User talk:BrucePL

Welcome

Hello, BrucePL, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Dawnseeker2000 Happy editing! Dawnseeker2000 19:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Getting started Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard - a Wizard to help you create articles How you can help Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, BrucePL. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kenneth C. Macdonald has been accepted

Kenneth C. Macdonald, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Gbawden (talk) 12:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Help me!

Please help me with... BLP page for Kenneth C Macdonald just accepted and is live. But, it is not appearing in WP Search box. Why? What needs to be done?

--BrucePL (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC) BrucePL (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi there. Erm - I can find the page you created with no problem, using WP's search box. My guess is that you mistyped the name. It looks like there are an awful lot of folks with that name, including your Kenneth C. Macdonald, and the politician Kenneth C. MacDonald. I'd suggest that, at the very least, we get a hatnote added to both articles to differentiate the two. It could be that one or both articles needs renaming, e.g. 'Kenneth C. MacDonald (politician) or Kenneth C. Macdonald (politician). Any thoughts on that?

Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Nick. Can you direct me to an example of where to insert a hatnote? I looked at the Disambiguation help page and see some code but not sure what to do with it.

BrucePL (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of French-American Mid-Ocean Undersea Study

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on French-American Mid-Ocean Undersea Study requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.187.4179.823. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Diana. My intention was to paraphrase after creation but I now realize that is the opposite approach needed. Okay to delete and I will try again creating original text.

BrucePL (talk) 15:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Your article Propagating Rifts has the same problem: it was copied from http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/EO058i006p00366 and has to be deleted. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Diannaa. I rewrote that Propagating rifts article entry today. The text was not copied. It was a short entry and I wrote the essence of the topic. I disagree with this action. Bruce

````

Infobox mountain

Bruce - I really mean to imply you should put the {{infobox mountain}} in the Mount Luyendyk article - not in the one about you!

If you have a try at the sandbox, I'll pop back in half an hour to check. It's getting late here, so won't have much longer online. If you haven't managed it by then, I'll create on for you. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay! I'm laughing now. I'll delete it. BrucePL (talk) 23:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Infobox now on Mt. L page; Cut and pasted source code, deleted duplicate image, increased the size of the second image. BrucePL (talk) 00:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Bruce P. Luyendyk & Ross Embayment draft

You posted me a question on the talk page of the article, Bruce P. Luyendyk. As we're liable to have long discussoins as adopter/adoptee, I suggest carrying them out off article space. You asked: For the SDSU Distinguished Alumni award the Geological Sciences Dept. doesn't list the awardees. I have the trophy though with my name on it. I could figure out a way to put it on my web page and then add a link to the photo as a citation.

For the Antarctic Service Medal, the USAP website doesn't list holders. Again, I have the medal and could put a photo of it online. (BTW the WP page lists holders of the medal and they don't have citations to back up the claims). What do you think? Bruce BrucePL (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

For the SDSU Distinguished Alumni award the Geological Sciences Dept: Whilst you could upload a photo to commons of the alumni award, I dare suggest you need not bother. That would be seen as a Primary Source and the other honours seem far more significant to me. Why not simply leave out that that information? To be honest, minor awards and detailed information is much more appropriate to a personal LinkedIn account/online CV/university credits page, and I'd rather we create a shorter, more succinct encyclopaedic page, and avoid it looking like too CV-like. Another way would be a self-portrait photo with you and the medal and or trophy - then it could simply be supported in a caption. I'd advise leaving everything out for now until you can support it - then add it in later. I did start to move awards/honours into chronological order, but was interrupted.

I'd like to suggest the content of the section on Drilling into Deep Ocean Floor should not say any more than the fact that you led those two expeditions. I would recommend moving the rest of the content into the article on that topic. Remmber - this is an encyclopaedia article about a person, not the detailed results of what they did. (not to undermine you in any way - I'm in awe of your knowledge and achievements - my climbing/hill-walking partner who is real 'summit-bagger' was pretty impressed when I said I was assisting somone who'd had a mountain named after them.) Oh - and when you do move it over, I think you've used the wrong reference for Leg 49. I would advise only saying the following in the BPL article: Drilling into Deep Ocean Floor — Luyendyk led two expeditions of the Deep Sea Drilling Project. Principle discoveries included a basin-wide unconformity of Oligocene age that was likely related to initiation of ice sheets in Antarctica.[ref] (then we add a link at the top of that section referring to 'see main article'. You can learn how to do that by looking at the example for the Moon which has lots of 'see main article' links in it.

Forgive me if I do ask you to break the habit of a lifetime and steer away from crediting co-workers everywhere. Whilst normally highly commendable, it bloats out the page a bit too much in my view. Credits can always be found within the citations given, or "he and co-workers found..." could be used. And couldn't one of your references use 'et al.' instead of listing everyone? And unless named people are likely to be notable in their own right, I advise just leaving out sentences like this: Graduate students key to this research include Marc Kamerling, Richard Terres, James Carter and Scott Hornafius - they're named in the citation, and that's all we need. That said, it is essential not to over-estimate and one person's contribiutions either.

I spotted a couple of missing wikilinks that could go in. One to Fosdick Mountains would allow you to reduce that section a bit; whilst a link to climate model would assist general users to know what that means. Anything you can move out into into other articles that you can link to would make the BPL page more succinct - your own achievements and contributions to science clearer, and also more in the style of Wikipedia. (I'm sure you don't like me suggesting this!)

That should keep you going for now, I'm guessing? I also suggest that you work through our discussions on the Ross Embayment and start to clean out the bits of conversation that have been done. Pretty soon it ought to be ready to be moved into mainspace. If you wish you can always indicate a paragraph[ah that you've dealt with using this template: {{done}} This renders as  Done. Hoping this all helps and that I'm not driving you mad. Regards Nick Moyes (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Thanks so much Nick. Will spend next week digging into this. I told one of my retired friends (I'm retired) that I hope to become a proficient WP editor as a continuation of service to science! Lots to learn! BrucePL (talk) 22:46, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Brilliant - I'm proud of you. If only I was able to learn and understand more about geology... and botany... and zoology...and...! Do make a list as you go on of anythings you've either struggled with, or would like to understand better - whether practical editing tasks, or more general issues on how Wikipedia operates. I feel I'm still learning myself, but am very happy to share and offer support where I can. And don't forget that anytime you need an answer and I'm not replying, after a reasonable length of time with no answer it's absolutely fine to seek assistance at the Teahouse if you need it. (Am likely to be off hill-walking for the next few days myself, providing I can tear myself away from Wikipedia and get some essential reports and emails written.) Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Nick. Made many edits to clean up my BLP page. Take a look. I was unable to use the VE to add URLs. For some reason, the edit function on this page does not show tabular entries like when the ref is set up manually. But I could edit refs on the Ross Emb page with the VE. I must be missing a step to revert to tabular form on my BLP refs. Take a look at Ross Emb. I think I've covered your concerns. Can RE go live? BrucePL (talk) 19:42, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, BrucePL. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by David Biddulph (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.

Syracosphaera azureaplaneta

Hi Bruce. Just thought I'd drop by to say I've created a new article that manages to incorporate the RRS James Clark Ross, a plankton species discovered in the South Atlantic (probably the nearest I'll get, but hey ho) and one of our greatest living naturalists! Trust you're  well - let me know if you need anything. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Hi Nick. Coccoliths! Been decades since I've peered down a microscope to look at these (old ones). I made a minor edit on your page. Been busy sending off my book (did I mention) to my agent. The mid-ocean ridge article is on my TO DO list. And a new question. Thinking of a BLP for a woman oceanographer. She is not very senior but accomplished. Before I do a lot of work, how would or could I judge the notability standard for her? Seems that is judged by admins, not editors. BrucePL (talk) 00:14, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Bruce. Thanks for the edit there. (That was where I had my first paid professional job, though only as a summer student internship). No, I don't think you mentioned the book. Congratulations on sending it off. What's the topic, or need I ask? My first and only book took me 15 years of surveying and data processing, then a solid year of intensive work to put together, working till 2am most nights after work. Utterly exhausting. Hope yours was easier.

Right, female BLP of an oceanographer? Interesting one. Obviously, any article about a living person has to abide by this policy, irrespective of whether they're actually notable: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Then, for a scientist, I'd point you to Wikipedia:Notability (academics), in particular the criteria section within it (Shortcut: WP:NACADEMIC)) which says any one of these will see the person meeting the criteria for notability:

1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honour at a national or international level.

3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the IEEE).

4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.

5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon).

6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.

7. The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

8. The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.

9. The person is in a field of literature (e.g., writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g., musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC.

I would also look to see if they had any species named after them, or had been the describing author of any species that they had discovered, too. Is this what you were hoping for, and does it give you any encouragement? Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Mid-Ocean Ridge half space model

@Nick Moyes: Nick. Would like your opinion on my suggested move of the half-space section from Seafloor spreading/Sea floor global topography: half-space model, to MOR/Morphology. As you see the half-space treatment goes deep into the weeds. I am thinking that the half-space section belongs on MOR but maybe as a Note and not in the main text. This is because I think the flow of reading is interrupted by some dense math. Better to have it appear at the end in some fashion. The author of the half-space edit is okay with a move of it to MOR but has not responded to my idea of moving to a Note. What do you think? BrucePL (talk) 00:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Nick. I've been in contact with experts on the cooling ocean lithosphere that pertains to the half-space treatment above. The opinion is this is out of date. What is more current and correct is a cooling plate model. That would need to be added to balance the current entry. Problem is it will mean more math and discussion. I'm thinking that a new page might be in order that includes both theoretical treatments on the relationship between seafloor depth and its age. What do you think about that? BrucePL (talk) 17:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Hi Nick. On the Seafloor spreading page I updated this section and added content for an alternative model for cooling of the ocean lithosphere. Originally I planned to move this to the mid-ocean ridge page but a couple of colleagues suggested that the cooling ocean crust models might be best on their own page. What is appealing to me is that the maths in the seafloor spreading page for the cooling section are a bit advanced - partial differential equations. So, a separate article with links for MOR and SFS to the article might make more sense. This would mean moving the content now on SFS to a new page. Your thoughts? BrucePL (talk) 22:18, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bruce. I'll give you a 'gut reaction' now, then will try and find time to refresh my memory on the contents of these articles and offer a more refined response later, if necessary.

First off, this proposal sounds eminently sensible, though there are a number of caveats worth mentioning. Firstly, If a topic is too technical it might not be appropriate to put directly into an article, but instead to link to that content via relevant citations, and simply (ha-ha!) summarise the theories on a Wikipedia page. Secondly, all alternative theories must obviously have been well-discussed in the literature, as there's no place here for Original Research, which I'm sure you know. And thirdly, because even the subject experts don't "own" the specialist pages (see WP:OWN), it would make a lot of sense to seek consensus on the two talk pages of the current articles for what you propose to do, citing links to relevant articles. And when making that proposal, it would be sensible to clarify your area of expertise in that discussion, and thus good intentions to improve the content (and not muddy the waters - to choose a rather apt metaphor).

Thus, you'd go the the talk pages; state your concerns about the current content; link to relevant secondary sources which have analysed and discussed those theories (as well as links to primary sources if appropriate; state your proposal to solve the those concerns (presumably by creating a new page called something findable like Lithosphere cooling theories or Lithosphere cooling models, and showing which content you propose to move over. You could, if you wished, even go so far as to create a new sandbox page for yourself into which you copy/paste over the current content you propose to move, and add in the additional material and sources, and then link to that page in your discussion, and seek feedback on it.

Being a 'Bear Of Very Little Brain', my own eyes do tend to glaze over whenever I see mathematical equations in articles. And, as this is such a key scientific topic, I suspect parts of the Seafloor spreading page as it stands might now be offputting to many students who might come to Wikipedia to assist them in their understanding of that subject. So, forking content off into a further page on the current models make a lot of sense to me. I would say that any such page should also reference older theories which have now been superseded, so as to provide a complete picture of how scientific consensus has changed over time. It's because the two articles between them receive c 1,100 views per day, and have 250 page watchers that raising your proposal on talk pages seems the best way of getting support or alternative suggestions, and even help from other interested editors. There is more advice on how to go about this at WP:SPLITTING.

My final caveat is to say that, in the above reply, I have only briefly looked at both articles, but I see nothing bad whatsoever about your idea at this point in time. Hoping that helps - I'm now off to do some mundane kitchen tiling in my house renovation project. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:20, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Hi Nick. In my sandbox I drafted a cooling seafloor article using the cooling half-space model on Seafloor spreading as a base. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BrucePL/sandbox/Seafloor_depth_versus_age. My draft has more content and updated citations along with a lead. My goal is to split-off the half-space model from the SFS page, replace it with some content looking like the sandbox lead, and establishing the sandbox draft as the cooling article. I gave notice of my intentions on the talk pages for SFS and mid-ocean ridge; no response. What do you think so far? BrucePL (talk) 17:19, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Never ask an Englishman the question "What do you think of it so far?" as there is only one answer to that. But anyone who has never seen the British comedians  Morecambe and Wise will simply not understand it. The answer they will gleefully give you is "Rubbish!" But, to be serious, just leave it a while for me to look at in detail. I doubt I'll understand it, though. At first glance, I wondered whether the two models arose at the same time, or whether one followed another. Either way, it might be good to indicate when those theories were put forward. It might take me a few days to get back to you with a fuller response - sorry. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Bruce, I'm really struggling to answer you, as the topic is technically beyond me. What I can say is that moving out the modelling from the main article will probably be beneficial. I'd like to have dates for when each model was put forward, and some referencing and comment on the criticisms/failure of the earlier model. I'd like to see the naming of the models sharpened up - as it seems you've used more than one name for the same model. eg Cooling mantle model/mantle half-space mode; Cooling plate model/cooling lithosphere plate model. I reckon each model's section should start with a 'mini-lead' which does its very best to say in words what is bad about other models and good about this one, and summarises what it does. At the moment I'm rather struggling to piece together what it is that you're trying to get across in each model. Oh, and avoid using phrases which use 'above' in them to refer to content. Imagine if someone copy/pastes part of the text of the article.'Above' out of content would be very confusing. Does any of this make sense or sound reasonable? Nick Moyes (talk) 01:23, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Hi Nick. Happy New Year! Holidays have been crazy busy but I worked on the issues you raised and also added a section on Impacts of the cooling models. I hope you have a chance to look at it. I see you marked this sandbox page as reviewed and I'm not sure what that means. Best wishes. BrucePL (talk) 23:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Bruce, and a Happy New Year to you too. Yes, I thought I'd have tons of free time over Christmas to get lots of things done, but time shot by and only a fraction got completed.

