User talk:Awickert/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Awickert. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Saint Paul GA Preparation

Hello,

The Saint Paul, Minnesota article is being prepared for GA Nomination ahead of the 2008 RNC and the attention the article will be receiving (and in some cases already has).

Other editors and myself have been working on the article lately and we would like to you to help. If you have additions, comments, concerns, questions or other feed back, it is all appreciated. There is a peer review already set up and detailed checklist of issues that need to be fixed is on the talk page. These items can be crossed off when completed. Feel free to add to the list and sign your username, so that we know who added it.

Any help is appreciated. Also, if you would like to work on other articles directly related to Saint Paul, especially those that link off the Saint Paul article, that would be great too.

Thanks and have a great day, Calebrw (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Welcome

Welcome...

Hello, Awickert, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! SusanLesch (talk) 16:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Minneapolis Meetups

Town Hall Brewery
maps.google.com
1430 Washington Ave S
Minneapolis, MN 55454
(612) 339-8696
October 11, 2008
Saturday at 12:00 noon (midday)
Meetup RSVP

Muddy Waters
maps.google.com
2401 Lyndale Ave S
Minneapolis, MN 55405
(612) 872-2232
October 10, 2008
Friday at 10:00 PM (at night)
Alternate meetup RSVP

Hope you can make it. Feel free to pass along these invitations. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Geochron

Thanks for your (very patient) contributions over on talk:radiometric dating. At least the discussions pushed me into putting some work into the articles. From your last post I guess you are a hydrologist/sedimentologist? Babakathy (talk) 19:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I started as a geochemist (in case that wasn't obvious!) but am retraining as a hydrologist through my PhD. Yeah, work in Zimbabwe has its challenges, especially the difficulties of fieldwork in 2008! But my fieldwork is finished at least... What is your study area? Babakathy (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Geology of Minnesota

Thank you for your note. I replied on my talk page. Kablammo (talk) 15:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Thank you

No problem. :) If you need anything, let me know. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

River deltas

Thank you for improving that article - it's really useful to have a real geologist contribute. I have expanded the "Types of delta" section a bit, adding some fitting examples - or, at least, examples that I think are fitting. If you can take a look at the article some time and see if anything should be removed, that would be good. I am especially curious as to whether peninsulas formed by rivers or irrigation channels depositing silt into man-made reservoirs (such as the Chogray Reservoir example I've added) can be properly called "deltas" - after all, in them the river usually only has a single channel and no distributaries, as a "real" delta ought to have (at least, in my non-geologist's view). Vmenkov (talk) 03:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I've just started to look at it - thanks for all of your additions! I'll write back here again after I've edited it, and then hopefully you can tell me what you think of the changes. Reservoir deltas are real deltas. I looked at the delta in the Chogray Reservoir on Google Earth, and it still would be considered a delta even though it has just one main channel. The reason for the single channel is probably because the delta is so young: as it gets older, the single channel will push that part of the delta front further into the sea, lowering its slope. As that continues, the channel becomes unstable for two reasons. First, it could breach its natural levees and spill out to one side or the other, obtaining a new channel with a steeper slope and therefore becoming more stable (since water will always take the shortest path downhill). Second, as its slope gets lower, the amount of shear stress on the bed will decrease, which will result in deposition of sediment within the channel and for the channel bed to rise relative to the floodplain. This will make it easier to breach its levees and cut a new channel (as in "first"). When the channel does this, some of its flow can remain in the abandoned channel. (You can also see avulsion (river), though this is a work in progress - and now that I look at it, the explanation that I just wrote here is probably clearer than what is written there.) When these channel switching events happen repeatedly over time, a mature delta will gain a distributary network. Awickert (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

OK - I edited the article. I re-wrote the part on delta formation (lots of your info was good, but I tried to make it more to the point for deltas; however, if you'd like to use some of that for sediment transport or sediment, I would appreciate it. Everything else, I left as-is; it looked fine to me as a geologist, and well-written - definitely better than before your edits. Thanks again! Awickert (talk) 00:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Dissolved load

Hi. Just a quick FYI: the reference link on the new page Dissolved load points to a page which has been moved. Update when possible. Best regards. --Oliver Twisted 04:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - must have typed it wrong - I just used it as a quick ref on 2 articles - will fix & thanks for the note!

Done Awickert (talk) 04:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

igneous petrology

Thanks for your work.Babakathy (talk) 18:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Haven't done much yet. Found a bunch of good vectorized phase diagrams in Italian though. Awickert (talk) 19:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Arrhenius

This [1] could do with some more detail (were there others than A?) and some hint as to timescales and level of certainty (currently it states that A was certain it would be needed, which seems unlikely). Don't answer here, but on the article talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 23:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

And just to note that the A page itself currently says where he suggested that the human emission of CO2 would be strong enough to prevent the world from entering a new ice age, which is almost the same thing but from a rather different perspective William M. Connolley (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I checked his book, and though I'd always taken what he said to have both meanings, he definitely focuses on what his wiki article says. And come to think of it, I'm not sure of the relevance, since he's looking over longer time-scales of cooling (like Pleistocene time-scales). I got rid of the paragraph and opened a section on the talk page. Awickert (talk) 01:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue V - January 2009

It's here at long last! The January 2009 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter is ready, with exciting news about Darwin Day 2009. Please feel free to make corrections or add news about any project-related content you've been working on. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse --ragesoss (talk) 03:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Rift valley

Hi Awickert. Can you add the ISBN to the book cite? Simply add "ISBN xxxxxxxxx" (substituting actual numbers) and it should format automatically. Thanks. Kablammo (talk) 21:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure - I didn't realize it was missing it - the ref was already there, I just shifted it around. I'll look it up and use the citation bot. Awickert (talk) 22:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

all done Awickert (talk) 23:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't realize that you had only moved the source, not added it! Kablammo (talk) 11:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Laurentine Ice sheet

I was jsut trying to make the point it's worth looking at. People are too complacent! I've included the reference in other related articles such as arctic shrinkage, effects of global warming etc.

I'm moving this discussion to your page to keep it together Awickert (talk) 02:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Sea level rise

I've put a caveat inAndrewjlockley (talk) 06:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Geology of Minnesota (redux)

Thanks for the find! You'll have to more information on its PD status, as there is no template for PD-Minnesota Geological Survey. Look at Commons:Copyright_tags; {{PD-author|author}} may be the best, but include a quote from the map itself which shows the PD status. I'll make other comments on the article talk page. Kablammo (talk) 11:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Your request for rollback

After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
Rollback can be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
Rollback may be removed at any time.

If you no longer want rollback, then contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some information on how to use rollback, you can view this page. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Happy editing! Tiptoety ^talk 21:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Tedious web citations

Is there a too that turns URLs into citations? It's so boring doing it manually and I'm sure no-one ever reads them.Andrewjlockley (talk) 17:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Editing talk comments

Thanks for clarifying the talk page rules. Should we put that structure thing in a sandbox?Andrewjlockley (talk) 20:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I think maybe, once we decide on it, but for now the three of us working on the article have differing opinions, so I think it should still be debated on the talk page. Awickert (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

If we put the structure in the sandbox we can all hack it about.Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

True, but I think that User:Enuja intended it to be on the talk page....

Well, why not, if you want - make a sandbox page and put it there with a link on the GW talk page to it. If it helps work getting done, what am I doing standing in the way?

Awickert (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Surely better in eunja's sandboxAndrewjlockley (talk) 15:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

As you wish, so long as it's out of the way of the text. Awickert (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

If you have time

Salut Awickert, could you have a look on Bouzanne (and his history), about the "right" stuff? Thanks in advance. Alvar☮ ☎ 17:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I tried - not sure how well I did. It turns out "river left" and "river right" aren't common terms, so I had to try to re-write some fo the article to make it stylistically work. If you could check it and make sure I didn't mess up the facts about its confluence, I'd appreciate that. Awickert (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Merci. It looks fine. But the sentence to explain the right tributary is very long ;D

Also, what I tried to explain with « at Le Pont-Chrétien-Chabenet, 1.3 kilometres (0.81 mi) southwest of the village itself. » is the fact that the confluence is in the (territory of the) commune, but not in the village. A typical commune in France is a small village with a lot of land around.

