User talk:Chris.urs-o/archive1

empty Category Montane?

you added a couple of articles to this empty category, but never created it. I was wondering: what were you thinking of doing? hike395 (talk) 07:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The name "Montane" is a little bit odd --- are you thinking of any article related to mountains? How would that be different from Category:Mountains ? Or are you thinking of something else? hike395 (talk) 07:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I see what you're trying to do. Montane is a little too general: I think you want something like "Montane environment" or "Environment of mountains" or "Natural history of mountains" or some such. Let me search around in the category tree and see if I can find a natural place to put this category, and if there is some parallel structure where we can match the name.

You may be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Mountains, a group of people who collaborate on mountain articles. You're certainly welcome to join in.

Be back in a few minutes. hike395 (talk) 07:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I think the best thing to do is to create Category:Montane ecology (analogous to Category:Aquatic ecology), and make it be a child of both Category:Ecology and Category:Mountains. Does this sound good to you? I can help shuffle the articles around, if you'd like. hike395 (talk) 07:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

multi-lingual versions of GFDL at commons

Hi, Chris. I think you were asking about GFDL expressed in different languages over at commons? I believe that it is GFDL followed by the language code, i.e. {{GFDL-en}} for English, and {{GFDL-de}} for German. Did that answer your question, or did I misunderstand? —hike395 (talk) 15:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand now. There is a web-based tool at http://toolserver.org/~magnus/commonshelper.php that will move a (properly licensed) image from any of the language Wikipedias to commons. It has 2 modes: manual or direct transfer. In manual mode, you have to download the image you want to your computer, then the web tool creates a file for you at commons, and you upload the file. In direct-transfer mode (the one I use), the web tool transfers the file directly, but you need a TUSC account --- you can get one here: http://toolserver.org/~magnus/tusc.php —hike395 (talk) 18:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Sea Yungas & alike

A comment on this matter would be appreciated. • Rabo³ • 10:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Laki, Elgjá and their volcanic systems

It is wrong that Katla, Eldgjá and Grimsvötn belong to the same volcanic system. Eldgjá is belonging to the north-eastern part of the Katla system, while Lakagigar (Laki) is at the western part of the Grimsvötn system.

You are refering to this site "http://iceland.vefur.is/iceland_nature/Volcanoes_in_Iceland/katla.htm" which is a tourist information page. They have probably taken their information from wikipedia, and therefor incorrect. Use references with care!

Another reference you are using is from USGS "http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2008/08_11_26.html", a reliable source, but it does not support your statement. However it says " same mountainous region of Iceland "

Some links to support my allegation:

• Illustration of icelandic volcanic systems: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Volcanic_system_of_Iceland-Map-fr.svg
• Eruptive history: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V9X-4MBCBP7-1&_user=713833&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F2007&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1273709355&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000039878&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=713833&md5=48434738740f1b98232f33ed28457d38#secx20
• Elgjá eruption: http://www.springerlink.com/content/hm508730577p8688/fulltext.pdf. On page 3, "This eruption broke out along a 75 km long fissure that belongs to the Katla volcanic system in southern Iceland"

Will you please make corrections to the Wikipedia article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brigt (talk • contribs) 04:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. See discussion on the Laki site. You still can be wrong. Laki is southernly as Eldgjá. It does not matter if they are not the same mountainous region, as they could still have the same magma source. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

What I ment is that they are in the same mountainous region but do not share magma chamber. In this area of Iceland there are several vulcanic systems. In Vatnajökull glacier there are at least 3 big central volcanoes, Grimsvötn, Kverkfjöll and Bárðarbúnga, and they are only separated with some kilometers.

Of course I could be wrong, and there could be a connection between the magma chambers beneath Katla and Grimsvötn, but as far as I know it is common here in Iceland to think of those two as separate systems. However, for all I know these systems are that close, so the possibilty of them sharing magma chambers may be a subject for future studies by the geologists. Maybe a mail to the Institute of Earth sciences at the University of Iceland could clear this out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brigt (talk • contribs) 14:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Global warming controversy

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Talk:Global warming controversy, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

puffer fish copyright violation

thx for pointing out :) Cosmos 12:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC) u r welcome :) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 13:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Tephra

Hi, just to let you know, it's spelt tephra, not 'tethra'. Anyway, thanks for your edits to WP! --Guanlong wucaii 15:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thx Guanlongwucaii. I messed up that. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 15:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Volcanoes_by_Volcanic_Explosivity_Index

Hi Chris,

I see that you have an interest in Volcanic Explosivity Index. You may be interested in contributing at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_April_22#Category:Volcanoes_by_Volcanic_Explosivity_Index. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

U gots em?

