Jump to content

User talk:Awickert

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 75.166.179.110 (talk) at 06:28, 26 May 2010 (→‎To Awickert RE Question About Conflict of Interest (Re Your "BP Oil" article Edits)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please leave messages here for me - thanks!

If you leave me a message here, I will reply here. If I leave a message on your talk page, I will watch it, and continue the conversation there. When I reply to comments by newer users here, I'll typically leave a talkback tag on your talk page.

Community to-do list

[Adding my postdated sig so this doesn't archive Awickert (talk) 05:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)][reply]

List for me

This is what I want to do!

List for others

These are all items that other people are expecting/hoping/encouraging me to do, or that I'm thinking of doing to assist in other peoples' work. If you are here, you may feel free to add to this list, but with the understanding that your addition may be refactored and/or moved to a lower-priority list, depending on how I judge my interest in and capability to finish this work. Awickert (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On hold

[Moni3 on wikibreak]

  • Everglades - geology section
  • St. Johns River - read up to the geology section; this will take some reading to assemble the background knowledge and probably some reorganization to be more chronological (and esp. to refer to things as they were at the time mentioned)

Also, chat with Moni3 as to why she finds geology sections uninteresting; use this to help guide my broad-audience writing.

On their way through/out

  • Milbanke Sound Group; reviewed but needs work
  • Mono-Inyo Craters - reviewed geology section only; should do the rest sometime. (Promoted to FA, but should still see if there's anything I can do; likely little because it was very good)

Comments

Hawaii FAC and FLC
This is good to see. I think 'Hawaii hotspot' may not make it through FAC on this nomination without your able assistance: i'll continue to keep an eye on that, and will review it only once i've seen you've had a good go at it. Thanks for your contributions. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - I missed your note among the mess. I have a bunch more to do, but don't have the energy (or motivation) at the moment to do it all by myself... so either it will be a slow go, ResMar will get more free time and pitch in and it will be a quicker go, or this FAC nom will be closed and I'll plug away at it slowly. Thanks for your continued interest; you'll probably be waiting for some time for me, so I'll ping you when I think that the article is ready, Awickert (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...Oh, and say, where would I get the references? ResMar 21:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you work on the section I left on your talk page, any introductory geophysics textbook would do, for example, there are ones by Fowler, Davies, and Turcotte&Schubert. But if you think it would take you overly long to hunt that all down or don't have access to these books, I'm happy to just do it, especially as I have a 3-day weekend (yippee!) and you seem to be hosed.
For sources in general... many scientists these days are making their papers publicly available on their personal websites. Google scholar will often find if that is the case. Otherwise, you can skim the abstracts and use me as a delivery service; I check my email frequently and don't mind taking the time. And that offer is open for the duration of the time I edit Wikipedia and have access to those sources.
Anyway, if you can give me an estimation of your availability and whether you'd prefer me to tackle all the more terminology-heavy or technical sections, that would help me guide the trajectory of my work over there. Happy Friday! Awickert (talk) 22:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Awickert, would you mind striking or capping the comments that you consider resolved at the FLC for the List of volcanoes in the Hawaiian-Emperor seamount chain? It would help immensely in trying to get everything organized and for me to see what's still to be completed as I'm trying to help ResMar get this finished up. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just did it. Thanks for helping ResMar - he seems pretty busy. I just wrote this there as well, but once we decide on a convention for the dating, it's a simple matter of transferring information, and I'm happy to help with that. Awickert (talk) 05:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'd love to. Unfortunately, I leave for the field very soon and I haven't even started packing. And I've promised my attention to two featured article candidates. So this will wait until I come back. Awickert (talk) 07:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not a big rush: I did the edits 6 weeks ago, it can wait. Have fun in the field! —hike395 (talk) 08:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will, though I'll probably be frozen stiff. Glad you added the northern perspective; for some reason, people here in the USA always think of the Southern Rockies. Awickert (talk) 09:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

That was a stand up thing you did there. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need for the thanks; I just register my observations. That conversation seemed benign, and even beneficial, to me. I'm guessing that the ban didn't occur to Stephan or BozMo either, as they were talking with you. But as a piece of advice for something I noticed: would probably be a better idea not to complain actively about the topic ban itself. Consider it a blessing: little personal good comes in the GW arena of Wikipedia. Awickert (talk) 02:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do actually, sort of, consider it a blessing, which one of the reasons I haven't tried to have it overturned. I'm not sure why WMC wants me back so bad though - if I get pissed off I will fight the ban tooth and nail. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not that you'll necessarily care for my advice, but fighting tooth and nail is generally bad, unless done in a methodical hope-to-be-productive sort of way, in which case it has a chance to be helpful. Of course, my POV is to consider the things that I do outside of article space to be much less helpful than article-work, so take that thought for what it is. Awickert (talk) 00:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

