User talk:Awickert/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Igneous petrology

Thanks - looks a good start - I'll see what I can do... Babakathy (talk) 07:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia

GW sure got nasty. We haven't talked a while, and if this a bad moment, I'm alright with waiting. It seems kind of odd that some of the editors seem experience an abrupt change in habits. For example FinScribe, Dalej78, and Macai all abruptly stopped editing two years ago, 2007, and then picked right back up again with minor exceptions. Some also seem to be unusual well-versed in policy, although it's not beyond inconceivable bounds. Whether this is because of the e-mail incident, a perennial pattern, or a new Scibaby (+ friends) tactic. I don't know. In terms of political progressivism in the media, it seems time to me, now that the presidential election's over, that they're going become more conservative again. I was wondering if you had any thoughts in mind. I don't like seeing the wrong version of the article locked, but IMO it's acceptable to wait until it blows over. The number one deterrent for flamers is boredom, so write in a very dry, unemotional, logical tone. Well that's my two cents, how about you? ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been watching that closely to think about those things, and I don't watch enough of these articles to see all of them.

You mean political progressivism in the US media? So, this is a cycle? No thoughts in particular due to a lack of knowledge; I read at least a quarter of my news in Spanish these days (feels more productive to keep up the foreign language) and about non-science issues; a lot of the rest is football and hockey and local stuff ;-).

I left a message on the locking admin's talk because I thought the material at GW was unacceptable due to the featured article requirements, and Ed was so kind as to agree with me and remove it.

My problem is that I'm too altruistic; I always want to work until we all agree, or at least respect one another's opinions based on good reasoning and evidence; this doesn't always happen. Yes, it's getting rowdy.

Yes, this is a bad time, though it also means that I procrastinate here. But I promised someone that I would finish reviewing a geology article, and I plan on doing that as soon as I have some free time with my wits about me.

Glad to hear from you; your old thread finally got archived here and after months and months there was no CaC at my talk, Awickert (talk) 05:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, admission deadlines are this month. I edit Wikipedia now, well because it's sort of a warm-up for essays. I think English, as a class, teaches the wrong lessons about brevity, or the lack of it. I'll leave you to the GA, it's probably more important, see you tomorrow or sometime after that. :) ChyranandChloe (talk) 06:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Good luck with those. Suppose it depends on the English teacher. I try to write in cave-man English myself, Awickert (talk) 17:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Climategate and verbosity, except the editors this time don't seem to be socks.

The media goes through cycles, pretty predictable ones too, I took political science. To sum it up, presidents receive the greatest approval during and after the election, which declines during the house elections. Names have changed, so have positions, but with a few excpetion it's been like this for the past fifty years.

My problem is that I look for errors in their arugments, which is a sure way to turn their ego against you.

I feel like I'm being really cold, which apparently is the opposite of encouragement and an aweful way to improve the community. I'm probably getting too much practice with alliterations,[1] which works better than bolding to get your point across. Well those are the happenings, how about you? What do you think? ChyranandChloe (talk) 08:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Going to bed, but I think that it would be worthwhile to be nice to Woudloper, and maybe leave a message on his talk explaining your grumpiness. He's a really great Wiki editor IMO (and a nice guy) and I can understand his thoughts since I as well think in terms of the more distant past. He's also usually very good at understanding where other people are coming from, Awickert (talk) 09:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll think about it, thanks. We've only talked twice, on Talk:Global Warming on and on Curtis's talk. About leaving a note on his talk, should I tell him I got the tip from here? ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Nah, you don't have to. Actually, his page is on my watchlist; maybe I'm popular enough to be on his and he's already seen this. Glad it looks like the conversation is getting better between you two. I'm starting to think that T:GW is getting so toxic that I'll work somewhere else if I actually want to make a contribution there. I'd be happy to follow his suggestion though and create a teeny tiny blurb on past warming chock full of relevant wikilinks when the article is unprotected, though I'd consult with the regulars first because the article is pretty long. Awickert (talk) 05:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, of course, there's only been four messages between us, and the one I showed you was the I'm least proud of. Boris[2][3][4] and WMC[5] have replied. The blurb about past warming has already been covered in the hatnote "For past climate change, see...", well that was my position. I'll defer to you if you believe otherwise. Yeah, it's getting really toxic, there are two active threads right now: one about the lead, and another on neutrality. I'd stay away from the latter, but the one on the lead WMC seems to have a resolve. Anyways, those are the happenings. Created a new article, List of Ebola outbreaks, why can't GW be sane like rabies and cure-free neuroinvasive diseases? :P ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Glad you're getting along, though making very scary lists. I'm not too sure whether or not prior warming should be in there; if it does go in, I think that it should be a short 1-paragraph link-full blurb as to inform the reader without taking time away from the main topic. I will think about this but for the moment don't have the time to devote to it. Awickert (talk) 05:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Glad you finally had a break. Happy holidays? ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Very happy! Though it is not much of a break yet, just a quick reprieve and decided I really needed to reply... real break starts on the 21st : ). Awickert (talk) 07:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Great, see you on the 22nd (my break starts on Tuesday). ChyranandChloe (talk) 18:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Hasta mañana, Awickert (talk) 15:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Well things have finally cool down, although now I think I'm at odds with Atmoz. POed at him. ChyranandChloe (talk) 07:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

That happens; we were pretty annoyed with each other some time ago, but after making some pissy remarks, we both were reasonable and things got better. Awickert (talk) 16:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, wonder when this abrupt climate change ends, and we can all cool down. Right now I'm looking at Thegreatdr's proposal in Talk:Global warming#Cite doi finally. How's life going for you? You seemed pretty busy a week ago. ChyranandChloe (talk) 21:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to cool down starting this evening; Christmas Even and Christmas days aren't days for wiki-angst. So if I'm online then, I'll probably just be responding to non-heated discussions and wishing happy holidays to all. I am relaxed now; I was busy at a meeting last week. Awickert (talk) 23:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Same, got invited to a pizza party at the church tonight, family and friends during Christmas. Working on Public opinion on climate change, wow, didn't think I'd use what I learned in Statistics last year. Really helped. Going through the sources earlier editors added, some of them, well... I feel no pain cutting them. You interested? ChyranandChloe (talk) 00:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, happy to help. But I'm taking Christmas Eve and Day off, at least off with respect to controversial (i.e., un-fun) topics. Depending on how much time I spend with friends, family, dogs, etc., I might give sediment transport some more info and polish; it's a continuing project of mine that will need to be split into several articles when I'm done. Awickert (talk) 02:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Well I didn't end up applying for MIT, but Stanford instead. Wow, that GW discussion totally lost me. If you they tell you they're in good faith, I bet it's just a way to get around WP:AGF. Seriously? A bot for reverting dissenting opinion?[6] Anyways, I'm, of course, asking for your take; and I'll likewise give you the same. Discussions like this end in ad nauseam, their objective is by no means an edit to an article, but an egotistical defense. They are motivated by two things: you, and being right. There's a difference between what is and what you need to do. What does this mean for us? If it's going to end in ad nauseam, it's just comment and wait. Space out your edits once a day, make it long enough that it looks like you've put some thought in it, but short enough that it doesn't become a burden. You know I don't like this, any of this. If those editors didn't start with NPOV and "oppression" first, I bet they'd have a lot more success. ChyranandChloe (talk)

I'm going to reply to one thing at a time - I'm getting old and easily-bewildered.