In Chassezac I talk about Saint-Frézal-d'Albuges. The name of the commune comes from the hamlet where are the church and the cemetery, but the village (with the town hall), named Les Chazeaux, is 1.3 km northwest of Saint-Frézal-d'Albuges.

I admit it's no big deal ;D

Alvar☮ ☎ 15:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh - I see - I'm sorry. I'll fix the part with the commune. Is there an easy way to explain left and right tributaries in French? I don't think we have one in English.

And if you want any help with your English on articles, feel free to ask me - I will, if I have time, and I'll try not to mess things up.

Awickert (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't feel sorry, it's always a pleasure to meet people ready to help. I avoided the difficulty with the commune and the location of the confluence in Anglin; I just wrote near ;D Is « It is a right tributary of the Gartempe into which it flows near Angles-sur-l'Anglin. » readable ? I think it's heavy. And sorry for the right tributary, it's my default's solution for the while. ++ Alvar☮ ☎ 17:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for definiing it - it looks great. And thanks for adding all of the French river info to the English Wikipedia. Awickert (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

GW debate

Thanks for your help on GW debate. I appreciate being slapped down - makes me better, makes us all better. (Not when some people step over into bullying). Keep up the pressure.Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to be nice - no one enjoys being slapped down, and I don't enjoy doing the slapping. Hopefully future will be better. As a note, I can also get academic journal articles for you, if you need them. You can drop off a wish list here. Awickert (talk) 03:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm genuinely grateful for the clip round the ear. I'm going to work up the 'runaway climate change' argument better, so it's bombproof. Then I'm going to propose incorporating it.Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

All right. Good luck. Just do a better job of adding facts based on what is important to you in the future, instead of adding what you think and then trying to find facts. It could be a very educational experience - and (as you say global warming is the most important issue to you) there's lots of good information out there that you might be interested in digesting. The journal offer is always on the table. Enjoy. Awickert (talk) 01:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

My current skeleton is below. However, it's currently missing a few crucial bones which now need replacing. I need citations for the following:

1) A clathrate gun effect that shows rapid release? Buffett and Archer, and Archer alone, show a slow release, although from a large reservoir. 2) A calculation of the eventual warming that may result from methane release from permafrost/clathrates. 3) A study showing the impacts of such a level of warming on human civilisation/survival. 4) What happens to methane sinks under conditions of bulk outgassing? Do they fail and massively increase the global warming potential of methane?

See Effects_of_global_warming#Abrupt_climate_change for a (semi) tidied example of my work.Andrewjlockley (talk) 02:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm really no expert on climate change or catastrophic climate change from methane; I actually do sedimentary geology and upper mantle geodynamics. If I saw how to do it, I could do the calculation in #2. Otherwise, since I don't know any sources offhand, I'm happy to be a free mail-order service to give you full copies of papers you've found, but I'm not interested enough to do the research to find support for your statements - sorry. Awickert (talk) 03:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I've been advised against doing calcs on WP. I wanted to point out that I'm not trying to breach NPOV guidelines on runaway, but I am trying to improve coverage of the subject. I think that's worthwhile.Andrewjlockley (talk) 15:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you have any malicious intent. However, I think that you have strong feelings for what you think is fact, and that you consider it to be fact whether there are good sources that say it is right or not, and so in that way you are not pushing your POV because you believe it to be fact, but in some ways you are, because it might not be fact to many people but you. A little convoluted, but that's what I think. And I can totally understand that, after working for environmental advocacy for all those years, because you want to influence people, and one of the lines of thought on the best way to do that is with extreme scenarios. And anyway, the anti-environmentalists were doing it too, right? So it levels the playing field.

The thing with Kim on your talk page (I've looked at it), I think is valid: if it is a basic calculation you can do, that's fine, but if it requires any higher-level amount of interpretation, it's probably not, and the wide difference in the numbers that you two got shows that you should probably ask someone to double-check your work before you put it up.

So I don't think that what you're doing is done with the intent of harm. But in order for what you say to be put somewhere as public as Wikipedia, it needs to reference published, peer-reviewed science, and the citations must display the general scientific consensus on the issue.

Awickert (talk) 16:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I was curious, so I googled the clathrates. It honestly took me about 90 seconds to find the following sources, proving that you can probably net save time by doing this because then people won't argue with your additions (well, provided that they match what the source says). I gogled for "shallow methane clathrate release" and then for "methane clathrate release global warming" (without the quotes). I found several papers that analyze their importance, including one that said that they could influence global warming, but it was an older study, and said that 10-25% was a top bound. Another one is Buffet and Archer, probably related to the abstract you used earlier, but in peer-reviewed journal form. And if you google for the papers, some are freely available from their authors; I'll email others to you if you want. In addition to the Archer (2007) paper are the following:

So in about 90 seconds, I found all these. Really - Google Scholar is great - you should try it!

Awickert (talk) 16:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I usually use normal google. I added one of the refs you sent me but I don't like to because they're all paid journals. Even if I can see them, other people can't. Abstracts are useful but not the whole story. Hope you like my mode to RACC which shows the clathrate gun is slow to act.79.65.143.193 (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Normal google typically does not give you reliable, citable references. You must give solid references from reputable sources, academic journals being the main medium. Although not everyone can access them, they are the gold standard of citation, and are what you've been lacking so far. You may use both academic journals and digests for your references, so normal folks can get the gist. And what you're really doing on Wikipedia is giving a digest of what the journals say. Also, your citations must be full citations, not just a URL.

I understand the idea behind trying to have publicly available sources, but if for this reason you are going ahead with your conjectures and not look at sources, I suggest that you start a blog instead of editing Wikipedia.

And I am not happy with the RACC page because you are still mis-citing Lawrence, in spite of being told about this. He says nothing about clathrates. And you say clathrates are a problem up front, while adding on a caviat later on in the article. That is misleading.

In all this, clathrates are just the example I've been using. While you may say "abstracts are not the whole story", you persist in writing what patently isn't the story. What this is really about is your refusal to properly cite science and constrain what you write to what is fact.

Awickert (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I do actually know what a peer reviewd journal is, and why they are citable. However, I don't see the point of using a reference people can't check when often another freely available study will do just fine. Not all journals are locked down. Clathrates ARE a problem, just not in a human lifetime - and that's only if you believe B&A's study hasn't missed any rapid effects - when the geological record of the PETM clearly disagrees with their rudimentary analysis (suggesting slumping is key). I have re-read the section in which Lawrence is cited, and I haven't attributed anything about Clathrates to him. Can you either edit it or tell me EXACTLY what you think is misleading?Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I improved the lead and intro. Hope you now feel comfortable removing your fact tag.Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2005AM/finalprogram/abstract_94450.htm - can i cite that without getting shouted at?Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Fact tag removed. Many of the good articles are in the non-free journals, unfortunately. Freely available peer-reviewed journals are OK by me. The problem is that you don't use much of either, and continue to express GeoEng with hyperbole in terms of support. By re-wording the section with Lawrence, it is no longer attributed to him (before you said Lawrence... permafrost and clathrates). Perhaps you re-read after re-wording? In any case, thank you.

What did you find wrong with B&A? I can't figure out your issue because they only mention slumping once in the paper I had linked above, which is, with a Google search, freely available through their website. I'm not surprised that you disagree with their study; it disagrees with you, so it must be wrong.

And dude, the temporal resolution of the PETM is not on decadal or century scale. The best temporal resolution to-date is 0.05% with U-Pb in Zircon analyzed by TIMS, the PETM was at around 55.8 Ma, times .0005 gives us a whopping 27,900-year error bars. Making tons of analyses could maybe bring the precision of the mean down to the 10,000-year range. It could have been 10 years, or 10,000. No way to know. The truth is, and I even got a freely-available journal article from 2007 to look at, that we don't even know when it happened between 55.0 and 55.8 Ma: 800,000 years of big "???". So I'd appreciate if you stopped throwing around "proof" that you know nothing about, it makes you lose credibility.

The GSA doesn't really review abstracts, so I would typically put them in "2nd-rate sources" but it looks all right. Why not. But I don't know why you want it: it doesn't give you a rate.