The Original Barnstar
For your great work on helping to get the David A. Johnston article to FA status, you deserve, at a minimum, this barnstar. The article was excellent and it is contributions like this that make wikipedia a useful, insightful, and topical source. Please keep up the great work! Remember (talk) 16:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much; I haven't seen you around before, and it's exciting to write an article that's read and enjoyed! Awickert (talk) 01:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awickert and Ceranthor, David Johnston was one of those TFAs that makes one proud of Wiki-- which doesn't happen often enough!! I was ashamed and embarrassed once when we ran an article about a deceased person on her birthday, in which we made unnecessary, gratuitous comments about her mother-- imagine the mother having to see that on her lost daughter's birthday! Your work restores my faith in the possibilities to highlight good work on the main page. Congratulations! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are You Employed, Directly by an Oil Company, or Indirectly (as a Sub-contractor or employee of a Subcontractor), by an Oil Company?

Or were you formerly employed directly by an Oil Company, or indirectly (as a Sub-contractor or employee of a Subcontractor) by an oil company?

69.171.160.130 (talk) 10:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on that talk page were not useful; there is a whole article on the spill here to which you can contribute. It is clearly a very big deal, but in the long history of British Petroleum, I think that it has been given enough room.
Currently, we don't know a lot of the details of what caused the failure. These are the kinds of things that would warrant attention in an encyclopedia. Hindsight will likely see the section expanded.
And to the questions that you pose here here: no. It is also rude to make accusations against people because they disagree with you. Awickert (talk) 15:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made no accusation. I asked a question. And it was a reasonable question.

This would apply to Wikipedia guidelines about the neutrality of Editorship of the article-- and does fall under Wikipedia policy.

So since the article applies to your Wikipedia-required neutrality as an editor-- I'd like to ask what the answer is.

Please be aware that a false answer could easily be revealed later by a criminal fraud investigation or a civil investigation.

Back on your stated concern about treating BP fairly--

It's very odd that an article about the BP corporation (which has been found by the US government to be responsible for the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster, and so is way past being merely a 'suspect' in the disaster) would 1) have the section about the current disaster given a hard-to-recognize, and hence hard for most people to find, section title, and 2) that this section, pertaining to the worst oil disaster in U.S, history would constantly be pushed to the bottom of the list of environmental mishaps.

Common sense, not paranoia, raises legitimate questions about the article being aggressively spun.

75.166.179.110 (talk) 16:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Please be aware that a false answer could easily be revealed later by a criminal fraud investigation or a civil investigation" - whatever happened to assuming good faith? You are entitled to your ideas of a conspiracy theory, but not to go against consensus in the article in question. Accusing other editors of spinning the article aggressively without any kind of proof is downright rude as Awickert says above. If you're interested, I work as a consultant for various oil and gas companies, but I can expect you to assume good faith that my edits are neutral (not that I've ever edited the BP article) unless you have proof to the contrary. Mikenorton (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear IP: I gave the answer to your question. Asking it again insinuates that I am lying, and threatening a civil suit will get you indefinitely banned from this place.
The wording of your talk page post, and this continued badgering, suggests that either someone agrees with you, or they are part of the conspiracy. This doesn't work in a collaborative environment.
The disaster is a complicated deal with lots of finger-pointing. BP is taking the financial burden. The list is in chronological order.
You know who I am. You can use Google to find as much about me as is listed on the internet. Saving you time and giving you the juicy part: from time to time I work on sedimentary processes with people with at the EM research company (not exploration or production), though never as their employee or contractor. So now that I have been so kind as to address the fact that you think that I am a lying oil PR person, who are you? Awickert (talk) 17:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's a witch! Burn him! William M. Connolley (talk) 18:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Timely: though I'm not at The Full Monty yet, my python is improving. Hmmm... I wonder if that insinuates something horrible in en-UK. Awickert (talk) 18:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awickert, I see that you've got friends here in the oil business.

Have a great day!

