User talk:Woudloper/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is part of WOODWALKERS user space.
Nuvola filesystems folder home.png Nuvola apps edu languages.png Nuvola apps kpdf.png Nuvola apps knotes.png Gtk-ok.svg Nuvola apps bookcase.png
Home Talk page NW Europe geology Alps geology Done Book shelf


Hello, Woudloper/Archive, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Afonso Silva 15:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:Thrust system en.jpg[edit]

Could You please add (to the image Summary) what the image is about so people know in which articles to use it. Thanks feydey 15:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I posted it on klippe, the explanation is on there as well. I will put the explanation with the picture too. Woodwalker 15:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


Are you going to EUGEN this summer? Luka Jačov 21:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Luka, always nice to meet a fellow geologist! I am not going to EUGEN, because I'm going to Norway to study gneisses... Woodwalker 21:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Gneisses, really? Cos I am preparing exam "Petrology of Igneous and Metamorphic rocks". You finished your studies or you still study? Luka Jačov 21:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm a grad student. In the future I'm interested in doing a PhD, but let's not look too far ahead. My specialism is structural geology and petrology. Woodwalker 21:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

One girl from Utrecht University is also going to EUGEN, Jody Mijts. Do you know her? Luka Jačov 21:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know her. Maybe she's a 1st or 2nd year student? Woodwalker 21:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Probably. What is duration of studying in Netherlands? Luka Jačov 21:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Normally 5 years. Most take a little longer Woodwalker 21:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You dont have Bologna three years? Luka Jačov 21:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes 3 years BSc, then 2 years MSc. Together 5 years. I finished the first 3 years so I'm a graduated student. Woodwalker 22:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

But u got job after 3 years? Luka Jačov 22:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It's possible but difficult. Almost everyone finishes 5 years first. Woodwalker 07:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

What can u do with 3 years then? Luka Jačov 09:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

You could get a job in the mining or petroleum industry but not easily I think. They like the masters more. But then, who knows? In Britain most students don't finish their masters' degree and they do get jobs. It's probably that employers in my country are not used yet to Bachelor students seeking jobs. Woodwalker 09:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I ask you cause we adopted this system this year and they mentioned Netherlands as country that needs Bachelors. Luka Jačov 10:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Not in geology, as far as I see. But it is now possible to enter the 4th year at university when you have a Ba-degree. Woodwalker 10:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Be4 it wasnt possible? Luka Jačov 10:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, the idea behind Bologna is that a student can change his university when he gets his Ba. He can then do his Ma in any other European university. Before that was probably possible too, but very difficult. Nobody did it. Woodwalker 10:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Australia / Austria[edit]

Oops :-) My use of Aussie confused things. Rolinator is an Australian geologist not Austrian. Sorry 'bout the confusion with my slang jargon :-) Vsmith 12:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

NP. Any other Austrian geologists here? Woodwalker 13:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah...whoops. No biggie. Rolinator 14:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

MacGillavry of Mac Gillavry?[edit]

Volgens mij is de juiste spelling MacGillavry, zie: JdH 18:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I know her brother and he confirms me that his name can be written in both ways. I have a publication in which it reads "Mac Gillavry", but "MacGillavry" is used too. Point is they were originally a Scottish family and the Dutch immigration officials knew not how to spell their name. You can always change it if you like, of course. Woodwalker 22:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Dankje trouwens voor het vermelden van de bron, was ik vergeten... Woodwalker 22:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Tethys Ocean[edit]

Nice edit, good to see an expert clearing things up a bit. If you get a chance, could you add citations for what you added? Maybe it's common knowledge to experts, but for amatures like myself, I'd like to know where to look to read up a bit more. Thanks! Isogolem 05:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You are quite right, I should have mentioned some sources. The exact definitions of terrains and paleo-oceans in my edits are not very well-known even among geologists. Geology remains a sport with many vague terms, conventions and definitions. For my wikipedia-edits as well as for my work I had to look it up. I found some recent (after 1990) articles in which definitions were given to confusing names like "Proto-Tethys" and "Paleo-Tethys". Sadly, i cannot right now find the exact articles from which i took the definitions.
For the lower paleozoic names (proto-tethys etc) I remember using work by T.H. Torsvik, a leading expert. An article that decribes some of the terms is: Torsvik et all 1996: Continental break-up and collision in the Neoproterozoic and Paleozoic - a tale of Baltica and Laurentia, in Earth science reviews 40, p 288.
For the names of tectonic blocks in the Western Tethys there are more possible references. An article in which most of these terms are explained is Schmid et all 2004: Tectonic map and overall architecture of the Alpine Orogen, in Eclogae Geologica Helvetica vol. 97, p 93. Woodwalker 21:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

mya / Ma[edit]

