User talk:RockMagnetist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Glad to come across[edit]

...a fellow phys science faculty member still giving time here (though I have left the academic game, now)/ Cheers, bonne chance. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 03:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Pleased to meet you, Le Prof. You seem to be thriving - some professors have a hard time adapting to Wikipedia culture. RockMagnetist(talk) 05:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Earthquake sensitive[edit]

Hi. I'd be interested in any comments you might have re Draft:Earthquake sensitive. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Template:infobox mineral[edit]

Hello RockMagnetist. Could you change the positions of 'crystal symmetry' and 'crystal system' on the template:infobox mineral, please. It should be 'crystal system', section 'general' and 'crystal symmetry', section 'identification'. Thank, regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 04:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Chris.urs-o, I'd be happy to do it, but I'm curious: Why don't you just edit it yourself? RockMagnetist(talk) 16:55, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
It is semi-protected, and only the documentation page is visible. Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
But semi-protected means that IP users and new users can't edit it. You're autoconfirmed, so you're good to go. I don't see anything but the doc page either - I think that is typical of infobox pages. However, rather than hold you up with arguments I will make the change. RockMagnetist(talk) 22:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your input![edit]

Wanted to thank you for weighing in at Talk:List of giant-monster films‎. I think other opinions were sorely needed. DonIago (talk) 18:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad that my input is appreciated by both sides. I hope that you'll consider my middle way. RockMagnetist(talk) 20:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it seems that even if I was open to it (and I'm not saying I'm not), the other editor is not interested in reconsidering their stance; their uncivil comments aren't exactly helping matters either. But then, my failure to make headway with them was why I asked for other editors to get involved in the first place. I'm guessing the best thing I personally can do right now is stay quiet on the subject; but let me know if you feel otherwise. DonIago (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
True, I'm not sure if you can help on the talk page, but you could help by adding citations (e.g., to the Godzilla movies). RockMagnetist(talk) 20:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
If I get the time for it, I'll see what I can do, certainly (regrettably, there's good reason why most of the work I do here is gnomish). I don't know whether you want to address why the link the editor provided wouldn't be appropriate for inclusion in any case, or leave that one hanging...much less whether you'd like to point out that their tone continues to be less-than-constructive (prior to your and Eric's involvement I gave serious consideration to unwatching the article and walking away from it). Thanks again for getting involved in the situation. DonIago (talk) 20:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

At least we've moved away from the ranting and on to confusing the heck out of ourselves? :p DonIago (talk) 18:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's collaborative confusion. Gives you a warm, fuzzy feeling. RockMagnetist(talk) 18:05, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Geology[edit]

Your articles have been quite helpful for students like me.Thank you very much. Kunwar Rabindra (talk) 14:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I'm glad they helped. RockMagnetist(talk) 02:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Frederick Vine[edit]

Hi, sorry I killed this gentleman prematurely. I read in this book that he died in 1988, and I couldn't find any source providing any information, one way or the other. If I do find one, I will edit with proper reference. Sorry... Avneref (talk) 18:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Deleted comments?[edit]

Hello RockMagnetist,

Chris Oxford here.

Yesterday I decided to have a look if Editors are discussing something new and interesting on Talk: Mineralogy, and suddenly I have noticed, that our own Hope Diamond discussion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mineralogy) has been vandalised!

Someone had erased from the text replies of two Wikipedians, who took part in this debate.

The reply of the Editor DESiegel, where he is saying: "I disagree .." in regards of my statement that the picture of Hope diamond inappropriate in the article Mineralogy, has been deleted.

If some one is thinking, that Wikipedian DESiegel was not right in this case, then this person shall come up with a weighty objections, but not to delete DESiegel response.

The same was done to the response of the Editor Huon, who although, as opposed to Editor DESiegel, agreed with me.

Illogical actions of the unknown devastator possibly indicates, that this person even did not have any particular goals or desires, but to make a joke, as now, because all these gaps, discussion sound pretty strange, just like a conversation with the voices, generated by the own imagination, or with the subjects of paranormal origin.