And you have no clue how many hours I've put into trying to help you make accurate statements and working to stop you from making all of the false statements you've been throwing on Wikipedia. And what do I get? Seven times out of eight I am ignored, ranted to, or get 1 sentence replies to well-thought-out advice that basically ignore what I say. And with you throwing around terms like PETM that you don't even understand except insofar as it makes you feel like you can bash away all dissenting science with an acronym. And now you accuse me of shouting at you? Pobresito. Respect is a two-way street. Go somewhere else for sympathy, you've spat in my face too many times.

Awickert (talk) 01:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not looking for sympathy, and I'm not accusing you personally of anything. You've been very helpful. I have listened to what you've said and accommodated your comments. I now use scholar exclusively for my referencing, despite the obvious cost to usability for the general reader. I've also made great attempts to remove any implied speculation from my writing, and to include any necessary caveats. I hope you agree that my writing has improved, according to your criteria. Personally, I think that the end result of writing in this fashion is text that's dry, impenetrable for the general reader, and so cautious and conservative that it's actually misleading. But if that's what the 'consensus' wants, then that's what I'll do. My opinions are irrelevant - I'm just a nobody working hard to tell the world about climate change.Andrewjlockley (talk) 11:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

OK - sorry - I was just getting frustrated. I know it sucks that the general public can't see the journal articles. That's one of the reasons why Wikipedia is great - because it can have a publicly-readable summary of what they say, and all properly cited to the 1° sources. What you end up with doesn't have to be dry, it simply has to be fact, and has to be without hyperbole unless it is warranted. If you want to do something where hyperbole is warranted, try arctic coastal erosion; I think measurements are in the 10's to 100's of meters per year, and this throws permafrost chunks down into the sea where they rapidly dissolve (I don't know if the carbon stays in the water or if it goes into the atmosphere; I should, because clearly, this is something worth knowing.) Terrestrial methane release also seems like a good path; find time-scales, measurements, etc. Other numbers that people could be interested in would be: (1) How much would sea level rise if all of the glaciers melted? (2) How much would sea level rise from thermal expansion alone as a function of atmospheric temperature, and on what mixing time-scale (for the temperature to be diffusively/advectively felt by the ocean)? (3) How much land area would be innundated by a range of estimates of sea level rise in the next century, where would it be, and how many people live there? (4) (You've been doing this one) quantitatively (or semi-quantitatively), what is the maximum methane release from sinks in the arctic, and what are different time-scales of that release? (5) Shallow-water death of marine life (not sure if this is temperature or dissolved oxygen, but it is a very visible expample, and I think people would like to know the difference between shallow ocean death now and before). I'll try to think of other examples. I think the issue that the consensus had was (1) your initial rapid editing of lead sections without proper referencing with what seemed like your not-really-substantiated point of view, (2) what seemed like overstated and unsourced remarks about RACC and support for GeoEng, and (3) most importantly, your lack of reliable information and cherry-picking of sources for doomsday scenarios and your general slowness to find reliable sources and fix them (before you get offended, that's what I felt and observed, you are free to your own opinion). I think that one of the problems with RACC is that it is likely that there is a tipping point somewhere if there are enough positive feedbacks (i.e., snowball and hothouse Earth), but we're still not sure where they are, and we're in the middle of these glacial-interglacial oscillations due to Milankovich cycles, and will we still go glacial when we go to the part of the cycle that caused glaciations, or are we just going to get slightly chillier with maybe different ocean circulation patterns during the next cycle, and more - I just don't think we know. But the above issues, that I've thought about for a while, at least, are things that are supportable by science, even when qualified to their rates, and do show that global warming is likely to become a big problem. Awickert (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've dropped the colons because it was making it unwieldy. I don't know anything about the coastal erosion etc. If you suggest a few titles, I will go and build them. The reasons I've stuck to my 'core subjects' are that I'm trying to correct some specfic problems on wiki, namely that it didn't cover much on geo-eng and was rather 'linear' in its coverage of GW. I know lots of the non-linear stuff is a bit fringe, but the problem of not including it is that people 'learn' about global warming in a way that's potentially very wrongly linear. They then imagine it like a central heating system, when it's actually more like a house fire. I want to get across the message that a) people may be risk burning the house down and b) there's a 'fire brigade' out there (geoeng) that can help if it turns out the blaze has already started. It's not POV-pushing, I'm just trying to gap-fill. I think you can deal with 'alarmist' issues based on 'fringe science' whilst still being clear that you're talking about RISKS not CERTAINTIES.Andrewjlockley (talk) 18:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I unfortunately don't know much about it either; my office mate is working on it though, so I'll ask her. I think your additions to GeoEng are great because, by definition, articles about GeoEng are about remediation to extreme scenarios. Nonlinearities are important in GW, especially methane release and albedo drop, but in more mainstream articles, they just need to correctly represent the current scientific state of knowledge, which is where, I think, this whole nasty spat started. And if I could just ask 1 more thing: if something has a DOI or ISBN, use the cite journal or cite book templates (I gave them to you somewhere), so the original source can be referenced, not just the URL. If you drop me a message here or get the citation bot, I/you can use the DOI or ISBN to create a full citation. Of course, the URL should always be included if helpful. Awickert (talk) 21:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how to do proper citations. They always seem a bit of a waste of time to me as you can get everything you need from the URL. Sometimes people come and clean up my refs, which is cool - but frankly I can't see the point of it. The templates would be cool tho. Can you get your researcher to talk me or email me about the coastal erosion and slumping?Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Just copy/paste the DOI with the templates I gave you to do full citations, like I said above. They aren't a waste of time. They allow the source and details about it to be instantly known, which shows the quality of the citation, and adds professionalism and respect for the sources: just like any engineering report or scientific paper, look at all of the Wikipedia featured articles, they have full citations. It also adds credibility to the article, and your taking a little time to go through the citation process will probably improve your rapport with the regular Wikipedia editors. My office mate is wicked busy finishing up her thesis, and doesn't have any publications yet, and it's only a tangential part of her research. There are good papers; maybe Google scholar arctic coastal erosion. Awickert (talk) 02:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Can u tb me pls when you comment?Andrewjlockley (talk) 16:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

We were back-and-forth so much I just figured my talk page was on your watchlist - do you know how to use it? Awickert (talk) 16:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Not really, I just leave all the pages that change open. Can you make it 'message' you like it does when your own tp changes?Andrewjlockley (talk) 16:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah - hit the "watch" tab on the pages; maybe this is why you didn't notice a number of talk page messages left for you until after you'd made more changes. Then you can click "my watchlist" in the upper left to see them all. Awickert (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with citations. Maybe you could suggest some kind of improvement to documentatin. DOI refs are easy once you know how, but there's little help on themAndrewjlockley (talk) 10:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It's true, it would be good. I wonder if it's there and I just missed it. I know that before I started editing, I just took a while looking and absorbing, and googling things like "wikipedia reference format" etc. Awickert (talk) 17:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Geology

Hi Awickert

An impressive expansion of the article. I do have issues with some of it and I promise to have a thorough look at your changes when I get back from my next business trip. If nothing turns up by this time next week, give me a prod! Mikenorton (talk) 23:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Mike. I was expecting issues with some of it, as much of it came off the top of my head. If you could give me some specific examples of things you don't like, please tell me before you go, so I could try to fix them while you're gone. Awickert (talk) 23:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

OK some concerns:

As a structural geologist I find it difficult to cope with compression as the opposite to extension, as the first is a stress term and the latter a strain term. Unfortunately this usage is widespread even though both extensional and strike-slip tectonics often occur in crust that is in an overall compressive stress state. The proper usage should be either shortening or contraction. Awickert (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I did pull that out of what I heard. Shortening makes much more sense on many levels. I was in fact thinking of stress for compression, and then realized that I didn't want to have to explain that vertical compression resulted in normal faults, not tension (I've run up against huge mental blocks with that before), so I said "extension".

Much folding is actually related to movement on non-planar faults and can happen at the surface during contraction, extension and strike-slip. It's not restricted to great depths. Buckling is an elastic response to shortening, forming parallel folds and is not associated with plasticity.