Ciao woodwalker, I stepper on your comment in mya. You are right, title should (must) be changed into Ma. Nobody uses mya, and if someone would ever look for that unit, he/she would look for Ma. Are you still active here? I'd like to make the change myself, but I just began contributing to Wikipedia. Maybe you have more experience handling these web-stuffs, so please go ahead and do the change!

Kaapitone 12:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I spend more time on the Dutch wikipedia these days, haven't done an edit here for some time. The official term is Ma yes, mya is maybe more common in the US (?). There are now many articles which use mya, when I tried to change it in one it was reverted by someone so I stopped doing that. The title of the article about the unit should at least be Ma. Woodwalker 09:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Please revisit and watch Talk:mya (unit) for merger discussion.LeadSongDog 21:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey Woodwalker[edit]

Thanks for the support on the last block on Wiki-NL. I was just writing my first article, that I wanted to save and I found out I got blocked again. So nice to see the fascists trying to clean their doorways... I've edited the Geology of the Netherlands, maybe you want to add some data to it? Cheers and a good New Year! Torero 22:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Daarbij: ik heb juist gewacht tot ik weer op Wikipedia kon om mijn ongenoegen te uiten, juist zodat iedereen de gelegenheid heeft om erop te reageren. Dat men dat bij mij niet wil doen, is voor mij geen reden om hetzelfde laakbare gedrag te vertonen. Daarbij mogen de Waerths, de Troefkaarten, de Steinbachs en weet ik veel wie nog meer wel gewoon "beledigen" en worden daar niet voor gestraft. Ik vind dat ook best, maar als die personen vervolgens wel mij (of iemand anders) op grond van "belediging" wil uitsluiten, dan hebben ze gewoon een dikke laag boter op hun hoofd. Oscar stalkt mij eerst en probeert me dan een emailadres te ontfutselen, zogenaamd voor overleg. Als hij wil overleggen, dan doet hij dat recht waar ik bij ben, op mijn overlegpagina. Zo'n ding heet niet voor niets zo. Maar meneer stemt eerst voor een blokkade en smeekt dan om overleg? Ben malle pietje niet. Torero 22:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


Hi, I've seen your geological map of the Alps. What is the original map you used ? Geojide 17:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not log in for a while. My main source for the map was:
  • Schmid, S.M.; Fügenshuh, B.; Kissling, E. & Schuster, R.; 2004: Tectonic map and overall architecture of the Alpine orogen in Eclogae Geologicae Helvetiae v 97, p 93
Woodwalker 14:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:BG_escher.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:BG_escher.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Growing Earth Theory[edit]

I thank you for the opinionated remark. However, as the article states and is referenced, there are several serious geologists and physicists who attribute scientific merit to the theory, enough for it to belong in the category of geophysics. Wikipedia content is meant to be unbiased and free of such opinionated conflict. We might be able to discuss a percentage possibility for the scientific viability of the theory but its place in a scientific category appears well in accordance with Wikipedia policy and the article has survived an articles for deletion process in its present state. MichaelNetzer 23:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Ow that's OK, I have no interest in getting myself involved in any former conflict. What I read in the article is that it is presented as a scientific theory (which it is not really, as far as I see the scientific part was mainly in Expanding earth theory - why not merge the two?). You talk about "several serious scientists" that see something in the theory, but I never heard about the names mentioned in the refs (however, that doesn't say anything). Anyway there are NO well-established journals in the refs, which makes one wonder... I'm not saying it should really not be in the geophysics category, but think. That category does (yet) not contain many well-established geophysical theories (look -if you understand a little German- for example in the German "de:Kategorie:Geofysik", where our German colleagues have added some great articles that deserve their place here as well). Putting this half-scientific idea in that category, doesn't that make wikipedia a bit biased? Woodwalker 18:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Expanding earth theory[edit]

