User talk:Paul H.

AfD nomination of Out-of-place artifact

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Out-of-place artifact. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Out-of-place artifact. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Paul

All of these OOPArts have been explained. This is just an article on purported misteries. Regards. --Againme (talk) 16:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KU Student Authors

Hi Paul! I see you've been making some edits in Marine archaeology in the Gulf of Cambay, one of the entries a student of mine has chosen for revision. I think the student has learned some things from this first foray into Wikipedia editing, but please don't be shy about communicating your concerns directly. I'm teaching my "Archaeological Myths & Realities" course again this semester. If you want to follow the Wikipedia assignment, scroll down to the relevant section on my own talk page. Any comments, tips, or suggestions would be greatly appreciated! Hoopes (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contributions to Leonard R. Brand article

Hi Paul, your input on the Leonard R. Brand article is appreciated. I noticed on your user page you mention that you are a geologist. I have a question. An Adventist acquaintance worked for Shell Oil. He said that they used the geologic column and old earth data to help them determine where oil might be located underground. I have often wondered how common is this use of data to find oil. Again, thanks again for your edits. I have just become seeking to improve the article and its helpful to have an additional perspective. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The geologic column, biostratigraphy, sequence stratigraphy, and other "old earth" data and concepts are an essential and integral part of finding oil and gas. They are quite literally used every minute and second that a geologist explores for oil and gas. For examples go look at books such as 1. "Stratigraphic reservoir characterization for petroleum geologists, geophysicists, and engineers" (Handbook of Petroleum Exploration and Production vol 6) by Roger M. Slatt; 2. "Geomorphology of Oil and Gas Fields in Sandstone Bodies" (Developments in Petroleum Science no. 4) by C. E. B. Conybeare; 3. "Carbonate Reservoirs Porosity Evolution and Diagenesis in a Sequence Stratigraphic Framework" (Developments in Sedimentology no. 55) by Clyde R. Moore; 4. "Biostratigraphy Microfossils and Geological Time" by BrianN McGowran; 5. "Giant Hydrocarbon Reservoirs of the World: From Rocks to Reservoir Characterization and Modeling" by Paul Mitchell Harris, L. James Weber; and many other books and publications on this subject.Paul H. (talk) 02:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Sarmast

When you're ready to nominate this drivel for deletion, let me know and I'll lend my support. --Taivo (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Original Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is hereby awarded for your good work in creating useful stubs such as Granule (geology) and Cobble (geology). I created the Cobble redirect (and pointed several ambiguous links at it) in the hopes that someone would come along and put an article there. Thanks for picking up the ball and running with it. Nick Number (talk) 15:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See my

talk page Dougweller (talk) 20:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weblinks on Location hypotheses of Atlantis

Hello, you restored two weblinks, I removed recently. Well, fine, there is a talk ongoing, it would be very kind of you to go to talk page of Location hypotheses of Atlantis and discuss this?

Secondly, since you have an opinion which weblinks are valuable and which not, I would appreciate to know your idea concerning the pages suggested to be added in the discussion of the talk page of Location hypotheses of Atlantis ("Suggestions to add pages").

Thanks in advance! --Thorwald C. Franke (talk) 15:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects and piped links

Hi, for interest, just in case you weren't aware on it, this edit to Eberswalde (crater) wasn't strictly necessary. There is a redirect from relief inversion to Inverted relief (see redirects here and this is the redirect page), so the piped link 'inverted relief|relief inversion' isn't required, not that it matters much. :) See Wikipedia:Piped link. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Younger Dryas

Have you seen the fracas there? I'd suggest not getting involved with the arguments about editors (one editor was blocked for revealing someone's name, for instance, and there seems to be some off-wiki problems). Dougweller (talk) 14:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barrington Tops - mountains

Dear Paul H,

Thank you for editing my recent series of articles on the mountains of the Barrington Tops.

Poyt448 (talk) 06:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion for Marine terrace

An article that you have been involved in editing, Marine terrace , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. — Foldo Squirrel ^(nuts?) 19:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ica stones report

Hi. Three months ago you wrote on the Ica Stones talk page "in personal communications with some archaeologists I have been told about an official report prepared by the Peruvian government regarding their investigations of the Ica Stones, which concluded specifically that they were modern forgeries. ... I have not been able yet to obtain a copy of this report". I wonder if you've had any success with this, as I'd still be very interested to see it, or even just to know what its precise title is. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I have not made much progress. To actually track it down, including getting an exact title will take someone, who can read and speak Spanish fluently. I cannot do either and Google translations cannot substitute for lacking such abilities. I will have to find someone, who is fluent in both written and spoken Spanish and has some spare time on their hands. Paul H. (talk) 02:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for your reply. I can read Spanish well enough to understand what such a report is saying, but no more than that. But please keep trying, as a favour to me and to wikipedia (though the latter doesn't do gratitude!). SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I speak fluent Spanish and would love to see any evidence or scientific studies done in Peru or elsewhere about the Ica Stones. What is the name of this archaeologist you talked to? Do you have his Email? A URL perhaps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justthefactsabout (talk • contribs) 17:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy

Paul, I'm kind of a middle man here: you may know a colleague of mine, {[user|Twinemi1}}, also formerly at LSU. He's just getting started on Wikipedia. I told him about you, but had little more to say than what I got from your user page. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 15:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment template

Hi Paul H! I just saw that changed the assessment template from Cambrian to Precambrian. I don't think that will do anything because that part of the template was just for the Cambrian task force. I will just remove those two lines from the assessment template. --Tobias1984 (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	on Bass Formation -- excellent work! Lockley (talk) 06:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Unkar Group

As for the Unkar Group, Grand Canyon region, I want to thank you. I offer (invisible) Cookies, or Guinness Brew, mug or glass. I want you to know, that I appreciate the opportunity to make my final edits to your latest article—Dox Formation. (I was at the library, 5-blocks distant, not my computer, and doing links to White Rim Sandstone....and the Dox Formation came up in my article search)....so.... here I am.