U gots em sources? I dun got em sources. Give me em sources (assuming you have em). If u dun have em sources well welcome to the project anyway. uh... o/ ResMar 02:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not have more than is stated there. But some refs are complete on the links stated. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Even the text sources? Really? ...U got a scanner? :D ResMar 19:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I do not have a scanner. I collect citations, otherwise I keep losing them, and as I said some of the links are complete. Google does miracles :) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 20:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Okataina Volcanic Center

Category:Okataina Volcanic Center, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Liveste (talk • edits) 05:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Rollback

Per your request, I've granted you WP:ROLLBACK. Your use of edit summaries is all but non-existent, which makes it very hard for other editors to understand your edits (e.g. me trying to review your reverts) so at the very least this will help that. Remember, rollback is only for obvious, clear cases of vandalism. Let me know if you have any other questions, and please do try to use edit summaries more often! Cheers, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Thx, I know that I do not write the summary enough :p I'll try to improve it. First, I wanted to wait until flagged protection is live and there is less vandalism, but I got tired... --Chris.urs-o (talk) 16:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Heh, haven't we all... ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Wrong number

Many tx for catching that silly snafu of mine.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

U r welcome ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I was actually puzzled why Jimbo or one of his talk page followers hadn't jumped on the issue yet! Obviously, 2 cups of coffee were not sufficient for my Saturday.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

:) :p rofl --Chris.urs-o (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Whaddya know. That's all it took. Call the correct number, and he picks up.[1][2][3] Tx again.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

again, you are welcome :) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 05:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Resident Mario

I wondered if the IP was his, but figured better safe than sorry. However, do you have reason to be playing with his userpage? Because unless you are ResMar (in which case you should acknowledge that on both pages), you should probably just leave his page alone. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 18:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, sorry. I did not think it to end. I was chatting with him, that's why I moved it to his talk page... I reverted it, anyway now... Chris.mobile (talk) 09:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Re Wegener

• Moved to Re Wegener

More from Dave

Thank you for putting me onto the new discovery. It's the sort of thing we should be pointing out. I didn't know it previously and it is really hard to tell the baloney from the valid material on this encyclopedia. It often happens that new developments in research occur so we have to ready for that. Always to be at the level of Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 is not very useful to the public. Poor Mr. Strauss. His committment to what he supposed was the tried and true is touching. However, not eveything is tried and true so you need a certain amount of flexibility. The coin is a major piece of evidence, and it isn't just one coin. You simply do not find objects in layers that postdate those layers unless they are intrusive and the whole context indicates they are not. If we say that this is not conclusive then we have to toss out all of archaeology and there is no point at all in forensic archaeologists trying to prove anything in court. I'm sorry to offend Mr. Strauss. but he'll get over it or else he won't work on WP. That's beyond us here as long as he consents to follow the rules, which, I admit, take a while to learn. Nothing worth while is easy, not even the air and water. I am gratified to see the "good" stamp on the article but you know I have not yet finished with it. I'm taking a vacation on Avellino Eruption, as it bears on archaeology, a hobby of mine, but I will be back to finish the job. Thanks again, and I'll see you around. Dave (talk) 00:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thx. You are welcome. By the way, you are good, but people get offended very easily here if you admit it too openly ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, uh, Thanks. My impression is that people are going to get offended no matter what you do. Typically the nicer you are the more you invite abuse. At least half the time it is not a question at all of offending sincere people; your pretended opponent has another agenda and is trying to drive you away from his advertising or his ideological platform and is not being candid but is presenting a straw man. There you are worrying about how any human being can respond in this way and there he is worrying about how best to hurt your feelings so you will back off. My agenda can't be, to be as pleasing as possible to all editors. Don't you remember the story of the man walking beside a jackass? He meets successive neighbors and they each criticise him for his relation to the jackass and he responds to each - he rides the jackass, then carries the jackass and finally the jackass falls off a bridge and drowns. Having been a writer of technical manuals I have spent a life going through this scenario over and over and over. The best writing is done by those with a franchise to write. Franchises are by no mean easy to obtain. People aren't going to LET you write. That is why WP will never be a substitute for scholarly books and articles or a substitute for anything. It is a new and unique experiment. At present I have no confidence that it is working or are we not all just deluding ourselves? It is valuable to see to just what degree man really is a Peer Gynt, the myth-maker. Now, my agenda is quality and I regard truth as quality. I think I give editors a fair shake. When I discover that I may not have I apologize and try to make amends. That is the best I can do. You think too much of me. I am not in a popularity contest. Nothing good whether manuals or articles or books was ever written on the basis of that agenda. I usually lose my popularity contests; as I say, to try to be popular is to to invite abuse. If that is what this is all about then I expect to lose this one also. I think I warn you on my user page that I am an independent thinker. If that makes you uncomfortable then I say what I always say, do not associate with me. I don't need associates. Most of my would-be associates have been unable to stand up for what is right against social pressure. There are those who pull the strings of that pressure and can turn it as they will, this way and that. I do not regard them as good people. Once in a while I meet a true-blue friend and that is a pleasure indeed, but not often. I appreciate your help on the Vesuvius article. Thank you. As you were right, I probably will give you high consideration, not to win your approval, but because you were right and stuck to it. I cannot guarantee that you always will be right. I am not an administrator so my powers are limited. I intend to use whatever powers are given to me to achieve truth and excellence as WP defines it. If I offend anyone I am sorry. But, that does not change my intent. Now, I am over here because as I logged in I got a yellow message tag. It was linked to some material you were typing on my discussion page. But, when I go to that page, there is no sign of it. The material was on the etymology of tectonics. Are you trying to contact me? If you want a ref on the etymology of tectonics I suggest the Merriam Webster's Third International Dictionary, but any of the better ones will do. I do not know the state of your Greek and Latin (and don't care, really), but just about any of those dictionaries that are better than a word-list would be a good reference. If it turns out you are NOT asking me anything, just forget it. I will be back on Vesuvius and related probably before the end of the summer. You don't have to agree with me or be my buddy, pal, brother friend or associate. I'm looking for truth here and if you are we have something in common. Later.Dave (talk) 01:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thx for ur essay ;) Somebody complained about the origin of the word, and then I thought of u. I did not know who else to ask. Or how to solve the task. Mikenorton solved it with the Oxford Dictionary, that's why I deleted my question afterwards. Sorry for the nuisance. Here on volcanism/ geology/ bioquemistry it is quite quiet, right now. I'm happy that my edits seem to last a while, yet... ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 18:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Sockmaster blocked - thanks

