User talk:RockMagnetist

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

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thank you AdBCWi14 (talk) 01:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


Thanks for fixing my edit at the Teahouse. Looking at the page now, it's almost as if my page cache was about 5 hours out of date and a bunch of activity simply hadn't shown up for me. Chris857 (talk) 03:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. It looked something like that to me. Very strange! RockMagnetist (talk) 03:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

More Teahouse[edit]

Hi. I've deleted this response of yours at the Teahouse. The query you were responding to had received a response and was archived; but an editor, apparently inadvertently, restored it to the page of active questions. If you want to revisit the query and response, they are here. Sorry to have deleted your work. Deor (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:CITEVAR ...[edit]

Re your recent addition to EP: how about adjusting it (per WP:CITEVAR) to the extant "style" of a Harv template (e.g.: {{Harvnb|Mulargia|Geller|2003|loc=§2.4.3}}) in the note, and the citation template in References? (The recent junk additions don't do this, but that's fine, it identifies them as junk.) BTW, does the chapter you cite have an identified author? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice the prevailing citation style. I found the author on the 2nd try - it was hidden on the second page of the chapter. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cdrtools[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Cdrtools. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Physics constants[edit]

In the section Physics Constant it is stated that the fine structure constant is dimensionless (a pure number), yet it is made up of the product of h and c and e, all of which have different dimensions. The product hc has dimensions m f2 l3 and e is a quantity of electric charge. How can it be dimensionless?

I have no objection to ratios of like dimensions being dimensionless.Relativityman (talk) 22:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The factor you're missing is the vacuum permittivity \epsilon_0, which can be expressed in units of \text{C}^2\text{N}^{-1}\text{m}^{-2} (see its article). Putting all the units together,
\frac{e^2}{\epsilon_0 \hbar c} \rightarrow \frac{\text{C}^2}{\left(\text{C}^2\text{N}^{-1}\text{m}^{-2}\right)\left(\text{J}\,\text{s}\right)\left(\text{m}\text{s}^{-1}\right)} = 1
(since  1\,\text{J} = 1\,\text{N}\,\text{m}). It's certainly not obvious how they go together, and it should be clarified in the article. If this is not completely clear, you can also visit fine-structure constant and look at the multitude of citations in it. RockMagnetist (talk) 00:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


I found a rock in my yard that looked interesting. I picked it up. It felt very heavy for its size. I thought it might be granite? I currently have a magnet stuck to duct tape or glue. What is it? Meteorite????```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Deepak Chopra[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Deepak Chopra. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Re: User:Niuthon[edit]

Hi! We work together in the world of magnetism :) But Niuthon has much better English. Magnetic models (talk) 18:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a good partnership. I'm glad you have added an article on the Jiles-Atherton model. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:44, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Earth gravity correction: apologies[edit]

Hi. You are absolutely right - I made a mistaken correction in the variance percentage (0.7 to 0.07).— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:42, 22 July 2014

It's an easy mistake to make! RockMagnetist (talk) 14:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Cite doi[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Cite doi. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Christopher H Martin deletion[edit]

Until I can get updated information from Christopher Martin, I need to delete. He has contacted me directly and is not happy with the information presented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottcgilmore (talkcontribs) 13:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


Hi, Excellent Mark Twain quote. That is the problem Pluvinergy faces. There are no articles about it, because very few people can understand it. The reason is that it is admittedly conjectural by its own words. The book is an invitation to explore and discuss the concept. To be clear, I am the author. It represents many decades of working, including graduate level study at UCI to develop underlayment for the design the idea. It is a disconcerting subject, especially, to the "objective mind" because it sets out to control climate change, which must also lead to sea level adjustment capability. (The book talks about the possibility, but does not address sea level adjustment. Now I am working on designs to do that. As usual, its easier than it seems.) Of course, that sounds crazy; but as Mark might agree: How can you solve a problem if your refuse to think about how to resolve it? That is the current task for civilization; we either confront these issues or we may as well fold up the picnic. Beyond that, we must confront the fact that we don't really, and really can't, fully, understand the workings of biology and ecology at this time in our development. As such, the safest thing for civilization to do is to protect the natural environment and keep it working as much as we can as it was before we stepped-in, with energy technologies to multiply our efforts and effects. So, part of the Pluvinergy design is to make life richer with its use. How many energy technologies have that as on objective? That is, to improve the workings of the planet with it use? That sounds even crazier. You see, the paradigm that Pluvinergy starts from is very different, and thus alienating, especially to the "objective mind". That is why I wrote the book, to accelerate consideration of the topic, since we have little to no time to address these issues. It has not been very successful but, I think it can be, with a little help from open minds. It seems Wikipedia was designed with this idea in mind, to expand knowledge, not just to document it. There are no article on Pluvinergy, and few people are qualified to write about it. So, I wrote one as honestly and objectively as I could. Contrary to the characteristics of a scientist, a dreamer is not detail oriented, so I did not notice the rules objecting, with good reason, to such work. So..., how can we proceed to get something on Wikipedia, regarding Pluvinergy? Honestly, the quality of the work on downdraft and updraft technologies is not good at all. They have claims such as " the efficiency of downdraft engines improves with the difference in the temperature of the water." That is nonsense. I could point other nonsense, and deficiencies, but the wind has gotten long enough here. Thanks, Atanacio Luna — Preceding unsigned comment added by PluviAl (talkcontribs) 16:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@PluviAl: I'm glad you like the quote. The main thing you need to know is what a few editors have already told you: you need the reliable, independent sources. Otherwise, an article on Pluvinergy is unlikely to remain on Wikipedia for long. Also, you have a conflict of interest, and Wikipedia strongly discourages contributions where there is a conflict of interest. If you were to write an article on Pluvinergy, you'd have to be as neutral as possible and allow other editors to modify it freely. I suggest you contribute to articles on other subjects for a while and learn the ropes before getting back to this. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


