User talk:Geologyguy

Hi, Geologyguy, Welcome to Wikipedia!

I hope you like this place and want to stick around. Feel free to contribute in any way you can.

Good luck! -Chairman S. 21:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Bioplastics

Hi. I'm a self-confessed novice when it comes to Wikipedia but have been trying over the past year or so to keep the bioplastics page relatively informative to visitors. To that end I've tried to keep it focused only on plastics derived from plant resources and to explain the energy implications of producing bioplastics, as well as the many different claims made by producers about biodegradeability and the scope of international standards. I can see from the amendment history that you are working to the same end. You have deleted the external link I put in to our plastics magazine website - www.prw.com. I organise the longest running international conference on bioplastics and carry a lot of bioplastics news stories on that website - the reason I included the link. I thought it would be a useful source of additional information to anyone looking to research bioplastics and thought an external link was appropriate for that purpose - am I breaking Wikipedia rules with that? Best regards,Epnedit (talk) 11:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

If, as you indicate, the link is to "your" site, then you should not be inserting it even if it were appropriate, per WP:COI. You also replaced what appeared to be an acceptable German government research site with your commercial link. The site itself appears to me to be nothing but a list of links to magazine articles and such, making it (at best) a tertiary source to be avoided. If there is any information germane to the Wikipedia article within all those magazine articles, then the content should be incorporated into the Wikipedia article and the primary (magazine) source cited. Add content, not links. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 13:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Kansas, Sebelius, Coal-Fired Plant Veto

In a timely manner, as it is news of today / yesterday, I placed quotes up from http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/mar2008/2008-03-21-01.asp , and unless you know this source to be unreliable, I do not understand why you reverted my edit. Do you want to reword the coal plant veto? Do you want to use a different source for the governor's veto? It's factual and possibly historic. Please explain. I've been on WP for ~ 2 months, and I can't find the text you expunged. 100TWdoug (talk) 06:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello - it isn't clear to me what you are referring to. If it is for the Kansas article, my only recent edit (this one) reverted an anon's inappropriate change to a picture caption. If it is something else, please let me know. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 14:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I retyped the Sebelius coal veto into the article, and it is still up. So let's see if it stays up. Her veto seems historic, especially with oil at $100 / barrel. Thanks.100TWdoug (talk) 17:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Alabama external links

Greetings, I noticed that you removed two external links from the Alabama page recently. One of those was for al.com. While I agree that blatant commercial and span sites should be removed, al.com is the primary online presence for three of the four largest by circulation newspapers in Alabama and as such contributes significant value to the article topic in a wide variety of areas. Unless I'm missing something in the external link guidelines, and if so, please correct me, I believe the al.com external link should be restored due to its unique and useful content. The other link removed I have no concerns about. Thank you for your consideration and best wishes. Civilengtiger (talk) 03:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Geologyguy, I wanted to give you a courtsey heads up that I restored the al.com external link to the Alabama page. I reviewed the guidance in Wikipedia:External links and feel that this link meets the inclusion guidelines and does not screen out on the "Links to avoid"/"What not to link" criteria. Based on your edit summary, it appears your main concern was the commercial nature of the link. While al.com certainly does have ads, they are not targeted to the subject of the Wikipedia article, unlike a book seller on the WP page for a novel, nor are the ads overwhelming to the reader. I do not have any connection to the al.com site personally as a neutral point of view disclaimer. Thank you and best wishes. Civilengtiger (talk) 03:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hi Geologyguy. Do you know what the rock is on Image:Rainbow Range Colors.jpg? It's volcanic, but can't find anything about what type it is (rhyolite and basalt?). Just want to know because I added this photo on the Anahim hotspot article and probably needs a better caption for explaining the numerous colors. You could probably explain it better than what I can (if you know what type of rock it is). Black Tusk 05:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, intense reds like that usually indicate the presence of some kind of iron, rather than a rock type. One possible exception might be a very iron-rich scoria or something similar, but it is really impossible to tell from such a distant photo. Nice picture, though! Sorry I can't help more. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 13:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess it could be a very iron-rich scoria because the Rainbow Range is a heavily eroded eight million year old shield volcano - rock would most likely be volcanic if it's part of a volcano right? I found some rocks from here and there's hawaiite, mugarite, trachyte, comendite, aegirine, aenigmatite, anorthoclase, arfvedsonite, fayalite, ferro-hedenbergite, glass, hedenbergite, ilmenite, magnetite, sanidine - the rocks listed on that website are certainly incomplete. There are more close-up photos here and here.