• College - looks like you went with the good decision for mental health : )
• Global Warming: I haven't looked at the talk page in a couple of days, but I just did. I'm not sure what you want my opinion on though. Certainly I would be more agreeable with some of the skeptical crowd if they didn't start comments in attacks and conspiracy; I could cite a number of diffs here but don't see the productivity in creating drama. Likewise on the page: I could revert all of the distasteful comments, but to do so would just give them more attention and create more drama. As a result, I've stepped back until the signal-to-noise improves because I think that some of the discussion could become productive if not repeatedly sidetracked. Awickert (talk) 04:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I think so too. Its Christmas, how's life for you? You sound a little discouraged. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Not discouraged in life, though slowing down on wiki, so thanks for the concern. As a matter of fact, I'm feeling very well, and doing things that are actually personally important to me. This is also the first time in a while that I've had my whole family together, so I'm going to be with them as much as I can. As for Wiki: I think I'm just somewhat suddenly becoming tired of the argumentativeness here, and starting to feel like the continued pissing-on-one-another that happens on the talk pages is wearing me out and making me feel like I'm being a crappy human being. So I think I am going to scale back and start doing more content edits when I do find time to edit: particles moved by flowing water, erosion, and post-glacial rebound are up for consideration because I'm reasonably knowledgeable. Maybe some continuum mechanics as well. I also have queued up a volcano copyedit for ResMar, fixing all of the true polar wander / pole shift hypothesis stuff, helping you with Public Opinion on Climate Change, creating articles and organizing things from Template:River morphology, and maybe finally getting all the articles on Template:Paleozoic Stratigraphy of the Upper Midwest at least started. Awickert (talk) 07:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

That's good for you, yeah, my family usually gets together around thanks giving instead. Didn't want to divert your attention. Anyways, it's kind of strange how when you're not busy, I am. Well, I hope Public opinion on climate change doesn't get polarized, I mean I can see good things coming out of that article. Right now we've got a proposal to add stuff from Climate change denial, and you know how that stuff gets, denialism is a liberal conspiracy. I don't know much about geology, but public opinion seems to be something I can do. Good luck on those articles nonetheless. ChyranandChloe (talk) 08:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Public opinion on climate change seems to be a rapid growth area; thanks for your work in that area. I'm not sure how worldwide "climate change denial" is, but I know it is prevalent in good chunks of the English-speaking world and at least a little of the Spanish-speaking world, and it is certainly public opinion... though it is also a can of worms in terms of WP:NPOV. Remember, if the article gets polarized, just cross the polars! Awickert (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Have a hot Toddy!

Para poder, fuerza e energia! Or, when facing a wreck, Toddy! I hope this cheers you :) User:Tim Vickers might be able to help on that RSN hypothesis issue; he has a calming effect on such discussions, in case you want to knock on his door. Saludos, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It's honestly taken way more time than it's importance to me should have permitted. I think that all I've achieved is a failure to properly compile the multiple arguments that Viriditas was using, which resulted in a general lack of happiness and being called a good-for-nothing liar (to Viriditas if you read this: this is how I interpret what you say. Probably I am misrepresenting again. But that seems to be my prerogative.). Argh. In any case, thanks for the offer, but I'd feel really irresponsible to pull someone I don't know into that sort of a mess, so I'll leave it be.

Gracias por el toddy, lo necesito. Awickert (talk) 04:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh good grief. What is this all about? Send me a mail? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

A completely non-worthwhile issue (Snowball Earth vs. SN Hypothesis) in which User:Viriditas continually told me that I was misrepresenting him, though at every point I thought that I was perfectly representing what he had told me up to that point. I think that he had a whole bunch of arguments in his pocket that he cycled through and he thought that I knew (though I didn't), so somehow the ones he told me and that I responded to were always the wrong ones. Anyway, he hates me now, I (being me) tried to apologize and reconcile (instead of bitching about how he was misrepresenting me and grossly failing WP:AGF), and he blew me off multiple times. So I'll send you a mail, grow a thicker skin, and take this as a learning experience that sometimes I shouldn't try to put myself in the other person's shoes and reconcile, especially when they won't put themselves in mine. Awickert (talk) 16:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Sorry about the wikidrama. :-(. Awickert (talk) 16:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Weisbrot

Re this, I don't have 49 minutes to watch the video, so I can't answer, but the video is used to source the statement that he is supportive of Chavez ... does he actually say something like that in the video? Or is that the viewer interpretation? The video *is* a reliable source for what Weisbrot says, but not interpretation of what he says, as that would be OR. I haven't watched it, so can't comment, but if he says something that supports the statement, the time on the video should be indicated. The SOP on Venezuelan articles is just to revert and hope no one will take the time, rather than discuss and improve text (which generally means leave cleanup to others and keep only text that supports one side of the story -- sorta like the reviews of South of the Border (2009 film)); hopefully that will abate a bit now, at least on one article. It's hard to know what JRSP and Rd2332's standards of interpreting policy are, since what applies in one case doesn't seem to apply in another; I'm trying to figure out how JRSP wants the text written, and what he wants attributed, but simply reverting isn't the way to go. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Sandy. It was because Weisbrot took the Chavista stance in the debate, and that is because at about 40 seconds in, the speaker notes that the Venezuelan embassy didn't send anyone, and then introduces Mark Weisbrot (at 2 minutes), presumably in that role because Diego Arria certainly wouldn't fill it. So I suppose it may be WP:OR and it looks like you took care of the sources anyway. I'm sorry you had to take so much time on this while I was not at my computer. I know some WP editors who will fact-tag and remove only one side of the story, and my real reason was just that the Weisbrot-Chávez connection seemed like something that was downright silly to delete.

Thanks again for your work, I'll take that as a cue of how to do things next time around, Awickert (talk) 19:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I hope it's OK that I just moved it to an external link; that seemed a faster way to solve the issue than watching a 49-minute video :) What has to stop on Venezuelan articles is that these guys just delete one side of everything, without actually collaborating to clean up articles, check sources, NPOV, etc. I picked *that* article to clean up as an example, thinking it would be a short and easy one, and show them what they should be doing instead of just reverting whatever doesn't please them. Little did I know I would find such a mess on that article! You owe me a sleepless night! (After this edit summary, I had to go see what you were up to!) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah... sorry about that. For me, it wasn't that Weisbrot's connection was necessarily bad or good; it just seemed like something obvious was deleted for sourcing, which didn't seem right. The edit to my talk was that I (a) figured out that Viriditas was probably pissed at me because he assumed that I had read his extensive conversations with others on his talk page, which I hadn't, and I therefore only replied to the points that he told me, and (b) decided that he assumed so much bad faith that I didn't care what he said to me, so I felt better. And in response to that feeling-better about wiki, I had actually worked more on fixing up a FLC; the Weisbrot thing was just a quick wow-that's-weird before signing off. Sorry about the sleep, Sandy... Awickert (talk) 19:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I had a good sleepless night coming :) I work better when I'm mad and frustrated :) I've had a good relationship with Viriditas in the past, and was sorry to see that happening to you two. The reversion of inconvenient info is standard operating procedure on Venezuelan articles; I hope they'll learn from this example. No one who follows Venezuela can deny the Weisbrot info, or that the coup article (and most others) are POV, but deny they do ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I've thought him to be pretty decent in the past too, which is why I felt so frustrated (otherwise I would have blown it off). But I feel like he just didn't give me a chance via WP:AGF from edit 1. I can deal with people telling me that they disagree, that my points 1, 5, and 6 are flawed, that I'm not using WP:RS appropriately, or that I'm editing with a POV, but calling me a liar is something I can't handle because there is no way to achieve anything once one editor assumes that another is always acting in bad faith. Ggrrr.... anyway, thank you so much for the help and I'm glad that your night was at least productive. Awickert (talk) 20:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like your buttons that can be pushed are similar to mine :) Call me anything but a liar! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Glad we agree and hope you get some sleep... I'm overhauling the kitchen today so I won't be around much. Awickert (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy, I mentioned your original edit here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I'm watching though not participating yet - lots of real-life work at the moment with little time. Awickert (talk) 00:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Since you and I were having an exchange about the phrasing/sourcing of Weisbrot's "support for Chavez policies", please feel free to continue that conversation in the new Reboot section, Sandy's unilateral declaration that everything is resolved notwithstanding. Rd232 ^talk 11:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response; have been extremely busy with work. I think we reached an impasse and that it will take more time than I currently have to figure out what to do. But in the meantime it seems that we agree on the lede, so I'll try to find some IMF refs when I can and add them to the article. I'll rejoin the discussion when I have a chance; sorry about being involved and unavailable, I know it's inconvenient. Awickert (talk) 06:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Well the lede isn't quite resolved either. If you can find more references/information and/or improve the lede with a better summary, it will make the disputed sentence less of an issue. Rd232 ^talk 08:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