Hi Woodwalker, thank you for your interest in expanding 'expanding', I was hoping someone would. I left a note on the talk page, but it is nice to meet someone else who wants to contribute the page. I keep meaning to make a good article out of it, but keep getting distracted. The dutch article you mentioned, "Uitzettende Aarde" seems very close to ours at en., you might let them know after you improve this one ;-) Your idea about a physicist's POV is a good one, there are also peer reviewed articles around for citation. I will try to get around to discussing the points you made at the talk page. Regards, ☻ Fred|discussion|contributions 02:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Fred! Do you understand Dutch? Actually I translated and improved the English version to the Dutch one, so that's y they are similar. The Dutch version has some added info on the history of EET, which I found in the German version (i read German). I added my stuff to the article (don't let that keep you from commenting on them), but the best arguments against EET come from physics. When we look at the Polish version (I don't understand Polish) we see some formulas with gravitation in it; maybe they already have the needed physicist POV there. Woodwalker 15:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Understand Dutch, no. I can roughly follow something in Dutch, or to a lesser extent German, with enough clues. I have been exposed too a little of both; I like that part of Europe. The history of EET would form the greater part of the article in my estimation. I must check the Japanese sites on EET and see if I can get translations, I have seen a lot of reference to Japanese research in the eighties. Carey's books involve me getting time at the local university, he has had a number of supporters there. I will also check the other wikis, such as the polish one. Best regards Woodwalker. ☻ Fred|discussion|contributions 10:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Mijn 2 centjes[edit]

Hallo Woudloper, ik post dit hier, omdat het dan wat meer besloten is dan op de nl afdeling. Niet iedereen hoeft dat te (kunnen ) lezen. Ik wil daar voorlopig ook niets meer doen. laat de goede mensen maar vertrekken - dat zal wel de enige manier zijn om de moderatoren die zo mooi kunnen kletsen over gemeenschapsproject te leren hoe je dat wel moet onderhouden.

Ik schrik een beetje van de tekst op je GP, zo ken ik je niet. Daarom de volgende hints and tips.

  • De mods bij de nl-wiki zijn verstrikt geraakt in een bedrijfscultuur en wat ik maar juristje spelen zal noemen. Het gevaar daarvan is dat als je je daarbij aansluit om de boel te verbeteren jij na een tijdje die cultuur geabsorbeerd hebt en net zo erg bent geworden als de rest. Dat kun je niet willen. Pim Fortuyn zei al dat als hij vier jaar in de regering had gezeten hij een insider zou zijn geworden en dat een ander dan de fakkel van hem zou moeten overnemen. Zo werkt dat inderdaad, of je nu een aanhanger van hem bent of niet, die observatie is volkomen juist. Denk niet dat je je kunt onttrekken aan dat mechanisme.
  • Door je tegenstander met zijn eigen wapens te bestrijden - het allemaal juridisch te gaan uitzoeken - legitimeer je die meteen. In dit geval is dat een heilloze weg. De juridische benadering krijgt pas zin als het vertrouwen verdwenen is. Het is bovendien totaal irrelevant of de arbcom binnen zijn of haar mandaat heeft gehandeld. Je verknoeit je tijd met uitzoeken of ze daarop aanspreekbaar zijn. De grote fout van de arbcom is dat een orgaan dat ervoor had moeten zorgen dat iedereen met plezier bijdraagt voor grote onrust en verdeeldheid heeft gezorgd en dat het de leden aan het elementaire inzicht ontbreekt dat je vrijwilligers niet zo arrogant en schofterig kunt bejegenen als (goed) betaalde krachten. Je zult het als je later een goedbetaalde baan hebt nog wel meemaken dat je waardeloos geïnformeerd wordt over een belangrijke reorganisatie en dat je chef je in je gezicht zegt dat hij je bepaalde dingen niet hoeft te vertellen, ook al gaat het daarbij om dingen die voor jou belangrijk zijn. Maar dan krijg je er tenminste een bak met geld voor. Vrijwilligers zo behandelen getuigt van een botheid zo groot dat Torero op zijn slechtste momenten er gunstig bij afsteekt.
  • In Nederland hoef je je niet zoveel zorgen te maken over de informatievoorziening. Ik bof nog extra omdat waar ik woon de waarschijnlijk best gesorteerde openbare bieb van het hele land staat. Een paar jaar terug zag ik die van Deventer van binnen en het contrast was schokkend - boekenkasten uit naar schatting de jaren zestig en de boeken waren waarschijnlijk even oud. Toch kun je in dit landje vrijwel overal wel de nodige encyclopedische kennis opdoen. En wie echt alles wil weten over plaattektoniek is met een goed boek waarschijnlijk toch beter af dan met een artikel op internet. Wel kun je op de nl versie informatie zetten waarover in het Nederlands niet veel te vinden is. Ik vraag me af of pokémonfiguren en personages uit Harry Potter daaronder vallen. Ik vermoed dat je het belang van de Nederlandse wiki overschat. Met de Engelse en Spaanse worden natuurlijk heel veel mensen bereikt in gebieden waar wel internet maar nauwelijks een boek te krijgen is.
  • Ik probeer mijn activiteit hier vooral te zien als een gelegenheid om me te oefenen in schrijven en vertalen. Af en toe steek ik er nog wat van op ook.