Could I ask that in future discussions you provide a wikilink to the pages or even the WP:DIFFS you want me to look at? I am already confused enough by the concepts, let alone finding where you've put them. (It took me a while to realise you were referring to this sandbox page, not the two live articles, as I'd forgotten which pages we were talking about. Silly me. (And yes, 'reviewed' means that I've just put a tick against the page to indicate that it's legitimate, with no issues for anyone else to worry about)

I have added a few suggested words in bolded type, and struck through a few words that possibly ought to go. I am still mightily confused by the subject itself - and I doubt that will change much (!). Notwithstanding the fact that the concepts - and certainly the maths - are beyond me, I seem to conclude from the Background section that there was a 1969 model, a new 1974 model, then a refined 1977 model. But there are only two models explained, and they have no dates to them. I'd still like each model to be introduced with a statement about when each was proposed, and maybe a one sentence summary of its strengths and weaknesses. By way of a demo, I have added {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}} templates to show how its possible to hide complex content...which I think might help here. How would you feel about that? All Wikipedia pages have to be on notable topics and have logical titles that someone might reasonably search for. Have you got a proposed title in mind? Following from the suggestions I made earlier, I'd wondered about Timeline of seafloor spreading models? It's important that pages are encyclopaedic and about notable topics which are clearly identifiable by their titles and are not too technically-written, and simply summarised with a concise lead. Nor should they make assumptions, but provide summary information of important topics and ideas. I still feel that this particular UK-based idiot needs a slightly more clearly-worded 'idiots guide' - but I do think you're on the right track here. BTW: I found this sentence confusing: This results in global (eustatic) sea level rise (fall) because...

By now you're probably despairing at my lack of comprehension. It reminds me of how I helped my wife write her MSc thesis some years ago. I didn't have a clue what she was on about (cancer drugs and apoptosis), but I was able to tell her whether or not I thought the individual sentences she'd rather clumsily written seemed to have a clear subject, object and verb, and if they were grammatically correct, or not. I'm rather getting a sense of deja vu! Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC)  

@Nick Moyes: Hi Nick. Thanks for your comments. I like the idea of compressing the derivations. I think the confusion is arising because the cooling plate model has two generations (1969, 1977) and in between those is the cooling mantle model in 1974. In the page, only the cooling mantle model and second-generation plate model have been discussed. Thinking of a way to clear that up. In teaching this topic in oceanography and marine geology college courses it is called the seafloor age-depth relationship. Put "seafloor" in the WP search box and there is a long list of seafloor subtopic pages. So, I think the current title is good and aimed at most WP users - college and university students. What do you think? (my neighbor, Denise Montell, is a prof at UCSB that studies apoptosis and anastasis). BrucePL (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Hi Nick. I made edits or addressed your comments. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BrucePL/sandbox/Seafloor_depth_versus_age. I think the article is ready to move to the main space. Do you agree? BrucePL (talk) 16:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Hi Nick. Moved the page from my sandbox to article space. Explained what I'm doing on its talk page. BrucePL (talk) 20:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello Bruce. First off, I'm really sorry- I completely forgot your latest message, and didn't get around to looking at it. I'm afraid I have been rather preoccupied recently, partly with completing my 'self-assessment tax return' to our government's Revenue & Custom's office, but I have also been rather busy putting myself forward as a candidate for 'Administrator' here. I'm pleased to say that the week-long evaluation process went through without a hitch.

So, my comments on the article (apart from the fact that it's too technical for me!), are as follows:

• You should add some Categories to the bottom of the page - you can check related articles and see which of their categories apply to your page.
• It could do with a talk page 'WikiProject' or two. Again, look at and edit the talk page of a related article to see how it's done, and which one's apply.
• I am still not keen on the title, and fear the article's relevance might be challenged if it doesn't look at first sight to treat this as a topic in its own right, rather than as a presentation of different theories. How about Theories of seafloor depth versus age or Seafloor depth-age relationship?
• For me, I find the lead is still not clearly getting the point over to me. Nor, I'm afraid, do I come away knowing which model is the currently accepted one - or are both valid, depending on how old the seafloor is? A lead needs to sum up the entire article and present a clear summary - like an abstract. Is everything there, or is anything still missing? Can I try a tiny bit of splitting paragraphs and minor rewording, to see what you think?...

The depth of the seafloor on the flanks of a mid-ocean ridge is determined mainly by the age of the oceanic lithosphere; older seafloor is deeper. This is (what is, exactly?) thought to be related to temperature of the lithosphere and upper mantle. (-is this sentence needed at this exact point? Does it read better without it there?)

Seafloor deepening occurs during the process of seafloor spreading, and is now known to be caused by a combination of factors: lithosphere and mantle cooling, contraction, and isostatic adjustment with age. This relationship has come to be better understood since around (insert date here)

Two main theories have been put forward to explain this observation: one where the mantle, including the lithosphere, is cooling (known as the 'cooling mantle model'), and a second theory in which a lithosphere plate cools above a mantle at a constant temperature (known as the 'cooling plate model'). The cooling mantle model explains the age-depth observations for seafloor younger that 80 million years. The cooling plate model explains the age-depth observations best for seafloor older that 20 million years. In addition, it explains the almost constant depth and heat flow observed in very old seafloor and lithosphere.

I daren't look at the rest of the article - it does rather go over my head. Trusting you're well. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Hi Nick. Made most of the changes you advised. I need to think more about the title for the page. I'll do research on how this topic is handled in textbooks. Now I need to make edits to MOR and SFS to direct to this page.

Hey! Congrats! You're an admin now! More work! Yay! BrucePL (talk) 17:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

BLPs

@Nick Moyes: Hi again Nick. I'm gathering data for a page on a young, rising star in ocean sciences for a BLP. Should I draft it in my sandbox or in Draft Article space like I did for Macdonald? Cheers. BrucePL (talk) 00:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Bruce. I don't think it matters at all. You can move it into mainspace from either location. You can keep a draft untouched in your sandbox for as long as you wish. An unedited article in Drafts will get deleted after six months. Other editors might be more inclined to collaborate/contribute without asking if it's in Draft space, and far less so without being invited if its in your sandbox. If the talk page is liable to get very off-topic, then maybe sandbox working is better. Why not give it a try in Draft space, just for the experience. Going to  WP:AFC with a draft isn't essential - it can be moved directly into mainspace, and I'm happy to continue assisting you to get things into that state of readiness. I will have to answer your previous question a bit later, as I'll have to find the time to sit and reread the articles to comment properly (assuming I can actually understand the technical bit!). Trusting you're well. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Checking in

@Nick Moyes: Hi Nick. I've been absent from WP these past couple of weeks dealing with my book items (http://bruceluyendyk.com) and preparing for a lecture I will give at UC San Diego. I expect to be back in the saddle to deal with MOR and BLP mid-May. Cheers. BrucePL (talk) 17:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Bruce. Not a problem. I was only concerned you might think I had abandoned you. Your book sounds extremely interesting, as do your lectures. It's a bit unclear from your blog when the book comes out, but it sounds like a really intimate, in-depth account of your group's time in the interior. Thus retirement lark certainky keeps one busy! I've just started a major renovation project on an old house, and am still hoping to abandon my family for an alpine mountaineering trip in Switzerland in June, and go on a camping trip from Vancouver later in the summer. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Bruce. How's it going? I thought I ought to let you know I'm not going to be around a lot over the next 8 weeks or so. I'm off in a week or so's time to Switzerland to climb this summit. (Got stormed in and had to get helicoptered off when we last tried it some 18 years ago!) Am very busy with house renovation and other work this summer, so I just wanted to warn you I might not be too responsive. If you've any issues you might need help on, the next few days are probably best for me. Looking at your draft on Tessa M. Hill (and realising it's early days) I'd suggest you shorten the lead and add in the CAS Fellowship - try cutting out the two sentences starting 'Hill's research includes...to...K-12 education.' Do be careful not to try to expand too much on the detail of her work, such that it becomes almost another topic. I'd suggest either being more succinct about her work, or only expand it if you can show that her work is especially notable. I'd leave out items like her PhD supervisor unless they're especially notable, as well. That tends to make editors more liable to view it as a LinkedIn curriculum, rather than a succinct summary of a noteworthy person. Hope this helps a bit, Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Thanks Nick, for the comments on Hill. I've spent a lot of time on Transverse Ranges, a place I worked on for 20 years. The entry was weak on geology - and had a lot wrong. I had some challenges with Wiki Commons. Best wishes on your trip and home projects! BrucePL (talk) 15:27, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Tessa M. Hill BLP

@Nick Moyes:. Hi Nick; I'm back. Did a lot of work on Transverse Ranges and now on the BLP for Tessa Hill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BrucePL/sandbox/Tessa_M._Hill. Can you look at this BLP and give me feedback? I did a copyvio and came up with one for a blocked quote (PECASE). Not unexpected of course. The other content didn't flag anything if I've interpreted the scan correctly. How can I save this page to a file? Just in case it gets deleted or trashed. BrucePL (talk) 23:17, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@BrucePL: Hi Bruce. Am just about to disembark a plane from Calgary to London Gatwick, after a great Canadian adventure in the Rockies. Will respond in a few days once I get home and recover from jet lag, etc. Regards Nick Moyes (talk) 08:50, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@BrucePL: Hello Bruce. Sorry to put you on hold. Am now nearly back in my own time zone after an amazing adventure camping holiday with my family, travelling from campground to campground between Vancouver and Calgary. (I could have done with you in the tour bus to properly interpret the geology we saw...it was left to me as the nearest thing to a geologist (ha-ha) to explain hoodoos, glaciology, mountain formation, erosion and a myriad other ecological things. A bit of a struggle when so much of it was new to me, too!)

Your draft on Tessa M. Hill looks pretty good. Possibly a little too detailed and also unreferenced in places. Remember the adage of 'if you can't prove it, lose it'. Absolutely key to every article being retained is the requirement to be able to meet our notability guidelines for academics. (See WP:NPROF for the criteria and full explanation). I think she might, but am not fully confident at this stage. It's really important to draw out evidence that demonstrates how a person does meet these, rather than details of their scientific work. It's only by this that an article's merits for being included in Wikipedia are judged. (Personlly, I'd give far more emphasis to scientists and researchers and historic figures than I would sports figures, here-today-gone-tomorrow minor TV celebrities and company CEOs.

So, the 'Early Life and Education' section needs to be supported with evidence, or cut down to only those elements which can be proven and checked by others. It still has a feel of a CV about it, rather than an encyclopaedia entry, so some judicious precis-ing could still be in order (e.g. ocean acidification).

Regarding links, there are a few things you should consider, and the 'Awards and honors' contains some examples where a degree of straying from our Manual of Style has happened. Note that section headings should be in sentence case, per MOS:SECTIONS. It's worth adding links to things like K-12 which people like me outside the US won't understand. By contrast, it's bad form to add external links into prose (see WP:EXT and WP:LINKDD for guidance on this). Either use the external link as an inline citation, or add it to an 'External links' section if necessary. So, in the sentence: In 2014 she was elected Fellow of the California Academy of Sciences., it was wrong to wikilink to Fellow, as a user would expect this to be an explanation of the term Fellow, whereas you've used it as a citation (which should be at the end of a sentence). The same applies to the subsequent sentence on Leshner. As you say, there's no worry with the copyvio alert on the PECASE citation, which would be clear to anyone checking it.