75.166.179.110 (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I'm a noted anti-green campaigner, don't y'know. Or even the Antichrist William M. Connolley (talk) 21:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We all know how big you ego is, but gain some perspective please. You are at best a minor demon. --FormerIPOnlyEditor (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So now the IP think's that (s)he is right (in spite of the fact that many/most geologists are tied to oil or mining somehow), WMC is promoted to "minor demon" (is that a position in the Green Party?), and I can go about my business (namely, trying not to kill myself with HF). So we all win, except maybe the IP, who can still be blocked for legal threats... and still doesn't have the cojones to provide the name of my accuser. But I don't plan on pressing the issue, so we all win for now. Awickert (talk) 21:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Antichrist" to "minor demon" is not a promotion! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was taking closer to the devil to be down. But in a different coordinate system or by taking the absolute value... Awickert (talk) 22:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
HF? That's nasty stuff! Everyone in my second year university chemistry class (years ago now) talked about it in hushed tones after the safety lecture where it was mentioned as an example. Carcharoth (talk) 03:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Terrifying stuff. But I'll be extracting beryllium-10 from quartz for cosmogenic radionuclide exposure age dating (i.e., to see how long these things have been exposed on the surface). 10Be is produced in quartz by spallation products of cosmic rays (the oxygen turns into 10Be); this rate is known as a function of latitude and the area of the sky at the sample's position. It also decays with a known decay constant. The combination of the two can be used to figure out how long an object has been exposed at the surface... it is often used for glacial retreat. Awickert (talk) 04:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, isn't it? That the effects here on Earth of cosmic rays, travelling for thousands of years through space, can be used to track exposure due to glacial melting (and other things). Now, why don't we have an article on this: cosmogenic radionuclide exposure age dating? :-) Would it be suitably placed under radiometric dating? Carcharoth (talk) 05:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because of User talk:Awickert#List for others :-). The "list for me" is woefully incomplete, but it is there in my head.
The article will be cosmogenic radionuclide dating: it can't fit under standard radiometric dating because there is both production and decay of cosmogenic radionuclides, and it can also be used to date how long something has been buried. I will get there. Awickert (talk) 08:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YEC fear

There is a certain user who is worrying me about their YEC-led edits to geology articles... I am no admin, but is there anything constructive we can do to temper the user? Or am I just overreacting/paranoid? I am afraid of him slipping some veiled YEC propaganda in an article under our noses. I only come to you because you seem to be one of the heavy hitters in geology on Wikipedia. Qfl247 (talk) 22:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. Just got back from being out-of-town.
The short answer: you are right. The user is acting in good faith, but knows nothing about geology ('cept what the YEC folks say, which often ranges from misrepresentation to absurdity). I tried talking to the user; they are nice, but seemed more interested in the philosophical argument than the mechanics of WP and seem to think that there is scientific merit in the YEC stuff, but it is being squashed by biased scientists.
So I will check out recent edits and then get back to you more. Awickert (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah.... "remove bias" and related sanctimonious claims are generally a bad sign, especially when applied by someone who obviously doesn't know the topic on which they are "removing bias". I left a much stronger message on their talk page. I hate being "that guy", but I think that unless something is said now, more time will be wasted and more frustration will be had on both sides.
Problem #1 is that I have yet to meet a YEC who has learned enough geology/physics/chemistry to have good arguments; never read anything by one either. Awickert (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, especially for being "that guy"! I am no admin... I have to rely on users such as yourself with more chops to resort to drastic measures if needed. I got sucked into the debate as well; you are right that the way to fight it is with the rules of WP, not in an endless loop of arguments on deaf ears. I just hope that we don't have to resort to a semi-protect on certain pages... hopefully we can fend him off the old-fashioned way. Thanks again! Qfl247 (talk) 21:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Thanks for eliminating the debate on the talk pages with the WP:Noforum message... that was getting annoying!

