Geologician

Intro

This user is a participant in
WikiProject Geology.

Time

Hi, Geo. Welcome to Wikipedia. Both Jim and I have considerably more experience on the Wiki that it appears that you do; your edits have been limited in the main to time alone. Perhaps you might consider leaving this article for a while and doing some work elsewhere; this would allow you to develop a better understanding of the Wiki. As I have said before, I think you make some valid and interesting points; the problem might well be in the way in which you present them. As it stands, if the edit war continues all that will happen is that time will be locked by the administrators, so that no one can edit it. That would be a shame. Banno 16:54, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Sock Puppetry Accusation

Under the user name 'Geologician' I have been accused by user Terry0051 of sock puppetry in the Discussion pages of subject 'Orbit of the Moon'. Although this accusation is completely without foundation, I am unable to defend myself on the Investigations page because I have been instantly blocked and have been unable to find the email address of Peter Symonds, the blocking authority. Please forward a copy of this to him.

Terry0051, who may be a Wiki review editor, sent the above irate message to my User page when I questioned the accuracy of existing images on the subject page, provided a reasonable alternative for sensible discussion, and criticized his obscure supporting RS whilst providing my alternative classical textbook RS. I replied to his user page pointing this out. Terry0051 places great reliance in support of his beliefs on a cited 1912 paper by Turner in which the mathematical analysis is plain wrong and the concluding sentence is indefensible. Any mathematician will see immediately that Turner's formulas illogically combine moon-based coordinates with sun-based coordinates. (His expressions need 'n' to be replaced with 'n+1' to make any sense.)

I have never heard of my so-called alter ego Saheenjim but have contributed occasional pieces to Wiki over the years with very rare controversy. I am surprised that any Wiki editor would jump to extreme measures of a personal warning and blocking, without taking account of the views of other contributors to the discussion page. Any such review editorial rights held by Terry0051 should be suspended forthwith. Geologician (talk) 11:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems that Terry0051 edited my talk page to remove the above comment. Yet he accuses me of disruptive comment. I am sure experienced Wiki review editors will sort this out. Geologician (talk) 12:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[From Terry0051] The accusation made earlier today by Geologician is false, I did not remove anything from Geologician's talkpage. Geologician appears to have jumped hastily to a false conclusion after clicking on a link which points to the 'diff' that resulted from my message requesting him to adhere to WP guidelines especially in regard to disruptive editing. (Geologician has now deleted that message, along with previous messages on his talk-page, some to related effect). The 'diff' shows the state of the talk page immediately after addition of my request-message: and at that time-point, Geologician had not yet posted the comment which he now says that I deleted. So the reason why Geologician's more recent comment does not form part of the 'diff' is the time-point to which the 'diff' relates, it is not because of any deletion (of which there has been none except by Geologician himself). Terry0051 (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[From Geologician} I assume that the Wiki 'powers that be' will read my ongoing defense of Terry0051's spurious accusation and draw their own conclusions. They have only to consider the timing of Terry0051's posting of the link to my Talk page (19:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)) to realize that Terry0051 deliberately linked to a previous version of my talk page so that my existing post( 11:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)), refuting his points in detail, would not be seen. I do not believe that this is in the spirit of honest editorship of Wikipedia and am confident that the 'Judges' will find in my favour. If I have raised some controversy in my edits it is because Wiki instructions invite editors to be 'bold'. I am a very experienced scientist and believe in logic and facts when applied to scientific subjects rather than some artificial consensus position that could be more appropriate for philosophical and arts subjects. Geologician (talk) 12:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Provisional unblock

The Ban Appeal Subcommittee has considered your appeal and decided to provisionally suspend your ban for three months, subject to the following terms:

1. You edit from one account and one account only;
2. You abide strictly by sockpuppetry policy;
3. You accept that your account will be checkusered from time to time to verify compliance;
4. If the three months pass without incident, the unblock automatically becomes permanent.

As you have now accepted these terms by email, your account has been unblocked.  Roger Davies ^talk 10:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Roger. The unblock will obviously vindicate me from Terry0051's accusation of sockpuppetry, so I shall look forward to an apology by that user when it becomes permanent, if not immediately. Geologician (talk) 22:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Or you could assume good faith on the part of Terry0051 and let the matter drop :)  Roger Davies ^talk 05:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

[From Terry0051]

Hello, Geologician. You have new messages at Terry0051's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Terry0051 (talk) 14:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Velocity.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Velocity.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fjard, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rias (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Geothermgradients.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Geothermgradients.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sedimentary Isostasy (March 1)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by StraussInTheHouse was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Sedimentary Isostasy and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Sedimentary Isostasy, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SITH (talk) 16:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Geologician! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! SITH (talk) 16:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sedimentary isostasy has been accepted

Sedimentary isostasy, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Migmatite, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Solidus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:26, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mikenorton (talk) 11:27, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Sedimentary isostasy for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sedimentary isostasy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sedimentary isostasy until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Mikenorton (talk) 09:56, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Sedimentary isostasy

Hello, Geologician. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Sedimentary isostasy".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:49, 25 July 2020 (UTC)