Thanks for the welcome. I note that you've been working on Wiki for some time. I'm mostly just checking it out right now, getting practiced in Wiki-type writing. DoctorTerrella (talk) 17:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

@DoctorTerrella: You're welcome. You seem to be learning fast! I started working on Wikipedia when I noticed that the coverage in my specialty, rock magnetism and paleomagnetism, was very poor. But then I noticed that even the major articles on geophysics were pretty bad. This is how the geophysics page looked before I started on it. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


Hi RockMagnetist, I have a beginner's question for you. Is it possible to send email messages within Wikipedia or is all inter-editor communication done through talk pages?

Thanks and sincerely, DoctorTerrella (talk) 18:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

@DoctorTerrella: Yes, you just click on "Email this user" in the toolbar to the left. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you, but I don't see any link for email this user. Perhaps it comes with a higher status within Wikipedia? I can see how to send barnstars, however! Don't worry if this is a nuisance. Sincerely, DoctorTerrella (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
That's strange. I can see the link even as I type this message; it's under "Tools", below "User contributions". There is nothing in Emailing users about status being relevant. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
It is strange! There is no email anything under the Tools part of *my* menu! I'll live with it for now, but thank you. 17:46, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Are you looking at the menu when you are on my page? Maybe you could try enabling email to yourself (instructions in Emailing users), and I could email you. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I think I understand. I was thinking that Wikipedia might have its own kind of internal email system (independent of, gmail, for example), but what it seems to have is a link into actual external email, and since I haven't provide Wikipedia with an external email (gmail, for me), there is no capacity for any email. Sorry about this distraction. As you know, I'm just starting to understand the Wikiuniverse! I'll just keep my personal external email to myself for now. Thank you, DoctorTerrella (talk) 22:18, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Earthquake prediction[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Earthquake prediction. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Earthquake Prediction[edit]

RM! Would you mind diverting a bit of your attention to Earthquake Prediction? Thanks and sincerely, DoctorTerrella (talk) 02:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

@DoctorTerrella: I don't know if I have the time to untangle the whole mess, but I did close the RFC. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I understand. The EP page needs work and it is contentious, as might be expected. Since I have limited time, I'm just trying to get several people to contribute a small amount, thus avoiding problematic ownership issues. Just for your information. Sincerely, DoctorTerrella (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Notification about recent edit on Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests[edit]

Hello RockMagnetist, I just wanted to give you a friendly notification regarding an edit you had performed on the WP:RMTR page; when you performed this edit, you accidentally removed a few requests that had yet to be answered, and somehow returned a request that had been addressed a few days ago (not sure how that happened.) Anyways, I returned the requests to the page. Just wanted to let you know that it happened, as human error does. Steel1943 (talk) 19:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@Steel1943: Sorry for the mess I left you. I was responding to a question at the Teahouse, and this is my description of what I thought I was doing. Something went wrong, apparently. RockMagnetist(talk) 22:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Improving stratigraphic formation pages[edit]

Hello RockMagnetist.

I'm a geologist and I've been trying to improve descriptions of stratigraphic formations that I'm familiar with. I keep running into ones like the Edmonton Group which consists of four very interesting formations, but someone has listed the formations in a table with only the briefest of descriptions (e.g., the Battle Formation). Each of these formations deserves a pages of its own, but I'm not sure how best to create them. I'm still pretty much a novice at Wikipedia.

