoops - saw something shiny. Maybe the weekend. --mav

Pallid sturgeon

Thanks, Mav for reviewing the article on Pallid sturgeon. I have a couple of other articles i plan on working on to improve to FA and will maybe soon work on Grand Teton National Park which maybe you'll also want to help with. Happy holidays.--MONGO 11:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'd love to collaborate on the Teton article with you. I wrote much of it but need to cite and clean-up the text I'm responsible for. --mav

Zion National Park

On 8:41 18 Dec, 2008, you made an edit to this page and summarized the changes as "remove unecessary images". I introduced those images to give readers a better sense of what the park looks like in a concise form. You probably do have some criteria you use to determine if an image is unnecessary, but I confess, I don't see what it is. Can you please clarify as to why you made that edit? Kenneth Stephen (talk) 16:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Certainly. The section was crowded with 4 images, which interfered with each other and the text at various browser window configurations, so I removed two; image:KolobCanyon1.jpg was redundant with images of the same thing further in the article and caused the Ansel Adams photo to intrude into the history section and push those images down. image:Cliffs at start of Riverside walk trail.jpg was also redundant with other close-up images of cliff faces. Neither really added much to the geography section that is not taken care of by other images in the article or section. Due to limited space, a decision was needed to improve article layout. --mav

RFC on " Astobiological Potential "

Is what is happening here what I think is happening here? 198.163.53.11 (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

IP canvassing spam from a City of Winnipeg network. Make what you will of that. . dave souza, talk 12:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Governors of Bombay

Hello Mav. I notice that you are very much interested in British monarchs. I wish to nominate List of Governors of Bombay for FLC. These are Governors, very near to monarchs. Can you copyedit the prose of this list. Actually, there is hardly any prose since this is a List. Help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Kensplanet^T_C 11:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

re: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Zion National Park

Thanks for the great improvements so far and your diligence with this. I will take another look in more depth soon. Cirt (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know. Even though I believe the Zion National Park article is up to FA standard (great job again) I have moved the review to FARC to keep things flowing in the page as a whole. Joelito (talk) 14:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Rod Blagojevich corruption charges

Hey thanks for helping me police the WP:LEAD. I have reverted it once before. I don't run across the paths of almost any of the top ten current FA nominators. I am glad to see you have been able to keep all of your articles up to snuff. You have done a lot of good stuff.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks : ) BTW, your user name - Love it! --mav

you are probably going to be interested in this

Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests#February_23 Nergaal (talk) 17:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I just noticed your comments. If you are unhappy with the nomination, then feel free to withdraw(=delete) it. I did not realize you would mind. Nergaal (talk) 05:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not unhappy - just don't see as much date connection as discovery or first nuke test. --mav

"the atmosphere contains 0.1 to 4 µg/ml [of zinc]"

I wonder if your edit might contain a typo?[1] The density of the atmosphere at sea level is 1.3 mg/ml (1.3 kg/m³). That implies that Zn is at the ~1000 ppm level. However, the atmosphere is mostly N₂, O₂ and Ar. CO₂ is at the 500 ppm level and other constituents (other than H₂O are less abundant. Zn is not listed in the table "Composition of the Atmosphere" in Astrophysical Quantities (ISBN 0485111500). If the cited number is correct, I wonder if it is in the form of metallic vapor, an oxide vapor or a component of airborne particles, i.e., dust. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yikes! Thanks for noticing that; ml -> m³. The typo made it off by a million or so. :/ --mav

Yes, 1 ppb is much more likely. Thank you. Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Paul Wellstone.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Paul Wellstone.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Titanium

The sources for the use in airbus and boing airplanes are a mess. For the older ones the references are roughly the same, but for the larger ones they differ by a factor of two A380 146 metric tons to 77 metric tons and 26 tons in the engines to 11 tons in the engines, this must be resolved! Have you a better source than the two really not good webpages from the article?--Stone (talk) 19:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Not off the top of my head, sadly. Will have to take a closer look next time this article comes up for FAR or PR. --mav

Use of Image:Grand Canyon geologic column.jpeg

Hi Mav.

