Seems the first was removing a forum edit - usually ok. Don't know why the non-breaking spaces were needed, but the colon for indent, OK ... Vsmith (talk) 16:50, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the article Eclogite, there is a grammatical error in the caption of the lead image. There's a run-on sentence. I assume "it" refers to white quartz, but since I'm not 100% sure, I thought I'd check with you. CorinneSD (talk) 00:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Better location; however, you need to format a reference for the direct quote. Also, a blog post is a bit lacking as a reference. Vsmith (talk) 21:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
.[1] was added, for something more on point. Your roping me in is appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanismws (talk • contribs) 01:33, 7 July 2015
Because while I am, generally, a chem expert, I am not an inorganic or solid state or geo-chemist by training, and so should not be the one composing the sentence or two to add at each article, to justify the wikilink. While you and I know that the wikilink is valid, we do not write for ourselves, and it is inappropriate to use the link without searchable information at each article allowing a student or other layperson to understand the basis for it.
I am reverting your removal, temporarily, until such time as someone with background in non-stoichimetric materials can add a sourced sentence or two to each article. Until then, I ask that you allow the tags to remain (valid as the relationship is, until it is explained).
Seems it has already been "fixed". Such "background" is not needed to make the edit - we don't need to be subject matter experts, rather just use good sources. Vsmith (talk) 00:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, an experienced and expert editor came in and made the change, and so I left your deletion in place. (Actually, I reverted, then re-reverted!) In any case, that matter is settled.
read if you wish
However, a short essay to close. The incoming editor who fixed the lack of cross-appearing material to make it clear, in each article, as to how the articles were related (and so why they were wikilinked), was in fact a chemist (i.e., an expert). The dearth of such editors and editing is what make Wikipedia chemistry articles, on the whole, of such poor general quality. Look to the number of GA articles there, and it is a paltry small fraction. And with time, even the top articles are drifting toward worse, for amateur attention (and expert inattention).
So, from this practicing chemist and teacher's informed opinion, far from subject matter expertise being unnecessary, its absence is why this encyclopedia remains an unusable academic source in our field, and the shortcomings of science articles in general are aflood with the results of non-specialists editing them (e.g., the wide distribution of anything-that-strikes-you dumping of primary-sourced factoids about research results, otherwise—other than at Wikipedia—not yet elevated to appear in texts and reviews).
It takes a trained individual to read the literature, organise information broad in scope in a pedagogically sound way, and then to populate the valid subcategories of the subject, and to maintain it over time—sorting substantiated results from unsubstantiated, even using secondary sources. Note, the Journal TIBS long had a regularly populated "Textbook errors section," and professors generally understand the need to read reviews (for colleagues' caught mistakes), and pre-read texts (to find any others) before using even a good, tried teaching text. [We gave prizes each week in graduate school to the individual finding the most mistakes in new versions of the otherwise esteemed Isaacs' Physical Organic Chemistry (advanced text, see two reviews here, [2]).]
Hence, even if one assumes the underlying root definitions and structures of science articles at WP are sound—and many if not most, are not, see the "Elementary concepts" section edit in this diff, [3], as well as the broad recent edits to Chemical compound and Chemical substance ledes and definitions—we are not "free and clear." The attitudes/principles that all editors are created equal in their dedication to scholarly sourcing, and that any editor approaching a well-structured article framework can equally choose good sources to extract, and then extract them in an encyclopedic fashion—these are (in my long experience here) simply demonstrably false. And that the core principles of WP regarding consensus to decide factual content—this contributes to the problem, through its aggravation of otherwise dedicated but time-constrained expert editors without patience to develop supportive editorial networks to fight for the truth about the points they try to make (a matter loo long to even begin addressing here).
Donc, non mon ami, non… apart from the irony of your comment's fundamental philosophy, viewed alongside WP's maintaining an "expert needed" tag, yours—forgive me, in my experienced opinion, with many thousands of science edits, via IP and over several historical logins—is simply an uninformed opinion vis-à-vis science content. The leading and best medical article editor is a practicing physician. The best chemistry editors—for correcting mistakes, and revising articles toward scholarly understandings—are practicing chemists, many PhDs. The lack of, and disdain for expertise, far from being a hallmark of WP, actually contributes substantially to its failures (and, as MIT Technology has noted, [4], its creeping demise), and certainly not to its long-term success.
Finally, before pointing to the Nature "study" or other such WP-self-aggrandizing material (Oxford and other collaborative interactions, same issues), see this note on the importance of selection and statistical power on well designed comparison studies, [5], as well as the WP text content to which it is attached, and the citation it provides.
