User talk:RockMagnetist/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
 < Archive 6    Archive 7    Archive 8 >
All Pages:  1 -  2 -  3 -  4 -  5 -  6 -  7 -  8 -  9 -  ... (up to 100)

WikiProject Physics template

You put it manually, such as here, while the article already is in a physics category. Would you consider automating that? Smiley.svg Gryllida (talk) 20:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by your message. I didn't add a template, I just changed the parameters in the existing one. The previous assessment was greatly inflated. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Ah. I'll chase down who did add it then. Potentially possible that it's a bot like I was expecting. Gryllida (talk) 20:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
No. You can see by the history that Valoem added it. Do you have a lot of pages that you want to tag? RockMagnetist (talk) 20:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Trivial name

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Removal of refimprove tag at Amplituhedron

Hi RockMagnetist,

I am curious as to why you removed the refimprove tag at Amplituhedron. As far as I know, there is still no peer-reviewed paper published on this topic. The article exists largely on the basis of a few pop sci articles about it. There is a preprint at Arxiv, but that is about it. I would think that the need for improved sourcing would be uncontroversial. Thanks, --Mark viking (talk) 21:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

@Mark viking:, I removed it after a cursory look at the article. There was a refimprove-section tag in Implications, and outside of that there seemed to be plenty of citations, so the article refimprove tag seemed redundant. If there is a problem with the quality of sources for the article as a whole, maybe a notability tag would be better. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Articles for creation/International Association of Geoanalysts

Hi, Recalling your work on Lake Michigan-Huron and your expertise, I thought I would ask you to please take a look at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/International Association of Geoanalysts. I am of decided opinion on it, which you can see at [1]. Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: I'm flattered that you value my opinion on this. I'm not sure that I see the way forward on this one. It would probably involve more coverage of the society's work on geostandards. I added a source on this (possibly still not independent since it is published by the society's journal). I also noticed the following:
I think it would be better to write an article on geoanalysis, providing the big picture, before working more on this article. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:39, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Magdalena Bermejo

Gatoclass (talk) 01:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


Hello, just a heads-up that I moved your comment on Talk:Nutation from the vote section to the threaded discussion section. If I wasn't supposed to do that, feel free to revert me. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Please help out


A new contributor has started to make edits to articles having to do with the double-slit experiment and the Delayed choice quantum eraser. He is highly opinionated and is using pre-quantum mechanics conceptual scheme to think about this stuff. He seems to hold me in contempt, so I would like to get some backup. No use starting an edit war, but he is putting in stuff that doesn't work. Thanks.P0M (talk) 06:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Earth and atmospheric sciences journals

Hi, as our "resident geologist" :-) could you perhaps have a look at this category and its subcats (especially Category:Meteorology journals)? I find the current situation not completely satisfactory. For example, I'm not sure that "climate" journals belong in "meteorology". Other journals that currently are in the main cat could perhaps be diffused, but some may be difficult to place in the current subcats. Would it make sense to create a "climatology journals" cat? Would that be a subcat of meteorology journals, the other way around, or a parallel subcat within Earth and atmospheric sciences journals? Thanks for your advice! --Randykitty (talk) 17:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

@Randykitty: I'm no expert in climate, but I would be inclined to structure the journal cats in parallel with the subject cats. Thus, we would have Climate journals < Meteorology journals < Atmospheric sciences journals < Earth sciences journals (with a variety of other supercats for each level as well, e.g., Physical geography journals above climate journals). List of earth and atmospheric sciences journals might be useful for organizing this. Of course, there are anomalies in the subject classifications; for example, I don't think that having Climatology as a supercat of Climate makes sense. Of course, there are a lot of relevant wikiprojects where people might have opinions on this. RockMagnetist (talk) 05:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
    • OK, thanks, I'll post a note at some wikiprojects, too. --Randykitty (talk) 10:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Any way forward?

I can see no hope of communicating with DP. He confuses a potential for interference with interference itself. He argues backwards. He would argue, it seems, that a ton of hamburger is the same thing as a steer. Each time since these discussions with him began he simply drops an argument that he is not winning and a while later the same unreasonable conclusion comes up again.

His basic mistake is to believe that a photon split in the double-slit diaphragm and processed with two quarter wave plates so that the two photon-splits have opposing circular polarization can superimpose with interference. He is almost correct, because all of the "information" continues to exist, but the "information" splits can't interact with each other because of their opposite chirality.