I inserted your picture: Grand Canyon geologic column.jpeg in the article Formation (stratigraphy) because it is a very nice example for non-geologists of what is a geological formation. Otherwise I would like to know if I can use this same picture in the Portuguese related article: pt:formações geológicas that I am beginning to edit to improve it, as part of a geological point of view (I am a geologist, see my page: User:GeoPotinga). This is necessary because the referred file was not uploaded in the Wikimedia Commons, so, at first, I can't use it in in the Portuguese Wikipedia

--GeoPotinga (talk) 23:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :) A commons version is already located at File:Grand Canyon geologic column.jpg. --mav

Sysop on wikt-fr

I just noticed that you are sysop on wikt-fr. Do you really need these tools ? I think it’s more fair to quit this post. (sorry for my bad english). Cdlt, VIGNERON * ^discut. 18:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. --mav

Greetings from an old friend..and im getting older by the minute.

Hello Daniel this is your friend John Chrispens. I finally found you and im very impressed with your accomplishments. Wikipedia wow, not too shabby. If your ever free send me an email jchrispens@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcgadgetman (talk • contribs) 10:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Dude - no way. I'll email you stat. --mav

Thanks and a request

Thanks for signing up at Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers and for your work doing reviews. It is now just over a year since the last peer review was archived with no repsonse after 14 (or more) days, something we all can be proud of. There is a new Peer review user box to track the backlog (peer reviews at least 4 days old with no substantial response), which can be found here. To include it on your user or talk page, please add {{Wikipedia:Peer review/PRbox}} . Thanks again, and keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Template added. --mav

File:Lava tube at Craters of the Moon NM-750px.JPG missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Lava tube at Craters of the Moon NM-750px.JPG is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers. If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Read the file name and upload summary. That is your description. --mav

Thanks - Just needed to check it WAS your image :)

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Muir and Roosevelt-crop.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Muir and Roosevelt-crop.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers. If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Explorer boat from Ives Expedition.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Explorer boat from Ives Expedition.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers. If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

File:York-Trout Creek Bridge on the Missouri River in Helena National Forrest-300px.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:York-Trout Creek Bridge on the Missouri River in Helena National Forrest-300px.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Papa November (talk) 10:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Ladyslipper in Yosemite.jpg

File:Ladyslipper in Yosemite.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Cypripedium montanum.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Cypripedium montanum.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 12:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Artist's Cabin in Yosemite NP.JPG is now available as Commons:File:Artist's Cabin in Yosemite NP.JPG. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 15:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Captain Jack's cave at Captain Jack's Stronghold in Lava Beds NM-750px.JPG is now available as Commons:File:Captain Jack's cave at Captain Jack's Stronghold in Lava Beds NM-750px.JPG. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 11:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Artist's Cabin in Yosemite NP.JPG

Just to let you know that I recently copied the above image that you uploaded to Wikipedia over to WikiMedia Commons, the Wikimedia central media repository for all free media. The image had been tagged with the Copy to Wikimedia Commons template. Your image is now available to all Wikimedia projects at the following location: Commons:File:Artist's Cabin in Yosemite NP.JPG. The original version of the image uploaded to Wikipedia has been tagged with WP:CSD#F8. Cheers! --Captain-tucker (talk) 13:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Maveric149-temp.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Maveric149-temp.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

re:zinc

Yep, I do think it is ready and the chemistry issues that were raised are small enough that they should be solved during the 3+ weeks of FAC. I am good co-nomming it and I will join in to solve the issues that come up during the FAC. This did take forever... Nergaal (talk) 21:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Cool - let's see what Stone says and then create the FAC page. --mav

The use of 33,200 tons of zinc for pennies I think is calculated in metric tons. The text says somewhere Total zinc metal production was 356,000 tons; a 7% decrease from 1993 and later in the tables the same number occure for 1994 with the subheading Metric tons unless otherwise specified, so I think they use metric in all the document.--Stone (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

If you are reasonably confident that ton meant tonne in that document, then please change the wiki article. --mav

Obesity

Thanks for the support. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks. Does need a bit more work. Some of the causes sections need to be expanded and reworked a bit. I am not to good with prose. Have some other work for the next few month so may not get back to it for half a year. Cheers--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Smile!