What I was thinking of is going through his publication list and sampling issues that he repeatedly writes about. Awickert (talk) 15:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Improvement Chart

Do you have any thoughts on this and would you care to add your name to any part of it? Any suggestions on launching it properly and getting lots of input would also be valued. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 14:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I commented, though I'm not a major editor there. I think that by "launching it", you mean overhauling the article... this would require quite a lot of community consensus (beyond the regulars at the article). Awickert (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou for that. May I move your comments around to reflect what I think I'm aiming to do? For instance, you have no problem with excluding "politics" from the GW article. You don't see too much problem with what's happened at TalkPages. You're prepared to be convinced on advertisements, but only with examples. On information you're concerned about ambulance-chasing (I think!) and I may have to make it clearer what I'm talking about (or re-think what I'm proposing). The only problems you have with "Debate and skepticism" and geo-engineering are in the writing. Some people may have thought I would invite 100s of editors to add their comments immediately, but I'm afraid the concept is a work in progress, and each of the first few contributors may cause me to change the layout in order to accurately reflect what people mean to say. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 17:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead - it's your project, you've thought about it, and I'll bug you if I have any issues. Awickert (talk) 17:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, done. Look hard, if I've accurately represented your feelings, I'll be able to start rolling it out faster. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 19:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I gave you permission to move, but not to change the wording. Is this what you've wanted? I've removed my comments for the moment, as some of the shortened versions don't say exactly what I'd like to say, and others are too general to be useful. If shortening is what you want, I'll do so myself, as I bet I'm better at concisely stating what I think than you are (though you were reasonably close). Awickert (talk) 00:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Please do the shortening yourself! I only did that precis for practice, since as best I could tell, you could really just be in there as "happy" with no notes atall. Ideally, many of the "unhappy" people won't need their own notes in many of the rows either, or only "per other editor". MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 09:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hm, OK, I'm a little unclear on the format but I'll take a stab when I get a chance; not likely soon as I'm extremely busy at the moment. I guess I could be there as "happy" if you round up and ignore the couple areas of unhappiness. Awickert (talk) 17:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I don't see the utility in shortening things down such that I just say that I think it is OK as-is, because that is the equivalent of taking sides, which is something that is unhealthy and I'd like to avoid. So I think I'll stick with saying nothing and taking care of my backlog of wiki article-space and real-life work.

I did read Martin's comments on the "advertisement" part though, but I don't know where to reply and in any case am not presently interested in anything but a very brief debate on wording (because a debate between the two of us probably wouldn't end up affecting the article). Could be worthwhile to bring up these on the talk page. Awickert (talk) 05:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Earthquake FAC

FYI, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2007–2008 Nazko earthquakes/archive1 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, on it, need to really start clearing items off the to-do list at this point. At least I know a little more about earthquakes than about volcanoes. Thanks for the heads-up. Awickert (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Copying "civility" comments elsewhere?

Any objections to my copying our "civility" discussion (which was deleted by WMC as "unhelpful) to a collapsed copy on my talk page? Good rhetoric should never go to waste. :-) Proofreader77 ^(interact) 23:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, though my comment was nothing but unhelpful... so if you're trying to go somewhere with it you might want to leave it off :) Awickert (talk) 00:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

You took a bit of time and care to add some humor/style to the conversation. I don't think that should just get wiped away unarchived because WMC didn't understand the value of what was being added.

Bottom line, I may certainly be discussing "civility" in the future ... but not about that pleasant exchange — which I honor by rescuing it from oblivion. :-) Cheers. Proofreader77 ^(interact) 00:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, then you may have it and rescue it; enjoy & thanks for taking the time to ask my permission! Awickert (talk) 01:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks, and you're very welcome. Due respect and honor. Salute. Proofreader77 ^(interact) 01:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Physical evidence for climatic change add

GW's cooled down quite a bit, for un-cool comments we've got a protocol and a template. You and Boris worked on the article "Climate change", Count Iblis asked something I think is interesting, see Talk:Global warming#Stratospheric cooling. Thanks, haven't talk to you in a while. ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You've probably noticed that I've kept away from there. I have lots of work at the moment, am working with 2 FAC's and a FLC, and if I had more time I would go over to Venezuela-related issues. So I can't promise time to do that sort of work (or much expertise, really; Boris, William, and Dragons Flight would be more useful). But I will help if asked to do specific things.

As an aside, do you know how to tell Wiki to not archive a specific section (i.e., my public to-do list, here)? Awickert (talk) 04:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Well thanks. The archive bot goes off of the dates on your signature, remove them, and the archiver won't remove the thread. ChyranandChloe (talk) 07:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

We're up late; so can I trick the bot by making a sig dated 2011 at the bottom of the thread as well? I should have more time next week to deal with climate. Awickert (talk) 07:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Cool, see ya next week. LOL, make the sig dated 2011? I'd imagine it'd work, but would be easier to just remove the date as with the backspace on your keyboard. ChyranandChloe (talk) 08:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but do I have to remove all of the sig dates, or just one? Awickert (talk) 14:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) All. BTW since it's a to do list, you might be interested in {{Todo}}. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the help and documentation! For now, I'll just satisfy myself with placing a future date at the bottom. But I think I will use the template once I learn how to, Awickert (talk) 05:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Orogeny

I put a quote in the "Relation to Mountain Formation" section from Jackson and Bates. It is quoted by Ollier & Pain. You may have noticed in earlier discussion that there are a half-dozen or so references that seem to treat orogeny as including stuff not related to mountain building and excluding stuff that is. So it seems reasonable to me to include some heads up on that score. Brews ohare (talk) 14:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Here is a recent discussion. Brews ohare (talk) 14:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems reasonable from that point of view, but it goes against my entire education. Thanks for the heads-up. I won't touch anything until this evening or tomorrow morning when I have a chance to look things over, Awickert (talk) 15:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the offending sentence about postorogenic and left the rest of the quote. Brews ohare (talk) 18:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. There's enough activity over at talk:Orogeny that I think I can manage to follow it now. I also wanted to let you know that I really appreciate your interest in the topic and the time that you're spending on it. I know that you had some disappointing experiences over in physics (I'm not sure what all went into that), but with that knowledge and not wanting to discourage you from contributing here, I'll do my best to be clear and give you sources to support what I say. Awickert (talk) 18:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems like we've both been looking into Ollier. He's also on Inhofe's list of deniers or whatever, thought the name was familiar - he wrote a paper comparing Global warming to Lysenkoism or some such. Interesting -- rejects climate change and plate tectonics. I'd like a copy of the Dahlen and Suppe paper, I'm a GSA member, but don't have access to old special paper articles. PV = nRT Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 02:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh really! I just thought his geology was special. Yeah, no one has access to GSA special papers, I'll email it. And now I know what Lysenkoism means: ah, learning on a Friday! Awickert (talk) 02:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

PS - Peter Molnar is one of my more favorite geologists, so his paper (which I think you can access) should be fun to read. I also especially like the England and Molnar ones about Kelvin and mantle convection - happy to send you those as well, as they could be good for teaching if they don't go over the heads (or attention spans) of the kiddos. Awickert (talk) 02:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Sending you e-mail

I'd be happy to do that, but am not versed in how it is done. Maybe you can point me in the right direction? Brews ohare (talk) 03:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Scroll up, look under "toolbox" (left hand panel), and click "email this user". Awickert (talk) 03:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I don't find this choice in the toolbox on either your or my Talk pages. Brews ohare (talk) 06:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Hm, I don't find it on yours; you may have to turn the option on in your preferences. Awickert (talk) 06:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

...lurking... cf Wikipedia:E-mailing users: you need to provide an email address in your preferences in order to enable emailing others. Rd232 ^talk 11:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I have activated this feature, so I think you can now send me those articles. Thanks for your help with this feature. Brews ohare (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed change to Current sea level rise

I'm proposing a change here. I believe you added the words I'm proposing to change, so I thought I'd let you know. --SPhilbrickT 01:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. As I remember, I was just trying to clarify the lede, so sounds fine to me. I'll comment there. Awickert (talk) 02:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Andy:

Thanks for contributing to the action concerning mitigation of the sanctions against me. Appreciated. Brews ohare (talk) 17:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. I think we both felt frustrated for a while and then it worked out. And thank you for all your current hard work on geology articles! Awickert (talk) 18:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Citation bot?