Of course this is not the end of the world, but I have never encountered such a phenomenon personally, and therefore decided to ask you what to do in this case?

Regards, Chris Oxford Chris Oxford (talk) 21:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@Chris Oxford: Nothing has been deleted. The editors commented on your talk page and you replied at Talk:Mineralogy. It is indeed confusing, so maybe I'll add a couple of links to your talk page. RockMagnetist(talk) 22:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello RockMagnetist, Great thanks, that you pointed out to me this error. Regards, Chris Oxford.Chris Oxford (talk) 08:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Microsoft academic search logo.png[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Microsoft academic search logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:52, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Magnetosphere of Earth listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Magnetosphere of Earth. Since you had some involvement with the Magnetosphere of Earth redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 19:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Dual norm[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dual norm. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Your help desk response[edit]

You seemed to object to a link to a section in an article. The way the person who asked the question wanted to do it may have been incorrect according to the guideline you pointed the person to. However, I saw nothing wrong with "(see below)" which I added to the article Digital television transition in the United States, which is very long. What are your feelings?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I was a little lazy in that communication. I think I may have read your "The absence of a MoS page discouraging it" as something like "The absence of a MoS page related to this issue," so I just posted the guideline without discussing how it applied. The bottom line seems to be that, if it makes sense in a print-only version, it's o.k. So the example that @Voltteri mentioned seems fine. I like that your example provides a link to the section for easy navigation, but I think it would be better to name the section instead of just saying "below" (someone could move it so it's above or split it from the article). RockMagnetist(talk) 17:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I should probably discuss this with more people, but does this look proper?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Looks great, except for the hash mark, which I took the liberty of hiding. By all means consult other people - I am just giving you my interpretation of the MoS. RockMagnetist(talk) 21:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't like it. It looks like you're getting sent to another article. I'm not sure who to ask.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Establishing notability for a scientific organization[edit]

Hi, Rockmagnetist. The article International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy has been nominated for deletion on the grounds of non-notability. It also has been tagged for lack of non-primary sources. It seems to me that it is a notable subject, albeit within a smallish group of scientists, so I've been trying to find citations to establish that. I've added a couple of references, but I'm having a hard time finding online sources.

Guidelines exist for academic people and for companies and organizations, but it's difficult to extract from these exactly what should apply to specialized scientific organizations. Do you have any suggestions about 1) applying notability guidelines in a case like this and 2) sources to check into?

Or is it just not notable after all? — Gorthian (talk) 02:20, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Gorthian, thanks for bringing this to my attention. Yes, it is notable, and already has excellent sources in the article to establish this. This is a misguided AfD. RockMagnetist(talk) 21:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Oh, good. I added two of those sources, but I'm still unsure enough about notability that I wanted to check first. — Gorthian (talk) 23:20, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
They're good sources - thanks for adding them. Some might quibble that the Encyclopedia of Geomagnetism and Paleomagnetism is a tertiary source, but it's written by specialists in the field. RockMagnetist(talk) 02:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Article for Deletion/Keeping[edit]

Hey hope you are doing well. There is a page you have contributed to that is being considered for deletion: List of Christian Nobel laureates. You are welcome to put in any input on the issues by going to the page and clicking on the link for that article. Jobas (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Jobas, thanks for letting me know. RockMagnetist(talk) 21:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

JAmodel[edit]

Hi RockMagnetist, JAmodel page is not promotional. If it looks like, please suggest corrections. Thank you in advance, Best regards! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnetic models (talkcontribs) 04:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

@Magnetic models: I suggest you first talk to the person who added the tag (Ubiquity). I'm just enforcing the rules. If I have time tomorrow, I'll try to weigh in. And if you want to contest the deletion, you should click that button soon. RockMagnetist(talk) 06:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you in advance for help with corrections. I implemented some minor corrections, but I am afraid it is not enough. Best regards! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnetic models (talkcontribs) 21:31, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I did try to help, but had no success; see my comment at Talk:JAmodel. Minor corrections won't solve the fundamental problem, which is that adequate sources don't exist. RockMagnetist(talk) 21:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)