His next mistake is to indicate that mathematically you can fix the chirality mismatch after light exits the two quarter wave plates, but fail to see that in the real world this amounts to a change done to the photon-splits without which they cannot interfere. He says, in effect, "Look! It was there all along." What he wants to do could be accomplished by using a half-wave plate on top of one of the two quarter-wave plates. That way there would be consistency between the chirality of the two sets of photon-splits. However, that is also what is accomplished by using the POL1 device in the signal wing of the actual experimental apparatus. The main difference is that the experimental design uses something that takes two steps to get at all of the photons, mainly because in that way the experimenters can engineer a way to re-polarization to occur at different distances in time from initial photon emission.

I can't get through to him, and except for Cthugha82 nobody has ever stepped in to say that my arguments are correct. I think that such reinforcement might be helpful. Otherwise he will turn out like Zenmaster (somebody who had scrambled ideas on the genetics of so-called "races")P0M (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

@Patrick0Moran: I'll try to help if I can, but I'm really pressed for time these days. That's why I have been slow to get involved. In the meantime, keep insisting that the sources explicitly say what he claims. RockMagnetist (talk) 05:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
At first I thought there might be some help for him, but I've checked and he has never finished an exchange. That's the same problem I had with Zenmaster or whatever his username was. His outcome was not good. P0M (talk) 05:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

off topic

but appreciated

P0M (talk) 18:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Exchange spring magnet

A question came up at the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science about Exchange spring magnet asking if it was real or a spoof. It actually seems to have been written by a Chinese person struggling with the English language. I notice from their talk page that you welcomed them to wikipedia some months ago. Is there any chance you could have a look at the article and give them a helping hand? Richerman (talk) 22:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much for shepherding the delayed-choice article through its recent changes. P0M (talk) 19:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome, but I was just a catalyst. You and Stigmatella aurantiaca did the real work. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind welcome! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Addwait (talkcontribs) 12:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem of the lead

Just wanted to say I agree with you about the general problem of hairsplitting in the lead you identified on the Talk:Magnetic field page. The definition in the lead gets expanded until it becomes so complicated or abstract that it is incomprehensible. I've come across some real doozies. I feel this is a serious problem because the intro is often the only part of the article general readers will read. Nontechnical people will often want only the simplest possible definition of a technical term, but they get one of these gobbledygook definitions and get discouraged with WP. I've noticed that on several articles you have worked to keep the introductions comprehensible, and I wanted to thank you. --ChetvornoTALK 20:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

You're very welcome - I wish I could say that I was always successful! RockMagnetist (talk) 20:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

New outline

Heads up from the WikiProject Outlines. The following outline was recently built:

Please take a look at it, to provide some feedback, or to see if you can improve it.

Thank you. The Transhumanist 23:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
Thank you so much for your amazing work on List of female scientists before the 21st century! You are amazing! Keilana|Parlez ici 02:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Keilana, thank you for the nice barnstar. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Mirror symmetry article


I noticed that you're a member of WikiProject Mathematics and that you've expressed interest in mathematical physics. I wanted to let you know that the article on mirror symmetry is currently a featured article candidate.

If you're interested, we'd love to hear your thoughts on this page. Please note that you do not need to be an expert on the subject.

Thanks for your help!

Polytope24 (talk) 16:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science pearls

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science pearls, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science pearls and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science pearls during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 13:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Magnetic anomaly

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Magnetic anomaly at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Magnetic anomaly

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Morton B. Panish

slakrtalk / 16:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Janet Yelen assessment


I see you assessed Janet Yellen as low importance. I am not sure how assessments are done, but it seems that the head of the federal reserve board should be rated higher. Just my $.02. XOttawahitech (talk) 00:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Assessments are pretty much guesswork. If I'm not familiar with the subject of an article, I may look at the overall article score in a list like this (see Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Article selection for an explanation of the score). Then I consider how much they contributed specifically to science (as opposed to, say, government policy). In the article, at least, not much is said about her scientific contributions. Based on those considerations, I wouldn't rate her higher than mid-importance for this project (note that she is also only mid-importance for WikiProject Economics). But I also try not to spend much time thinking about it because it makes little difference how the article is rated (except, perhaps, for those rated top- or high-importance). RockMagnetist (talk) 01:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


I read this article today and I see we don't have an article. I don't have the science background to write this article, and I found your name on WP:Wikiproject Geology. You up for it?--v/r - TP 22:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm intrigued, but I'm not sure that I have the time. You might get a quicker response by mentioning this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rocks and minerals. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Alright, I've punted it off to those folks. We'll see who grabs it. If no one else, I'm see if I can make a decently informed stub.--v/r - TP 23:23, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Genetics and the Origin of Species

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

...for deleting the Antonio Giordano article, also finding the copyvio ref. --Wuerzele (talk) 04:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Removal of my edits on Physics constants page

Exactly What did you remove? Apparently, everything. My edits to laws of science page have also been revoved. Was that also done by you?