Mav, Xclamation point has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! A small thanks for your over 7 years of contribs to the wiki
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Loihi FAC

Dabomb87 seems to be satisfied and Mattisse has done a meticolous amount of copyediting work. Would it be enough to turn that :| into a :) ? ResMar 22:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Wikipedia:IP probation watchlist

I have nominated Wikipedia:IP probation watchlist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 14:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Oxygen toxicity Peer Review

Thanks very much for your comments at WP:Peer review/Oxygen toxicity/archive1. I've taken action on most of your suggestions, but have an outstanding question on one of them. If you could find the time to revisit it, I'd be very grateful. --RexxS (talk) 01:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Re:Boron

Mav, I am honored by your intervention and would be more than glad to finally have a reasonable discussion. I'm not sure about timing. Please glanse at this and be prepared for a long tirade from my shadow. I myself have refrained from editing boron and gamma boron discovery controversy, at least for now. Unfortunately my shadow does not share this attitude.NIMSoffice (talk) 00:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

So far, I have gathered that the diagram is based on an interpretation of primary sources and the authors of some of those primary sources have an internal dispute on priority and credit. Further, some of those primary sources are so new that the secondary literature has not digested them yet. In cases like this, I don't think we should be ahead of the secondary literature, at least for high-profile articles like boron. I'll continue reading. --mav

Probably. Notes. Physics of boron is one of those numerous areas where secondary sources are extremely rare and might not appear in the next decade. Some results are indeed very, very fresh and must be treated with caution. (ReB₂ is an excellent example how several groups rushed into research after wrong claims it is superhard). This is not the case right now in the boron article and in the media. One good example, media, the Nature paper [5] and its author clearly claimed "it is the first ionic form of a pure element observed experimentally" (for refs, look at Gamma boron discovery controversy). Looking in the paper [5] reveals the claim is a theoretical prediction. Later experimental PRL paper [6] claims the bonding is purely covalent. My attempt to put it together in boron as "It is not clear yet whether the chemical bonding in this phase is partially ionic or covalent" got bashed like hell by the author (not only on talk:boron, but even at WP:ANI !) and overwritten. This controversy is still in the boron article as "There is evidence of significant charge transfer from B2 pairs to the B12 icosahedra in this structure [7]; in particular, lattice dynamics suggests the presence of significant long-range electrostatic interactions." and I would appreciate if anyone deletes it.

As to the dispute on priority and credit, IMHO it has settled and I can provide evidence if you wish (that there is no dispute). Best wishes.NIMSoffice (talk) 06:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, NIMSOffice is again pushing his agenda and speaking about what he does not understand.

First - The phase diagram was taken from our work (it never appeared in any other source, and all previous data were insufficient to obtain even a small part of it). Our own data were crucial in its construction and contributed 90% of the diagram.

Second - There is no doubt at all that the new phase of boron is predominantly covalent. This does not exclude the possibility of significant charge transfer (i.e. a significant degree of ionicity). Look at SiO2 - bonds are covalent (in the sense that there is an accumulation of electron density between the atoms, which was the main criterion by which Zarechnaya et al. claimed covalency), but it is undeniable that there is large charge transfer (i.e. ionicity) in SiO2. Look at any textbook of chemistry. Zarechnaya et al. showed large covalency (which is there), we showed that theire is also a significant charge transfer (like in SiO2, but to a smaller extent). There is no controversy here, NIMSOffice and Dubrovinskaia (who are collaborators) are creating this issue artificially, but it should not be part of WP. Artem R. OganovAoganov (talk) 19:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

BTW, forgot to mention - NIMSOffice is incorrectly saying that "the claim (of charge transfer) is a theoretical prediction. Later experimental PRL paper [6] claims the bonding is purely covalent." Our work actually presented lots of experimental evidence - the new phase has strong infrared absorption (measured at the world's best IR synchrotron line), which confirms our theoretical results and is always a sign of the presence of charges on atoms. So, our evidence is both experimental and theoretical. Paper [6] presented no evidence against charge transfer (you will not see any estimates of atomic charges in their paper). Aoganov (talk) 20:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I must admit that the science presented here is way over my head. So I'll have to simply rely on existing policy. From that perspective, it looks like the phase diagram made by NIMSoffice is a synthesis of primary sources and may therefore be unallowable original work. IMO, a faithful recreation of the diagram using data provided by the most-recent paper that represents a complete phase diagram is needed instead. I do believe that is your paper. Copyright considerations aside (others will undoubtably have opinions on that), would you agree to that? --mav