There's another shield volcano that has the same rock type called the Spectrum Range. Black Tusk 15:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Spam links - Sorry

Hi there, I'm very sorry for adding a link to the Television and History of television about vintage television sets. I think it's a very interesting site on repairing old vintage television sets and good for those who like them. Take care! :-)

There are undoubtedly hundreds of interesting sites out there, but we don't list them, either. See also WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and if you are connected to the site, WP:COI. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 14:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Paleolithic

Hi, I noticed your comment on tertiary sources. Is there a Wikipedia policy or guideline that restricts the use of such sources as references? Thanks! --Phenylalanine (talk) 22:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello - no, I don't know of a policy or guideline that really restricts tertiary sources - reliability is paramount, as always. But I've seen other editors (can't point to them, but I agree) that if primary sources are available they would be better than tertiary sources, which are basically about as reliable as Wikipedia itself - and we acknowledge our own lack in that area. In the Paleolithic discussion, I wasn't trying to be obnoxious, just making that observation. I would really no sooner cite Encarta than I would Wikipedia. But I reckon in terms of actual editing/citing, it's pretty much up to each of us. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 23:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Feel free to add your comments here to the talk page. --Phenylalanine (talk) 12:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Truckee External Links

Hello Geologyguy:

I noticed that you removed the external link I added to the Truckee page and after re-reading the Wikipedia policy on such, I have to respectfully disagree with you that this represents an inappropriate external link from the page. This site represents a comprehensive look at Truckee commercially and recreationally for both local residents and visitor alike. It is part of a group of websites showcasing Nevada County and there is no charge to be listed on the site. At any point in time, it represents a snapshot of Truckee in the here and now. I don't know if you took the time to check the site out, but if and when you do, you'll notice a lot of time was put into the graphic interface, the page copy and site usability. People often forget that the cornerstone of any community especially a tourist community like Truckee, Grass Valley or Nevada City, is the commercial and recreational aspects of that particular community. It is what pays the bills so to speak and keeps the community vital for all to enjoy. I would imagine when a person clicks on the Wikipedia Truckee link, they are not only interested in the geographical, historical and social aspects on Truckee, but they also want to know what is it like to actually be there? What kind of stores are there? What kind of activities are offered and what community events take place? An aspect that is impossible for a singe Wiki page to showcase hence sites like downtowntruckee.com. I dare say that if your criteria of defining an external link as spam where applied Wikipedia wide, not only would at least one link on the Truckee page need to go, but many external links site wide would also have to go. I do appreciate you looking out for the betterment of the site, but based on my understanding of the Wikipedia policy I think you got this one wrong and will be adding the link again to the Truckee page.

Sincerely,

Sierratrekker —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sierratrekker (talk • contribs) 22:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You have made no contributions whatever to the encyclopedia other than adding links - which is not a contribution, and is not useful, as far as I am concerned. Wikipedia is not a collection of links (including "relevant" ones). Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 23:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Biomass

I recently made an edit on the Biomass page to remove a series of swear words that immediately followed the first word of the article (Biomass). I was not logged on to my account when I made the edit. I received a message from you, Geologyguy, that the change was reverted, so I checked and the swear word had not been reinstated. You might want to be aware that when I edited the page, there was no obvious phrase of swear words written on the edit page, but were clearly in the article. To make the edit, I simply retyped the first word Biomass and the swear words disappeared. I checked afterwards to make sure they had been edited out. I am not familiar with how the code works, but there appeared to be some type of "phantom" code (the swear words) that made the words appear in the article, but not on the edit page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chardman1 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I suspect what may have happened is that we were both reverting at essentially the same time. This edit of mine reverted the misspelling of Biomass as "Buimass" by 76.212.235.209; this one changed an edit with obscenities by 207.35.163.94. Both edits appeared to be vandalism, so I left standard vandalism notes on the talk pages of both of those IPs. If you are the one who changed "Biomass" to "Buimass" and it was a simple typo, apologies, and don't worry about it. You probably saw the obscenity, began to make your change, but I had already reverted it when you got to the edit page so it wasn't there. No worries. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 21:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Archaeology-Archeology

Hi, I saw you reverted the attempt to change even the name of the Magazine. If you look at User talk:98.209.184.114 you'll see I've already warned him. And he did it again right after you reverted it. Because he'd been warned before by me, I'm giving him another warning. He makes a hobby of this, he's done it elsewhere -- ditto Pangaea/Pangea, and capitalizing pronouns when they refer to God.--Doug Weller (talk) 14:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I saw your earlier warning and found that I'd fixed one of his Pangea works too some time back. Thanks for the help! Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 15:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Midcontinent Rift and Duluth Complex

Hi. I have recently expanded Duluth Complex, which is an artifact of the Micontinental Rift. Should you wish to make any suggestions, changes, or criticism, it would be appreciated. Thanks. Kablammo (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Will do, I looked at it briefly yesterday and it really looks nice. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 15:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Liechtenstein

Why do you feel that the World Bank governance report is not supposed to go into the external links? Copysan (talk) 04:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no question that the links were added in a systematic, spammy way - going alphabetically through the list of Wikipedia articles on nations. The contributor was warned, politely, twice (by someone other than me) with suggestions of the proper way to add content to the encyclopedia, rather than spam clearly designed to drive visitation to the site. It seems likely to me, based on the contributions, that the spammer is affiliated with the site, so WP:COI. No discussion has occurred, no content has been added to any page, on this topic. "Add content, not links." Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 13:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Those concerns are valid, but the World Bank is a pretty large and reputable organization, not really characteristic of a "spammy" site. I suppose I don't see why they would need visitation. Their org would continue to exist regardless of Wikipedia's influence. Copysan (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