Hi, Awickert. Have you used Citation bot lately? I cannot get it to work well for me: if I ask to commit edits, it won't do it. If I ask it to not commit edits, it strips all of the <ref> out of the article, and I have to pick through the results by hand.

(Unless there is a secret working copy of it somewhere? I use http://toolserver.org/~verisimilus/Bot/DOI_bot/)

Thanks! —hike395 (talk) 07:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The way I've been doing it is described at User:Citation bot/use#If blocked. It takes a little while to do, but it works. For the issue you describe, the ref tags are restored when you view the source (ctrl+U on Firefox, if that's your browser). Awickert (talk) 07:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

PS - I use the same copy of the bot as you do per those instructions. Awickert (talk) 07:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

That's just what I needed to know, thanks! —hike395 (talk) 08:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Article reviewing

Hey. Since you did good reviewing the 2007–2008 Nazko earthquakes article, are you willing to review other articles that I might bring to FAC? There is at least two articles I am willing to put effort into for FA class, one of which I have already started. The Milbanke Sound Group on the Coast of BC has been one of my areas of interest recently and I looked for as such information as I could. But it turns out the volcanic group has not been studied too much so there is not much known about it. This includes its age, last activity and origin(s). I posted all the information I found about it in the article, so most if not everything known about the group is in the article. The other article I am willing to turn into an FA is the Magic Mountain hydrothermal field on the Explorer Ridge west of Vancouver Island, which is currently only a stub. I will do a major expansion to this article when I am done collecting information to change it to at least B class if not more. Lots of the content is public domain so it can likely be just be copied and reworded a bit. BT (talk) 23:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you appreciated the review. My answer is going to have to be "yes and no". I have a backlog on my Wiki to-do-list (and that doesn't include the articles that I want to work on), I have a lot of real-life work (yesterday and today were my wiki-time, and are now coming to a close), and I'm going to be out in the field for a while this month. For these reasons, I won't have time to go through your whole list now, but I will do my best to look at them one by one as needed. Just ping me before you take them to FAC, and I'll review them to the best of my ability. That way when they're up at FAC, the science will be double-checked already (you and me), so it should be an easy slide into promotion with just stylistic and MoS things. Awickert (talk) 02:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. But the thing is that I might nominate the Milbanke Sound Group shortly because I don't know what else to do with it. Most of the edits I have done to that article lately are minor like adding links and small sentences. Magic Mountain doesn't need anything for now because it's nowhere near FA class. BT (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

OK - feel free to nominate it. I will go through it within the week. Awickert (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I just nominated the Milbanke Sound Group. BT (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'll take a look, Awickert (talk) 18:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I replied on the candidate. Also, I'm not sure you, but I have been thinking about bringing the List of Northern Cordilleran volcanoes to FAC. BT (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

See my comments: there are sourcing and date issues. I'm swamped at the moment, but feel free to add the list to the bottom of my "community to-do list". Awickert (talk) 19:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Geology review

Did I ever ask you to review (or did you from a generic request) the geology sections of Everglades and St. Johns River? If not, are you willing to do so? I was informed that you are somewhat willing to give advice on geology matters. I read geology texts with bravado and fortitude, but the reality is that I usually end up saying, "Dude, what?" to the sources and biting my lip, praying, and holding my breath while I'm trying to interpret it. I appreciate what you can do. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 14:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You haven't asked, but I'm happy to do it. However, I'm leaving for the land of no internet tomorrow and won't be back for over a week (see top of page). But fortunately they're not being reviewed as FAC's or for good article status, so there's no immediate rush and I hope you don't mind that it will be a while.

I feel the same trepidation when I read articles on aqueous or gas-state chemistry. Whoosh, over my head, all too often. Awickert (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Land of No Internet? You lucky bastard. Take me with you, please. Everglades is GA and St. Johns River is FA already, but it wouldn't hurt to get a specialist to double-check to make sure I didn't mess up on a grand scale. Thanks. Whenever you can get to it would be super. --Moni3 (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Land of No Internet is attainable with willpower and the pulling of a plug. I sometimes just avoid my computer; too much other good stuff to do!

And no problem - I'll get back to you the week after next or so. Awickert (talk) 16:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thegoodlocust

I'm in self-imposed purdah on most aspects of climate change editing, including discussion of conduct issues. However upon seeing your report on this editor at ANI my first thought was that you might want to consider taking it to the climate change probation enforcement page.

There are without doubt some editors who openly soap-box a minority science position, most of them from a state of ignorance. I encountered this editor yesterday and was shocked at his candor about his own motives.

A case can probably be made that he is engaged in an attempt to subvert Wikipedia's science coverage to advance his favored position to the detriment of the neutral point of view, and that his hostile and warlike posture is a calculated gambit. Such a case could probably be best made, and appreciated, by those who have now devoted a month or so to observing Thegoodlocust and other problem editors at work on Wikipedia. Tony Sidaway aka --Tasty monster 16:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tasty monster - thanks for the note. I took it to AN/I because (a) I thought some fresh voices would be nice, and (b) I think that its scope is beyond climate probation and into what-is-generally-not-a-good-thing-to-do-on-Wikipedia. Regarding the former concern, I'm afraid that if it were the same old faces, the thread would become the same old scrum. But I've been out of the loop for a while (and you haven't), so if you think that my reasons for putting it on AN/I aren't that good, please post here again telling me to move it and I will do so. Awickert (talk) 17:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I think your instincts in seeking fresh eyes are excellent. I even agree that there would be a scrum (though you must know that posting on ANI isn't much insurance against that!)

But my feeling is that the heavy lifting will be done, in the end, either within the probation or by arbcom. It should probably end up there, if you reach no resolution at ANI and still want the community to act on the matter. Sorry for the formatting nightmare, Opera mini is a little brain-damaged when it comes to posting. --Tasty monster 17:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

All good points, so I'll move it. Someone else shared your sentiment as well, so I removed it when the bus stopped by a wifi hotspot. Thanks for taking the time to let me know.

(The formatting looks fine here...?) Awickert (talk) 17:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I got lucky with the formatting. I anticipated having it appear as a separate section titled "More", but it eventually posted without the section title. Weird. --TS 19:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of luck and happenstance, I can't believe that 2/0 was doing the same thing at the same time! Makes me feel redundant... Awickert (talk) 19:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Made me feel stupid, both of you beat me while I as writing up mine. I was half done with a pre-write until I saw your post. I think Lar wants to indef ban TGL, no one's provided evidence, and I'm a bit confused. Anyways I've raised a case against ChildofMidnight. Looking through diffs takes a while, how long did it take you? ChyranandChloe (talk) 00:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

A long time. And I realized I don't like it, so I'm not doing it again. I think I'm giving up on hoping for peace, harmony, or even more useful comments than whiny brawling on the global warming talk page. I'm sick of the attitudes, and that many of the loudest voices don't care about the science. So I'm planning on spending more time on article building and reviewing FAC's. Hope you don't go too insane there. (And if I have talk page stalkers: please prove me wrong. It's never too late.) Awickert (talk) 02:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

PS - get away from Wikipedia and watch the Olympics - opening ceremony in 5 minutes! Awickert (talk) 02:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the article could use more social science, but I don't think I'm in a position to ask. Right now I'm almost finished with Microeconomics and about to start Physics E&M. Finals coming up as well, and as it turns out, you seem to have more free time than me. I hope I don't go insane there as well.