That's what I hope. They seem like a reasonable person, so I really hope it doesn't get bad... I think it's a fundamental disconnect in background knowledge. I honestly hate doing stuff like that; it stresses me out. If all I did on WP was write articles, I would be much happier here. Awickert (talk) 21:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? That would actually seem fun, but I am an evil heathen. Maybe one day I'll get the power to do that kind of stuff, and then get sick of it too... Well anyways, it is always good to converse with another sed person on here. You do a great job, I hope people like that don't discourage you enough to back away from this. Qfl247 (talk) 22:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We'll have to talk about seds at some point! I think that my problem is that I always am painfully aware that there is another human being on the other end of the line and I am conflicted between (a) bluntly laying out what goes on here (for efficiency), and (b) being nice to them. Awickert (talk) 04:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I appreciate you guys' honest efforts to remove fear-mongering and bias in the science articles (I know I am attempting to do the same thing from my perspective), but I do ask if you could consider my petition to include at least some of the answers that mainstream science has to YEC challenges. I admit that I am not a scientist, and my technical training is null, but I think it is okay for me to request more discussion of the debate in science articles. I am going to refrain from editing the traditional science articles, and will concentrate my efforts mainly on Catastrophism and other topics. Please fill me in on your efforts to increase the neutrality of the encyclopedia. You can debate with me on my talk page (talk) 03:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being so good-natured thorough all of this. Unfortunately, I don't have the time or willingness to make this a project of mine: too many other things to do. There is a whole series of YEC related materials here that could be of interest to you. Awickert (talk) 04:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Limnology ? :-)

Keeping all this together at User:Look2See1's talk. Awickert (talk) 03:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

Hi Awickert, thanks for letting me know of mis-connections. Have stopped and want to understand accurately. All my (mis)-efforts started with riparian zone 'issues' as a landscape architect - conservationist (ie: Los Angeles River challenges) trying to inner-link to headwater - watershed - water basin - river bed - river bank - etc. terms/article titles. Was a bit hard to find all of them, and then Euro-N. America differences-confusion entered, and well..... over category cross referenced aplenty, per your message. I'm so sorry for your revert work needed now. Is there a 'non-scientific nomenclature' category for non-specialist people to have a common search location, such as Category:Water and the environment, that would not be misleading or offensive ? I apologize for stepping on limnological and hydrologic toes, let alone all the other categorical ones pasted in, and respect your expertise. Thank you ! ----Look2See1 t a l k → 03:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Please do feel free to slap me with your talk page's Trout..... Looking at the List of watershed topics article, could that one possibly have a plethora, or just a few, of North American & European category links at bottom ? Would never have found it through its singular Category:Water divides. Did realize my huge mistake with Limnology, so its the study of limericks..... gotta go to change every one of its links to Category:Vernacular poetry....Cheers----Look2See1 t a l k → 03:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that you're kidding about the limnology bit, or we'll be at it again!
I see your predicament. I will check the categories you've created and the discussion at your talk first, so I can give you an informed response. Awickert (talk) 03:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No (Mikenorton) You Would Not Qualify for Editing Such an Article, Good Faith Would not Be Sufficient to Cover You

Let's consider your quote--

"I work as a consultant for various oil and gas companies, but I can expect you to assume good faith that my edits are neutral (not that I've ever edited the BP article) unless you have proof to the contrary. Mikenorton (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)"

So (to answer your question) you would not qualify to edit any such article, based on a very clear conflict of interest. Wikipedia guidelines would preclude that.

The "Good faith" assumptions that you are asking for would not be enough to cover that.

75.166.179.110 (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Awickert RE Question About Conflict of Interest (Re Your "BP Oil" article Edits)

Awickert, I did nothing wrong by asking you that question (about conflict of interest re the BP Oil Article).

Wikipedia says that one should not be editing an article about a company that they are employed by--

And that's the question that I asked.

The fact that you don't work for an oil company would have been enough of an answer--

Instead of your very insulting and defensive responses.

But I am still curious (If I understood you correctly) that since your coworkers DO at times handle projects for oil companies--

And also since your field (sedimentary processes), is (as you yourself stated), often a key field in the oil industry--

If those wouldn't still constitute conflicts of interest (as far as your continuing to edit the BP Oil article is concerned).

    • You also clearly have friends in the oil industry (posting here on this page)-- Are they people that you sometimes work with, or hope to work with?
    • I don't know the answer to whether any of this meets the Wikipedia threshold of 'conflict of interest'.

(Thereby precluding you from any further edits of the "BP Oil" article).

But I'll look into it. Perhaps you could as well.

Thanks,

75.166.179.110 (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I feel insulted by the fact that you instantly suspected that I was up to no good. And the fact that I gave you my initial answer that I didn't work for an oil company, and then you decided to ask again, means that you suspected that I was lying.
You are wrong about assuming good faith (read the guideline), and it is ironic that you bring it up. Try it on for size.
I'm afraid that you have exhausted my good will, which is very short with anonymous folks who make accusations, call me a liar, and legally threaten me. You'll have to do better than this here, both in learning how WP works and learning how to deal with other human beings, if you want to work with me. Awickert (talk) 06:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Awickert&oldid=364253652"