Hou je haaks, Floris V 12:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppassen, Woudloper. ;-) Ik zie dat het op de Nl wiki niet echt lekker gaat, om het zacht uit te drukken. Floris V 19:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for writing & translating the article on the geology of the Alps. It's great stuff :)

Mijn blokkering op WP NL[edit]

Zeg, Woudloper. Je hebt me geblokkeerd om dat ik een sokpop was van Geleyns. dit is niet helemaal correct: Ik had indertijd de account Mythologica, maar ik vergat het paswoord omwille van het feit dat ik een tijdje inactief was op WP NL. Nu ben ik terug als Geleyns. Ik hoop dat u me zo snel mogelijk ontblokt! Alvast bedankt, Geleyns 11:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't lie to me. Woodwalker 09:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Expanding earth[edit]

Hi woodwalker, we've had a nice discussion on the article expanding earth theory. In the last two days I've expanded the article substantially, what do you think? --D.H (talk) 12:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. I read it through and think you did a great job again. I think the most important is that the article shows clearly that the scientific debate is a thing from the past and that the theory is no longer seen as credible today. Woodwalker (talk) 19:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again[edit]

Dear Woodwalker, I herewith like to really thank you again for supporting me in the astounding a days long block up from Oscar, whose arbitrary and controversial knocking completely surprised me awe into silent awareness. So, I have to reconsider my decision to write again, in spite of rehabilitation by the forum, the gracious action of Ellywa included. Astonishing ..., but as usual with all regards from D.A. Borgdorff, e.i. etc. by fixed-ADSL-IP: (talk) 19:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC) PS: Just before his blocking at 14:46 out of nowhere came a socalled Anon-IP: at 14:36 reverting (with comment) my edits in own TP, upon which Oscar 10 minutes later responded, curiously - see history of those pages. Above-mentioned IP is from R-University Groningen, and only used to tackle me, I suppose. I don't like this to sort further out. With excuses for my CE/AE-spelling errors, truly Yours: D.A. Borgdorff, by (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Estimable Sir; I'm sorry to disturb you again, but yet an other block up now from mrs. Moira came unexpectedly after my complaints being thrown on a sort of blacklist by abovementioned CEO. I've tried to reach the - by mr. De Roo recommended - IRC-channel, but my typed reaction unfortunately didn't came through and I was even banned there after accusation of lurking while trying to contact for explanation again and again and onwards. So I'll have to report it here again with - in the mean time - utmost amazement, wondering about the level of arguments affected in numbers. With best regards I again remain sincerely yours: D.A. Borgdorff from number IP: (talk) 19:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Dear mr. Borgdorff, I already discussed your last block on with ms. Moira. I am afraid she was rather uncompromisable in the matter, due to the large amount of what she and others call "useless edits" from your side. Fact is that anonimous edits have to be checked on wikipedia, and that's not very entertaining work I can assure. So I would like to suggest that you stop editing talk pages and start editing articles; or just open an account so that your edits don't bother the team that checks anonimous edits any longer.
When somebody does not show his or her name at the chat that is considered "lurking" and unpolite, because others are having confidential talk there and do show their names. Therefore it doesn't surprise me that you were "booted" from the chat.
I hope you will at least think about opening a real account because it will make life easier for everyone! Kind regards and yours sinc., Woodwalker (talk) 11:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Just the distinction needed[edit]

re: [ your improvement...