Yeah, I totally oversimplified and left out fault-related folding. I'll try to sneak it in. Awickert (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to leave it for now and try to have another look through this weekend. The compression/contraction confusion is something that I come up against all the time in my day job, so nothing to feel bad about. If I had a lot more energy/time I'd be out there editing all those other pages with similar problems. I'm just impressed that you're prepared to take on a task of this scale. Anyway I'll ramble on no longer and wish you goodnight (well it is here anyway). Mikenorton (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Here it's just the late afternoon. Thanks for pointing these things out; Wikipedia has become my procrastination of choice lately because I can keep from doing my real work and still feel good about myself, hence major edits. Awickert (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

OK - fixed them. Another possible stylistic flaw is that I picked examples from places I know, making them US and Canada-centric. I won't feel hurt if they're changed to exhibit a broader world of geologic settings. Awickert (talk) 01:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Well I literally asked for that didn't I. I'll look through it again over the next few days and again, if nothing turns up, prod harder. Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It's OK - I'm going to be pretty busy for the next couple weeks, so I may or may not prod again. Awickert (talk) 00:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Article move

can you help with this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:CO2_sequestration#Requested_move

how do you move onto a page that holds a redirect?Andrewjlockley (talk) 11:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You ask an admin. Done :-) Vsmith (talk) 15:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Impossible ref tools

I've been trying to doi runaway climate change and catastrophic climate change. I've got properly formed references but the bot won't work. Also, my citation tool have got a {{cite}} tool, which doesn't give you the doi box when you pull a journal reference. (I wish people could just be happy with URLs and save all this fuss)Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Huh, that's true, the tool doesn't have it. But if you don't use the tool, just put {{cite journal|doi=12345etc}} and then run the User:Citation bot. Awickert (talk) 02:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to political articles

Yes, this political articles are not easy cake, particularly when dealing with a highly polarized subject like contemporary Venezuela. But you ain't seen nothing yet; expect some vandals and POV-pushers on Sunday and Monday, especially if the article is linked from the news section in the Main Page.JRSP (talk) 03:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Great - what did I get myself into? And I've just been trying to extract myself from being a self-designated NPOV and reliable source enforcer on Global Warming. I'll try to do damage control on the vandalism at least. Awickert (talk) 05:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Imagenes de Mexico y Estados Unidos

hola, aca respondo tu duda de las imagenes, es un trabajo mio porque yo tome un mapa y dibuje las imagenes que mire en el documental de History Channel, ese no es el mapa, que sale en el documental, pero tiene las mismas partes inundadas exactamente que muesta el mapa de el documental, ahora no solo porque tu dices que no se pueden undir las partes de 2000 o 3000 metros, significa que no pueda pasar, a menos que seas dios o veas el futuro, o tengas mas recursos y experiencia que History Channel para estudiarlo. en fin, cuando puse las imagenes puse "PROBABLE" panorama, no dije, esto va a pasar tal dia tal hora, es solo una posible causa, en realidad nadie sabe que pasara con certeza.

pero ya no te molesto mas y suerte con el articulo y que sigas editandolo como a ti mejor te parezca y sin tomar en cuenta las contribuciones de otras personas. jmko22 (talk) 02:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Gracias por escribame. No entiendo las imagenes por nada: por ejemplo, partes de Texas de 50 metros no son inundados, pero partes de Colorado de 2200 metros son inundados: un parte del mar estuviera 2 km más alto que otros. Creo que el mar subiría 80 m por la addición de agua si todos las glaciares se derritieran, y algo más por la expansión de agua por la temperatura más alta. Me sorprende mucho el History Channel; conoces una página del web que sobre el documental? Awickert (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

No, no tengo ninguna pagina web que hable sobre el documental, lo compre en una tienda de DVD y no se de paginas web, tal vez en la web de History Channel este.

Entiendo tus dudas sobre Estados Unidos, pero jamas dijiste que problema le encontraste al mapa de Mexico, donde las zonas inundadas son de 4 a 200 metros sobre el nivel del mar, y tambien quitaste el mapa de mi pais. jmko22 (talk) 02:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

La mapa de méxico parece mejor, pero es posible porque yo conozco mejor los EE. UU.; una cosa importante es que toda la costa nueva tiene la misma elevación. Es posible chequearlo con Google Earth, en que se puede ver la altitud de cualquier punto. Awickert (talk) 22:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Geology formation stub

Thanks for chiming in at the stub deletion page. I usually try to avoid editing when irritated, but ... aw well, onward. Vsmith (talk) 02:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't even know you had made it! Thanks for adding it to some of my formation stubs; I added it to the only one you missed. Thanks for making it. Awickert (talk) 02:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Andrewjlockley

I take your name in vain at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Andrewjlockley

Ah, me at my un-finest hour. I think I'm more polite above in "GW debate" (above); I think I'll add a link. Awickert (talk) 01:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware you felt there were outstanding issues. I've used the DOI bot as you've asked for some time now. What did you feel was still needing to be changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.248.188 (talk) 11:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I actually don't know very much about requests for comment. I decided I would add to it because I felt that it would be better to put frustrations out in the open and get third-party reviews of them. That's really it. My major concerns are detailed on the talk page: in particular, I feel that you see references as the way to still say what you want instead of as a source of knowledge, and as a result, the references you use often don't support what you say. If I had known more, I may have done what Enuja did, my comments also basically echo those he left on your talk page. As for the DOI bot, the one that I suggested (as opposed to the one that you're using) let's you format citations at request, so perhaps that would be better. Awickert (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I stumbled upon this issue right before it went into RfC. I've kept myself out of the line of fire for the most part but some new things have come up and I think they probably need addressing in this RfC. I was glad to see someone [User_talk:Andrewjlockley&oldid=279985262#Good_deal commend AJL] for his recently good behavior until he snapped back that he's basically doing what he's always done (implying that he learned nothing from the RfC where he said that he claimed to accept the constructive criticism given). Then I see that he edited WMC's main space article and was met with much resistance and was essentially accused of trolling in 2 locations by 2 different people. I believe that editing WMC's article was way out of line considering their conflict. When it comes down to it, I don't beleive that AJL has learned anything from this RfC and that his actions will continue to be unconstructive to Wikipedia. I'm still relatively new and I'm not sure how to proceed here. What do you think? Should I add my concerns (with additional citations) as a new outside view to the RfC? OlYeller^Talktome 05:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yikes. Well, the edits to William's page do bother me: regardless of their factual accuracy (which I haven't bothered to establish) it worries me to think that they were vindictive in nature. While I don't always agree with Williams aggressive reverts, he covers much more ground than I do and therefore spends less time on individual things, and I find myself almost always agreeing with his reasoning. If you read here, you'll see me saying some pretty nasty things to Andrew because of his "well, let's just find something that may or may not support my statements and slap it in there so I can write my thoughts" view of references. Or if WikiDrama isn't worth your time, don't read.

I honestly am very new to RfC's and related items: my main focus is in geology and geophysics, which is much less controversial, other than the odd Young Earth creationist :-). So don't take my comments as those of someone who knows what he's talking about. In my opinion, if you think through your comments and believe that they will be constructive to the discussion, then you should add them. It sounds like you've done both, and I appreciate your caution.

My personal beef with Andrew is the aforementioned view of sources. I believe he has been in the environmental activism business long enough that he thinks that he is 100% right. He's relenting a little, which is good, but the articles he edits always end up with what (to me) looks like a unwarranted focus on catastrophic climate change and geoengineering. He doesn't seem to self-censor.