Thanks for acting to solve the problem. Vsmith (talk) 19:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Suddendly, I couldn't see this power game anymore. It was too much harassment. I had to act, I tried, I asked for assistance, you helped as usual, thx. In two weeks time (rangeblocked 2 weeks), we might have a bad surprise... Actually, I only wanted to confirm scientifically that we are dealing with one and same User. I wanted to uncover whoelse was involved too... --Chris.urs-o (talk) 23:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

User talk:71.219.184.69 is only blocked for 24hrs. An endless writing... :s --Chris.urs-o (talk) 23:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Cites

The caps are pretty irrelevant (although there are good reasons for preferring them): |year=1993 |month=December|day=24| => |date=24 December 1993| is what the edit was for: "day" is not used any more. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 13:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC).

Thx --Chris.urs-o (talk) 14:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Laurentia

I've removed the long list of Basin and Range volcanism from the Laurentia article as undue weight and redundant with Large volume volcanic eruptions in the Basin and Range Province. Article sections need to be prose based whenever possible and long lists should be in separate list articles. I see the list article is missing the coordinate data that you had put in the Laurentia list -- haven't looked in detail yet for other differences. I will help include those coords in the list and other stuff not there as time allows. Vsmith (talk) 22:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, boss... Things grow... The list on Laurentia was born before Basin and Range Province#Volcanism and Large volume volcanic eruptions in the Basin and Range Province. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 03:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Latest on Vesuvius

Hello Chris. I'm sorry, I've been taking a break on Vesuvius. I did not complete my review. It still has some major changes to go, especially in the description, geology and etymology areas. I did not mean to abandon you to the wolves. I am coming back, and not too long from now. On that particular passage, that is the sort of thing I would just delete as unsubstantiated opinion. Words such as "was thought", "is believed", "scholars think" and the like are weasel words. Typically the thinker, believer and opiner is the WP editor. The recent letter by Wales and Snow points out that most of WP is editor opinion and that is true. This is a remarkable opportunity for the public to do some scholarly writing in a field that is otherwise completely closed and under tight control, but the public has to learn how to do it. I wouldn't mess around with that one, just delete it as unsubstantiated. I leave some of these things in, but only because I skim the most glaring misconceptions. Ciao. It's the finest day of the year here.Dave (talk) 11:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok. But... :) In this particular case, it is true... People tend to forget that a dormant forested volcano is still an active recharging volcano ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 11:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Rinjani

That improved things. Much tidier in the References section now. Felix505 (talk) 14:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The references r incomplete, in part, not so easy to fix... --Chris.urs-o (talk) 16:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Portal nom