So, I think what I'd ask you to do is to go through the draft, checking every blue link, changing any that do not link to existing wikipedia articles, converting those you can into inline citations or better wikilinks. consider which is better:

• Hill serves on the Advisory Council for Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary, or:
• As at 2018, Hill serves on the Advisory Council for Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary

I rather clumsily added a date above, as we have to remember that this isn't a CV, but a historic account of a person which will still be here for decades after their passing. The date would simply reflect the retrieval date of the supporting citation, and not reflect what the editor happens to know about them personally. And on that final note, how do we know she was born in 1978? I hope all this feedback/criticism is still of help. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes:. Thanks Nick! Will get on this. How would I cite her birthdate? That stumps me. Wife and I did that Canada route on the railway. No camping! BrucePL (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes:. Nick. Made most of those changes. Regarding the Early Life section, I can't get public records online in the US. Vital stats are protected. Even graduation records are tough. I found a verification for her PhD at UCSB but the link won't copy. I'd say the entire section can't be verified online. It could only refer to her websites where some of this info is posted. BIrthdates are not advised by WP so I deleted that. BrucePL (talk) 18:42, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You'd cite birthdate the same way as anything else. (you can add a reference in the infobox right after her date) But of course you'd need a publicly available document like a University profile page. If you have problems and can send me a link, I'll add it for you. Ah - our posts have just clashed. I see you've now deleted it as unverifiable - sensible move. In looking for her birthdate online, I found this source which might give you some more info - including doing a piece for Al Jazeera. On the railway? How soft. I'd have expected an explorer like you to you to have done the route from Vancouver in the middle of winter and on snow shoes!! Nick Moyes (talk) 19:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes:. Hi Nick. How does TMH look now? I added citations and an item to Media. In Early Life.. the problem now is the first sentence. "Born in Tacoma, etc." BrucePL (talk) 15:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Bruce. That's a lot better. You'll see I've just moved a few things around, and spaced others to add clarity. Critically, I have referred to her notability within the lede paragraph, showing she meets WP:NACADEMIC. I've left a note in the body text suggesting you rmove one bit of detail from that lede and move it into the Research section (which you'll see I've also renamed).

Of course, you're free to reverse any or all of it. I presume you know you can look at the 'diffs' - the differences between different edits by going into 'View History'? Here you see ever edit ever made to a page. Select which two edits you wish to compare, and then click 'Compare selected revisions'. This shows you what I've taken out and what I've added. You can 'undo' my edits there if you wish. The only thing I've really removed completely are external links within the text. If the thing you want to mention isn't notable, don't link it there with an external link, please. This confuses readers who expect to see only internal wikilinks to other articles in blue there. If necessary, you can add it to an External links section, or as part of an inline citation. But I reckon it's all now 'good to go'. Nice work. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes:. Thanks Nick. Should I move it to article space now? BrucePL (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be quite appropriate now. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes:. Was wondering if her public Facebook page could be used to cite the birthplace and High School? BrucePL (talk) 17:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I guess you could. Whilst FB isnt deemed as a Reliable Source, it can be OK to use it to support the less important factual statements. Hope this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 18:00, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

References

using hashtags in article text

@Nick Moyes: Nick. Working on another BLP for a women geoscientist. The draft text I received from a colleague suggests the use of hashtags to highlight her activism. Are these allowed? How formatted? BrucePL (talk) 00:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Bruce. Nice to hear from you. Yes, I saw you are working on a new article. I made a very small change to how you insert an image into an infobox, you may have noticed. Regarding hashtags, I would advise you against using that approach, as the hash character is deprecated in articles. See WP:HASH. Whilst you normally only need one reference to support one statement, you could use two or three references to give an indication of some general involvement in a topic, but again I would advise against filling out an article with generalities (equivalent to hyperlinking to a Google search string), but keep to the specifics of what others have written about them. Does this help? Let me know if/when you'd like me to read through it. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 06:54, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Dawn Sumner BLP

@Nick Moyes: Hi Nick. I want to add categories to the Sumner sandbox page. I didn't find a template but I see how it is done in source editing. Where do I find a master list of categories? Thanks. BrucePL (talk) 18:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Hi Nick. Have you seen my latest question? BrucePL (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Bruce. I'm terribly sorry.Yes, I did see your question and started to look into it (categorisation not being my strong point), but I have only been able to edit on a mobile recently, so this looked a bit complex to answer with it. Then I went and forgot all about it! Oops. Firstly, I hope you know you should not add any categories to a sandbox or a draft page as you don't want them showing up in category listings. That should only be done when it's in 'mainspace'. But if you put a colon just after the double opening square brackets, you get the category appearing as a hyperlink, but without your sandbox page being returned in the main category listing. e.g. [[:Category:American geophysicists]] produces this hyperlink ( Category:American geophysicists) on this talk page, whilst the page doesn't appear in the category list itself. (at least I hope it doesn't!)

That said, one cheat/trick to get ideas for categories is to go to a page about a closely related topic or type of scientist and see what has been used there, and copy the relevant ones over. If you click any category of interest at the bottom of an article you get a list of pages tagged with that category, plus any sub-categories. To move up one category level, look at the category listing at the bottom of that particular page of results and you'll see what categories that page is a child of. Here are sone other useful pages which might help you.

• Special:Categories gives you an alphabetical listing of every category and a count of their contents.
• Special:CategoryTree gives you a tree-like display of parent and child categories - possibly the most useful resource for you right now
• Help:Categories gives an overview of the subject. (I think I need to read up on this topic a bit, too!)

Once again, sorry for the long delay. Does this help? Nick Moyes (talk) 23:32, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Thanks NIck. I think other editors had added Categories to articles I created in mainspace. I don't remember doing it. How am I doing with the Sumner BLP? BrucePL (talk) 23:58, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, this'll have to be quick as its 1am here, and I've had far too many late nights recently. I do like the article. It's not overly detailed and summarises her pretty well.

• You have a DAB link to Washington in the infobox which needs fixing. (I suggest you make these show up by ticking "Display links to disambiguation pages in orange" in Special:Preferences under the Gadget tab>Appearance. It's a really valuable highlighter of bad links.) DONE
• You have over capitalised rather a lot. Sections should be in sentence case (see MOS:HEADINGS). I'm sure it should be a B.S with honors in geology (no caps after B.S. - though I'm unsure about whether it should be Honors or honors, but it should certainly be geology, not Geology. (See MOS:CAPS) DONE?
• The lead seems to repeat roughly the same thing about her research in two separate sentences. This needs precising - just key interesting points. I'd suggest adding her FLS and award - these are the things that make her notable (along with her professorship). DONE
• The citation to say she gave the Carl Sagan lecture in 2014 does not support the statement. I can find no mention of her there. We don't need a hyperlink to show that the Carl Sagan lecture series exists - just that she gave one. DONE
• Equally, the citation on her sexual harassment statement should support your own statement that it has been used as a model in other universities. It only links to the statement itself. Can you demonstrate that it has been used a a model elsewhere, as that could be challenged otherwise?
• The amount of detail in your each reference is quite minimal. Wherever possible, please include a website name or organisation, and definitely an access date to show that the link worked on the date your retrieved it. Perhaps you'd let me know how you are entering references or what guidance page you're following as we might be able to work on that a bit sometime. I am aware we have options of using different referencing systems here, but I'm sure there's some room for improving these. DONE?
• It's now 1:50am and I really do need to go to bed.

Final thought: Have you seen this and this about Donna Strickland? I could almost set an essay question to ask you to discuss your thoughts and comments on the first link (The Guardian newspaper in the UK), and what the newspaper got wrong in their criticism of Wikipedia, and what (if anything) Wikipedia got wrong by declining an article on her. It's really interesting stuff, and is bound to help the cause of women's coverage on WP. Personally, I think academics are under-covered here, whilst we over-cover sportsmen and women who happen to have once played in a some minor league team. hey ho. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:49, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Yes I read the Guardian article earlier. I interpreted it as a circumstance from a poor WP draft article. A lesson for editors. Thanks for all your comments sent at a very late hour. Not sure about the DAB comment but I'll poke around. BrucePL (talk) 15:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Nick. Can you check what I've done so far - addressing your points? I have to dig a bit on the gender equity citations. BrucePL (talk) 17:58, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Bruce. I've work through your article, making observations as I go down. It's definitely "good to go" now.

• Title: Why the Y? None of the references Ive skimmed through use thst initial. I'd suggest that unless its a commonly used part of her name elsewhere, you make it simple Dawn Sumner. You can still use the Y in the article but it just seems to hinder anyone searching for her name if it's in the title of the page.
• I'd suggest removing the sentence from the lead which states Her research focuses on ancient and modern microbial communities that interact with and form geologic structures.
• Section headings: These all still need to be converted to sentence case, e.g. "Career and impact" not "Career and Impact".
• Is there a citation to support her work with the 2020 Mars mission?
• A very minor point: I might have put at least the first paragraph of her research work into the past tense. Rather than say her research work focuses on, you could say her research work has focused on... which makes it seem more neutral and uninvolved in tone. But its not critical.
• Theres a capital letter in "biologicaL signatures".
• At least one reference for the second paragraph of the Science section would be helpful.
• References: Remove the emboldening of Sumner from all the references, as this goes against our style manual. I also think you should use "et al" in the last selected publication, and in reference 10. Although quite acceptable to publish as is, I could still suggest improvements to the amount of information you include in the references. Thus, current ref 3 ought to look like this:

Even without making these last few changes, I'd be very happy to see you move it into mainspace. A job well done! Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

References

@Nick Moyes: Thanks so much, Nick. Took care of most of the above. Not sure about the "Y" in the name. Her middle initial is in all the refs cited.??? Also, 2nd paragraph under "science" section has two citations so not sure what paragraph you mean. I'll try to get links to support her connection to Mars 2020. BrucePL (talk) 19:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC) PS: How do I start "Categories"?

Well, I would expect full author initials in a scientific works, but not here, unless they're known in that way in common parlance, e.g. J.K.Rowling or George W. Bush. See WP:COMMONNAME for guidance on this, confirming we should base article names on how independent sources refer to them (i.e. all the newspaper articles you've cited), not how the subject wishes to be known. Sorry if I misled you on the '2nd paragraph' stuff. I actually meant to refer to the 'sexual harassment in science' section, where the paragraph starting Sumner is an active scientist on social media, ... could do with a supporting citation. But do feel free now to move it into mainspace. Then you can add categories to it, though I might need you to explain what help you're seeking by your final question - I didn't quite understand what you meant. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: I am not certain how to use Categories. If I'm in VE I see a template but not sure how to use it. I'll poke around until I hear from you tomorrow or after. Thanks, Nick. BrucePL (talk) 23:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Categories aren't a strong point with me, either, to be frank, Bruce! But I would advise not using VE, but to use the source editor when adding them. As I think I said above somewhere, you add categories at the very bottom of a page. The best advice is to go find a closely related article (even your own) and scroll to the bottom to see which categories that one has used. If you think they'd be relevant, open the page in source editor and scroll right down and copy and paste the relevant ones in. Don't try to create completely new categories, but use those that have already been created. That makes it far more likely that another user will be able to find the article. Does that make sense? I'll probably be up for the next half hour or so if you need further help. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Yes. I figured it out with source editing. Cheers! BrucePL (talk) 23:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: I moved Dawn Sumner to article space. No reviews yet. Usually, my BLPs are jumped on (?). BrucePL (talk) 20:41, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Nick. Can you look at the edits Ozzie10aaaa made to Dawn Sumner? He/she cut out Selected works, outreach, external links. Is this user a high-rank admin? I don't know how to react. Thanks. BrucePL (talk) 19:55, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Bruce. that must be frustrating. But no need to panic. Looking at the various edits, some things seem reasonable; others, like removal of a selected key works seems unjustified. But I wouldn't want to return them in the same state. (I still think that using 'et al' is better for some references, as I suggested earlier.) Look, there's no rush and I'm only on the mobile at the moment (and in the bath, too!). Let me look later on with the laptop and assess what I feel is a good response. They're all done with good faith. Some edits probably need to stay; others could be reinstated in some modified or less promotional form. Regarding "high ranking administrators" there is no such thing (except for WP:BUREAUCRATS.) All admins are the same, though can still be questioned as to their rationake for taking certain actions, just ad you can with any other editor. In this case, the user is an ordinary editor, like me and you. Will be in touch again soon - probably in the next 36 hrs, if I can. Regards, Nick.

Sorry for the delay in replying, Bruce. I'm going to work through the seven edits in reverse order and make observations on them here first.

1. this diff simply changes career and impact to Career. This seems fine.
2. this diff just shifts two lines together. Very sensible. (I've spotted a very minor typo there which you made, and which I've just fixed)
3. this edit simply removed uncited content, which is perfectly fine. Should you have a published reference to demonstrate her activity there (as opposed to expecting users to go and search for a hashtag - which won't work or be relevant in 5 years time) then reinstatement might be acceptable, providing she can really be shown to have been reported as highly active in those fields.
4. this edit deleted the External links section with no justification given in the edit summary. Here, I don't agree with that edit. Having reviewed the guidelines on External links I find all but one relevant to the topic. The video interview, for example, is not only academic and non-prmotional, but sertves to show what Dawn Sumner looks and sounds like. This is valid. It wouldn't have been appropriate to have used this as a reliable source, but that isn't happening. The original video was published by the University of California's on its own YouTube Channel, so is perfectly acceptable, and not promotional in tone. The Google Scholar citations link doesn't really fit with WP:EL (specifically point 9 of WP:LINKSTOAVOID - though I'd have been quite happy to have seen its retention. But leave that one out, I think. The link to https://fri.ucdavis.edu/people/dawn-sumner is quite acceptable as it's published on an academic website (I know I have read a guideline somewhere which states that university website biographies are acceptable and not deemed primary (and thus unreliable/promotional) sources as their content would only be allowed following editorial control by that university. Unfortunately I can't offhand remember the page link to be able to paste it here right now. But I would wish to see that link being reinstated, especially as it seems to fit under WP:ELOFFICIAL. As for the 2013 Antarctic blog that she wrote, this, too, seems rather short, but nevertheless relevant to her research work and acceptable under WP:EL the exception given in point 11 WP:LINKSTOAVOID. Were the external links section ever to be expanded, I would probably think of dropping this one. But for the number currently present, I deem this OK. Overall, I would reinstate this section, but exclude the Google Scholar search results.