... Which I might use as a good rationale for why the links need not be broadcast (in a most definitely spammy manner) across dozens of articles irrespective of whether or not there is any content (or could be any content) appropriate to those links. Any article that discussed that topic could, presumably reasonably, use the information in those links as references. As far as I am concerned, adding the same site to dozens of pages is spam, and "relevance" is on the whole irrelevant - if the contributor wants to discuss the potential of adding the link to any particular page, say Liechtenstein, he or she certainly can do so. If the contributor wants to add some useful content to any article, citing something in the linked site as a reference for data, he or she can certainly do so. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 18:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Congrats

		The Editor's Barnstar
		I, Dwilso, award you this Editor's Barnstar for your fine work in leading and reverting Vandalism. Thank You! Dwilso 22:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Oil shale

Hi, Geologyguy. I nominated the Oil shale article for WP:FAC.Beagel (talk) 18:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Geo. I think this a time to bring the Oil shale geology to GA level and I would like to ask your opinion what to do next. Do you think there is any important part still missing, or the general structure is ok? I think that this article needs before WP:GAN also (informal) peer review. As it quite specific area, maybe you could suggest any reviewer with a background of geology? Anything else? I appreciate your suggestions and further assistance regarding this article. Thank you in advance.Beagel (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Your Edit

Hi Geologyguy - Your edit Could you please inform me, why the GISWiki is not a reliable source. Greetings, --84.137.83.9 (talk) 20:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

As indicated here, "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable." A wiki is by its nature unreliable; Wikipedia itself would not be considered a reliable source by most people. Even the reliable elements of such a site would be nothing more than secondary or tertiary sources; primary sources are by far the most reliable. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for cleaning up the vandalism on my user page. Heck if I know why that guy's got it in for me. Anyway, thank you! -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 21:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome - not sure why your page is on my list, but happy to fix it. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank You

Recently my user page was vandalized. I noticed you had deleted the bad comments on there. Thanks! I've not been on here for very long and already have people doing this? weird. Anyways, thanks for reverting the vandalism! Metalwario (talk) 12:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem - happy editing. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 13:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You too! Metalwario (talk) 03:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hollow Earth, irrelevant?

Hollow Earth irrelevant?

OK so why do you think Reuters and Russian RTR TV faked the north pole video with the James Cameron movie Titanic filming on north Atlantic?

Why there never were real images of the Russian flag that was allegedly planted in the north pole sea bed?

Why polar ice and, glaciers and ice mountains are fresh water, not salt water as oceans are? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.239.219.220 (talk) 12:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

CERI

I notice that you undid the info from CERI. I undid yours. In Canada CERI is a well respected organization, and the person being interviewed seemed reasonably credible. No offense intendede. 03:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

CERI video

Okay. I buy those arguments. I undid myself. Cheers. 22:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Foreland basin

Hi, thanks for your message. You are right, thanks for pointing it out. I only recently started adding to the list and have been relatively lazy, only adding basins that I have worked on in the past. The list should, I hope, grow in length and accuracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebturner (talk • contribs) 13:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Hawaii hotspot

Um, is this the right place for this comment, or the "Hawaii hotspot" page?

I recognize that Wiki has decided not to capitalize any word in a title other than the first, but surely this doesn't apply to names within the article? I'm seeing the "Hawaii Hotspot" as the name of a specific thing... say, as opposed to Hawaii fish, or Hawaii customs. What do you think?

67.169.127.166 (talk) 02:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Just asked you the same on the Talk:Hawaii hotspot page. Wikipedia does indeed capitalize words other than the first if they are parts of a proper name or title, such as for example Yellowstone National Park. No other hotspot articles follow the convention of non-caps in title but caps in text (I think; I didn't check all of them). Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 02:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Lol, I was just trying to change my comment, when you answered. And you are completely right, Wikipedia does capitalize other words in the title. Some articles don't when it seems appropriate, so it stuck out in my mind. (E.g., I just randomly found article "Fun guo", which should...in my mind...be "Fun Guo".)

Anyhow, it doesn't make much difference to me, just wanted to make sure we weren't working at cross purposes.

Regards 67.169.127.166 (talk) 02:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

De nada, your other edits definitely improved the article, IMO. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 02:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

calderas

(moved from user page) WILL YOU LEAVE MY WORK ALONE! Ambroses work has been updated to show that after Toba approximately 75,000 individuals existed. User:The Geologist

The cited ref does not show that. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

WRONG - more recent workers have upgraded the figures to about 75,000 - I forget the reference but it was published in I think 2000 in Nature. I am a professional volcanologist working under the auspices of the UN and WE use that figure. User:The Geologist

Then please feel free to add a citation that shows this. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 16:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)