Big sigh, man. Aah, the drama. But I'm conflicted. He does throw a large amount of material up, so I'd like him around. On the other hand, if he can't reel in his POV and issues with other editors in a constructive way, then I don't know. Sorry about the long, rambling response... combination of tiredness and being worn out with stupidity on Wikipedia (see the RfC on Talk:Expanding Earth and related material to get my drift). But again, thanks for bringing up your concerns, and as it seems you're being suitably cautious and have observed the situation, I think it would be all right to bring up your thoughts as an outside opinion. Awickert (talk) 06:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Reviving Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/Fluid dynamics

Crownest has expressed interest in reviving this. Since you were a member of the FD project (now converted into a taskforce), I'm wondering if you'd be a part of the Taskforce. The taskforce is undergoing a significant overhaul at the moment, and by the end of it, it should be fairly easy to get around and there should be a nifty compendium of useful tools for people interested in FD. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 10:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

All right - sure - I'd be interested. I'll sign up. Awickert (talk) 15:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of Human Rights Watch - changes

You wrote on my page: "I think that the recent material you added to the HRW article would better go in its criticisms article (linked above), as it's a little more specific than the general overview." Awickert (talk) 02:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:68.147.198.255"

I agree with you. But I don't know where to put the information on specific bias issues. For example, Sri Lanka, Israel, China and even US had issued statements against HRW over several occasions. Several respected historians and political professors have accused Ms. Anna Neistat of being anti-Russian. But we need to find the references and for accusations other than the documents we have on Government of Sri Lanka website. In addition, I need help (may be you can help me) to find documents against specific personals in HRW made by US historians (specially in universities). I think we should start a new topic called Allegations of anti-Russian/ati-friends of Russia bias or something like that in Criticism of Human Rights Watch . What do you think? I will wait for your response before I edit the criticism page. Thank you so much for your help. Can you also help me with my English? We need to clean the following paragraph in terms of language.

"The Government of Sri Lanka has maintain a good diplomatic relationship with Russia over several decades including the period of Soviet Union. There are several powerful people in the Human Rights Watch that are anti-Russians, such as Ms. Anna Neistat. This influenced the reports Human Rights Watch has published on the war in Sri Lanka. Some accused HRW for letting people like Ms. Anna Neistat's to work on project where clearly one side have good diplomatic relationship with Russians. Her views reflected in almost every report released by HRW regarding Sri Lanka. The some governments such as Sri Lanka, Israel, China and even US had issued statements against specific personals in HRW over several occasions. Some respected historians and political professors have accused Ms. Anna Neistat of being anti-Russian."

The new section sounds like a good idea. I don't know very much about this at all, but will work on the English. However, I'd first need to know what the main point is of the paragraph, because it doesn't seem to have a topic sentence. I follow the part about Ms. Neistat and Sri Lanka and Russia, but the part on other governments seems to go beyond its scope. Maybe a (A) what is the issue, then (B) what are the accusations. If after you brush it up technically and find references, you could give it back to me, I would help with the language issues. Awickert (talk) 01:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I add this for now; I will rewrite the whole thing soon... oh.. I found some evidance that I was looking for;

The Government of Sri Lanka has maintain a good diplomatic relationship with Russia over several decades including the period of Soviet Union. There are several powerful people in the Human Rights Watch that are anti-Russians, such as Ms. Anna Neistat. This influenced the reports Human Rights Watch has published on the war in Sri Lanka. Some accused HRW for letting people like Ms. Anna Neistat's to work on project that clearly one side have good diplomatic relationship with Russians. Her views reflected in almost every report released by HRW regarding Sri Lanka. The some governments such as Sri Lanka, Israel, China and even US had issued statements against specific personals in HRW over several occasions. Some respected historians and political professors have accused Ms. Anna Neistat of being anti-Russian.(ref here) On a report issued written by Prof Rajiva Wijesinha; "...bombs from planes turning over a couple of days into cluster bombs made in Russia dropped from Russian planes shows very clearly how cleverly the LTTE tries to manipulate the Western opinion whose indulgence it craves..." (ref here) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.198.255 (talk) 20:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

OK - it will need to be well-referenced if you refer extensively to an individual.

Thanks for the attempt on the paragraph. However, I didn't get much out of reading it; there seems to be no continual theme. What do the diplomatic relations have to do with anything? What in particular did Anna Neistat do - it sounds like she said that the Russians picked one side in the war. What do any of these have to do with other criticisms, or to the bombs, and what is the LTTE. The English is OK, though I will improve the final version. But I don't see a main idea in the paragraph.

Awickert (talk) 02:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Ta muchly for your recent help. YOur direct, practical advice makes more difference than all the character assassination I get, easily.Andrewjlockley (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Ha - all right. Sorry about the nastier conversations that we had before; I see a brighter future for you here following constructive dialog, which makes me happy about the RFC. Feel free to ask for help, even if/when I'm not editing as much about climate. Awickert (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Solar Variation

I agree with your 3/2/09 removal of the paragraph referencing Foukal and other discussion of the possible climate change effects of solar variation. As long as the Foukal reference was there, the results of more recent research finding contrary results needed to be included. I don't think either really belong in this section, as you have apparently concluded.--Dikstr (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Glad you agree - I thought it was just muddying the waters. Awickert (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Greenhouse effect

Those two have been carrying on this absurd low-level argument for months. By now I'm not convinced even they themselves can recall what they're on about. I doubt there's anything but frustration to be gained by jumping into it rather than steering clear while they go on and on and on and on and on, though of course it's your call. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

OK - I guess they are defying the 2nd law of thermodynamics then - a perpetual motion machine! Thanks for the warning - if (likely) no consensus is reached because of me, I'll beat a hasty retreat. Awickert (talk) 04:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Name

I thought you were French or something. Maybe AWickert or A.Wickert instead?Andrewjlockley (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Too late. awickert was my athena/kerberos username in undergrad, where we did all sorts of nerdy things like send each other zephyrgrams, such that we almost knew each other better by username than by real name. (In fact, during dinner, we'd occasionaly have conversations where we used our usernames instead of our names.) Perhaps the lack of French in my babel box helps? Because I don't speak any! Awickert (talk) 17:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

And Wiki decided to capitalize the first letter of my username, as it does to all, hence the confusion. Awickert (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Venezuela Information Office

There has been a request for your presence at the debate on WP:BLP over the use of the names of the employees of the Venezuela Information Office. Thanks. Awickert (talk) 17:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Awickert; thanks for the note on my talk about this debate. I've read through some of the entries there, and have followed your commendable attempts to bring neutrality and reason to some of these Venezuelan/Chavez articles and debates, but history tells me that engaging is not likely to be a productive use of my time (and is likely to result in frustration). Most editors who attempt to bring neutrality to Chavez or Venezuela articles quickly give up in the face of the double standards, ownership and piling on from pro-Chavistas, Venezuelans "on the street" know it's of little use to engage Wiki and gave up long ago, and the editors who do attempt to bring some neutrality (as Alekboyd has) don't always fully understand Wiki policies and guidelines and quickly become frustrated and end up blocked in the face of the intransigence they usually encounter. Any information about Chavez's publicity machine and its long tentacles will likely be suppressed on Wiki, and unless more editors (who may or may not be intimately aware of Venezuelan politics and methods) are aware of how and why this is happening, I'm not sure change will be possible. Of course, pro-Chavistas don't want the general US public to clue in on organizations such as CEPR. You are doing good work, but I'm afraid this is one of Wiki's most embarassingly POV areas, and there are few voices to shine a light on the problems: everyone gives up. (Many years ago, when I was a very new editor and still had a good measure of good faith wrt those articles, I started shortening the main Chavez article in preparation for a badly needed update and rewrite. My first gesture of good faith was to move criticism out of the main article first, to the criticism article. As soon as I had moved out the criticism, but hadn't yet started on the rest of the article, the other editors said, enough. So, we were left with a POV fork, an unbalanced and biased article, and a lesson learned for me.) I don't see the utility in weighing in on those debates until/unless the day comes that more editors wake up to the extreme bias present throughout those articles, and more editors are willing to help bring them in to line with WP:NPOV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, SandyGeorgia. I've been going after more controversial topics recently, though after spending too much time on talk pages, I still hop back into my hidey-hole of mostly geology and some fluid flow - things where there actually are comforting facts and physical realitites that go beyond politics. And when there are attempts at POV-ization, it's much easier to have a debate about facts with a young Earth creationist than it is to talk politics. So yes, I feel the pain.