5. this edit deleted an apparently well-cited section completely on the grounds of "trim/not needed". This, I think, is a subjective matter. I would ask whether the section is encyclopaedic and relevantto the subject being talked about. In this instance, I think it is. That said, the wording needs changing to sound a little less promo-ish/cv-like. Simple phrases like "...Sumner’s research has been featured in a variety of local and national media outlets..." could go, to be replaced by simple statements that her work has been featured in [named journals] followed by a citation. To refer to her as a 'cast member' in the Finnish documentary is unhelpful, even if true. It makes her sound like an actor, not a scientist featuring in the documentary. I think all these links are ok and perfectly relevant to the article, but the wording needs improving, and the section heading simplified to just "Outreach". So, instead of "...research has been featured in a variety of local and national media outlets", make it just "...research has appeared in various news outlets."
6. Finally, this edit has deleted the 'Selected works' section as "trim/not needed". Now, I did suggest that you should have trimmed down at least one of them to an 'et al' format, so I'm hardly surprised another editor though bits needed the chop. But I completely disagree with section deletion. It's a list demonstrating the academic work of a person notable for their academic achievements, and is very pertinent to the article. I feel it should be reverted, but after careful review of each one for relevance and signficance of authorship. Our Manual of Style clearly states that "Lists of published works should be included for authors, illustrators, photographers and other artists. The individual items in the list do not have to be sufficiently notable to merit their own separate articles. Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship (WP:V), are encouraged, particularly when such lists are not already freely available on the internet." Personally, I don't think MOS has considered that some academics have authored hundreds of papers, so a 'selected list' is far more appropriate than a complete list, as you've attempted here.

I've run out of time to comment further today. Can I leave it with you to consider? I am happy to discuss and to insert the agreed versions myself, as a way of demonstrating consensus and input from another editor. I've not pinged the other editor in at this stage, simply because this thread as part of the adoption/mentoring process is rather long for them to expect them to read it. So any discussion over what consensus needs to be reached can be moved to the talk page of her article. How does all this sound? (Am now back to the house renovation work for the next couple of days, then shall then be off for the week, dropping in en route to see how my daughter is getting on in her first term at University).

One bit of Wikipedia guidance I could leave you to explore is Edit Warring - which we aren't straying into at all here, but which you should be aware of. Bold, revert, discuss is the way to solve issues. Basically, if you and I continually disagree on something, we can't be allowed to get away with continually adding/reverting/re-adding/re-reverting ad infinitum. This is called edit warring, is disruptive, and could get us both blocked. Having reverted another persons edit (with a good edit summary, at all times!) editors aren't then expected to repeat those action, but instead to go to one talk page or another and discuss their concerns and to reach an agreed consensus. Should such consensus not be reachable, there are ways to take the issue to discussion noticeboards for non-involved editors to arbitrate on. Cheers for now. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:35, 24 October 2018 (UTC) Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:35, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Thanks Nick for your helpful analysis. I will study your links, in particular about edit warring. I would appreciate your help is reverting most of these edits. Can we start with your points #4 and 6? I will talk to Ozzie about the external links as you outline. Can you handle the Selected Works? On the other items, I’ll study a revision to text deleted as in points #3 and 5. Best wishes on your renovation! Always more to do than first planned! BrucePL (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Nick. I corresponded with Ozzie and he didn't object to restoring most of the External links - I did that minus the Google Scholar. Could you work on the Selected works restore? Thanks. BrucePL (talk) 15:43, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Done. I'd be grateful if you'd check what I've added as I'm not very familiar with the format of DOIs, and a few seem very long. I've also altered a couple of articles to match their titles exactly as I found them online. Glad you had constructive correspondence with Ozzie. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:59, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Nick. DOI work fine. Thanks! BrucePL (talk) 16:26, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Dawn Sumner

please go ahead, the reason I edited some of the text though this individual has accomplished alot is that it starts looking somewhat 'promo', however use judgement and re-add what you believe is best,--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:52, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ozzie10aaaa: Ozzie. I cleaned up the outreach section you had a concern about. How does it look to you? BrucePL (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

looks good,thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, BrucePL. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

West Antarctic Rift

@Nick Moyes: Hi Nick. I did a serious work-over on this article. I think, a big improvement. CAn look at it and comment? I decided to leave in some legacy text even though I'd prefer to take it all out. Cheers. BrucePL (talk) 21:46, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: An unrelated glitch I'm encountering. Adding citations with Automatic, the author list is appearing in reverse order. Is there a setting to correct this? BrucePL (talk) 19:37, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello Bruce. I've taken a look, but I'm afraid I didn't get your previous 'ping' a few days ago. The reason for that is that two things have to happen within the same edit for the recipient to see a notification alert from another page. These can't happen through consecutive edits: a) the user's name has to be correctly mentioned in a ping template, or equivalent, and the edit has to be signed. As I found out the same way some while back, one can't simply correct a previous edit as you did without re-signing it with a new set of four tildes. If you want to read more about this, see WP:MENTION.

Your efforts have made a definite improvement, and is very clear and readable . (I've not checked it against the citations - but I trust you to have done that well!). The only two style issue I would raise is to say that we don't accept the use of emboldening within text, except in the lead where title and any synonyms can be emboldened. You can use a red-link if you feel it's likely that we might one day have a page on that title (e.g.: Terror Rift). For short articles, it's always best to keep thumbnail images on the right side of the page (just remove the "|left" command from the image code and it will default to the right). Nice map, too.

Regarding the citation issue, could you give me a diff to show me precisely which reference has come out differently than expected? (I looked through the page history, but you've obviously added quite a few and, without working through each one in turn, it's hard for me to know which one/ones appear faulty compared to the correct citation order). That said, if you open the page in source editor and search for <ref (intentionally missing off the closing chevron bracket) you'll see the start of every reference highlighted. There are 22 references which use the {{cite journal}} template, and a number of others which do not. (These latter ones you can find by searching for this text string: <ref> - note the inclusion of the closing chevron. I'm guessing that these latter ones you manually entered, and that any citated journal which has a "ref name=" in the format "ref name= :0" "ref name= :01" etc has definitely been added via Visual Editor, as it allocates these numbers sequentially. Look, too, for the author names in these references, given like this: |last=Davey|first=F. J.|last2=Granot|first2=R.|last3=Cande|first3=S. C.|last4=Stock|first4=J. M.|last5=Selvans|first5=M.|last6=Ferraccioli|first6=F. Now, clearly, you could manually change the numbering to match the correct citation order, but if it's a bug it could help if you could demonstrate which reference is being affected, and we could report it as an issue, or determine what other action is needed. I hope this make sense? Coincidentally, whilst replying to you, I had BBC TV News on in the background and saw Professor David Vaughan from the BAS talking about glacial melting in East and West Antarctica. Synchronicity, or what? Nick Moyes (talk) 23:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Thanks Nick. I'll undo those emboldened texts. Here is an example of a reverse order of authors. I used Cite Automatic in the VE and input this DOI 10.1130/G23825A.1 The authors got formatted in reverse order. BrucePL (talk) 01:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

RISE Project

@Nick Moyes:. Hi Nick. I drafted a new article and hope you can take a look at it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BrucePL/sandbox/RISE_project

Hope all is well! --BrucePL (talk) 17:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes:. Nick. Did you miss my last ping? --BrucePL (talk) 16:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello Bruce, No, your post failed to notify me. It only works if you include my username and the four tildes at one and the aame time when you publish changes. Adding it after does not work - aee WP:PING. I'm currently on holiday in Spain (see here), so can't do much without a keyboard until next week. I will take a look as soon as I'm able. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:43, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes:. Thanks Nick! Have fun! --BrucePL (talk) 22:57, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello Bruce. I hope you're well, and I'm sorry for the long delay in replying. (I fear I may need to do this in more than one editing session, too). Firstly, this looks like a really well put together piece in terms of referencing, wikilinking and so forth, though initially I found myself wondering whether it might be challenged on notability grounds. But as I read on I realised that what you're describing was the expedition that led to the discovery of black smokers that I remember seeing on TV in the late early 80s. So I was really mighty impressed. As I thought about it more, I came to feel that your approach has quite undersold the significance of the RISE project and its contribution to scientific knowledge, and that a casual reader could easily miss the significance of those discoveries. I'd like to suggest that you break up the article and expand each element, but most importantly, to rework the salient points into a useful lead (see WP:LEDE). At the moment I think you've approached it too much like a scientific paper, but one lacking an Abstract. One ought to be able to read that abstract and get a sense of what the paper is about, and some of its key findings, without reading the contents, and that's what's still needed here. I would like any reader to gain a deep understanding of the RISE Projects significance within the first sentence, or two sentences at the most. How about something like this...?

The RISE Project (Rivera Submersible Experiments) was a 1979 oceanic research project which mapped and investigated seafloor spreading in the Pacific Ocean, along the East Pacific Rise (EPR), some 350 kilometres southwest of Mexico. Using a deep sea submersible (ALVIN) to investigate hydrothermal activity at depths around 2,600 metres, the project discovered a series of vents emitting dark mineralized particles at extremely high temperatures which gave rise to the popular name, “black smokers”.

Location

Participants

Findings

Scientific impact

Further reading

Although it's important not to write another article on hydrothermal vents here, I do think it's essential not to understate the significance of this research project, and to put it into context with the 1977 Galapagos research. I note that some online webpages suggest black smokers were actually discovered in the 1977 expedition, so, assuming I've understood the distinction between the two projects, this could be a chance to use WP:RS to give clarity to any misconception between their separate discoveries. As well as the scientific papers, is there merit in including some of the more 'popular' accounts such as this one? The page on Ballard also mentions (uncited) black smokers being discovered in the 1977 Galapagos expedition, so there seems to be some work needed to ensure the correct story is told and referenced.

Let me know what you think to my suggestion. There are a number of other, much smaller, tweaks I could suggest (later, maybe), but were this in mainspace already, I'd be quite impressed by it. But what I would like to suggest is that you don't move it over until it's sorted, and then I'd recommend that you submit it for a Did you know...? spot on Wikipedia's main page. One has just seven days to make a DYK submission from the time an article first goes into mainspace, but after that many weeks will pass by during the review process before it gets onto the front page. Combined with a good photo of a black smoker, it could make a great entry. I can explain how DYK works later on, if you're interested. Cheers for now, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Thanks so much Nick. I'll get to work on this. I also am working on drafting a page on Project FAMOUS; first manned submersible dives on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. I was part of both RISE and FAMOUS. BrucePL (talk) 00:14, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Hi Nick. Made changes you suggested. Please take a look. Thanks. BrucePL (talk) 22:12, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

OK, will do. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Bruce, this is so much better. It makes for a really interesting article, well-worthy of a WP:DYK. I'd still like a bit more clarity on the term 'discovery' - you use it twice, I think. Once regarding black smokers (emboldening not appropriate, as it's not an equivalent name to the article), and later in relation to discovering a chemical-based benthic community which had previously been found in Galapogos. My understanding from the article is that the RISE Team were, effectively, 'the first people on earth' to see black smokers, and that the existence of these hydrothermal vents pouring out hot fluids was speculated upon by the earlier Galapagos expedition, but not actually found then? If that's right, I think you could work on clarifying and teasing this out a bit more. - and it's that which would make an absolutely superb DYK hook. To my mind, there's a heck of a diference between going into a wood and discovering a rare plant growing there that you hadn't seen growing there before (but had seen elsewhere), and going into that wood and discovering a species of plant new to science. It's that distinction I'm keen to see cleared up.

Can I challenge you on the statement: "The approach was unique in that many geophysical techniques were employed ..."? Admittedly I've not yet worked through the references (I can only see abstracts for the first seven I've looked at thus far) but is it your personal opinion/knowledge that the approach was 'unique' or does one of the references state that explicitly? The reference verify that the technique were used, but not, as far as I can tell, that using them together was unique (even if it was!) It's little thing like this that are worth considering for total accuracy and neutrality, especially if you put it up for DYK.

At a much smaller level, have you considered using the {{convert}} template to add depths and areas in both metric and imperial? It's a good idea to use this, and there are options for expanding or contracting the stated units of measurement to suit the article. I was confused what (CYAMEX) was relating to - clearly not the Gulf of Mexico. Is this important? If so, maybe some clarification is needed.

All in all - brilliant work. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:47, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Hi Nick. I think I ticked-of all your boxes: CYAMEX; convert; "unique"; Galapagos vs, 21N; deep sea mining. Thanks so much. Take a look. I'd like to do DYK if you can guide me to the first steps and help break that ice for this article. BrucePL (talk) 18:34, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes:: Hi Nick. Made changes you suggested. Please take a look. Thanks.BrucePL (talk) 15:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi again Bruce. Yes, it's looking pretty good now. One bit still leaves me confused - but that's probably my lack of understanding of the topic.

Marine geologists were puzzled for years by heat flow data from the seafloor that showed the measured values at spreading centers were too low for theoretical models of seafloor spreading.[14] The convective crustal heat transfer computed from the vent plumes was estimated to be many-fold the observed normal conductive heat flow at a spreading center.[15] These observations provided an answer to the low heat flow problem. Does this mean that, whilst the modelling predicted high temperature measurements of the seafloor at spreading centres, the actual temperature measurements were lower because the heat that would have been expected to be in the seafloor was actually escaping from somewhere else - namely via the hydrothermal vents into the seawater, rather than through conduction through the seabed? I've had to read and re-read that bit quite a few times to conclude that's what the 'low heat flow problem' was. Any chance of making that a little bit clearer? So, if you want to think about moving it into mainspace, that;d be fine now. I recommend adding the RISE project to your WP:COI declaration - especially as it's going to go forward for a DYK slot.