About T:GW, a good deal of their motivation comes from responses to their post, which is what drives forums. We're not a forum. Unless it's clearly about an edit to the article, nothing bad happens (unless its tied to your ego) when you ignore them. This doesn't imply a complete abandonment of talk, just to remember what we're here for. ChyranandChloe (talk) 08:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Duly noted. Will restrict cynicism. Hope exams went well, Awickert (talk) 18:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Logs and specks

I had to look up logs and specks. Interesting. I haven't heard that phrase used.

Old fruit my be acceptable in Britain, but it is a mean slur in the U.S., equivalent to calling someone and old fag, and not the cigarette kind. So it should probably be avoided alltogether here since there are editors from all parts of the English speaking world. Among friends, maybe it should get a pass, but accusations of malicious editing were also leveled that got the same defense. So there does seem to be a double standard. On the other hand, I understand that there are cultural and language differences. For example I find the whole "have a cup of tea" thing insulting, that doesn't fly where I come from. Maybe it has something to do with us dumping the lot of it into Boston Harbor? I don't know. I have noticed British editors often misunderstand my patented brand of American gringo humor, so I guess it goes both ways. Well, cheerios. Enjoy your tea and crumpets. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

OK. "Old fruit" and "fruit" are completely different entities in my mind. But if you feel offended by something and present that to the person who made the comment in an assuming good faith way, then they should respect your feelings. Since the phrase is not obviously insulting, there would be no way for the person who made the comment to know it offended you until you said so (at which point they should stop). That's my general thought, and doesn't have any bearing on the debate that I know nothing about. How is "have a cup of tea" insulting? It just seems quaint to me... maybe I'm just oblivious.

By the way, I'm surprised that you haven't heard William quote the bible with all of your debates with him.

I'm from the US of A too, incidentally. Midwestern boy. Awickert (talk) 09:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hah! ! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Uff da? Awickert (talk) 10:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Fruit (slang) suggests my understanding is very common. Perhaps it's too cold up where you are for there to be any? ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Heh, no, see above, 'old fruit' is filed separately from 'fruit' in my brain. Awickert (talk) 17:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

VIO

cf Talk:Venezuela_Information_Office#VIO_employees_discussion, and please exercise BLP caution and do not rush reinsert contentious material without sufficient discussion. thanks. Rd232 ^talk 17:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

In addition, I refer you to a previous BLPN discussion in which you yourself were involved: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive60#Venezuela_Information_Office - if you have changed your mind, please explain why on the relevant talk page. Rd232 ^talk 19:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

And the current discussion Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Listing_employees_of_an_organisation. Rd232 ^talk 12:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notes; I imagine that this has gone stale by now but I'll go back and read the history if I comment there again. Awickert (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hawaii hotspot

Well how'd it go? You had ~2 months. ResMar 19:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I sort of lost motivation because you didn't seem very interested and neither was I. Awickert (talk) 02:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Venezuela Invitation

Thank you for your recent contributions to one of Wikipedia's Venezuela-related articles. Given the interest you've expressed by your edits, have you considered joining WikiProject Venezuela? We are a group of editors dedicated to improving the overall quality of Wikipedia's Venezuela-related content. If you would like to join, simply add your name to the list of participants. Please see our list of open tasks for ideas on where to get started. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page. We look forward to working with you in the future! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for note - I might join, or just continue to lurk. Awickert (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

Hi Awickert:

Thank you so much for your support and well expressed commentary on the recent unblock action on my behalf. As a completely outside uninvolved editor, your views are not suspect of being partisan, and carry weight. Brews ohare (talk) 01:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

No thanks are necessary. Your work is too valuable to this project for me to have felt OK staying silent. And by the way, thanks for your excellent new geology figures. Now that you're unblocked, I hope to see them popping up on relevant articles. Awickert (talk) 02:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

I sent a message to David Tombe here, but it's really to you all. Thank you for your support, not because I give a rip about being punished by a bunch of bottom-feeding wannabe politicians, but because you all see and recognize something that was totally wrong and against the spirit of Wikipedia, and you rose up and stated such long before I even thought about it. Trusilver 18:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Pre-FAC?

Hey Andy, I'm preparing Cerro Azul (Chile volcano) for FAC and it needs some looking over. Would you mind reviewing it to see if it's comprehensive and make sure that it makes sense? You helped me a lot with Nevado del Ruiz and I'd be glad to get your help again. :) ceranthor 16:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Timely edit conflict, Ceranthor: I was just coming here to give Aw a heads up, after seeing mention on Malleus's page! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Sure - I'll add it to the to-do list. Once I look it over and check everything out, I'll be able to add a quick support as soon as you nominate. Awickert (talk) 16:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Lol, Sandy, great minds think alike. ;) ceranthor 16:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Slowly plowing through the initial parts. I'm not too familiar with the setting, and there seems to be some confusion (understandable - I'm confused too!) about what features are causing the volcanism. So you may have to wait a little while for me to dredge the literature and get through it. :-( Awickert (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Alright, sounds good. I'll be on for a bit to make sure the Chili earthquake article doesn't get out of hand. ceranthor 18:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good and thanks for watching out for that. I don't think I'll need your help at the moment though (I'm still trying to figure everything out), but I'll be sure to get in touch if I do. Awickert (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the help, by the way! (The earthquake actually took place in Maule Region - hopefully it won't set off the volcano! :) ceranthor 18:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

You know, I don't know much about the connection between deep earthquakes and volcanism. My guess is that nothing will happen immediately due to the subducting slab's motion (melt needs to propagate upwards), but I imagine that any motion along a fault that is by a magma chamber would provide quite a bit of heat and a conduit to the surface. I don't really know! Awickert (talk) 18:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

But the last eruption of Mount Fuji may have been set off by the 1707 Hōei earthquake, there is a plausible link involving stress changes. Oh, and hi to both of you, sorry to butt in. Mikenorton (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Hahaha, no problem. If you want to help, you're more than welcome. ;) ceranthor 19:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't be sorry! Real world examples are always welcome to ground my rampant speculation. Now that eruption is on my reading list. (Off topic - I got a good picture of a plumose fracture structure that I'm going to put on commons.) Awickert (talk) 19:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Look forward to seeing it. Mikenorton (talk) 22:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) So how are we looking towards FAC? The article's improved sh*tloads since last week. When I do nominate, be prepared to be a co-nom or something. You'll at the very least be recognized. ceranthor 22:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

If you can wait until the end of the weekend for me to finish looking through it, it'd be appreciated. I'd be honored to be a co-nom if you think I've put in the work to deserve it, or in order to coerce me to do a really really good job, but I really don't look for recognition. But be warned: if I am a co-nom, I won't be able to support! Awickert (talk) 23:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

What I previously thought was wrong, unfortunately. Would you object to nominating this weekend instead of next? If not, then we'd have to wait until April (either's fine for me). Unfortunately, I am extraordinarily busy for the remainder of the month and will be unable to keep track of it after next weekend, and that's not fair to you or Ruslik, as I asked for your guys' help in the first place. ceranthor 21:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: the map you downloaded last night for me

The title I asked for gives the wrong map.

Last year you had downloaded a similar map with a VERY similar map. Hyper-linking brings up your map, rather than mine.

In Commons, under Geology of Minnesota:

   5th row, 1st column is your original map
  11th row, 1st column is my map.

I don't know how to rename.

Also, I downloaded another map and put it in the Geology of Minnesota - Grand Portage route. If you see any problems, I'd appreciate knowing about it.