But about the articles themselves, are there any that seem important blatantly POV, that you'd like me to take a whack at? Awickert (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

They're all equally problematic, so not really; just being aware of the POV may help. Unless more editors engage, I don't think it will ever change. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

All right. Well, I'll let you know if/when/where I decide to ever go out in a (polite, well-referenced) fireball of glory. Thanks again for your kind message. Awickert (talk) 01:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of how any one of these many debates ends, of more interest in the debates is to notice the vehemance with which some (seemingly, but not actually at all) trivial information is obliterated from all Chavez/Venezuela articles, based often on marginal interpretation of Wiki policy, usually with different standards applied if the shoe is on the other foot, and a lot of bullying of any new editor who attempts to introduce any balance. Consensus and NPOV have failed in the Chavez articles; new editors are quickly overwhelmed and aren't able to or haven't taken the time to learn policy, and typically leave in defeat or after being blocked. I have never encountered another non-Venezuelan editor who has the knowledge of or interest in Venezuela to combat this effort, or understands the significance of the information being removed, or reads the Venezuelan and international press daily, and according to what they tell me, Venezuelans saw the gig on Wiki and gave up long ago, knowing that the publicity machine can always outnumber them on Wiki. All of those articles should just have big POV tags stuck on them until/unless something changes, more neutral editors engage, and article owners are obliged to work towards neutrality. Have you asked yourself why the suppression of those names is seemingly so important? Chavez has a very effective publicity machine, with long arms. Good luck if you stay engaged: I decided long ago it wasn't worth the effort unless others engage, and only drop in occasionally (on days when I have a really strong stomach :). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know why it is important. All of the Chávez-government supported official "reliable" news sources employed a lot of folks from other countries. These people were generally liberal and generally supported worthy causes for liberals to support, but didn't seem to understand what "caudillo" meant, or what "socialism" meant when it came from said caudillo. After working for Chávez, these people went about business as usual, often promoting his agenda as "third parties", although they were once in his pay. So the same voices who call for world peace call for the continuation of a dictatorship. Effective propaganda. However, for the discussion, I felt like I was defeated before the argument started. Even if the rules are interpreted broadly and spread unevenly, I really didn't feel like I had anything to stand on. They had a point, it worked, and I wasn't about to stop trying to be NPOV just so something that seemed less-than-kosher that supported a chavista POV could be balanced with something else less-than-kosher.

I've also noticed that almost nothing is written about Venezuela or Chávez in the articles on Weisbrot or CEPR.

I try to keep on top of what happens in Venezuela. I read El Universal, and El País when it has Venezuela articles. I read oppo and chavista blogs frequently enough to stay on top of things. I also read the Miami Hearald, WSJ, and NY Times, and keep in semi-frequent touch with a number of Venezuelans. Granted, I'm no fountain of knowledge, but I feel like I'm not clueless either. I've only been on top of things since around 2005 or 2006, though.

I think I'll keep going with the Venezuelan stuff. I've been practicing on keeping POV out of climate change articles, and that alone has given me an iron gut.

Awickert (talk) 02:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, bringing reason to the climate change debate and trying to tell chavistas that Chavez is not infallible is probably the same, given the cult like attitude shared by believers in the end of the world and Chavez apologists. SandyGeorgia makes some very interesting points, which I am only too aware of: recently I was banned for purportedly having made 4 reversions on March 9 to the VIO page, which is a complete fabrication. But the interesting thing is that the administrator who blocked me didn't even bother to check whether JRSP accusation were in fact true or not; he just blocked me. Then of course others came, and repeatedly refused to accept that the initial allegation was false to begin with, so they interpreted guidelines to accommodate the cock up. However, having said all this, there aren't many chavista editors as far as I can tell: the most active, JRSP and Rd232, can't be taken as representative of Wikipedia's wider community. They may count with sympathetic editors here and there, but whereas there's a notable liberal majority here, the liberal establishment the world over is pretty much condemnatory of Chavez's policies. To conclude, I will not give up, been busy on other things lately, but I will continue learning and editing until some balance is brought to Venezuela/Chavez pages. This is a public encyclopedia, not an extension of Chavez propaganda arm. As per inclusion of names, I never seen people so contradictory in the public sphere about their connections to a regime on the one hand and their advocacy/apologism on the other: they can protest, send letters to editors, spin, lobby, disseminate propaganda, but they don't want to be caught dead admitting having done so for money. Case in point Shellenberger, lobbyst of the head of a petrostate cum environmentalist, or is it the other way around? In either case the conflict is out there, in the public domain. How do I put POV tags on articles?--Alekboyd (talk) 10:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, on climate change, I try to be an equal-opportunity hammer against the alarmist and the skeptics: in general, anything that is unsubstantiated by good research. As to the 3RR, there was edit warring, and you were in the minority, unfortunately, so that's the result. The best thing to do would be to put it behind you, and like SandyGeorgia said, to pick your battles and build a reputation for good editing, like it sounds like you're trying to do. Walk very softly and try very hard to work politely with other editors, even when it seems like things aren't right. You'll probably need to work with JRSP and Rd232 quite a bit in the future, and I've found them to be reasonable enough if things don't become heated. Awickert (talk) 19:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

AWickert, it sounds like you keep well informed, and understand the underlying issues provided by the example of Weisbrot and CEPR, which is info that Chavez apologists don't want exposed. Do you read El Universal in English or Spanish? Their English translations are dismal, and be aware that there is still censorship of the press in Venezuela, although Chavez apologists still deny it, so that you must also read non-Venezuelan sources. The BBC and the NYT used to be biased, but they have gotten better since the "stinky sulfur" speech at the UN. The Economist has good coverage, and indepth analysis is provided by Foreign Policy magazine; it is good to regularly search those sources, in addition to daily checks of news.google.com. Our articles are supposed to reflect a preponderance of what reliable sources say; currently none of them do, as Chavez apologists are wont to delete even reliably sourced information, claiming Western bias. By the way, I'd avoid the Venezuelan blog-o-sphere. Since all of my comadres, compadres, ahijados and best friends in the world are Venezuelan, I don't mind calling a spade a spade: Venezuelans are wont to spread rumor and exaggerate without checking facts, and their arrogance sometimes prevents them from seeing the big picture. Venezuela is where it is because of what I call the six Cs: Carter, Castro, Chavez, complacency, comfort, and corruption. Venezuelans themselves don't understand the extent to which they are responsible for what they have created.

Alekboyd, as I've said before, if you don't thoroughly read, understand and respect policy, you will continue to be frustrated in your efforts, end up blocked, and develop a reputation as a tendentious editor. WP:3RR is an inviolate policy on Wiki; read it and understand it. Wiki is not the blog-o-sphere, and you can't write anything you want here or expect that you won't encounter resistance from the Chavez apologists, who do outnumber you on Wiki. Your edits have to be strictly defensible within Wiki policy. It is not worth getting into a tangle and ending up blocked over an issue that few editors will understand; begin to learn policy and focus on picking your battles. You need to adopt a collaborative and policy-based approach. To place a POV tag, you need to thoroughly read, digest and internalize WP:NPOV, and justify the tag with a talk page post. You should scrupulously work and edit your posts offline before posting them to make sure there are as effective as possible.

As I've said before elsewhere, I am not willing to engage this futile battle, and help Venezuelans neutralize these articles, until/unless I see Venezuelans helping themselves. So far, they appear, end up blocked, and never learn policy, so engaging is just frustrating. The opposition has failed because of their own arrogance, and Venezuelans have sat on the sidelines and watched as Wiki is owned by pro-Chavistas; why should I help?

The next important issue to focus on is this issue developing over the impending and inevitable food shortages; people are finally scared as they see what is approaching. There will be food shortages because of the damage done by Chavez's price controls, but attention is being deflected to this issue of factory takeovers, so it can be blamed on private industry. Pay attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I read EU in Spanish; though it takes me a little longer (for some reason I can zip through El País, but the writing EU is harder for my brain to digest), it seems necessary to read in Spanish because it seems like the quality of their English section is steadily dropping. I think that the blogs, chavista and oppo, are generally factually accurate, though the opinions and interpretations vary widely, and it's interesting. I'm very worried about the state of food in Venezuela: one major reason why I've felt opposed to Chávez for so long is that I was afraid of what would happen when oil dropped and he stopped being able to give handouts to the poor (especially right before elections, but I digress). It looks like around now, the reality is going to it that the economic infrastructure is gutted and that "socialism" is a fat checkbook with freebies for all and a bunch of international money-waving and bluster. I'm watching what's happening with Cargill and Polar, but I don't see how that will do anything but make it's the government's fault about the food in the long-term (unless history can be rewritten sufficiently). It's not that I'm against socialism; my political philosophy is a paparazzi of socialism (health care, education, to get everyone on a +/- level playing field) and libertarianism (once everyone has basic needs, it's all their own responsibility to prosper or fail), but I feel like he's doing it fundamentally incorrectly and that his "21st century socialism" is really just a throwback to the failures of the 20th century.