Should I set up a stratigraphic formation stub, and if so, where can I find out how to do that? Would it need to be submitted for review?

After I've expanded the content for the stub page, should I delete the old table? If so, how would that affect the link for, for example, the Battle Formation, which currently takes you to the table under Edmonton Group?

Georgialh (talk) 20:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Glad to see a Canadian geologist contributing to Wikipedia, @Georgialh! I'm a Canadian and I lived in Edmonton for a year and a half. I see you have created articles, so I'm not sure what I can tell you that you don't already know. I wouldn't bother with Articles for creation, as it is a very slow and tedious process. Just find a few reliable, independent sources and you're golden. If you like, you could develop a stub in your sandbox before moving it to article space; I'd be happy to have a look at it. You could use a GA-class article on a formation (e.g., Touchet Formation) as a model. If you do Battle Formation, you can take over the name and link the table entry in Edmonton Group to it; I don't see any reason to delete the table. You can also get help or find like-minded editors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology. RockMagnetist(talk) 04:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


Thanks for your comments about my entry. I am pleased to get to this point.

First, I agree about the introduction perhaps not being the best place for a qualifying idea such as I put.

I also agree from a purely mathematical view, my comment doesn't fit.

But I think it is very very important, nonetheless. If Wikipedia is to be accessible, it should not be arcane. I wonder if the Deleter feels the Article should be Pure. The reason I say my point is important is twofold. In common articles about, say, the Higgs boson, we read about "symmetry being broken". In fact this refers to phase change and is utterly counter-intuitive to a lay reader. Use of "symmetry" needs explaining, not dressing up. Second, I suggest that two major mathematicians, one a CERN scientist, writing about this, are qualified to make the point which I have taken up.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Good wishes

MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malc9141 (talkcontribs) 00:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Malc9141. You could be right, although I wasn't sure from your entry how to interpret words like "chaos". I haven't been involved in editing Symmetry, so I'm not the best person to approach about this. I suggest that you try to find the appropriate place for this content in the article, try to explain the idea more fully, and then discuss it at Talk:Symmetry. You should provide citations with page numbers. Note that Fearful Symmetry is already cited in the first paragraph, so you can use that. Good luck! RockMagnetist(talk) 00:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Paths crossing again[edit]

Hi, our paths have crossed on fracking, and just did in another way. I found what I believe is another sock of Ariel Fernandez, whom you brought to SPI a couple of years ago. The new sock was just blocked and is being appealed. here is the case that you brought; here is the new one. hm! Jytdog (talk) 13:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks like the issue has been settled. RockMagnetist(talk) 14:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
mostly yes (appeal is pending here) - i wasn't canvassing; i just thought it might be interesting to you that a sock that you busted came back. Jytdog (talk) 14:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I do find it interesting. There's something about Ariel Fernandez that sticks in my mind, even though I only made 15 edits to the article and had two short talk page exchanges. RockMagnetist(talk) 15:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


Hey RockMagnetist, this is Jethro, a fellow host at the Teahouse. With a small team, I'm piloting a new mentorship space on Wikipedia called The Co-op. I wanted to ask if you might be interested in mentoring 1 or 2 editors during our pilot in December. The idea is that mentors will be doing one-on-one teaching specific skills based on what an editor wants to do or accomplish, and it's not some huge commitment to teach comprehensively about Wikipedia. Your experience helping new editors out is evident, and being able to discuss the bigger picture like you did here is definitely valuable. If you're interested, please sign up here and we'll keep you posted when we have an actual interface to work with. I'm happy to answer any questions you might have, of course, so let me know if there's anything about the space you'd like to know more about. Much like the Teahouse, the only way we'll know if our project is useful is if we can get folks to help teach. I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@I JethroBT: Sorry for the slow reply. I'm really busy in real life for the next month, and I don't want the commitment of mentorship. The nice thing about the Teahouse is that I can help out whenever I have a little time. RockMagnetist(talk) 01:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
No problem. Thanks for getting back to me. :) I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Spin magnetic moment[edit]

Hi RockMagnetist! I've seen your edits to spin magnetic moment re the history of the concept. I want to ask you if can add more details regarding this aspect, based perhaps on a book like The story of spin (1997) by Sin-Itiro Tomonaga?-- (talk) 12:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reading suggestion - it looks interesting. I haven't had much time to devote to Wikipedia recently; if you're eager to see this material added, your best bet is to do it yourself. RockMagnetist(talk) 06:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer.-- (talk) 12:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


Category:UsesSecondParam, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

See recent Talk[edit]