Thank you for your invaluable help!! Bettymnz4 (talk) 23:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you give me the filenames? Row and column are a function of browser window size, so I can't figure out which files you're talking about. By "VERY similar map", do you mean "similar name"? Awickert (talk) 01:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Yours is titled "Geologic map NE Minn 24,982,255 bytes

  "Mine" is titled "Ne mn geologic map,j  189,672 bytes  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettymnz4 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC) Bettymnz4 (talk) 01:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I suppose I could move one, but the names are different, so you should be able to select one or the other as the image for the article. Is that the problem? Awickert (talk) 01:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Another question from Bettymnz4 (talk) 00:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

the web address for the second map is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Grand_Portage_route.JPG

As of now, it doesn't availabe. Does it take a while for an image to be "posted" to Commons?

thanks again

I see it there now; maybe there was some sort of blip on the server(?). Awickert (talk) 01:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

When I enter the address into Google, I can pull the map up. However, it doesn't show up in Geology of Minnesota. Is that why it isn't linked to my Human history portion of Rove region?

Again, thank you for your help.Bettymnz4 (talk) 01:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't look like it was added to Geology of Minnesota. If you mean the category "Geology of Minnesota", that is because category links require two brackets. But it isn't a geological map and it doesn't show geology, so I'm going to remove those. I'd actually suggest that you add images to Wikimedia Commons, so they're usable on Wikimedia projects in all languages. It's also easier to upload there.

It isn't showing up in the Rove Region article because it's caps sensitive, so I capitalized "JPG". Awickert (talk) 05:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on this issue. This formatting is all new to me; I think I begin to get it and I don't!! Anyway, now that you point it out, I agree it's not a geologic map; thank you for catching and correcting that.

I tried to add that map to Wikimedia Commons. Without you going to alot of work and effort, can you tell me why it didn't upload there?

I'm aware of case sensitivity, but my eyes didn't see this! Bettymnz4 (talk) 17:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it didn't work without knowing more specifics. What I usually do is click "upload" --> work of US government (for USGS stuff), and fill out the form, and it works. Is this what you did?

Don't worry about the formatting, and thanks for all the work you've put in adding info here! Awickert (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Sources

I was using the wrong source for that information and have corrected it. Thank you for the offer on sources. I may be taking you up on that. Cla68 (talk) 01:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

OK - glad you found the right source. I will be of more use on finding sources than I will be in providing insight. Awickert (talk) 06:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Re Thanks

Ah yes, you must be referring to the rock dab... you're welcome. Had you been a new user however (I checked), I probably would have reverted that page back to a redirect, being as it's a dab page with only two items. Regardless, thanks for the kind words. Happy editing! -- WikHead (talk) 08:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

What do you think?

Well the rewrite seems to be a little bit more than to just "attributed and expected effects". What do you think of this discussion: Talk:Global warming#Rewrite of attributed and expected effects, and other changes? ChyranandChloe (talk) 23:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Pleasantly productive, though like any other major proposed change, it needs several good pairs of eyes. I'm glad that you're offering yours. Awickert (talk) 04:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, Enscot's a good man, although he reminds me of Andrewjlockley sometimes, if you remember him. I cited TMLutas to climate change probation, and there's a discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources#Impact factor usable? You know I'm kind of waiting for summer to begin so that the hot weather will rebuttle all the denalism, because all the back and forth is really killing the good faith. I finally finished economics. In the end I think all this is the price we pay for the encyclopedia, but of course the marginal benefit balances the costs. So the bottom line is "there's no free lunch", I like Wikipedia an all, but it isn't free, we pay in terms of time wasted on the self-serving arrogance of some people. How is it going on your end? ChyranandChloe (talk) 06:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I do indeed remember him. I haven't been keeping track of the global warming scene as much though. Congrats on finishing econ; I'd always wanted to take microeconomics in college, but that's one of those things I never had room for. You're going to college next year, right? Hope things are exciting in that direction as well.

I decided that it is more valuable to the encyclopedia that I work on topics in which I am something of an expert than to argue on t:GW. So I've been doing quite a bit more geology. I would like to get into some solid/fluid mechanics too, but that actually takes some thinking to write :-). And I'm also keeping busy with research and life. I just found that my productivity and happiness were inversely proportional to the amount of time I spent in those realms. So I decided to ignore everything but major-ish-looking crises. I'll keep my eyes on this for ya though. Awickert (talk) 08:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you so much for taking care of the alt text. I'm trying to find that one image - there are plenty that look like it on flickr, but none are it. ceranthor 17:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

By making me co-nom, you made me obligated to help :-)! If you can't find the sourcing for that image, I'll see if I can one; unfortunately, I know no one who works in near that volcano, but I have hope. Awickert (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The FAC looks to be shaping up, hopefully we'll get some more supports in there. I've provided the ref... do you need a copy of the Stern paper? ceranthor 02:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

You already gave it to me (thanks), but unfortunately I had it on my other computer and have been migrating my emails so I wasn't sure where to look for it. I agree that it's going well: I think that I was harder on us in that section than any of the reviewers have been. Seems mostly to be kindly copyeditors picking nits. Awickert (talk) 03:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Heads up

I'll be sending this to you and Ruslik. Unfortunately, I'll be on vacation this Thursday morning so I'll be leaving you guys for a week to fend for yourselves on the FAC. Seeing the excellent work you've already done, I think you'll be fine. Hopefully the article will pass while I'm gone! ;) ceranthor 11:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Lithology

Hi Andy,

As it seems that we're the only ones interested, how about we work on this together? I've started on a draft at User:Mikenorton/Sandbox, although there's very little content as yet. I'm thinking of this in terms of the experience I gained from logging hundreds of metres of Devonian red beds and metamorphic/igneous basement core back in the early 90s, where the description was based on a standard set of characteristics of: base lithology with qualifiers of colour, grain size, grain/clast shape, bedding/fabric type/scale, small scale structures etc. If you have any thoughts on this I would be grateful and feel free to get in there, rename sections, move stuff around and add as much content as you like. Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 07:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a great idea (though I pity you for the well logging). Sorry for not replying earlier - there are people in town who I only get to see once every other year or so, and so I'm spending my days with them. They'll be here until the weekend. I'll make edits and comments in your sandbox as I have time. Awickert (talk) 04:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The core was actually fascinating as it was mostly through a cyclical lacustrine sequence and plenty of small-scale fault zones to keep my structural interest up. Regarding the lithology article, I note that you're really busy right now. I'm also busy and about to go off for a week's falling over in Norway (I never do it often enough to improve), so don't expect major changes soon. Also I've been distracted into working on creating another couple of articles; on the strain ellipsoid and the Jan Mayen Microcontinent (currently a stub incorrectly describing it as a oceanic microplate). Still, no need to hurry, we'll get there in the end. Have a good Easter break (I assume that you have one over there), Mikenorton (talk) 21:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, that core sounds much cooler than what I've looked at! Enjoy skiing - I'd love to go to Norway sometime and have never been. I also XC ski raced in high school; much of the first year was faceplanting. I'll have to check out those articles when I get the chance. I'm currently crossing items off of 3 post-it notes in front of me (taxes, homework, bills, recycling, etc.) and it's just about midnight here.

Actually had break last week, but enjoy your Easter holiday! This summer I should have time to get through my queue of stuff to do here. Awickert (talk) 05:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I was working at Dounreay with its Orcadian lake deposits, while at Sellafield, the other site being worked on (this was for nuclear waste repository investigations), they cored thousands of metres of monotonous Sherwood sandstone group, so I consider myself lucky. The strain ellipsoid and Jan Mayen articles are in my other two sandboxes. I was going to ask you to look over the strain ellipsoid stuff when it was a bit further advanced, but it's not worth your time yet. Thanks for the best wishes, Mikenorton (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad that you got the interesting core... when I taught sed/strat, it was a coastal environment / tidal flat with everything bioturbated and a few coals. I took a wild guess and typed in "Sandbox2" and "Sandbox3", so I found the articles already! I'd be happy to help with the strain ellipsoid; I love the diagram, by the way. I could write a strain tensor / eigenvector part if you want, and help with anything else. I'm going to try to pump out a draft of a paper by Wednesday night, so I should have time after you get back from your week of fun in the snow. Awickert (talk) 22:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm heading off first thing tomorrow, so time to hit the hay, I've added a bit on mineralogy to the Lithology work-in-progress. Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Hope you have fun! If I have time (probably not much, Ceranthor's work on David A. Johnson is more time-sensitive), I'll tool away on it. Awickert (talk) 01:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Snowball Earth infobox

Since you appear to be one of the contributors to this article, I thought I would point you to this proposal. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! Awickert (talk) 17:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Project?