SandyGeorgia, many thanks again for your advice. As stated elsewhere I am trying to learn policy, and, eventually, will get there. I am also pretty aware of the dynamics at play here. Interestingly I am reading a book called Metahistory, which helps tremendously at the time of making sense of the historiographical input of chavistas in Wikipedia. I have never had a problem admitting to the errs on our side, nor have I ever denied that we, as a group, are as prone to errors as anyone else. The fact that Chavez is in power just proves the point. However I do have a problem with chavista editors arguing that I am violating POV, V, RS, 3RR, etc., when, in fact, every addition that I have made complies with Wikipedia policy, and some of their additions rely heavily on sources which do not comply with Wikipedia policy. I also have a problem with administrators blocking me for alleged violations that never took place. So I guess, what I am trying to say is that there should be a discussion among the wider Wikipedian community about the sway that a handful of editors have on Venezuela/Chavez pages, even in the absence of counter POV editors. The author of Metahistory tells us that once you separate from chronicle and you "emplot" (as in turning events into a plot) a historical story into a narrative, you enter into the philosophy of history, loaded with ideology and preferred methods of approaching historical facts. As an example, I will cite Chavez's coup in 1992: to me it was a coup in which many people died, to chavistas it was an insurgency against oppression that was morally justified owing to neoliberal measures implemented by CAP. But then again the chronicle remains: on 4 February 1992 Chavez led a coup. Same happens with Jones, Wingerter, Naiman, Shellenberger, Weisbrot, etc. They can interpret all right, they are entitled to their opinions as the next person, however allowing Chavez apologists to delete facts that exist in the chronicle, and that have been corroborated by reliable sources, merely for ideological reasons is wrong and should not be permitted in Wikipedia, if it is to be called a neutral encyclopedia: all of them did work for Chavez, Schellenberger did lobby for the head of a petrostate while writing his environmental magnus opus. I once wrote about this to Jimbo Wales.[2] So I would like to propose that a page to discuss Venezuela/Chavez related entries in Wikipedia be created in whichever notice board applies and that the wider Wikipedian community is urged to determine whether said entries should have any space in Wikipedia in its current format.--Alekboyd (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

First, appealing to Jimbo Wales is a moot and useless effort; he once intervened in the Che Guevara article, and that turned into quite a debacle. Article writing is best left to editors who understand the topic, and I doubt that Jimbo Wales understands anything about Chavez or Venezuela. Second, before you can expect to effect any change in the Wiki dynamic, you have to establish yourself as a credible editor. Getting blocked for 3RR does not accomplish that. I have established my credentials as a serious editor on Wiki, and even I, as one editor, am insufficient to confront the propoganda machine. Until/unless enough editors establish their credentials and learn to edit within Wiki policy, collaboratively and civilly, Chavistas will continue to own Wiki. I have said this ad nauseum to everyone who is anyone in Venezuela, and as long as they remain apathetic, there's no reason for me to grow gray hairs over it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Nevado del Ruiz

Awickert, with your geology background, would you be interested in reviewing Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nevado del Ruiz? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure I'll do it - I remember seeing it on the WP Geology page, but somehow it went in one ear and out the other, figuratively, more like in one eye and out the other, but that just sounds weird. Awickert (talk) 17:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks ! (It doesn't appear that anyone knowledgeable in the topic area has been through it yet.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

So far it looks pretty decent - though I'll add my comments after I review. A question for you that I haven't been able to track down on WP:MoS - should only 1 wikilink to a given page be in a given article, or can there be more than one? Awickert (talk) 17:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm more interested in content review and whether the article is comprehensive (see WP:WIAFA), but to answer your MoS question, it's a matter of judgment. Typically, terms need only be linked once in the article, but it's OK to link highly technical terms more than once if there's a large amount of space between the occurrences and readers may have forgotten what the term means. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Here you go: Wikipedia:MOSLINK#General_principles and WP:OVERLINKing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much; I think I might add an extra link for some more jargon-ey things in the geology section. One last question: since I've never done a FA review before, is it OK to just make edits on the article, or should I create a list of suggestions and bring it to the FA review page and then make edits and cross them off? Awickert (talk) 21:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Generally, it's OK to edit, but if the nominator gets bothered by that, it's best to then back off. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

OK - thanks for the advice. Awickert (talk) 23:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance on this article. Although you have less than 40 edits so far, you and others have substantially rewritten the article (it wasn't close to FA standard before your involvement, in spite of numerous Support declarations). I have added you as a co-nom on the FAC, since your input and article improvement was significant; if you are uncomfortable being listed as a co-nom, please feel free to remove your name. Thanks again, and I hope to see much more of you at WP:FAC and WP:FAR ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the thank-you. I feel good about co-nominating it, as so far, all of my outstandinc concerns have been addressed. I feel that the writing is now better - and more importantly, that it is factually sound.

I'll keep an eye out to see if other geology/geophysics/continuum mechanics articles come up ... or if there's an article in bad need of a truly nitpick copyeditor. Drop a message here if you want me to look at something.

Awickert (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Misquah Hills

Your cite request at Misquah Hills prompted me to do a bit of digging. Couldn't find much. The proximity to the Gunflint range suggested older granitic material. However, I came across a ref to Misquah Hills granophyre as being related to the Mid-continent rift and the Duluth complex. Trouble is I don't have access to the referenced paper, just the abstract. The abstract is here: [doi:10.1016/j.precamres.2007.02.019 ] The magmatic evolution of the Midcontinent rift: New geochronologic and geochemical evidence from felsic magmatism, Precambrian Research Volume 157, Issues 1-4, 1 August 2007, Pages 235-268 with a section on the Misquah Hills granophyre, if you have access. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 19:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I have been looking also. I don't know if it would count as the dreaded "original research", but the coordinates of Eagle Mountain plus this map might help-- if your eyes hold out. The hill are within the Duluth Complex and south of the other formations on the border. Kablammo (talk) 19:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, looking around. I see on my geologic map of Minnesota at home that there is a felsic series in the Duluth Complex. I had no idea; I always thought of it as a classic layered mafic/ultramafic intrusive. Now I'm going to try to line that up with the coords and the more high-res map that Kablammo found. I don't think it would be OR - we're just saying that coords such-and-such on a geologic map say what the map says. I'm going to look up the paper as well; if I can manage to get a copy, would either of you like me to email it? Awickert (talk) 20:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Yeah, I just found that map again, and when I view at 200x my eyes can see... and that pink dfmh unit in the Misquah Hills is the granophyre unit of the Duluth. I had the hills located further north in my mental map previously. I'd say that map and the rich text file accompanying it [3] would work as references. Vsmith (talk) 20:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Got the paper, it's got a bunch of good data: U-Pb and bulk oxides. Misquah Hills are composed of Granite, Qtz monzonite, and monzodiorite, that xtallized as the roof of the Duluth complex. I'm going to add the rock type and the U-Pb dates to the article. I think I may have uploaded that map or a similar one to Commons (maybe it's in my to-do list still), so if I get the time, I might cut out the section of interest and upload a little file for the Misquah article. Thanks for finding the paper, talk. Awickert (talk) 20:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Good work. Feel free to add to Duluth Complex also if you're so inclined. Kablammo (talk) 20:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I've done a little Duluth complex, but my knowledge of petrology isn't all I wish it could be. I'll add if I find the time and feel like I have something useful to say :-) Awickert (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I would indeed like a copy of the paper, I'm interested in the Mid-continent rift... call it part of my hobby :-) Vsmith (talk) 20:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Just found a pdf copy at http://www.d.umn.edu/~mille066/Teaching/5100_07/Vervoort%20et%20al.,%202007.pdf ... Vsmith (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

~~OK - will send.~~ [edit conflict, sounds good] If you're interested, I'm also compiling newly-public-domain Minnesota geologic maps on Wikimedia, if you search and find one (watch out, they're huge) (or you could also just click on them on Geology of Minnesota), you could get the link to the database (which is on the PD copyright tag) and look around. I also think the rift is pretty cool - maybe I'm just a biased Minnesotan who is, in fact, wearing a flannel shirt at this moment, Fargo-esque. Awickert (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm going to get off my butt, figuratively, and upload the map of the Lake Superior region to Commons. Will tell you when its up. Awickert (talk) 20:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Got the map up. Awickert (talk) 20:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Stay away from woodchippers. Kablammo (talk) 20:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Will do my best. Awickert (talk) 20:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm questioning the text accompanying fn 3. I have Ojakangas and this text goes beyond what he says.