Our Portal is on FP nom. Just a heads up. ResMar 20:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh and, um, you should write your name down here. We need a headcount and your nooging isn't listed. Cheers, ResMar 21:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh and Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of volcanoes in the Hawaiian – Emperor seamount chain/archive3 and Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Volcanoes. Sorry to bother you so much just keeping you current :) ResMar 23:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Bretz

Chris: I'm sure glad I noticed, because the bit you added on your user page about Bretz and Pardee being against Unformitarianism is wrong. I have been told (don't have any citeable sources for it) that one of the reasons the geological establishment rejected Bretz about the Columbia floods (they weren't called the Missoula floods until after Pardee made that connection) was because it smacked of Catastrophism. ("Floods", forsooth!) Now eastern Washington is hardly global in scale, but back in the 20's (when all this was playing out) the U/C battles of the 1890's was still a sensitive subject for many eminent geologists. It wasn't so much what Bretz believed (or not), it was the import and possible use of what he was describing, that it might re-ignite the old issue. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

better so? ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 05:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. But! Either way, you need to cite. I trust my sources re "smacks of", and trust it is an accurate and fair characterization of the situation. But I have no citeable source. Do you? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, look at what I ran across yesterday: "Bretz's ideas for such large-scale flooding were viewed as a challenge to the uniformitarian principles then ruling the science of geology." Page 2 in Norman B. Smyers and Roy M. Breckenridge, "Glacial Lake Missoula, Clark Fork ice dam, and the floods outburst area: Northern Idaho and western Montana", in T. W. Swanson, ed., Western Cordillera and adjacent areas: Geological Society of America Filed Guide 4, 2003. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Very nice ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 20:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, as regards Uniformitarianism, perhaps you ought to leave off the "then ruling ...", as it suggests that the "ruling" is a past condition, perhaps no longer applicable. Whereas Uniformitarianism remains a bedrock principle of geology. Not that there aren't occasional burps (floods, explosions, etc.), but not on the scale proposed by Catastrophism. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Quotes are quotes, no editing allowed my friend :p --Chris.urs-o (talk) 20:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Newberry Volcano

Please see my note at User talk:Volcanoguy#Newberry shield volcano.2FYellowstone hotspot. —EncMstr (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You're a hard worker

		The Volcanoes Barnstar
		Somehow, you have the rare ability to somehow be at the throat of every volcano article and at the hub of every active article discussion. You've worked pretty hard across the project spectrum, so I think you deserve this. Just don't let the shininess get to your head. Or the toxic lava plume ^^.

I'll also take the oppertunity to invite you to help me and Cer write up Kilauea sometime in the near future. Cheers, ResMar 03:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Thx ResMar :p --Chris.urs-o (talk) 04:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

KT extinction

You carried out a great bibliography work. It would be good to distiguish primary sources from review articles. Also your opinion on my question on astrobio.net would be welcome... --Anneyh (talk) 13:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• These are the references given to the response letters to Schullte et al. (2010) Science article. The Michael R. Rampino's Shiva hypothesis is given for the sake of completeness, Science and Nature articles are more review articles than most articles. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Plate tectonics

Hi Chris, one thing that the Plate tectonics article needs is for me to add sources for the section on Plate reconstruction that I added as a condensed version of the article that I created. I'll aim to do that this evening. Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 11:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thx for the input. There are two citation needed tags, any idea how to get refs for these? --Chris.urs-o (talk) 12:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Refs added for the section and for the two missing citations. Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 22:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thx, now Vsmith edited it and we got another citation needed tag :s --Chris.urs-o (talk) 00:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that :) couldn't see the first part of that para as sourced by Mikenorton's ref. ... unless I missed something. Vsmith (talk) 01:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Awesome work! User:Awickert and I considered this for one of our projects over the summer - but I see you're making our job easy (we won't have to do it). ;) I hope you can get it to GA; that would be awesome. ceranthor 13:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thx, but... Plate tectonics was a FA. It's quality is similar to Volcanic ash, and Volcanic ash is a GA. I assume that the GA status can't be so far... Let's see... --Chris.urs-o (talk) 15:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. The lack of citations was very noticeable though, iirc. ceranthor 18:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems it was an FA back before the current emphasis on sourcing - WP is evolving. Vsmith (talk) 01:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Summary: Well, I can't see that I'm able to improve the prose. There is one citation needed tag of recent developments. The Development of the theory and Historical context sections seem to be two sections of quite the same thing... The article is very long, you can hide many tweaks there... Volcanic ash is better organised. But Volcanic ash was out of date before 2010 eruptions of Eyjafjallajökull, Plate tectonics seems better off... --Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed the work that you are putting in over there - thank you! Please poke me if you want to collaboratively tackle some section of the article. My free time is still a little scarce and I still have a backlog of promised writing on Wikipedia, but I think that this article could use some focused attention. Awickert (talk) 07:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thx. I'm trying to understand volcanism ;) ... Plate tectonics was a FA, I assumed that GA level could not be far anyway. I tried to improve the article a bit, but you think the section Plate tectonics#Mantle Convection related Driving Forces is still not good :( You are probably right, it is a patchwork. Too much of it for a GA level. I think User:Jpvandijk collaboration is helpful, although he possibly cited himself three times. But, I don't want to apply for the GA status. Because, Plate tectonics is a long article on the border of knowledge. That's why I think consensus won't be achieved on all sections... --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