Taking a different route this time, perhaps we could collaborate on David A. Johnston? I would be really psyched if we could get it to FA for the 30th anniversary of the eruption (May 18, I think). What do you think? ceranthor 23:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

We've gotta do it. I've gotta find time (see top, plus I'm traveling across the country and finishing the semester this month). As soon as I send this paper off to the coauthors, I'm on it. Awickert (talk) 01:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Sweet! ceranthor 13:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I've made some progress on this. ceranthor 23:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

That's an understatement. I screwed something up in a figure, so this paper is taking longer to finish... but due to the urgency, this is still near the top of my priority list. Data will be crunching tonight, so I might have some forced free time to do this (and/or my planned experiment in homemade pizza sauces / taste test with the housemates as my victims). Awickert (talk) 01:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Sweet; thanks. Apart from a bit of research for a project, I should have some more time to dig up info for this and perhaps add another section, though I'm not sure what else to include. ceranthor 19:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Not sure either at the moment; I'll tell you if I think of something. For now, I'll just polish the prose and put in details; not enough time to do real research. Awickert (talk) 22:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Garibaldi Volcanic Belt

Hey. Are you able to review this article sometime? I just remade and expanded this article today so it could use some looking at before I do something with it like bring it to FAC. BT (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Sometime, yes. Soon, not likely. :-( Looks impressive, though! Awickert (talk) 23:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Azul

Cerro Azul was promoted today! Thank you for all the amazing work you put into helping me research, polish prose, and polish it again so that it was accurate. Without you and Ruslik (and of course Malleus, Ruhrfisch, and any other copyeditors), it would never have gotten this far! I'm looking forward to improving Johnston even more; he was a great guy who really deserves a great article, and we're on the way to that. ceranthor 23:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

All right - I'm back to life here. Going to drop a new thread on your talk page about David Johnston so we can have a consolidated discussion over at your place. Glad we can plant the flag on the blue hill and move on. : ) Awickert (talk) 23:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

When do you think we should put it up? I'd say it's nearly ready pending that information from the book; I'll be too busy this weekend, and next weekend I'm supposed to run at RfA. Shall we start, say, Friday of next weekend? ceranthor 12:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Next weekend is bad for me; I'm out of town, and when I get back, I'll have a boatload of work until the beginning of May. But if I don't end up being a co-nom (not sure I've done enough work to deserve that yet, though by the end of this weekend, I may have contributed significantly there), then my restrictions are less of an issue: since I'd have taken care of all my concerns, I would support, obviously. Awickert (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

More on Johnston

I'm winding down for a few hours, so I thought I'd point you to some more thoughts I've put on the article talk page. I'd like to get some fedback on the other pictures I've found before uploading, as it would be more efficient to upload pictures that are useful, rather than borderline one. If you have time, could you let me know what you think, and which images are still needed and it is best to concentrate on? Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 20:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

OK - I saw the pictures, but I didn't respond because I didn't have much of an opinion. But the ones you found are fabulous! I'll take a harder look and give you some feedback. Awickert (talk) 20:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Awickert, the pics are simply excellent. This has been a fun collaboration to take part in, and just so you know, you two are both going to be on the nomination slip. :) ceranthor 22:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

OK - sounds good! I am going to be finishing up the last couple issues I have, hopefully tonight. With that, and the incorporation of some of Carcharoth's content, I think we'll be there. I'll comment on the talk page there when I'm satisfied with the article. Awickert (talk) 00:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Listed at FAC. ceranthor 23:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Megamullion

Hi, just ran across this article, Megamullion, and did some fixin', the article still needs work. Added a couple of refs, but don't have access to either of them - just abstracts, look like interesting articles. I see that you had edited it last fall - so thought with all your free time... :) Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 23:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Just moved it to the more commonly referenced Oceanic core complex. Vsmith (talk) 02:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping and the move. Added it to my to-do list, which is starting to look a lot like my garage (and my bedroom): full of unfinished projects. One of these days I'm going to learn to use the arc welder that my friend dropped off... Cinco de mayo is the date that I become free of my classes, so you can expect some action on my part shortly thereafter; research permits a more flexible schedule. Awickert (talk) 08:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

David A Johnston

David A. Johnston passed! Excellent work! Now we just have to get through TFA/R... and there's already an article being considered for May 18. :( ceranthor 19:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Fantastic! But I don't see anything requested for that day or that has been scheduled. So as long as we work quickly, I think we're in the clear. Awickert (talk) 21:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

A question has been asked here about whether you have had an FA you have worked on as TFA. Would you know the answer to that question? Carcharoth (talk) 16:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, answered there. Unfortunately, I am disqualified. Awickert (talk) 00:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments on the talk page. I was pretty excited to find some amazing images in a source I hadn't seen before. See here. So I wanted to point these out to you and see what you think. Carcharoth (talk) 23:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow - the eruption sequence is amazing. It gives me a new perspective on what these things can do. I'll comment more on the article talk page. Awickert (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

That was a stand up thing you did there. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

No need for the thanks; I just register my observations. That conversation seemed benign, and even beneficial, to me. I'm guessing that the ban didn't occur to Stephan or BozMo either, as they were talking with you. But as a piece of advice for something I noticed: would probably be a better idea not to complain actively about the topic ban itself. Consider it a blessing: little personal good comes in the GW arena of Wikipedia. Awickert (talk) 02:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I do actually, sort of, consider it a blessing, which one of the reasons I haven't tried to have it overturned. I'm not sure why WMC wants me back so bad though - if I get pissed off I will fight the ban tooth and nail. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Not that you'll necessarily care for my advice, but fighting tooth and nail is generally bad, unless done in a methodical hope-to-be-productive sort of way, in which case it has a chance to be helpful. Of course, my POV is to consider the things that I do outside of article space to be much less helpful than article-work, so take that thought for what it is. Awickert (talk) 00:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For your great work on helping to get the David A. Johnston article to FA status, you deserve, at a minimum, this barnstar. The article was excellent and it is contributions like this that make wikipedia a useful, insightful, and topical source. Please keep up the great work! Remember (talk) 16:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much; I haven't seen you around before, and it's exciting to write an article that's read and enjoyed! Awickert (talk) 01:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Awickert and Ceranthor, David Johnston was one of those TFAs that makes one proud of Wiki-- which doesn't happen often enough!! I was ashamed and embarrassed once when we ran an article about a deceased person on her birthday, in which we made unnecessary, gratuitous comments about her mother-- imagine the mother having to see that on her lost daughter's birthday! Your work restores my faith in the possibilities to highlight good work on the main page. Congratulations! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Are You Employed, Directly by an Oil Company, or Indirectly (as a Sub-contractor or employee of a Subcontractor), by an Oil Company?

Or were you formerly employed directly by an Oil Company, or indirectly (as a Sub-contractor or employee of a Subcontractor) by an oil company?

69.171.160.130 (talk) 10:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Your comments on that talk page were not useful; there is a whole article on the spill here to which you can contribute. It is clearly a very big deal, but in the long history of British Petroleum, I think that it has been given enough room.

Currently, we don't know a lot of the details of what caused the failure. These are the kinds of things that would warrant attention in an encyclopedia. Hindsight will likely see the section expanded.