OK, so I was hoping to explain DYK tonight, but I've got myself distracted with other matters. But I will warn you that trying to follow the normal guidelines for DYK is quite tricky first time. Luckily, there are also these Instructions for 'Did You Know' that a normal human being can understand. The key thing to understand are:

• that a DYK article on the main page can get many thousands of page views in the 12 hours or less that it's there (example). It's a great way of showing visitors what good content we're all generating.
• You have seven days from the time the page first goes into mainspace to make a DYK submission.
• You need to offer an interesting 'hook' which draws the reader in by its question, "Did you know....?"
• Your hook must refer to an element in your page which must have a citation immediately after it which completely supports it.
• Your submission will be reviewed by another editor for a range of critieria. Article length, interesting hook, within timescale, properly referenced etc etc.
• DYK review often leads to requests for article improvements as you'll get positive criticism/feedback on what needs addressing before it can be 'signed off'
• Once approved, it can take many weeks before it appears on the main page.
• As a new DYK contributor, you won't have to do a thing called QPQ (quid pro quo) whereby those who've made more than 5 DYK submissions are required to review another editor's DYK submission before they can post their own. So you can ignore that.
• The submission process involves you creating a unique DYK template for your article. You can work on that, and then you sort of move it over (transclude) it into the main DYK submission page according to the date the article hit mainspace - this bit is the part that must be done within one week of it going live.
• Once published, you can permanently add a DYK template into the article's talk page

Have a look at the guidelines and the alternative guidelines and get back to me for further clarification after your migraine from reading it subsides! Nick Moyes (talk) 01:42, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

PS: here's a couple of my recent DYK submissions for articles I created earlier this year. You can see that the second one took a lot of too-ing and fro-ing before it was deemed acceptable by the reviewer:

• Template:Did you know nominations/Andy Nisbet
• Template:Did you know nominations/Brenva Glacier

@Nick Moyes:. Hi Nick. Thanks for your input. You are correct in your interpretation of the heat flow text (heat flow though, not temperature). I rewrote it - see what you think. I looked at the DYK stuff and it seems clear. I assume the template can be worked on and saved until ready for submission? Hopefully, you can watch my progress on this once started. I'm a bit unclear on the hook part. I know what it means but does it have to be a quote from the article? Not clear. Here are two hooks I came up with:

Did You Know: .. that black smoker hydrothermal vents were first discovered on the East Pacific Rise at 2600 meters 40 years ago by the submersible ALVIN during the RISE Project?

… that during the RISE Project the deep-sea submersible ALVIN discovered a series of hydrothermal vents on the East Pacific Rise emitting dark mineral particles at extremely high temperatures which gave rise to the popular name, “black smokers”?

Source 1: F. N. Spiess et al., Hot Springs and geophysical experiments on the East Pacific Rise. Science, 207: 1421-1444, 1980. BrucePL (talk) 19:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bruce - the hook doesn't have to be a direct quote from the article, but it does have to be a succinct question to pique reader interest and relate to an interesting fact which can be verified from the cited reference that follows it. The link to the article needs to be in bold. Sometimes it's worth offering a completely different hook topic, as I did with the Andy Nisbet DYK. It's now a bit late to get my brain in gear, but I believe you're correct to think that the DYK template can be created and worked on before submitting it. Generally, I tend to mock up rought DYK ideas first, then post the article, then create the real template. I'd like to suggest dropping the name of the Eastern Pacific Rise in one of the versions, just to keep it clean and simple. How about this:

... that hydrothermal vents, known as 'black smokers', were first discovered in 1979 on a mid-ocean ridge in the Pacific Ocean during the RISE Project?

TTFN, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:03, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Nick. I just moved RISE project from my sandbox to article space. I'll work on DYK tomorrow AM PDT.BrucePL (talk) 21:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Excellent. Don't forget my recommendation to add it to your userpage WP:COI declaration. I've only just spotted there is already a different article with very similar name (RISE Project). I suggest you WP:MOVE yours to RISE project (oceanography). Each page then would benefit from a hatnote to distinguish them, and the {{about}} template would be used for this. You must decide whether the article needs a capital 'P' or stick with a lower case one. Let me know if you need any help with these actions. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 06:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Nick, thanks. I'll use ...project (oceanography). Not clear on use of

For other uses, see BrucePL (disambiguation).

. WHat would this look like? BrucePL (talk) 14:37, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I think I figured it out BrucePL (talk) 15:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Well done, Bruce. It did need a little bit of a precis, which you'll see I've done. The thing with the {{about}} template is that it needs to go on both articles, not just one of them. I've fixed that too. I look forward to seeing the DYK nomination template. Just shout if you need any input from me. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Well Nick, I stumbled through DYK and think I did it. Take a look: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Did_you_know_nominations/RISE_project_(oceanography) ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:RISE_project_(oceanography); https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_created%2Fexpanded_on_May_15 ; I'll stay tuned. BrucePL (talk) 21:36, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes:: Nick. Maybe you missed my update. Can you check my DYK nomination? No comments or reviews yet? BrucePL (talk) 16:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bruce. No, I didn't miss it. I did see it, and did take quick look. I'm mostly editing off a small mobile phone these days, so have to keep the more long-winded replies to when I'm at a keyboard. I should probably have 'thanked you' for the edit so that you knew I had at least seen it. I will try and do that in future to avoid you feeling I'm ignoring or overlooking you. I was please you not only completed the template OK, but also transcluded it correctly into the main DYK Nomination page. This is an essential bit that I was worried you might miss, as I think it trips up many people. There are two things to suggest. Firstly, the image caption probably needs to be much shorter. Just black smoker undersea vent' or 'black smoker hydrothermal vent' would probably do. Secondly, can you cite the actual page in the source where the term 'black smoker' was used, or possibly add into the article any other popular source that demonstrates that the term was applied to the 1979 discovery? If there's an online link you can insert into the DYK source statement, that'd be good too. Must rush. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:56, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Thanks Nick. The term "black smoker" is first used in the Source in a figure caption on page 1425. I assume I go to the nomination page and make that edit in text form, not a citation? For example, Figure 4A, page 1425, F. N. Spiess et al., Hot Springs and geophysical experiments on the East Pacific Rise. Science, 207: 1421-1444, 1980. I also edit the photo caption on that page?

BrucePL (talk) 19:21, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

You edit the nomination template, and all changes then appear on the DYK nomination page for May 15th, where your transcluded it. I see you've now had a taker - your task now is to act on their feedback, and let them know when tbat's all been done. Youll see I've tweaked the caption and suggested an ALT1 version for you. 22:56, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Nick; about DYK. Gerda made changes to the hooks that look fine. She asked if the scientific impact could be inserted. That would be tough - need another sentence. What happens next? How does this DYK get approved or rejected? When? (I went on Gerda's user page. She's done lots of DYKs herself and reviewed a bunch. Also, she's nine years old!). BrucePL (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Wow- thats one impressive editor. Once you feel you've addressed all the issues raised in the review (and it looks like you have now), you can reply to the reviewer on the nomination template to tell them that. If they agree, they'll mark the nomination as 'Good To Go' with a coloured green icon. It will then get moved over to an 'approved' queue. It can still take some weeks for the DYK volunteers to allocate a timed slot for the main page. So the ball's in your court to say if you're done. You can also say which of the two ALT versions youd prefer to see used. Does this all make sense? Nick Moyes (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Looks like she approved it. Three more steps?! BrucePL (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @BrucePL: Congrats on your DYK getting the Good to Go tick. You've done a really great job with both the article itself, and the DYK nomination. It'll still be quite some time before it gets onto the Main Page but, as Gerda said, you can keep an eye on when it moves up through the queue. Meanwhile, you might like to check if all the related articles have their facts correct, or not, like this one, which I assume now needs fuxing. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes - 3 steps: #1 It gets a final check and quickly moved to DYK Nominations approved; #2 it waits (and waits) for scheduling into a particular DYK Queue; it gets automatically moved to the Main page for its moment of glory. BTW: do you know how to check an article's page views? Nick Moyes (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Nick. That entire black smokers paragraph is wrong on the ALVIN page. I'm sure Ballard didn't write it. Can I get away with a full replacement? Also, some facts on Ballard's page concerning vents and ALVIN need fixing. His page has an edit warning. (PS: I do know how to check page views). BrucePL (talk) 00:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you are quite free to correct the statements on the Alvin page. There is a "citation needed" template calling for supporting references. So, as these don't exist, you're quite ok to add content based upon proper sources, rather than your own personal knowledge. Ballard's page has a BLP warning and a bar to non-autoconfirmed users, but neither have stopped, or will stop, you correcting or adding relevant information, based upon good references and an effective edit summary explaining the need for the correction. It might be a good idea for you to check for the use of the phrase "black smoker" in all other Wikipedia articles, which you can find via the Search box. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 07:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Project FAMOUS

finalizing a draft of this article. BrucePL (talk) 20:05, 21 May 2019 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BrucePL/sandbox/Project_FAMOUS BrucePL (talk) 20:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

It's looking good. I will take a look in more detail later and give you any feedback I can. I reckon the lead could be a bit shorter. The key point to draw out is that this research not only established how one of the earth's key geological mechanism manifests itself, but also how the world at large took notice of it. So, introducing a few 'popular' sources (newspapers/standard text books) might be useful to ensure that at least the notability of its findings, if

not the name of the Project itself, are clearly demonstrated. I do have a small backlog of detailed replies I need to sit down and give to other people when I'm in front of PC, not a mobile phone, but I will reply asap. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:10, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Thanks Nick. I moved text out of the lead. As far as popular knowledge profile the Further reading section lists books and NatGeo articles on FAMOUS. Good? BrucePL (talk) 23:24, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bruce. This'll have to be quick as I'm off to Snowdonia in Wales for a bit of hillwalking with my eldest daughter tomorrow. As I find them:

1. You've used acronyms like WHOI before you've introduced them (shame on you! LOL)
2. Why isn't 'operational challenges' included under the 'Methodology' section? It hardly seems relevant to the 'Results'.
3. On a general note, your writing style here is still a little more like that of a scientific paper (offering an explanation, discussion and rationalisation), rather than an encyclopaedia offering straight facts, details and significance. There are also one or two overly technical sentences which could do with simplification. I've marked one such with a template.
4. Can this link be usefully incorporated?

1. If there's a way to state that the project succeeded in determining the main mechanisms of creation of the median rift valley, and then so say that this mechanism is now presented in standard tectbooks (and cite a couple), that'd be helpful, I think.

Sorry I can't offer much more right now - must get to bed. Back on Tuesday. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:11, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Hi Nick. On point 1 that blunder resulted from cutting and pasting a few sentences out of order. On 2, I moved the Operational section into the Methods section. On 3, I addressed the sentence you flagged. I'll need more help with this observation of yours on style. On 4, I added the link under section External links. I've identified some textbooks which note the FAMOUS project. How do I incorporate any of these into the article? Further readings or citations?

List--

• Manned Undersea Science and Technology - Page 9; United States. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - 1976
• Marine Geology, on 8 pages; James P. Kennett, Prentice-Hall, 1982
• Introduction to Earth Science - Page 163; Lianko, A.A. - 2001
• The Silent Landscape: The Scientific Voyage of HMS Challenger; Richard Corfield - 2003
• Venturing the Deep Sea; Laurie Lindop - 2006
• Oceanography: An Invitation to Marine Science - Page 54; Tom S. Garrison - 2015

BrucePL (talk) 17:58, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Go for inline citations wherever possible.Nick Moyes (talk) 18:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Hi Nick. Snowdon Park looks gorgeous! Hope the weather was fine. Hoping to see a critique for FAMOUS from you soon (no pressure!). Want to move on to a few articles stacking up now. BrucePL (talk) 17:10, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

The Cannon Stone, Tryfan, North Wales

Hi Bruce. Yep, Snowdonia was great. (Here's a self-portrait I manage to get of myself and my daughter on a long ridge scramble we did. Despite the clouds, we even came back sunburned.) Anyway, I've finally managed to sit down and have had a go at tweaking your lead paragraph to make it a bit more succinct, and with a view to moving detail into the body of the article. I've struck the odd sentence which I don't think are needed. I find it hard to define exactly what it is that makes it seem more like a scientific account than a summary encyclopaedic article - perhaps it's just the slightly too technical content and the slightly under-emphasised significance of its findings. I'm keen to ensure that no other editor comes along and thinks it's simply an account of some research which happened to find out something new - let's face it all scientific research tends to do that, and few of them merit articles on Wikipedia. So, as I see it, it's the significance of the first ever underwater survey/investigation of a mid-ocean ridge and the first ever determination of the geological mechanism of seafloor spreading that's notable here?

Whilst there's also a slight hint of it sounding a little essay-like in places, I see nothing to prevent you from now moving it into mainspace. Fancy another DYK?