Units in geochronology and stratigraphy[1]
Segments of rock (strata) in chronostratigraphy Time spans in geochronology Notes to
geochronological units
Eonothem Eon 4 total, half a billion years or more
Erathem Era 10 defined, several hundred million years
System Period 22 defined, tens to ~one hundred million years
Series Epoch 34 defined, tens of millions of years
Stage Age 99 defined, millions of years
Chronozone Chron subdivision of an age, not used by the ICS timescale

I was wondering when someone would notice! Wasn't happy with that myself... was just now going to change that wording & link to "Biostratigraphy" myself, as I STUMBLED into the mess these individual articles were a couple daze back, and have been (hopefully) improving them and fleshing them out since. Should be on my usual patrol, but they were student level "bad" from the standpoint of saying anything comprehensible to a lay person. Rote definitions someone boilerplated.

'Been a Tough Road though, I've never taken any earth science course since a basic high school intro. Just a parallel interest to history avocation where I spend most wikitime. Left a note on the poor coverage of the stratigraphic class and the time units (I think I now have the distinctions straight! Crossing fingers) even in the main geologic time scale article which seems to still be the top. No response, so started trying to improve same. No one's working the topics currently, save perhaps you and me? So kindly back check me from time to time on those ten and biostratigraphy and chronozone, and any other geobiology article my course may take me into! (check here).

Ahhh! I see you're the "student bad Mr Boilerplate" writer himself. SO, sorry, but an honest evaluation. ("Frank speaking "Frankly", so to speak.) What the heck do you think you're communicating with: (which phrase has been driving me nuts and got me into doing this--like eating one peanut! NOT! <g>)

Point: " unrelated to lithostratigraphy, which subdivides rock layers on their lithology." is goobleygook to a lay person. I still haven't figured out the distinction you were trying to make... or if it's important at all! The linked articles are too broad without sufficient connective words defining what context you meant and thought you are/were saying. The whole schema is multidiscipline anyways as is obvious to anyone watching most science documentaries (that would be me-- some of my post H.S. credentials! <g>)
  • I've no doubt the links are fine, the meaning isn't coming across except perhaps (and wonder even at this) to someone educated in the field. As an educational project, such needs dumbed down to a junior high school students level... at least in the top two screen pages... that's our prime customers!
  • Do you have thoughts on what to do about Age (See rewrite of Stage last night, which needs trimmed a bit, but I was definitely getting past woozy!) Age is redirect, or was, but do believe that approach could be viable saving hassles from later mergists proposals in advance, so to speak. Also, note and check over epoch, which had been a redirect.
See also pending Talk:System (geology)/Geologic Periods to subdivisions which I'll finish up later tonight. Have a lost edit in Cretaceous to get back to first. Glad someone else is putting up the timeline in tables! (I'm gonna split that into two (upper and lower) tables on pseudo templates pages as well. By pseudo, I'm referring to such as Talk:System (geology)/Geologic Periods to subdivisions‎ , where TFD can't pick on a onesy or twice or three time use of template space, and the article space is still "clean and easily editable".
Taking suggestions on the color of that table by the way. Thinking this scheme is better choice. Just haven't gotten back to fix it. Need to add edit and history links too.
I suck at watchlist (Way Back up again--some 5000+, so need to reset again), so ping my talk with section link when answering. Thanks. Can keep any thread here or there. I tend to crosspost if you don't.

Nice to meetchya, Cheers! // FrankB 18:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

propose by need[edit]

see the edit summary, need to have a simpler article delineating these concepts and just explaining is a system of chronology that uses relative dates, which are set by measured factors in the study of the uncovered strata known to mankind—which is your redlink in that template! <g>. One I agree with whole heartedly, as topic is buried in stratum, and a simple list by tables by the hierarchy article will serve to demystify things, I'd think.

IMHO, the Geologic timescale is not on chronology per say, but how the rock history is interactively mapped to that schema. A distinction I made here now, as you folks may be too close to the topics. Hence Either time (geology) or chronology (geology) will fit the overall chronological system elsewhere in the encyclopedia project, and allow clearer presentations of the ICS system/schema/model (unfortunate they use that word (!!!, damnit!) of coordinated units-- layers or time. // FrankB 19:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