No, the phase diagram was NOT made by NIMSOffice, it was made by me using mainly my own data. NIMSOffice took it from my paper and put on WP without crediting the source, which is unacceptable. Another editor checked my statements and found them absolutely right (i.e. that the diagram was not present in any of the works credited by NIMSOffice, but only in our paper). I suggested to NIMSOffice that the diagram can be present on WP, but only with an explicit mention ("taken from ref...", or "adapted from ref..."). This is a fair. Aoganov (talk) 22:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Since you're in the middle of this, too, you might want to see this edit, made 15 minutes after the initial upload, which seems (from my own experience of citing things) a reasonable time for getting all of the references together in the citation templates. Uncle G (talk) 23:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, there must be an explicit statement that the diagram comes from the paper of Oganov et al. (2009). None of the papers cited by NIMSOffice at this edit contain that phase diagram. It is easy to check... Aoganov (talk) 00:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It was there for long time. Just click the picture.

Just saw it. And I am not happy with some formulations, e.g. "Most of the above references are acknowledged as primary sources in the latter paper" - sorry, we references ALL (not "most") of the papers on which we based our diagram.

NIMSOffice says our diagram “is based” on data of later papers (Zarechnaya), paper that we did not know (Wentorf) and paper on a different topic (Solozhenko’s paper on B6N) – this does not make sense. What puzzles me is that NIMSOffice does not understand the science/literature involved, but still keeps insisting on his points.

90% of the data (the most crucial ones) are our own data. The remaining 10% are mostly hints rather than direct data (and are referenced by us). Any research result involved previous results in some way, but it does not mean that previous works (which did not report the phase diagram) should be credited for our result. The best way is to write like this:

"This phase diagram was proposed in: Oganov A.R., Chen J., Gatti C., Ma Y.-M., Yu T., Liu Z., Glass C.W., Ma Y.-Z., Kurakevych O.O., Solozhenko V.L. (2009). press release "Ionic high-pressure form of elemental boron". Nature 457. DOI:10.1038/nature07736.

on the basis their original experimental and theoretical data, as well as earlier data (see Oganov et al., 2009, for references and discussion) and thermodynamic constraints."Aoganov (talk) 00:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Notes: we have no proof on 90%; before publishing the stated diagram in Nature on 28 Jan, the authors have transferred, in writing, all copyrights to the journal Nature (inevitable procedure).Materialscientist (talk) 04:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for help

I thought it might be a good idea to run a contest or two through the Countries WikiProject to attract editors to improve country coverage on Wikipedia, especially the country outlines.

I noticed you are a member of the WikiProject, and was wondering if you could help.

I've posted a message at Countries WikiProject talk page to get discussion started on what the awards programs should be and how they should be run.

Your ideas and feedback would be greatly appreciated.

The Transhumanist    23:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Freely Licensed images

Thank you for uploading images/media to Wikipedia! As you may know, there is another Wikimedia Foundation project called Wikimedia Commons, a central media repository for all free media. In future, please upload media there instead (see m:Help:Unified login). That way, all of the other language Wikipedias can use them too, as well as our many sister projects. This will also allow our visitors to search for, view and use our media in one central location. If you wish to move previous uploads to Commons, see Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons (you may view previous uploads by going to your user contributions on the left and choosing the 'file' namespace from the drop down box (or see [2]). Please note that non-free content, such as images claimed as fair use, cannot be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. Help us spread the word about Commons by informing other users, and please continue uploading! Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Technetium

Mav, I did not know it was your FA. I rushed to edit it because of major problems with refs, fearing a quick delisting (I understood it is because of changing standards at WP, but merely to go through the FA renomination process is a bit of turture nowadays). Chemistry part was just an extra (kind of translation from German). Please let me know if there are other GA/FA pages, in around material science area, which need attention. I saw many GA delistings recently. Best wishes.Materialscientist (talk) 22:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC) (NIMSoffice)

Outing Talk:boron

The outing blanked links here. If it will create technical problems for the reviewer, could you help please; if not, never mind. I would prefer usual delete (recoverable by editors) instead of outing. Materialscientist (talk) 04:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Address change and lost password

Hello Mav!

I found your comment on my profile User:Jasan discussion so I hope you can help me out with resetting my password. The address jasan at gjgt.sk is not valid anymore, so I can not use password reminder. My current address is jasan at x31.com and you can simply find out it is the same person, e.g. look at the PGP data:

http://the.earth.li:11371/pks/lookup?op=index&search=Jan+Sarenik

Please, reset my password or contact me. Thank you.