Should we copy this discussion to talk page, and continue there? Kablammo (talk) 20:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, probably. I'll check that out too. Awickert (talk) 20:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Misquah Hills. I did not copy this discussion (as it appears to be resolved), but brought up my concern mentioned above. Kablammo (talk) 20:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Well maybe that explains my confusion with the Gunflints?? Gotta blame it on something :-) I'm wearing a flannel shirt now also ... although I'm way down south in the Ozarks. My mom was from Bemidji and I've a bunch of relatives up there. Vsmith (talk) 21:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The Ozarks, eh? I've always wanted to visit, they just stand out on a topo map, and even more on a geologic map. I grew up in St. Paul, across from a end moraine of the Superior lobe, above the bluffs with the Ordovician sed sequence, and I sure do miss living there. Awickert (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

A couple of "recovering Minnesotans", huh? It's 50 degrees here today and the Scandahoovians are confused. They're thinking about pulling off their union suits they donned last fall; they normally don't scrape them off until St. Urho's Day. Kablammo (talk) 21:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

:-) 50! Oof, sheesh, I was just on the phone with people back there the other day, and they said it was near 0; what a swing! Awickert (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Earth.

Sure. The guy got into LEO. Any object from there would be dragged down by Earth atmosphere. Just like an air plane would be downed by it. Sure in first case it will take longer time, since atmosphere not very dense on LEO. But I see no real difference in terms of "left an Earth" - both air plane of Wright brothers and Gagarin himself left an arth. Vitall (talk) 09:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah - I see your point, and left a message at your talk page, and started a section at the article talk page about it. Let's move the discussion there. Awickert (talk) 09:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

RfC

RfCs are not usually in article talk space, although I'm not too familiar with them. Answer questions you can clarify, leave the rest to others. It's your RfC, and you want assistance with the matter. --KP Botany (talk) 07:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, that's where they should be, in article talk space. I shouldn't even have said anything. Get sleep, concentrate on issue when you return. --KP Botany (talk) 07:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Medium- to large-scale deformation

Hi Andrew, I saw the thick-skinned deformation stub and after reading your note I thought I'd look at expanding the Thrust tectonics stub that I started way back when. I've included a new section on deformation styles including both thick and thin skinned. I'd be interested in your comments. Nothing of course to stop stubs on the same topics being created. I note that decollement already exists as a stub, I'll have a look at expanding that bit. As regards fault-bend folding I reckon that should be covered much better in the thrust fault and fold (geology) articles than it is at present. I'll also look to see if I think there's enough material out there to create a separate article on the subject. Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 22:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey - thanks. I'll go to the Thrust tectonics article and branch out from there. There aren't any good public domain figures of orogenic wedges that I can find, so I think I might make a couple whenever I find the time. Also when I find the time, I'll add fault-bend folds and fault-propagation folds to the thrust fault article: I picked up a couple good figures from the USGS and put them on Commons; they're the gifs that don't show up as thumbnails in the list (at least for me). Awickert (talk) 22:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The fault propagation fold graphic is really nice but I think that the fault bend fold could be improved upon, if I get a spare moment and feel suitably inspired, I'll give it a try, they're pretty easy to construct. Mikenorton (talk) 23:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. It's too bad I tossed all of my stuff from structural geology. Since USGS stuff is in public domain, would that mean that it would be legal for me to get a map from a library and scan a cross-section? Awickert (talk) 10:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

New graphic uploaded and added to the article. I kind of completely revised your text, hope that was OK. I also re-ordered the sections and re-wrote the duplex bit. I'll try to add a section on fault propagation folding some time soon. As regards the USGS cross-sections, I guess that they are open file, just like most of their stuff. Mikenorton (talk) 15:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for revising my text - it sucked big time. And thanks for the 2nd opinion on the USGS stuff - I'll see if I can find any really good characteristic cross-sections. Nice figure, by the way. Awickert (talk) 06:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I really need to do a figure to illustrate duplex formation now, it's hard to describe in words only. Mikenorton (talk) 11:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah - that's something that's really simple in pictures, and really complicated in words. I'll search around and add something if I find it. Awickert (talk) 16:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

This presentation has a few figures, though some are pretty garish - take a look. Is the Seattle uplift a roof duplex?

Passive roof duplexes are even harder to explain (and in a lot of cases believe IMO), think I'll stick with trying to explain the standard type, but thanks. Mikenorton (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

OK - I think we're running into the Andy-is-not-a-structural-geologist wall; I'd never heard of passive roof duplexes, but looking at the kinds of data, I can see where your opinion is coming from. Did you make the fault-bend fold figure in some kind of vectorized image editor? If so, you (or I, if you send it to me) could probably just add a second fault to it. Awickert (talk) 17:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, feel free to bamboozle me with some fluid dynamics any time you like. I use the freeware Inkscape but my svg graphics files never upload successfully to commons, no idea why. Yes I was planning on modifying the fault bend fold graphic to show at least one extra horse forming + the place where the next one will form (hopefully that will be enough to get the message over). Here's an example of a passive roof duplex [4] for your edification, the roof thrust is a backthrust, as the duplex grows it sort of forces its way beneath the roof, hope that helps, if not I shouldn't worry. Mikenorton (talk) 18:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) That's weird that yours don't upload to Commons; if you want to send one to me, I'd be willing to play around and see what would work. Speaking of fluids... and continua... I think I should put something up on the physics of critical wedges sometime. Thanks for the figure. One question, though: why is the roof thrust going in two directions at once? (I assume it's a mistake...)

Without the whole section to the right, I can only guess that this particular roof thrust isn't completely passive, otherwise there should be no thrust to the right of the duplex front. I've just used the Wikipedia e-mail option to send you a message that you can reply to, then I can send you a .svg file, if you don't mind having a look, thanks. Mikenorton (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

But if it is going in two directions at once, there should be a fault (normal fault or re-activated thrust with normal sense of motion, I'd guess) separating those sections... I'm running a different partition of my hard drive right now, so I'll get to your image once I switch over into the primary partition (where I have the majority of my software for doing things with images). Awickert (talk) 19:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

My guess is that there is another thrust (backthrust or forethrust) cutting up through the shallow section to the north of the bit that we can see. I'm off to Norway for a week (working in an office sadly), but I'll send the example graphic before I go. Mikenorton (talk) 11:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, have a great time, I'll see what I can do with the figure, and we'll talk when you get back. Awickert (talk) 17:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Citation bot

Glad you enjoy it. Have you worked out how to use it with {{cite doi}} yet? That makes life easier still (-: Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 23:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I haven't: I've heard that {{cite doi|12345.bla}} takes a while to process by the DOI bot. So the citation bot does that too now? That's great. I'll run it on any page then where I see un-finished "cite doi" tags. Awickert (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Thanks and Geologist on Wikipedia

Thanks for the welcoming. My faith in Wikipedia has been restored in the past few days. And you're right, I must have hit upon the article at a bad time. It's reassuring to know there's geologists out there looking out for what the general public are reading about our science. Yorrike (talk) 10:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for shouldering the load

Hi Andrew, Just to say thanks for shouldering the main load in dealing with the recent struggles on the Expanding Earth and other pages without losing your cool, it really is appreciated. Mikenorton (talk) 22:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, no problem. I was less frustrated with the position of the editor than the fact that (s)he refused to engage in discussion, saying that my criticism of the sources (some of which had nothing to do with EE, others of which were in pseudoscience journals) was "my POV", insulting my arguments instead of addressing them, repeating himself/herself, refusing to answer questions, and generally being aggressive. Sheesh! I guess that's what I get for arguing with a sock. Although I did come away with some things that bring a smile to my face. My favorite two:

"Conservation of mass is a red herring."
Being accused of being Woodwalker's sock by a sock

Awickert (talk) 17:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)