(I replied here, on Frank's talk page.) - Woodwalker (talk) 14:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
re:Last but not least and to make things complicated: the time itself (geochronology) also has its own units (eon, era, period, epoch, age, chron), fortunately they correspond with the chronostratigraphic units. So, a series (for example) are the combined strata deposited in a certain epoch.
  1. chron as a unit of time (Arrrgh--this would have been done a while now if this wasn't a redlink! See Units of time for now.), as opposed to a prefix is news... good input. Falls in line with the proposed chrono article above, don't you think? Should that be added as a middle column in the table (which color has morphed!) too. Note the other changes.
  2. agree working together is good going forwards, assuming I didn't P. you Off! My sentence and grammar is pretty good, I write a lot, and with two kids of college age and being a life long reader of eclectic tastes (I've a couple M.S. degrees--see past history on my user page for more on me--currently plan on leaving my mad message up for a bit longer to make a point or four.) I can usually see when things don't work well across articles.
    1. Following Chron, says more work needs be done! Redirects ending on a page need mentioned in opening sentences! That article suggests there is more than one type of chron?!??? (Biostratigrphy and chronozone seem to suggest my quandry/query!)
So here, I spend a LOT of time fixing up such inconsistencies or clarifying stuff that should be clearer for people too close to the trees to see the forest. So when something about wording needs checked, feel free to ask for input. And I'm quite willing to have others fiddle with stuff... part of the contract for which we get remunerated so generously is "endless editing". So feel free. I only get upset by people trashing stuff without notification or discussion. May as well have NOT put the time and effort into things which get deleted, and something which I could have probably justified if asked. My gripe around here is the mindset that people shouldn't be forced to ask when doing any XFD tagging.

I gotta get... be back in 2-3 hours. // FrankB 21:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm an inclusionist. I made a redirect from chronology (geology) to geochronology. I'll keep the articles on my watchlist. It should be possible to explain things in a way a 15-year old schoolboy/girl understands it and yet have the definitions right for the specialists too. Woodwalker (talk) 21:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
The redirect is good. I was minded to do a survey article more on how the divisions and subdivisions interrelate, but the template and viewing the ICS chart kind of get there anyway. The effort in Geologic time system, especially the effort to embed overview information like this seems a bit off base and overambitious to me. Too busy in the article, which ought to address this metrics better, no matter what. But someone's enjoying playing with the graphics, I'd guess.
Oh, yes, def want correct definitions. Just not articles that read like a journal article. Diff genre AND audiance! <g>
How's this technique measure up against that sentiment!? Honest feedback plz.
Compare these
Another thought is a "bannerish" (sic- did I mention I can mangle the language too? <g>) template above the succession box I built tonight which lists the genus order phylum and species, errr wrong science, the eons down to age on each, da hierarchy and family tree of each stage/age as it were.
I'm pretty happy with the language presentation in those first 3-4 para's, and think we could really just turn into a boilerplate template, fill in the blanks and text comes out. Then go through all the ages and do a paste up using the {{geosuccession}} and 1st template I did. Even the Woodbanian comment could be "programmed in". I've done some boilerplate like that for a book series. The payoff is big in human time. Far easier to fill in the blanks on a template you cut N paste like an infobox, than to read through and verify you've not missed a word or two copying text article to article. So, whatchya think?
Also, Do you like it yourself and think the geosciences community will buy the succession template (If such makes sense in any science, it's gotta be THIS one!)

Gotta get some shut eye. I'll be scarce until sunday. We're having about 60 people over on Saturday and tomarrow's gonna be a pain getting the place spiffed up and ready for the graduation party. Sigh! // FrankB 07:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Best wishes! You graduated? A more recent (yet also inofficial) ICS-chart is here. This year they will have a congress at Oslo and decide about the chard, until then we cannot be sure what it will look like in the future.
My feeling about this whole business is that it should be explained in the article geologic timescale. If it is not, the article needs a revision or new additional section at least. Woodwalker (talk) 14:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Nah, the oldest son's going off to rob my bank account with transfers into Florida Tech's in six weeks. I'd rather do the neighborhood block party the same day.
Agree to a point, that being the "timescale" article seems to have gelled with next to no attention given to such definitions, as I observed on my talk post about five days (?Daze?) back. Giving the table of links as I just dropped into geochronology, is a good way to emphasize to the lay reader there is a rationale out there he may glimpse but not understand fully, but that leaves the question begging where it is covered. Since we aren't a dead tree medium, repetition is not a cost issue, so my philosophy on such is to define locally— which gets around the problem of someone changing the article you think is presenting a picture, when it isn't or no longer does. A good third of the edits I do "accidentally" (as I got into these) is because someone was assuming knowledge or information via a link was available, and either too lazy to check the link in the context from the foot prints of a total ignoramus in the subject or unable to decouple their knowledge and make a leap that others would understand because they do. (That cquoted phrase above is a good example of that, seen all over the project— not to rub that in, but because we two share it.) Anyhow, I've sat long enough to be a tad rested. Back to party preps. At least Jon has a partial scholarship, but the boat budget is gone for the next 5-6 years I suspect, have another right behind him regularly making the honor roll, if not so good at taking tests. (Jon's College boards were amazingly high.) ttfn // FrankB 22:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Slumming by stubbing[edit]