I notice that you're using WP:VE to edit with, and then reusing references still with the Visual Editor. I don't know if you'll find this useful, but unfortunately VE doesn't let you allocate your own 'refname= ' field, but simply allocates you a sequential number like :0, :1, :2, :3 etc. I do what you do and let VE do much of the hard work of looking up and creating a reference (which I then tweak to correct the bits it messes up), but (using the pencil icon) I then switch to the source editor and change "refname= :0" to "refname= Greenewalt" to help me and future editors find and reuse the correct references again. If you have a fact you need to cite within a long reference, you can use the {{rp}} template to add a specific page number after a reference, like this.REF I don't know if you are also aware that there is actually no requirement to have any references in the lead paragraph at all, provided that everything is subsequently expanded upon and properly cited later on, although sometimes I do like to leave one or two key ones in there for extra clarity myself. I can have a go at the methodology and results sections if you wish, though you're free to ignore my edits if you prefer. Only thing is, I can't promise to do it immediately. Let me know what you think. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:57, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Hi Nick. That's some photo of you two in Snowdonia. Made me think of similar pics taken in Yosemite. I've done the work you suggested and would appreciate a look through the other sections. Not sure what you are advising with 'refname'. Is this so that editing of refs is easier in the source editor? I think I'm missing a key point here.

The Hammond ref (a science writer piece that accompanied the FAMOUS Science article) mentioned some of the impacts of the project, which I've tried to make clear. 1- first geologic maps of the seafloor and spreading center, 2- a technical feat of marshaling all the new tools and using a submersible in the deep sea, 3-showing the driving force of plate motion was passive pulling rather than pushing apart plates at a spreading center. Also, I added that statement that FAMOUS setup the methodology to use ALVIN that allowed discovery of hydrothermal vents. I'll move to main space soon. BrucePL (talk) 21:52, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bruce. Oh, I'd love to visit Yosemite. I did spend two hours freaked out the other evening watching Alex Honnold in Free Solo on El Capitan. Totally heart-stopping. The hardest we managed to solo was this!.

Yes, your article is looking really quite fine now. You'll see I've made a few further tweaks and moved a few elements around - and learned a new term 'terrane' which I initially thought was a typo - (click to view all my changes). I think the notability of the subject comes across more clearly now with your last few edits and my subsequent tweaks. There's no need to do anything regarding adding a 'refname' to each citation - but, yes, it is something that I think helps other editors who prefer to work in source editing mode, rather than visual editor. They become more intuitive - well, helpful, anyway (as each reference gets its own unique name, rather than just a sequentially allocated number) and maybe something you might like to consider for your own benefit, too, in future drafts. Go ahead and move it into mainspace. I suspect there may now be other articles which need to be linked to it, and also a few updates to other article content, too (like Mid-ocean_ridge#Discovery). Oh - just remembered - you'll need to remove the wikilink from spreading center in the lead sentence. Personally, I'd leave that term out of the lead completely and expand it elsewhere, if necessary. But because it's a WP:REDIRECT to Mid-ocean ridge, I see no need to repeat the link, as I assume they're simply synonymous. All the best, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:40, 4 June 2019 (UTC) 

Mid-ocean ridge

@Nick Moyes: Hi Nick. For my next effort, I want to revise and update Mid-ocean ridge article. My colleague Ken Macdonald read through it and made comments below. He's an expert having written three review papers on MORs. Some of the changes he calls for are substantial. Not quite a rewrite but close. I'm hesitant to go too far fearing my effort will get flagged as harassment or vandalism. How do comments below strike you?

"Bruce, . . .

I am reading through the MOR entry and have a few comments as I go- The intro paragraph gives the impression that all MORs have rift valleys. I avoid this in the first paragraph of my intro for my encyclopedia article (eos) by getting to spreading rates right away- rift valley for slow, etc... Fig 1 is a disaster. It promulgates the misinterpretation that the crust is thickest near the axis, ie, that the elevation of the MOR is that of a constructional volcano rather than being caused by hot mantle, ie, thermal expansion. The crust should be shown thinnest at the axis.

Volcanism section: Fig 2 which is a movie is more accurate than fig 1. perhaps the easiest correction is to delete Fig 1 "continuing volcanism" should be "active" volcanism, continuing can be confused with continuous, which would be wrong. This whole section kind of restates an introduction in several different ways; total rewrite needed. Start out with the fact that Mors are spreading centers with a range of rates~ 1-20cm/yr. and go from there. It will save some repetition that happens later.

Morphology section Some ok stuff here, but it would be clearer to start out with the cross-sectional view of the ridge which gets into the whole deepening of seafloor as square root of age ( and thickening of lithosphere). And then transition to an along strike perspective introducing transform faults, the undulation of axial depth of several hundred meters, and non-rigid offsets such as OSCs, with the deepest points being at ridge-axis discontinuities (transforms, oscs, etc) You want to address magma supply from the upper mantle, more magma near mid-segment, less near major discontinuities.

Formation processes section Slab pull is thought to be the primary force I thought, from the Forsyth and Uyeda work, summarized well in Searle's book. And the slab pull would exert on the entire plate not just as it nears the trench. Whoever wrote this original text forgot what a plate is! The second paragraph goes after driving mechanisms a bit more, and not well. Perhaps this should be omitted since driving mechanisms are really more relevant to a plate tectonics entry than this MOR entry. This avoids the awkward assertion that the MAR must be driven by push or by friction since it has little in the way of subduction zones. Elsasser explained this elegantly as driven by slab pull via subduction zone suction. 3rd paragraph finally gets to spreading rates, much smoother to get to this at the start of the entry, it sets the stage. Then goes to ANOTHER explanation of crustal formation, a bit more confused version of the first one.

Global system section This global scale perspective would be so much better placed at the very beginning, combined with spreading rates. Sealevel changes as a result of spreading rate changes seems a bit out of place here. Also I think it may not be correct.

Seawater chem section bloody awful! and I don't think it is really essential to this MOR entry. Just a cross-reference here to hydrothermal activity, black smokers, etc.

impact section finally a reference to "seafloor spreading" near the end of the entry, OMG!"

Your thoughts? Thanks BrucePL (talk) 21:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Goodness. Where to start? OK, so, first off, and ignoring Kenneth C. Macdonald's international expertise and his feedback to begin with, I'm glad you recognise that an unannounced major rewrite of a popular page (600 views per day) could make a few of the 124 page watchers a bit twitchy about your motives, despite the immense expertise you and your fellow academics clearly have. (And turning great academics like you into great wikipedians is precisely why I wanted to adopt and mentor people. Your work so far has been fantastic.)

My approach would be to declare my concerns and intentions about the article. So I would go to the talk page of Mid-ocean ridge, introduce myself, and outline my concerns about the weaknesses in the article, and give a few bullet points of the key factual errors and misconceptions I would like to change and ask for opinions (consensus) from other editors about my proposed changes or restructuring. I would wait a while (maybe a week or so) for any comments. Meanwhile I might even go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Geology and leave a message on the Project talk page stating those same concerns about the article and asking if anyone with a specialist interest in tectonics would like to have input on a rewrite, asking them to give me their feedback on the article talk page (so as to keep discussions in one place). (There look to be only about three active project members with interests in plate tectonics, though I doubt any have your level of expertise) Meanwhile, because you're saying it could need a big rewrite, I might make a new sandbox page and work on mocking up a better page layout. I might then go back to the Mid-Ocean ridge talk page and link back to my sandbox and ask for feedback/approval to replace it in whole or in part.

That's the extreme approach for a complete rewrite. It might be that you work on one paragraph at a time (even possibly doing that in your sandbox if you prefer). I have seen many experts tearing their hair out when they've spent hours redoing a large section all in one go, only to have it swiftly undone in good faith by another editor who thought their efforts were not helpful (example). So, a softer approach is to make lots of smaller edits, each with a clear edit summary explaining precisely what the change has added to the article, and wait a while between big content changes. That might not be applicable for really big rewrites, of course.

The thing to warn you (and all other subject experts about) is the danger of adding lots of new factual content without showing a clear citation to support every change. (that's where my suggestion, above, about 'refname= ' also comes in handy). Equally, it's critical that, as an academic, you don't create a rewrite on a topic you know so much about that it becomes a technical essay or short thesis. Everything needs to be understandable and written in non-technical terms wherever possible so that a science-aware 15 to 18 year old can grasp much of it. Experts can then use your cited references to investigate further, should they wish

Finally, I've sidestepped passing comment at this time on Professor MacDonald's expert feedback. I would need to read the existing Wikipedia article first (and perhaps his own encyclopaedia publication), then consider each of his points he emailed you in turn to be able to proffer any opinion (assuming my limited geological knowledge could keep up!). I note the graphic that Professor Macdonald criticised is based on NASA material. If it is now so seriously incorrect that it needs replacement, we do have a load of editors at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab who love making graphics. Providing a suitable source is available to base it on, it might be possible to get a new graphic made. The alternative is to ensure a good caption highlights both the key features and any errors in the graphic(citing sources, of course)) Cheers for now, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Thanks Nick. I had thought that I would revise in pieces rather than do a total rewrite. But I didn't think about starting this project on the Talk page - that's a good suggestion that I'll follow. Can you track that talk page easily? I would like to see your comments as I go. I have already found an image on Commons that I modified to replace Figure 1. My first step would be to revise the lead and replace figure 1. I should also note the problem with Fig 1 on the graphics talk page? BrucePL (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Normally I would put pages on my Watchlist and receive an email notification of any edits (you get notified of changes in both the article and the talk page). But over the last 12 months I've turned off these notifications to prevent my webmail server Inbox being inundated with Wikipedia-related and other routine notices which has caused me to miss important real world stuff. So please notify me directly if you need immediate inpuy, but I have it on my 'to monitor' list which I use as a reminder of pages to visit. Yes, if you have concerns over an image's content or how parts of it might be misinterpreted, then raising this on the talk page is very sensible. There might even be times when the file description needs editing, an I've done that myself a few times before. (BTW: I don't think you need to add the MOR article to your COI declaration as it's quite a generic topic. But I did keep meaning to remind you to consider adding Project FAMOUS to it, as you were one of the participating scientists.) All the best, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Hi Nick. I started my edits in my Sandbox. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BrucePL/sandbox/MOR_edits I revised the lead. Please take a look. It's a bit long but covers the bases almost. Left out mention of the age-depth relation covered later in the article. BrucePL (talk) 16:02, 15 June 2019 (UTC) Also replaced first figure with one I enhanced from the Commons. @Nick Moyes: I think I pinged you incorrectly. BrucePL (talk) 01:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Hi Nick. An edit I made on Mid-ocean ridge was reverted by Vsmith, a senior admin. Do I have recourse? BrucePL (talk) 17:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bruce. Thanks for the ping. (I am aware I still owe you a detailed reply to your request for input on your sandbox revison notes re the mid ocean ridge. I apologise for not having had a chance to sit down at a keyboard and properly go through it. I'm either completely knackered each day, or only able to edit from a mobile in odd moments. That's my excuse, anyway.) I looked at the page history for MOR. Just as a factual, but trivial point, it doesn't matter whether its an editor with admin tools, or one without- their input is equally valid. In fact the admin made four small edits, whilst your removal of content which you felt better suited to Ocean chemistry was reverted by a non-admin, like me. It's clear the reverting editor, GeoWriter, did this with the best of intentions. (But we're all often wary of anyone removing good, well-cited content from any article. I would never use the word 'recourse' in this situation, as it's sugggesive of malintent, which it wasn't. (If you check their user page and their contributions, you'll see they also work in the field

of improving geological articles. So I suspect you both have a great opportunity to engage and work together on this topic.

The normal course of action after one's edit has been reverted is to either engage with that editor on their talk page, or to open a new topic on the article talk page, and make sure you ping them if you seek to explain your edit rationale and to establish a consensus on the best way forward. (You'll note that I've included their username in my reply to you my reply to, so they will see this reply (albeit rather 'Too long, didn't read. sorry) So you might like to post your edit proposal on the article talk page, rather than force them to read through all my waffle here.