And to the questions that you pose here here: no. It is also rude to make accusations against people because they disagree with you. Awickert (talk) 15:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I made no accusation. I asked a question. And it was a reasonable question.

This would apply to Wikipedia guidelines about the neutrality of Editorship of the article-- and does fall under Wikipedia policy.

So since the article applies to your Wikipedia-required neutrality as an editor-- I'd like to ask what the answer is.

Please be aware that a false answer could easily be revealed later by a criminal fraud investigation or a civil investigation.

Back on your stated concern about treating BP fairly--

It's very odd that an article about the BP corporation (which has been found by the US government to be responsible for the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster, and so is way past being merely a 'suspect' in the disaster) would 1) have the section about the current disaster given a hard-to-recognize, and hence hard for most people to find, section title, and 2) that this section, pertaining to the worst oil disaster in U.S, history would constantly be pushed to the bottom of the list of environmental mishaps.

Common sense, not paranoia, raises legitimate questions about the article being aggressively spun.

75.166.179.110 (talk) 16:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

"Please be aware that a false answer could easily be revealed later by a criminal fraud investigation or a civil investigation" - whatever happened to assuming good faith? You are entitled to your ideas of a conspiracy theory, but not to go against consensus in the article in question. Accusing other editors of spinning the article aggressively without any kind of proof is downright rude as Awickert says above. If you're interested, I work as a consultant for various oil and gas companies, but I can expect you to assume good faith that my edits are neutral (not that I've ever edited the BP article) unless you have proof to the contrary. Mikenorton (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear IP: I gave the answer to your question. Asking it again insinuates that I am lying, and threatening a civil suit will get you indefinitely banned from this place.

The wording of your talk page post, and this continued badgering, suggests that either someone agrees with you, or they are part of the conspiracy. This doesn't work in a collaborative environment.

The disaster is a complicated deal with lots of finger-pointing. BP is taking the financial burden. The list is in chronological order.

You know who I am. You can use Google to find as much about me as is listed on the internet. Saving you time and giving you the juicy part: from time to time I work on sedimentary processes with people with at the EM research company (not exploration or production), though never as their employee or contractor. So now that I have been so kind as to address the fact that you think that I am a lying oil PR person, who are you? Awickert (talk) 17:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

He's a witch! Burn him! William M. Connolley (talk) 18:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Timely: though I'm not at The Full Monty yet, my python is improving. Hmmm... I wonder if that insinuates something horrible in en-UK. Awickert (talk) 18:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Awickert, I see that you've got friends here in the oil business.

Have a great day!

75.166.179.110 (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, I'm a noted anti-green campaigner, don't y'know. Or even the Antichrist William M. Connolley (talk) 21:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

We all know how big you ego is, but gain some perspective please. You are at best a minor demon. --FormerIPOnlyEditor (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

So now the IP think's that (s)he is right (in spite of the fact that many/most geologists are tied to oil or mining somehow), WMC is promoted to "minor demon" (is that a position in the Green Party?), and I can go about my business (namely, trying not to kill myself with HF). So we all win, except maybe the IP, who can still be blocked for legal threats... and still doesn't have the cojones to provide the name of my accuser. But I don't plan on pressing the issue, so we all win for now. Awickert (talk) 21:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

"Antichrist" to "minor demon" is not a promotion! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I was taking closer to the devil to be down. But in a different coordinate system or by taking the absolute value... Awickert (talk) 22:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

HF? That's nasty stuff! Everyone in my second year university chemistry class (years ago now) talked about it in hushed tones after the safety lecture where it was mentioned as an example. Carcharoth (talk) 03:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Terrifying stuff. But I'll be extracting beryllium-10 from quartz for cosmogenic radionuclide exposure age dating (i.e., to see how long these things have been exposed on the surface). 10Be is produced in quartz by spallation products of cosmic rays (the oxygen turns into 10Be); this rate is known as a function of latitude and the area of the sky at the sample's position. It also decays with a known decay constant. The combination of the two can be used to figure out how long an object has been exposed at the surface... it is often used for glacial retreat. Awickert (talk) 04:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Awesome, isn't it? That the effects here on Earth of cosmic rays, travelling for thousands of years through space, can be used to track exposure due to glacial melting (and other things). Now, why don't we have an article on this: cosmogenic radionuclide exposure age dating? :-) Would it be suitably placed under radiometric dating? Carcharoth (talk) 05:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Because of User talk:Awickert#List for others :-). The "list for me" is woefully incomplete, but it is there in my head.

The article will be cosmogenic radionuclide dating: it can't fit under standard radiometric dating because there is both production and decay of cosmogenic radionuclides, and it can also be used to date how long something has been buried. I will get there. Awickert (talk) 08:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

YEC fear

There is a certain user who is worrying me about their YEC-led edits to geology articles... I am no admin, but is there anything constructive we can do to temper the user? Or am I just overreacting/paranoid? I am afraid of him slipping some veiled YEC propaganda in an article under our noses. I only come to you because you seem to be one of the heavy hitters in geology on Wikipedia. Qfl247 (talk) 22:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey there. Just got back from being out-of-town.

The short answer: you are right. The user is acting in good faith, but knows nothing about geology ('cept what the YEC folks say, which often ranges from misrepresentation to absurdity). I tried talking to the user; they are nice, but seemed more interested in the philosophical argument than the mechanics of WP and seem to think that there is scientific merit in the YEC stuff, but it is being squashed by biased scientists.

So I will check out recent edits and then get back to you more. Awickert (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah.... "remove bias" and related sanctimonious claims are generally a bad sign, especially when applied by someone who obviously doesn't know the topic on which they are "removing bias". I left a much stronger message on their talk page. I hate being "that guy", but I think that unless something is said now, more time will be wasted and more frustration will be had on both sides.

Problem #1 is that I have yet to meet a YEC who has learned enough geology/physics/chemistry to have good arguments; never read anything by one either. Awickert (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, especially for being "that guy"! I am no admin... I have to rely on users such as yourself with more chops to resort to drastic measures if needed. I got sucked into the debate as well; you are right that the way to fight it is with the rules of WP, not in an endless loop of arguments on deaf ears. I just hope that we don't have to resort to a semi-protect on certain pages... hopefully we can fend him off the old-fashioned way. Thanks again! Qfl247 (talk) 21:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Thanks for eliminating the debate on the talk pages with the WP:Noforum message... that was getting annoying!

That's what I hope. They seem like a reasonable person, so I really hope it doesn't get bad... I think it's a fundamental disconnect in background knowledge. I honestly hate doing stuff like that; it stresses me out. If all I did on WP was write articles, I would be much happier here. Awickert (talk) 21:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Really? That would actually seem fun, but I am an evil heathen. Maybe one day I'll get the power to do that kind of stuff, and then get sick of it too... Well anyways, it is always good to converse with another sed person on here. You do a great job, I hope people like that don't discourage you enough to back away from this. Qfl247 (talk) 22:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

We'll have to talk about seds at some point! I think that my problem is that I always am painfully aware that there is another human being on the other end of the line and I am conflicted between (a) bluntly laying out what goes on here (for efficiency), and (b) being nice to them. Awickert (talk) 04:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello! I appreciate you guys' honest efforts to remove fear-mongering and bias in the science articles (I know I am attempting to do the same thing from my perspective), but I do ask if you could consider my petition to include at least some of the answers that mainstream science has to YEC challenges. I admit that I am not a scientist, and my technical training is null, but I think it is okay for me to request more discussion of the debate in science articles. I am going to refrain from editing the traditional science articles, and will concentrate my efforts mainly on Catastrophism and other topics. Please fill me in on your efforts to increase the neutrality of the encyclopedia. You can debate with me on my talk page (talk) 03:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for being so good-natured thorough all of this. Unfortunately, I don't have the time or willingness to make this a project of mine: too many other things to do. There is a whole series of YEC related materials here that could be of interest to you. Awickert (talk) 04:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)