Take a peek and throw rocks! Geologic record (or fixes) // FrankB 00:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow... nice! Lol: you even used one of my own pictures. I'll be throwing later. Woodwalker (talk) 04:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Did I mention despising redlinks in what should be a matured field of coverage? <g> So give instruction: (re: on layer cake) usage do's and don'ts. // FrankB 16:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
"Layered cake" is never used for stratigraphy (that I am aware of). It is most used in geology as the name for a model of the structure of the Earth's mantle, in which the mantle is considered to be layered (instead of one homogeneous mass). Woodwalker (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah so. Seems like a waste of a good metaphor. Very visual. Thanks // 14:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

About Vallée[edit]

Beste Woudloper, hoe kom je erbij om het werk van René-Louis Vallée (evenals Wammes Waggel tot in het absurde!) af te doen als "niet peer reviewed"? Begin zeventiger jaren heeft deze uitgebreide review plaatsgevonden met veel ophef (toentertijd) omdat e.e.a. in de (Franse) doofpot is gestopt, en het boek -- van nota bene uiterst gerenommeerde uitgever Masson & Cie (waar óók De Broglie publiceerde.!) -- geclassificeerd werd door de overheid. Stelt U zich a.u.b. eens op de hoogte i.p.v. steeds (met anderen) almaar af te kraken ... Niettemin, met beste groet: D.A. Borgdorff via (talk) 08:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Ccfr. Tjako van Schie et al.

Dear mr. Borgdorff, I would never do such a thing. I was talking about the translation in Dutch of Vallée's work by yourself. Translations are, as far as I know, never peer reviewed. About the original: I have absolutely no idea, I did not read it. If there is no peer-reviewed source for the information, as Tjako's unableness to reply to my question seemed to imply, then the source should be removed. The limited edition of your translation (30) makes it unsuitable as a reference anyway. Best regards, Woodwalker (talk) 13:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC) PS please write to me in English here, this is the English wikipedia.
Well Woodwalker, as you did understand - I usually do as above write in English. Somewhere I found yet mrs. MoiraMoira, who is imho not at all graduating matters, publishing about Vallée. Exactly all of these actions while I was/am 'blocked' for "nothing" again. You don't see coïncedance, but I do so well, enduring all that dirting on me and my page hunting and haunting me before this 'meta-vandalism' to be internationally shown off for exhibition on instignation from Peter B & W. This methods on nl:wiki having totally nothing to be done with mentioned scientific reviews. There still is ample explanation left on the talkpage of "nl:Materiegolven" done. All that wrangling: just too ridiculous for further words. - I'll keep a far distance from all those backstairs proceedings. Regards: Borgdorff s.t. (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, I will not interfere in the content of any article, I just made my POV on this particular reference clear, that's all. As for Moira, I do not understand what is wrong with her actions now? Yours sinc., Woodwalker (talk) 20:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, at the moment is clearly visible what's terribly wrong: to hunt about nothing important in redaction to even a certain degree of destruction, because of long developped bias against my contributions. Some People probably can't stay away from this deleting, imho really negative in concept as execution. Regards as always: D.A. Borgdorff (talk) 22:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC) apart from disruption of referee Vallée ...‡

Revisions made to Geological History template[edit]

Thank you for taking the time to review the first version of this template, and for providing the I.C.S. chart containing the officially-recognized time line. I have since made major revisions to the template in accordance with these suggestions, and was hoping you would be willing to take a second look. I removed reference to the Precambrian, but left the Hadean Eon for now as there are a number of articles already associated with it. Any additional feedback/suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 06:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

This looks good. I would still leave out the Hadean part, since it is about the Moon and has little to do with geology. Did you know there are standard colours for every time unit? I will take a better look at the template later. Regards, Woodwalker (talk) 08:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ Cohen, K.M.; Finney, S.; Gibbard, P.L. (2015), International Chronostratigraphic Chart (PDF), International Commission on Stratigraphy .