…at the List of important publications in theoretical computer science article. (talk) 01:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk:List of female scientists before the 21st century/missing articles[edit]

Hi. I've removed Morgan Dee Voon as she is now residing in Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. If anyone can prove that she really existed, she can easily be restored. Peridon (talk) 17:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

O.k., thanks. I generate that list automatically every now and then, so I'll have to come up with an appropriate search term! RockMagnetist(talk) 15:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I have updated the list. Since the article Morgan Dee Voon no longer exists, she's not in it. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Magnetic moment measurement[edit]

Hi, RockMagnetist! I've noticed your contributions to topics related to magnetism. Do you know some info about methods to measure the quantity magnetic moment which is lacking from article?-- (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I sure do! at Talk:Magnetic_moment#Measurement, I suggested writing a summary of Magnetometer#Laboratory magnetometers because most laboratory magnetometers measure magnetic moment. RockMagnetist(talk) 05:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Dip reader[edit]

For no great reason, the question occurred to me, is there an Android app that easily reads the magnetic dip angle? Then I saw your watchlist. Ah, right, there's a friendly Wikipedian who's in the business and might have an actual reason to know. Jim.henderson (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

@Jim.henderson: Sorry for the slow reply - I was on vacation. I don't do much field work myself, but I did find an app called Strike and Dip. The description includes the statement "Magnetic field data can also be recorded." RockMagnetist(talk) 16:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I put the delay to use, deciding that "Strike and Dip" was a bit overwhelming, being made for someone who has actually studied geology. Instead I found a crude little "Field Sensor" app which has no documentation. It displays microteslas in L/R, Fore/Aft, and Vertical components, though without a level. It also shows a quantity called "Phi" which appears to be indeed the dip angle, at least when I properly line up the phone with the indicated mag north. It's adequate for idle curiosity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim.henderson (talkcontribs) 20:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)‎

Please comment on Talk:Genetically modified food[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Genetically modified food. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

GM food RfC close[edit]

Hi. I am a little surprised that you decided to do the close. You referenced the request for a close at AN; we specifically asked for a 3 admin close. Would you please consider withdrawing your close? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

In my judgement, a request for a 3 admin close request is irregular. I don't think it is in the guidelines and I think it is rarely used, for good reason - there is already plenty for admins to do without tripling up on RfC closures. If I were to withdraw my close and you insisted on 3 admins, you may be waiting a long time. In any case, it doesn't require 3 admins to recognize an RfC as ill-defined.
Really, I think I am doing you a favor. If, instead of fighting endlessly over a particular wording, you were to look for a wording that most editors agree is supported by the sources, you wouldn't have to spend so much time on the talk page and you'd probably have a better article. RockMagnetist(talk) 00:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. I asked for an admin close on purpose. Another even more experienced editor strengthened that to a request for a 3 admin close, and that was wise so I supported it. You are not an admin, and are one person. Not what we were looking for - these articles are very controversial (as you saw we had essentially the same RfC just a couple of years ago.) A strong and clear close that could endure would be better. There is WP:NODEADLINE so there is no problem waiting for a solid close. Jytdog (talk) 01:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I am an admin - look at my user rights management in the menu on the left. What sort of result were you hoping for? As this RfC is structured, editors can only vote for all of the sources or none of them. RockMagnetist(talk) 01:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
ah sorry for making that mistake about your bit. well one out of three is not bad. the RfC is titled: ""The scientific consensus holds that currently marketed GM food poses no greater risk than conventional food." That is a version of the "scientific consensus statement". The RfC then says, "In 2013 we had an RfC, here, that upheld challenges to the scientific consensus statement below (presented with its full paragraph):" It then shows the full paragraph, the first sentence of which is: "A broad scientific consensus holds that eating currently marketed GM food poses no greater health risk than does eating conventional food." It then says "That statement undergoes constant challenge, so it is perhaps time to review it again. The question: Do the sources support the content?" The "content" being asked about, and that everyone responded to, is the scientific consensus statement - the first sentence of the paragraph.
I realize that it is hard to parse the responses since many are so long and there were so many replies. There are activists who give strong opinions and at great length and that creates a lot of noise, I know.
And yes, I amended the sentence a few days into the RfC and as noted there, notified everybody who had !voted. Only one !vote changed b/c of the amendment (to !support) and that is clearly shown in that user's !vote (Bluerasberry's) I think the result is clear if you keep PSCI in mind but the closer has to make up their own mind. Jytdog (talk) 02:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Jytdog: You said, "There are activists who give strong opinions and at great length and that creates a lot of noise..." Please refrain from personal attacks. Need I keep reminding you to stop with the ad hominems? Focus on content not editors as you often advise those who accuse you.David Tornheim (talk) 04:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
what i wrote is an accurate description, not a personal attack. the bulk of the text in the survey and discussion of the RfC is from maybe three editors. Jytdog (talk) 04:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
@Jytdog: Some of the respondents (such as @Tsavage) seem to have views that are not very far from yours, and have proposed alternative wordings that sound more encyclopedic and convey similar information (for example, this one). There is never just one way of saying something. "Broad consensus" is a bit vague - why don't you try coming up with a more precise statement and try it on the other editors? RockMagnetist(talk) 04:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the close, and for talking here. We of course will get back to work on the talk page; I'm still considering whether to ask to have the close overturned but I appreciate you talking. Jytdog (talk) 11:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome. A challenge to my close would be one way to get 3 admins to look at this discussion! RockMagnetist(talk) 15:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I wanted you to both be aware that following the closer's thoughtful observations, that incorporated/proposed a revised "scientific consensus" sentence that I believe is more WP:NPOV and considers all the literature, not just the GMO advocacy literature. (here) I would also like to note that Tsavage later reassessed the AAAS source as advocacy. David Tornheim (talk) 23:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