Meanwhile, a huge 'congrats' on your first DYK for RISE project. I feel that's a real achievement for you (and even a bit for me, maybe). That deserves a barnstar (which I'll sort put later), though right now I'm reply by mobile from a hot bath, soaking off the paint splatters from a hard day's house renovation, so apols for all my typos. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:15, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: I did not revert BrucePL's removal of the seawater chemistry text. As BrucePL described above (17:45, 28 June 2019), BrucePL's removal of seawater chemistry text was reverted by administrator Vsmith (edit done at 00:08 on 28 June 2019). —GeoWriter (talk) 23:00, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@GeoWriter: My apologies. I must have confused your respective contributions because of my rather unusual editing location. Thank you for taking the trouble to reply. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Nick. I had a dialog with User Vsmith and he won't budge; see his talk page. I'm a bit put off by his stance. The content in the entry at best doesn't belong on the MOR page or is wrong at worst. Could this go to arbitration? BrucePL (talk) 22:58, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bruce - sorry for the delay in replying. No pun intended, but I feel a little 'out of my depth' on commenting on the technicalities of the subject. But we do have a process which you have already started of gaining consensus, and I see you did engage with Vsmith. Notwithstanding any factual areas (for which you are clearly competent to judge, whilst I am not) I err more on Vsmith's side in wanting to retain content than remove it. I would recommend a 'see main article' link to Ocean chemistry in the recently renamed and expanded seawater chemistry subsection (which I have just added). That shows the reader they need to go elsewhere to find more content. Obviously, if content is wrong or wrongly cited it can be corrected. But if you earnestly feel there is too much emphasis on seawater chemistry in the MOR article, then the way forward is to raise your concerns and proposed solution as a new section on the article's talk page and gain a wider consensus, and maybe work on the main article, too. At this stage (and at an admittedly fairly quick look) I don't perceive any head to head disagreement that can't be sensibly teased out on the article talk page, and maybe with other editor input to gain consensus. Providing there's nothing factually incorrect, I don't actually see much problem in retaining a small section on seawater chemistry, but clearly pointing to the main article. Or are you suggesting that it's inclusion is a complete 'red herring' (pun intended that time) and is totally irrelevant to the topic of mid ocean ridges? My layman's reading of it is that there is some relevance here. Sorry if this isn't quite what you wanted to hear. Yes, we do have dispute resolution processes (see WP:DISPUTE for intractable (dare I say 'entrenched'?) disagreements, but at first glance I don't see us needing to head off in that direction any time soon. Nor, do I think it's fair to suggest 'they won't budge' - I see a healthy discussion between two editors interested in doing what's best for an article, and a keenness to encourage you to work on it. Does this help? Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 02:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Thanks, Nick. I'll calm down and figure out how to make this a better entry. BrucePL (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Hi Nick. I've done a lot of work on this page assisted by Kem Macdonald. It's much improved I think. I need advice and help on one issue. The following statement has no citation and I've hunted the internet and literature trying to find where it might come from with no luck: "It is estimated that 20 volcanic eruptions occur each year along earth's mid-ocean ridges and that every year 2.5 km2 (0.97 sq mi) of new seafloor is formed by this process. With a crustal thickness of 1 to 2 km (0.62 to 1.24 mi), this amounts to about 4 km3 (0.96 cu mi) of new ocean crust formed every year.[citation needed]". Ken and I think the facts are wrong but without checking a source we can't be sure. Is there a way to find out which editor wrote this and when? I skimmed through "View Hisotry" not really knowing what to look for. Any help with this? BrucePL (talk) 21:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bruce. I'll give you the answer first, then show you how to find it. this diff shows the edit was made by an IP with virtually no editing history back on 11 January 2008. You have absolutely no way of knowing their skill level, or of contacting them, so I would have no worries about removing a 10yr old uncited statement, if you think that's best.Just leave a clear edit summary explaining why, lest someone challenges its deletion. I'll save this, then follow with the method. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:43, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Bruce, you have two ways to find precisely hen an edit was made. The coarse method is to go to the View History tab and display the last 500 edits. You can click the date and time for any one of them to view how the page looked at that time. You can look (or text search ) for the presence or absence of that text, then split the edits in two, getting closer each time to eventually find the relevant version.

The second, neater way is look for the link at the top of the View History page, labelled "External tools: Find addition/removal " This takes you to the WikiBlame search page. Here you can type in the relevant phrase you want to search against the article history. By default, it searches just the last 500 edits from whatever date is set in the start date. So the 1st attempt yielded a false result of 25 November 2013. So by setting the 'start date' to an earlier year, I get the same date as I did by a manual search, albeit much faster. Does this make sense? Nick Moyes (talk) 01:02, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Thanks, Nick. I will definitely use this to update and check other article entries. Best wishes. Hope your knee is doing better, BrucePL (talk) 22:37, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

DYK for RISE project

On 26 June 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article RISE project, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in 1979, the RISE project first discovered hydrothermal vents known as 'black smokers', on a mid-ocean ridge in the Pacific Ocean? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, RISE project), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Amelia Shevenell

@Nick Moyes: Hi Nick. I've been working on a BLP for her. She's a young woman oceanographer who is headed to great things after done a lot so far. Please take a look when you can. A few items may need citations but I'm digging into these. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BrucePL/sandbox/Amelia_Shevenell. Cheers; BrucePL (talk) 17:28, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Hi Nick. I've cleaned up missing info and should be ready for article space. Can you take a look? Thanks. Bruce BrucePL (talk) 18:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bruce. Sorry that I've not had access to a keyboard for quite some time. Although you may have seen me still editing, I find it difficult to make complex edits from my tiny mobile.

Now, there's a few things that need fixing, but most significantly your draft article must meet the recently revised notability criteria for academic staff see WP:NPROF. Luckily, that adds a few helpful things to permit academics to become notable, despite being locked away in laboratories, rather then exposing themselves to the media like tinpot TV personalities or one-off sports team members. That said, I'm not convinced that being an Associate Professor quite cuts the mustard there, so general evidence of other reliable sources having written in detail about her and/or her receipt of recognised national honours or awards will be needed OR evidence that her work is itself of note and has had a wide impact on the scientific community. Could I ask you to tell me which of the NPROF criteria you think she meets, and could you ensure that every one is highlighted in the lead and expanded within the article if you are to avoid someone subsequently proposing this for deletion. I'm worried that it might be borderline as it stands. Although the lead states she was 'profiled' in 'Women in Oceanography', that piece was really written in the first person, and we normally discount what a subject says about themselves in interviews or personal blogs, and even in formally published media.

I've not yet worked through all the references and some of the detailed content, but I feel you've again fallen into the same trap of writing in a scientific style, rather than an encyclopaedic one.

In particular, the first really obvious thing is you've included a myriad of external links within the article itself. I realise that giving credit to other workers is a norm in scientific writing, but this is an article about Amelia Shevenell, not her co-workers. Including all those links in the article itself is a rookie mistake I'm surprised you've made again. These must all go! Just use wikilinks to key words within the encyclopaedia, and only ever add other websites as links in an External links section unless they're part of a citation, of course. See Wikipedia:External links - especially the first sentence which makes this clear.

The 'Early life and education' section is not cited at all. I hope you haven't written that from personal knowledge? Despite you knowing stuff, it's essential that only published sources are used. There is a view that biographical information on an academic website would be subject to editorial control by that university, and is thus acceptable. But outside of these sources we only use what others have written about a subject. If in doubt, leave it out.

You have six uses of the phrase Shevenell and colleagues, and this might make an editor suspect that the person themselves wasn't the main player in the relevant research area. Can you clarify this, whilst also shortening the explanation of her work somewhat? I sensed there was more focus on what she worked on, rather than demonstrating what she did meets is notable beyond that of any other academic. Having explained what her work is, can you elaborate on why it is especially significant in terms of meeting the WP:NPROF criteria? I'm also not clear what the 'See also' links are achieving.

Oh, and by the way, when you add an image into an infobox, please cut out everythiung other than the filename. You've managed to get two captions, and you only need "image=Amelia Shevenell.jpg" not all the other stuff in "| image = [[File:Amelia Shevenell.jpg|thumb|Amelia Shevenell]]"

Sorry this sounds a bit negative, but I hope it's given you a few things to think about and work on. Must get to bed now - it's late (again!) Nick Moyes (talk) 01:31, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes:. Yikes! I'll get on this. Thanks so much for your forthright comments. Question. Are you on keyboard now? Don't want to beleaguer you with back and forth until then. BrucePL (talk) 03:28, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes:Hi Nick. Working on this. Her notability in my view stems from her achievements in Antarctic research on ice sheet history (Nature, Science pubs; media attention), her national Storrs and AGU honors, and her leadership roles in ocean drilling. The last is an international effort long standing for decades, and arguably the largest international Earth science project in the world. Participation in the expeditions is competitive. She is on leadership committees for ocean drilling. She was nominated to be and served as a Distinguished Lecturer - she didn't volunteer. These are notable. I should add that there is a BLP category of Women Antarctic Scientists where she now belongs. She was passed over for these BLPs done en masse a few years back when her career was still new. She is on par with many of the younger Antartic women scientists who have BLPs; like Amy Leventer. Let's get over this notability hurdle first before I work further. I obviously need your help in stating her case. BrucePL (talk) 19:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Hi Nick. I worked over the BLP page. Would you be able to look at it? Thanks. BrucePL (talk) 19:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bruce. You'lll have seen I've made a few fairly small tweaks to your draft. You can view them all in one go here, and I think it would be helpful if you'd check for any inaccuracies I might have unintentionally introduced. I've tried to strengthen the lead by mentioning the Sigma Xi membership, plus minor tweak to wording on 'media coverage'. What I think would be helpful is if it's possible to add some context to each area of her work in the 'Career and impact' section. Coming at it cold, so to speak, another editor might simply say that all researchers produce research which, though impressive, isn't necessarily enough to demonstrate that they've made a notable contribution within their field. So, rather than expand on the technical work done, are you able to add in a simply line which explains how that work is significant (presumably in the wider context of understanding impacts of climate change?). That done (plus the removal of Forams and Diatoms from the See also list, I reckon you're good to go. I am sorry for the very long time between my replies to your requests for input. I hope this hasn't inconvenienced you too much. I find I need to be in the right frame of mind for the more complex keyboard-based tasks - and these moments aren't too frequent right now.

On a different note, since my climbing trip to North Wales last May, I've developed a knee injury which might need surgery to correct. I shall find out later next week, I hope. Meanwhile I've had to pull out of a winter mountaineering trip I had to Mount Toubkal in Morocco in December, which has left me not only hobbling a bit, but also generally rather frustrated with life. I'm hoping it'll all be resolved in time to go later in the season in spring 2020. I don't like this growing old mularkey! Hope at least one of us is fit and active? Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Hi Nick. Thanks for these edits - I'll follow up. I hope your knee issue is managed successfully. To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, growing older is not for sissies (but better than the alternative!). That peak has more than the expected hazards - terrorists! BrucePL (talk) 04:32, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi BrucePL,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikipedia and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 16:01, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi BrucePL,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 15:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi BrucePL,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 20:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Coropuna - Seeking a quick bit of feedback from an expert

Hi Bruce. I suspect you aren't around right now, but if you are and if have a free moment, I wonder if you could cast your eye over the article on Coropuna - about a Peruvian volcano?

It's nearing the end of a Featured Article review process, and I got involved at the last minute. I've really just been doing a bit of copyediting and tweaking to make it read more easily. There's a lot of geology in it, and neither the editor who's been working on it (User:Jo-Jo Eumerus) nor I are experts in that field.

At this stage it only needs a quick read-through for glaring technical errors, as there is a real risk that, having been up for review for quite a while now, the application could soon get shelved, and not go through. It really is nearly 'there'. So any feedback you might offer right now could be helpful - but don't "bust a gut" if you're busy or don't have the time. Rather than complicate things by asking you to leave feedback at the review page (at WP:Featured article candidates/Coropuna/archive1 where most of the review discussions are held), feel free to make direct edits to the article or leave comments here on your talk page, and we'll monitor it.

If things had worked out I'd have been on my way up Mount Toubkal either today or tomorrow so, as you can imagine, I'm pretty nissed off to still be here in the UK, sitting at a computer instead. Trusting you're in better health then me right now! Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:09, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Hi Nick. I'm partway through this, starting on Geology today. I fixed some Wikilinks and etc. My impression so far is that it is thorough and accurate. I think the section Local/General outline, may belong in Geology below. More later.

Sorry you didn't get to make that trip! BrucePL (talk) 16:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Bruce. It's much appreciated. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: I did a bunch of edits yesterday and today without saving. I tried to save now and I have an edit conflict. This will take time...BrucePL (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Nick. I did a close read-through and made many edits for Wikilinks. User GeoWriter reorganized the parts I was concerned about. In fact, I think we stepped on each others edits - but all ok now. The article is tight. I think it must have been written by staff of INGEMMET due to the level of detail. Many of the citations are in Spanish. Is this a problem? Much of the article is at a high technical level for WP, but better that than weak or too thin coverage. Looks good to me. A Lot of effort in the article. BrucePL (talk) 00:12, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Bruce. It is much appreciated. In fact, the editor (Jo-Jo Eumerus) who has done a lot of work on enhancing the article is one of our admins - a biologist based in Switzerland, so I don't think there's any WP:COI to worry about. I don't know how often you experience edit conflicts, but there are one or two tips you might like to try in your future editing. First off, to keep other people off an article for an hour or two whilst you're working on it, you can add the {{in use}} template to the top of the page, then remove it when you're done. Another way, when you get an edit conflict notice, is to look at the other person's edit, see if they've made just one or two minor changes, and, if so, overwrite it with your longer version. You then need to go back and add in the other person's edit again, of course. I'm not sure what the normal edit conflict display shows, as I have enabled a beta version of "two column edit conflict" in my Preferences. You can try it here. I often opt for the easy way out by simply copying my edited text shown in the conflict display, then posting it in to the newer version of the article (assuming the other person wasn't editing the same paragraph(s), of course. Another way is to make lots of little edits and save (publish) after each one. I don't normally do that, though in this article that was precisely what I did. But its purpose was not to avoid edit conflicts, but to spell out clearly the purpose of every single edit I made to that Jo-Jo or any other reviewer looking at this Featured Article nomination could assess the validity of each of my changes. Thanks, once again, for your input. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Now I want to know what The article is tight. means. But no, I don't work for INGEMMET. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: "tight" as in no lose ends such as statements of fact without citations. High-quality article IMHO. BrucePL (talk) 20:26, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, BrucePL

Thank you for creating Seafloor depth versus age.

User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Nice work!

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|North8000}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

2018_Southern_California_mudflows

@Nick Moyes: Hi Nick;

I hope you and yours are well. Our family is self-isolating and doing okay.

I have a question about citing articles where the citation leads to the publisher's page with the article - not behind a paywall. A colleague provided me with an article and its citation saying that the publisher doesn't want the article to be put on the web. But the doi leads to the article and a no-cost download option.

Is there a communication problem here? It seems to me if the article is free then what is the meaning of "don't put it on the web?" I would assume it means, as with WP, don't use the content on the web?