OK -- I won't be that much help on volcanism (though you're welcome to try me). I'm not thinking GA or anything; just to make myself satisfied with its accuracy, that's all. Some of it is on the border of my knowledge too, so I suppose the more eyes the better. I will get in touch with Jpvandijk if I get serious about this; thanks for letting me know that we have an expert around! Awickert (talk) 07:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you !!! You are welcome ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, it really does need referencing. Wonderfully writ, but really unsourced (but still 72 citations lol). ResMar 02:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Crazy ResMar ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 04:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Infobox mountain

I believe the Alaska location map problem is now fixed (see Template talk:Location map, Template talk:Infobox mountain, ...). Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 07:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. Thank you ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Carnegie Ridge

Hi Chris, I still don't understand why you think that there is a significant difference between the diagrams of the Nazca/Cocos Plate area, I'm just not seeing it. Moved it here as the talk page section is getting a bit long. As to the image upload, I worked that out eventually after I'd repeated it several times, but thanks.

Sorry, my fault, I got it wrong, the scales are different, it seems that both show the spreading ridge going North before the Malpelo Ridge. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 04:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

That's OK, I was starting to doubt my sanity :-). Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 10:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Congrats

I'm pretty sure congrats aren't in order, but I've been skipping minor vandalism on my watchlist for too long. Very handy, and fast, and I like the non-hostile message. --Kleopatra (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Categorisation Barnstar
		For populating the sub-categories of Category:Minerals by crystal system. DuncanHill (talk) 16:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

yw :D --Chris.urs-o (talk) 17:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Mineralogy class

Looks like we have a mineralogy or crystallography course out of Austin doing good edits on the mineral articles. --Kleopatra (talk) 15:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

(:D) seems so. The kids have their problems, though ;) and today is deadline :) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 17:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Today is deadline? Oh, heavy upsurge? Have made some good substantive edits, though. --Kleopatra (talk) 06:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

(:D) Let's wait and see and eat carrots ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Probably, students are editing Basin and Range Province and Rio Grande rift‎ too (edition summary: "Undid revision 400750312 by 99.99.186.220 (talk) was not signed in, need edit credit for course assignment" [4]). U get the idea that US education in Earth Sciences wants a lift up on some Wikipedia Earth Sciences articles. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Co-editing again

Hey - spent about 30 minutes over morning coffe adding to robertsite only to hit edit conflicts (thrice) with you. That'll learn me to jump in and edit when an edit of yours shows up on my watchlist. Hope I didn't lose anything merging our edits. Uncanny :) Vsmith (talk) 14:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

(:p) :D Well, the article is still orphan. I just added a bit, to get a better overview, u added a lot more ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 15:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Volcanic fields

Hi, thanks for followup to get consensus and [Category:Volcanic fields of the Western United States] finally moving to closure. I just posted a 'support' there. Appreciate your creating the original cat, and your recent efforts.—best—Look2See1 t a l k → 02:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Domingos de Seixas

Would you know how to get hold of the report by Portuguese mercenary Domingos de Seixas to John III of Portugal, said to have been consulted on introduction of early modern warfare and medicine in the making of the movie, The Legend of Suriyothai? The question arises in the context of the Burmese–Siamese War (1548–49), where she's mentioned in Siamese chronicles, but not those of the Burmese. The only thing Google tells me about Domingos is that he was mentioned in an unrelated report as having killed an elephant[5] and that in Décadas da Ásia (1552-1615), João do Barros relied extensively for his treatment of Siam on Domingo de Seixas, who had spent over two decades in the countryThe Castilians Discover Siam.

If you can add anything, post it to this talk page. --Pawyilee (talk) 09:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I can read Portuguese, but I don't live in Portugal. If the documents are not online no chance... --Chris.urs-o (talk) 12:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

(Portuguese) Décadas da Ásia --Pawyilee (talk)