Editing your complex articles, ....are equivalent to complex Mesopotamian, Babylonian-king, or mythology articles, with quotes, that need re-reading, and grammatical pauses, either for Emphasis, or Understanding. (User:BigEars42)... It took about 1.5 months to catch up to his articles, now into the kudurrus of the kings, leaders, officials, etc.

I got to the Grand Canyon (through Wikicommons), after mountain range and valley creation. After AZ, then N.MEX, some Nevada,...I concentrated on Utah (all the ranges/VALLEYs west of the Wasatch Front, Wasatch Range), or others. They were the subset in Wikicommons of my creation of Colorado Plateau in Utah; I had started on all 4 states, I live in AZ, so I knew more of AZ. But when I continued in Wikicommons, for the Utah sections, (and the High Plateaus section of the Colorado Plateau)... I ended up at the Grand Canyon. ...saw all the photos (380+ Grand Canyon, 85+ in Grand Canyon Nat'l Park), with no separation into GEOLOGY SUBCategories... so that is how I arrived at Grand Canyon-(It was 2 and 1/2 Months of Category Creation))... ((my latest efforts were for the Abo Formation, Hermit Formation, and coeval Organ Rock Formation...see [1], the "skirts" of the Organ Rock, below De Chelly Sandstone, in Monument Valley))...

What is kind of amazing in Wikipedia... is that we (as Humans) create. we see something, then we turn to it, and work at it. (On TV, Jeff Probst Show), a 25-yr old young lady, started leaving anonymous letters (as her Mom, and GrandMom did).. What I got from it is her words: "Presence", Connection, and "Intensity"...(Robert Frost, poet: 'Education by presesce', or the Apache saying: "I am what I do")... So your completion of Number 5 of 5, is wonderful. I hope you understand my editing, of Your wonderful and complex articles.

(My addendum statement: Rules, should be self-apparent, (even for the Young/and...or/Misguided, they should pass the (duh!? test)

(2nd Addendum), the Blakey, and Ranney Ancient Landscapes, of the Colorado Plateau, has the offshore "island arc" of SW North America, when the Unkar Basin was doing its thing. I saw......... on WikiCommons the subset of the World Geology/Continental PaleoMaps, named for Blakey-(about 20 Files, I used one.). (from the HotSonoranDesert, ArizonaUSA)....Mmcannis (talk) 15:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your message about pasting text

Yes I did paste text into the Ica Stones page, but it was not copied from an article I had found. It was copied from my own word file On my computer. I edited the text myself on Wikipedia and saved changes, but every time I changed it, someone would change it back (Paul H?) A few hours later. I felt is was unfair as the articles I had based my facts on had good reference material in them which I included. So to save time I just copied the Wikipedia text into a MS Word document after I had edited it and saved it, since I knew I would have to go back to the page the next day and change it again. I think this is developing into an info war. Perhaps as a compromise what I'll do is create my own section instead of editing the existing one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justthefactsabout (talk • contribs) 17:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox rock unit and Wikidata

Hi Paul H.! I saw your recent edit of the infobox rock unit. I was also thinking of adding that kind of information to the infobox. I am currently working to store that kind of information on Wikidata and then make a new infobox that pulls the data directly from there. An example would be d:Q7684515 or d:Q1554536. If you would like to help me you can look at d:Wikidata:Stratigraphy_task_force. --Tobias1984 (talk) 16:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rutan Hill

Just wanted to thank you for the considerable expansion of material at Rutan Hill. Between the work you've added today and the work Lithium6ion offered a few weeks ago, I've learned quite a bit the uniqueness of the site which is only a few miles away. (I'm aiming to drive up that way to add a photo or two...is there anything specific about the site that you think should be photographed?--ColonelHenry (talk) 23:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glacial ages

Hi Paul, If this graphic is mislabeled, let's fix the labels. The ice-core dates are real, and help me see where the glacial periods fit. And if this graphic isn't helpful for you, perhaps you can suggest a better one? Tom Ruen (talk) 02:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Co2_glacial_cycles_800k.png

I now see your discussion at: File_talk:Co2_glacial_cycles_800k.png. Tom Ruen (talk) 02:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spratlys

Thanks for your work on the geology of the Spratlys! I knew from my reading that the volcanic claim was wrong, but I don't know enough geology to contribute to that section of the article. You obviously know your stuff. --Macrakis (talk) 05:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the insight on pellets and peloids

Thanks for improving the content of the pellets page! I was clearly mistaken about the terms being synonyms. All the same, do you think that it would be worth merging the two into one more complete article? Thanks again! Rygel, M.C. (talk) 14:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]