Still chipping away at various articles but no major efforts lately as I've concentrated on nonfiction writing. BrucePL (talk) 20:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC) Hello Bruce. Funnily enough I took a look at your user contributions today to see whether you'd been editing recently, and was pleased to see that you had. So was going to drop by to say 'Hi', but you beat me to it. Like you, we are also in lockdown, and feeling a little bit exposed by the virus. My wife works in our health service, so she recognises she has the potential for bringing Covid home, but we're not doing the full self-isolation thing, though our neighbours are. My daughter has just sat her 2nd year Uni exams in her bedroom here, and has no idea when she can go back to real studies. Tensions have risen a bit, but it's lovely to have her and her sister both here. Recently, we all had a front garden 'Street Party' in our road to celebrate VE Day - a most esoteric experience, with Vera Lynn being blasted out down the street, and each family in their own personal space, with flags, buntings and cakes. I even dug out a World War II Union Jack that my father had brought home after serving in the Navy, and hung that on our house. (Normally I'm rather appalled by anyone hanging a UK flag on their property!)

Your question about the published paper is very odd. I agree with you: I think the person meant to imply that it would not be ok to see the full text repeated on another website, including Wikipedia. Of course, that couldn't ever happen here, though using the doi to link to it surely can't be an issue. Why publish something and then say 'don't look at it'?

Somewhat linked to that theme: I've recently started getting emails from Academia.edu, linking to geological papers related to your area of research. One or two have been full papers (like this one), and I've even found some citations on Wikipedia have only been to abstracts, so I've added the link. I wasn't aware that Academia.edu was a predatory publisher. Do you have any idea why past papers suddenly appear online on sites like this, years after they were first published? I assume I'm getting the emails simply because I've shown interest in downloading related papers. Keep safe! Nick Moyes (talk) 00:58, 27 May 2020 (UTC) 

@Nick Moyes: Hi Nick. A block party is a cool way to cope with all this pressure. Nice! I am also getting mailings from Academia.edu. I never signed up for any correspondence. They seem to be a copy of ResearchGate. I just ignore them and delete the emails. Cheers. BrucePL (talk) 15:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Matilija Sandstone citations

@Nick Moyes: Hi Nick. Having a problem with reusing citations. In the above page refs 1 and 2 are first cited in the Infobox. And they appear in the References section. However, when I try to Reuse them they don't appear in the eligible list. If I cite them again in the text they appear as new references -duplicates. It appears that the Infobox citations cannot be reused. What is the fix? Thanks. BrucePL (talk) 18:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Short reply, as I'm not near a keyboard right now. There's no problem putting and reusing refs in Infoboxes. You simply forgot to put in a "refname" that you call up each time. I've written a guide on adding references, re-using them, and adding page numbers with the {{rp}} template. Check out WP:EASYREFBEGIN and let me know if you're still stuck. I'll then get on a proper PC and explain things in more detail. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Nick. Off-topic. It would be handy to have the option to private a message with you. I see you are on Facebook but have blocked Friend requests (only Friends of Friends in Privacy settings). If we were FB friends we could use Messenger, which is easy enough. My Friends settings are Public now so you can send me a Friend request if you agree that Messenger is a handy private option to supplement our chatting on Talk pages. BrucePL (talk) 16:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok Bruce. Will do. I don’t use FB a huge amount, but happy to fix that. Nick Nick Moyes (talk) 16:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Backups?

@Nick Moyes: Hi Nick. I've searched and cannot find the steps to create a backup for an article. The issue would be if someone moved an article from the Sandbox to the main space and it was deleted by another editor, where is the original? If I recall my experience it is gone when deleted. I searched help pages and could not find a procedure. Thanks, BrucePL (talk) 17:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Interesting question, Bruce. I had to think through that one and do some checking. There would be two possible answers, depending how the article left one's Sandbox.

1. If a proper MOVE were carried out, the contents and its page history would all go with it into mainspace. Although a redirect would be left behind from the sandbox to the main article, none of the edits and edit history would remain in that sandbox. The contents would be lost (but see below)
2. If you simply copied and pasted the finished sandbox draft into a new Draft page at Articles for Deletion, or straight into a new page in mainspace, then you would still have all the contents 'backed up' in the history of your sandbox page, and could retrieve any version of it. The downside is that all the edit history of the individual edits leading up to it being ready to go into Wikipedia, proper, would be lost from that mainspace article by the simple act of you copy/pasting just the latest version.
3. There is nothing to stop you keeping a copy/paste version of an article you created (prior to moving it) on one of your sandbox pages, but I'm not sure there would be much value in that. I'd be inclined either to drop the odd copy of interesting articles you fear about into MS Word, or print off a PDF via the Menu bar on the left side of the page.

If an article were deleted, the page's creator can make a request with the deleting administrator - or another willing admin - and ask them to email the contents of the deleted page to them. (See also WP:REFUND for undeleting pages under certain circumstances) Or even Deletionpedia which I believe still works and keeps a coy of some recently deleted pages.

Do you ask this for a reason? I can't see anything after 2018 on your talk page which suggests one of them has been put forward for a deletion discussion.

Hope you're still well and keeping away from all those disease-carrying young people! Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Hi Nick. Thanks for this. I was curious for myself and not bothered figuring it out when I had speedy deletions dumped on me at first.BrucePL (talk) 20:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Susannah Porter

@Nick Moyes: Hi Nick. I've been absent for a few months working on writing and dealing with the pandemic. I hope you and your family are doing well. I started a new BLP in my Sandbox and would like you to take a look. I'm at the stage of gathering citations and building out the research section and those to follow such as professional activities. Please let me know what you think so far. Cheers; BrucePL (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, will do. It's great to hear from you, and hope you've been keeping safe. I've also been trying to stay clear of viruses, and recently got my first A/Z vaccination. Eldest daughter should be at Uni preparing for her finals right now, but is still stuck at home for now. Youngest went back to school last week.

At first glance (which is all I have time for right now), it's not a bad draft. She seems to meet WP:NPROF, though I'm not keen on seeing a lot of encyclopaedic material based on her own CV. Even for professors, we don't like to see their own claims of qualifications/experience unless it's part of a formal entry on a university website (as opposed to her own listing published there) The rationale for this is that the university biog pages will have had editorial control and checking, whereas anyone can say anything in their own CV, and we tend not to like relying upon them. So it might be best not to include the less significant info like school attended, or a rowing prize she won unless it's also given in an independent source. Avoid POV statements like "much sought after keynote speaker", and simply say she has been a keynote speaker at X and Y conferences. On a minor note on placement of inline citations, I think it better to place the ref right at the end of the sentence, rather than after her name at the beginning. The rationale being that you're citing a source to support the given statement, not citing it simply to prove she published something in 2019. Finally, in the lead, I'd suggest removing the sentence which states: Her methodology includes descriptive systematics, and paleoecological and taphonomic analyses. This is too technical, and if it needs to go somewhere, it should be in the main part of the article. My feeling is that Wikipedia prefers articles which says "Person A is an American biologist and Professor at University B. She studies subject C". It seems preferable to "Person A is an American biologist who studies subject C and is a Professor at University B." - but this is nit-picking, providing you don't attempt to explain subject C in the lead. Hope this helps. Take care, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Thanks, Nick. I'll do some more work on this. BrucePL (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Hi Nick. I've done some tune-ups if you can take a look. I'm still working with her on trying to get deeper citations than her online CV. It may mean ultimately, removing those items. Cheers; BrucePL (talk) 16:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Bruce. Although better, there are still some key concerns, not least if which is that you shouks declare your WP:COI on your userpage, as it's clear you know her personally. I still feel some of the content is based on a cv hosted by the University, but not actually edited by them. Some might argue this is a primary source, and so less appropriate to use. Finally, whilst its fine to explain her research work and its significance, I suggest precising this to avoid it being too explanatory of geological ideas. These should be added to the relevant pages, as this ond is about Porter, not the topic she atudies. It's slwsys a fine balance, but in this case I feel at the moment it needs to be further pulled back from stepping across the line into WP:COATRACK territory. Sorry this comes over a bit criticsl, but its fixable and notability has indeed been met - which is the key thing. Regards,Nick Moyes (talk) 08:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Hi Nick. I made a few changes to address the WP:COATRACK issue. Not sure if I did enough. I will add a COI once this is moved to mainspace. BrucePL (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Hi Nick. Can you take a look at the BLP for Porter? I think it's close to ready. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BrucePL/sandbox/Susannah_M._Porter. I tried to find the tool for copyright vio checks but can't locate it. Not that this article is in question, but just to be sure I didn't paraphrase. Thanks. BrucePL (talk) 00:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Would you mind if I made some edits to the page directly? (You can always revert them afterwards) That's easier than me explaining all the small issues I still have with the page. These relate to lead order, overemphasis of other colleagues (an honourable trait in academia, but not relevant here when those names can be found in citations) and still too much educational/explanatory information on topics related to their work, which can be found via wikilinks. I recommend putting your COI notice on your page now, rather than afterwards. I was borderline in suggesting it should go through WP:AFC, but I think she'd meet WP:NPROF OK, especially if you'd let me pare it down a little and get to the core. In haste (and sorry for the delay in replying - rather busy right now). If you don't like my suggestion, then it's unlikely to get WP:AFD-ed. So you could move it to mainspace, though do expect some further editing by others along the lines I've suggested. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Hi Nick. That would be great if you took a crack at this. Thanks. I'll do the COI today! Cheers! BrucePL (talk) 15:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: I took care of the COI. How to handle the CV citations? If these items were also on her university web page (she hasn't an updated one now - and staff is not yet available to do that) could her academic web page be cited for the items? It would have her CV on it too. BrucePL (talk) 18:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Bruce. People are a lot happier to use an academic biography page which has itself been edited (reviewed and approved) by a UNiversity, rather than a user-written CV. I think that CV is on a university site, but I'd ideally either rely on sources that have had editorial input, or simplyleave off the minutiae that a person puts on their CV. I'll probably have to take two or three shots over a few days, as I'm both very busy by day and extraordinarily tired each evening (with few brain resources left for proper thinking!) Will attempt it soon, though pompt me if you're getting itchy. TTFN Nick Moyes (talk) 00:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Hi Nick. I added a few citation links to her service section. Are you able to do any tweaking of this page? Cheers. BrucePL (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Rachel Haymon page in sandbox

I was looking for places to cross-reference Suzanne Carbotte's page and see here [1] that you have created a page for Rachel Haymon, but have not edited it since 2019. Are you planning to come back to the page? I don't want to intrude, but she's on my list of people to work on. Perhaps we can collaborate and add in the citations needed to make this ready for the mainspace? DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:20, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@DaffodilOcean: Hi. Rachel's page is on permanent hold. She has been undecided if she wants one. She is a colleague of mine so I have a COI. This is not to stop you from proceeding - if you do and also know her as a colleague or friend then you should declare COI on your User page. Let me check in with her to see if she is open to cooperating. Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are new you might try to connect with a Wikipedia mentor. These are senior admins who can help achieve a successful page review. You might want to add to your own User page by outlining some of your interests and experience while remaining anonymous. BrucePL (talk) 15:18, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

OK, thanks for getting back to me. I do not know her, or otherwise have a COI here. I am simply working my way through Fellows of various geoscience organizations. I have been here for a few months, but I am definitely still learning the ropes. DaffodilOcean (talk) 16:09, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Marine Geophysics

@RockMagnetist: Hi. This is the first rough draft. It shows where I think the article should go. What do you think? Am I on track - to improve and finish of course. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BrucePL/sandbox/Marine_Geophysics. Thanks. BrucePL (talk) 17:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@BrucePL: Looks like a good start to me! I love the organization into methods and impacts. All you need now before adding it to article space is properly formatted citations, lists formatted with bullets, and more links (for example, to the scientists). Yes, having a category for the scientists would be useful. One comment about the sources, though: In Evidence for seafloor spreading and plate tectonics, it looks like you're planning to use primary sources, but you need secondary sources to tie them together. If you don't mind my editing your draft, I could do some of the dirty work. RockMagnetist(talk) 23:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@RockMagnetist: It would be great it you took a crack at it! Ken Macdonald did a read and had a few minor comments I addressed. BrucePL (talk) 00:35, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I formatted the list of geophysicsts, and it seems heavily weighted towards Californians. RockMagnetist(talk) 22:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Can marine geophysicists be made into a category? I don't know how to do that. BrucePL (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Sure, it's really easy: see How to create category pages. I have created Category:Marine geophysicists and started adding added all the names to it. RockMagnetist(talk) 15:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I added about 20 names to the list; some international BrucePL (talk) 00:12, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Much better! RockMagnetist(talk) 15:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Isn't Tessa Hill more of a geochemist? RockMagnetist(talk) 15:41, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Never mind - she was just my guess for filling out one of your names. I see you have another Hill now, so I removed Tessa. RockMagnetist(talk) 15:43, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@RockMagnetist: I've finshed a first draft in my sandbox. Would you mind taking a look and commenting? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BrucePL/sandbox/Marine_Geophysics . Thanks! BrucePL (talk) 20:46, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

July 2021

Hi BrucePL! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Christine Siddoway that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Kj cheetham (talk) 19:43, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Kj cheetham: Thanks so much for the insight! BrucePL (talk) 21:23, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for all your contributions to Wikipedia

Kleinpecan (talk) 21:24, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi BrucePL! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, remove a redirect and convert to an article, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

New message from Jo-Jo Eumerus

Hello, BrucePL. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mount Melbourne/archive1.
Message added 17:21, 1 March 2022 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)