Please replace my latest versions as they contain much better information, even if badly written; I will try to improve the texts.

Relativityman (talk) 14:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I am one of three different editors who have reverted your edits, and if you read the edit summaries you will see a request to discuss your changes at Talk:Physical constant before restoring them. RockMagnetist (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Johanna von Evreinov

Hello! Could you look at the discussion-page of Johanna von Evreinov, so that the German language quote can be translated to establish notability before any deletion of the article takes place, please. The notability should be established first. Thanks!--Aciram (talk) 13:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

History of the Earth

Hi, Earth released about 100 million times more energy than the impact that caused the extinction of the dinosaurs. (wiki sentence) Earth and this rogue body collided, the energy involved was 100 million times larger than the much later event believed to have wiped out the dinosaurs.(source sentence, OK!!)

Source sentence is OK, but current wiki explanation made little confuse. Confusion: Same heat never be generated in the formation of moon and extinction of dinosaur. Given statement (not wrong but, confusing like both event happened in same time.

I am new use, sorry if i made you irritable.. Best wishes, Mukul — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mukulsingh1 (talkcontribs) 13:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

@Mukulsingh1: Thanks for clarifying the problem. Sometimes I forget that most readers don't know as much about the subject as I do! I have reworded that area. Don't forget to sign your messages. It's easy - just type four tildes (~~~~). RockMagnetist (talk) 15:18, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Google Sites and Google Docs Redirect - How now to delete it?

I take your point re PRODs can't be used for redirect pages but, in that case, how do you get such a thing deleted? There is absolutely no rationale for having a redirect called "Google Sites and Google Docs" - they are two separate subjects and don't belong together. Changing the redirect from Google Docs to Google Sites doesn't really help - now people who are searching for Google Docs will feel like they are losing out.

Given that you removed the PROD, how can I get the redirect deleted?

ProductBox (talk) 21:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Although I agree that the redirect isn't very useful, the only reason for deletion that might apply to this page is "2. The redirect might cause confusion". However, it seems to me that you have to go out of your way to get confused. On a computer, if I want info on "Google Sites" and start typing it in, I'll quickly see "Google Sites" in the menu. I won't see "Google Sites and Google Docs" until I get to "Google Sites a". But why would I do that? (Maybe it's different on some other device.) Still, you're welcome to list it for deletion, and see what happens. RockMagnetist (talk) 00:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I'll list it for deletion today. I think that the reason for deletion is point #5 - i.e. "the redirect makes no sense". Its like having a redirect called "Apples and Oranges" and then having it redirect to Oranges. Or Apples. Or Oranges. Or Apples. To my mind, that makes no sense!  :) ProductBox (talk) 08:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Relativity Physics edits

To all those who reverted my attempts to correct the Einstein physics.

I decided to let the original articles alone, by (soon) pointing Google Relativity searches that find the Wikipedia page to an alternative artcle written by me named Natural Relativity NR, that references several pertinent papers published over many years. I have written the bulk of the Introduction article in a private sandbox and will soon put it up for discussion and comments. Follow up articles will be concerned with the different subjects in detail and a different set of links will be created, so as to be totally independent of articles and links concerning Einstein's theories. Maybe you can get interested in a more sensible theory?

 Relativityman (talk) 22:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Do we need a History Merge at User:User:AdBCWi14/sandbox

I see you helped w/ the delete here, but do we not also need to do a History merge since he appears to have copy-pasted the draft text into articlespace? MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Wow, I made a real mess of that move. I keep getting bitten by that little menu that chooses the space. Anyway, as far as I know there is no need to preserve the history when you're moving stuff from the sandbox. RockMagnetist (talk) 00:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

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

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)


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)

Physics constants

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 , which can be expressed in units of (see its article). Putting all the units together,
(since ). 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)

Re: User:Niuthon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)
 < Archive 6    Archive 7    Archive 8 >
All Pages:  1 -  2 -  3 -  4 -  5 -  6 -  7 -  8 -  9 -  ... (up to 100)