  • "The AAAS is advocacy" in the same sense that Anti-GMO activists are "advocates" -- that is the kind of arguments that were made, that you found add up to "no consensus", RockMagnetist. And here is the kind of activist canvassing behavior we have to deal with in the GMO suite following your close:
    • dif
    • dif
    • dif
    • dif
    • dif
    • and a rush to go around immediately changing article content here and here and here. (long exhale) Each of which I just reverted.
    • David Tornheim, the close does not mean "all hell breaks loose". It means we talk about about where we go from here. Jytdog (talk) 23:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, my closing statement implied that a fairly small shift in the balance should be enough for consensus, with due weight still strongly favoring the view that these foods are safe. RockMagnetist(talk) 00:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
That change would get ~maybe~ one more editor to move. one very voluminously talking editor, but one. argh. a change of one !vote should not be the difference between consensus and no consensus. Jytdog (talk) 00:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
not too late to reconsider my initial request.... :) Jytdog (talk) 01:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
It is also not too late to try my suggestion of coming up with an alternative wording. The current version of the paragraph headed by the "consensus" sentence looks more encyclopedic than the one that you used in the RfC: instead of quoting various scientific associations, it addresses the factors that determine food safety. More of this kind of detail would be harder to challenge and would be more useful to any reader who is trying to make an informed decision. It's not really a question of one vote. RockMagnetist(talk) 03:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
May I ask a question here? What if the RfC is being interpreted as "keep things as they are", "no consensus for change"? Would this be incorrect? petrarchan47คุ 08:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
The formal decision is, in effect, "this RfC never happened." But I also recommended that editors try to find consensus on a better wording. As I said above, "my closing statement implied that a fairly small shift in the balance should be enough for consensus, with due weight still strongly favoring the view that these foods are safe." RockMagnetist(talk) 15:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to spell this out (again). One last question, if you don't mind. What would you suggest in the case where something like this is gridlocked? This issue could hardly be more contentious. In my experience on the page, even the slightest, most mundane edits have been disallowed and more than a couple of editors have noted that there are ownership issues coupled with other problems (some have suggested there is intentional disruption of editing via talk page rambling and misuse of PAGs). For instance, I have tried to add a mention of the percentage of Americans who favor GM labeling to the labeling section of the controversy coverage. This was disallowed due to WP:SYNC. This is just one example, but I don't think I would be alone in saying that there is no reason to hope we will attain a more balanced, source-based presentation using the talk page process. It is my belief that this particular issue will need some sort of special intervention. If I am correct, what avenue would be suggested? petrarchan47คุ 20:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Alas, there is no magic bullet for gridlock; but if I were working on these pages, I would try to achieve balance in Genetically modified food controversies, where there is room to lay out the controversies in detail, and then aim for a balanced summary in Genetically modified food#Controversies. You might need to create some subsections in the latter to deal with issues like labeling. RockMagnetist(talk) 03:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
labelling is already covered in the controversies article. Jytdog (talk) 11:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Right, I'm just talking about summarizing it in Genetically modified food#Controversies. However, that's just a suggestion - I'm not going to jump into the fray. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Columbia Colles[edit]

Thanks for helping out at WP:AfD, but there is an issue about the closure format: the "subst:afd top" template is added above the section header with the AfD discussion title. I fixed it at the abovementioned discussion, please check the page history to see the difference. Kraxler (talk) 18:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that - I see I made the same mistake with Pandemonium Dorsa. I haven't done these closes in a while. RockMagnetist(talk) 18:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)