With regard to the need for expertise, I would note some of my points on problems with science quality echo those of Roy Rosenzweig, an American history Prof, in his review of biographies of 25 Americans at WP (a study still failing the statistical power test, as no one argues that some WP articles will be good). Rosenzweig wrote that WP is "accurate in reporting names, dates, and events in U.S. history" (better for those 25 biographies than for science, it seems). But he, like I, goes on to point to things that only experts can provide: RR states that Wikipedia "often fails to distinguish important from trivial details, and does not provide the best references, [and it lacks] 'persuasive analysis and interpretations' (see [6], skimming down past the Nature discussion). Taken together, the flaws to which attention has been called are valid, and the supposed comparison "studies" leading to the conclusion we are doing well are deeply flawed. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've hatted the lecture -- take it up with Jimbo. What is Wikipedia? The encyclopedia anyone can edit... Cheers :) Vsmith (talk) 23:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Introducing the new WikiProject Evolutionary biology!
I am happy to introduce you to the new WikiProject Evolutionary biology! The newly designed WikiProject features automatically updated work lists, article quality class predictions, and a feed that tracks discussions on the 663 talk pages tagged by the WikiProject. Our hope is that these new tools will help you as a Wikipedia editor interested in evolutionary biology.
V, I'm reading the article on Jane C. Goodale, and in the section Jane C. Goodale#Influence there is a block quote. However, in the block quote, the first sentence, besides missing a comma after "have been", is not a complete sentence. Something is missing. I clicked on the reference number, then on the link in the reference, and could not find this quote. I was looking for the original source so I could find the missing word (unless the original also is missing a word). Can you help me find the original text of this quote? CorinneSD (talk) 01:28, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
V, I'd like your help clarifying something in the lead of the article on Crystallography. The first two sentences in the second paragraph are:
Before the development of X-ray diffraction crystallography (see below), the study of crystals was based on their geometry. This involves measuring the angles of crystal faces relative to theoretical reference axes (crystallographic axes), and establishing the symmetry of the crystal in question.
The word "this" that starts the second sentence is not clear. I assume it refers to a method of studying crystals based on geometry, but that's not completely clear. It could also refer to the development of X=ray diffraction crystallography. "This method" might be a little clearer, but there would still be a little ambiguity. It would be cleared up if the verb in the second sentence were changed to past tense – "involved" – tying it to the last clause in the preceding sentence with its past tense verb "was based". If, on the other hand, it would be desirable to keep the present tense "involves" to avoid any suggestion that this method is no longer used, then perhaps the last clause in the first sentence could be made more specific. CorinneSD (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of annoying you with another request, could you take a look at the last paragraph in the lead? It starts off with a good introductory (or topic) sentence, tied to the three types of diffraction at the end of the previous sentence. However, after the first sentence, this last paragraph has no clear organization. The second sentence starts off fine, with "X-rays interact with the spatial distribution of electrons in the sample," but after that, I'm lost. For example, it's not clear whether the clause beginning with "while" is a further explanation of the first type of interaction or is introducing a second type. I don't know much about crystallography, but I think with slightly better organization, the various types of interaction might be a little clearer. CorinneSD (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the section "Other effects" in the article on Crystal optics, I came across "In response to a magnetic field, some materials can have a dielectric tensor that is complex-Hermitian," and later, "A dielectric tensor that is not Hermitian gives rise to complex eigenvalues". I wondered what "Hermitian" was, so entered it in the search box. It led to a kind of disambiguation page, List of things named after Charles Hermite. I assume that the particular use in Crystal optics is one of the things in that list, but I don't know which one. If the word could be linked to the right one, it might add to the comprehensibility of the article. CorinneSD (talk) 20:53, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When I see an article containing a mass of math eqns in large LaTeX format ... me eyes glaze over... zzz... (brings memories of attempts to read Britannica math articles when I was a kid.) Vsmith (talk) 02:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just read the article on Petrographic microscope. In the second-to-last paragraph is the following sentence:
To observe the interference figure, true petrographic microscopes usually include an accessory called a Bertrand lens, which focuses and enlarges the figure.
The word "figure" appears twice in this sentence, but is not used anywhere else before this. The sentence preceding this sentence says, "A particular light pattern...is created as a conoscopic interference pattern," but for a reader to instantly associate the word "figure" with "pattern" I think is a stretch. It's not clear that the same thing is meant by both words, and the word "figure" can mean different things. Perhaps the word "pattern" should be continued, or the word "image" used instead of "figure". Perhaps "image" followed by "pattern" in parentheses? CorinneSD (talk) 21:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In Spinel, would it be all right if I reversed the order of the two carat figures in the caption for the image in the infobox? It seems that the red spinel on the right has the greater number of carats. Shouldn't the order of carats in the caption reflect the left-right arrangement in the photo? CorinneSD (talk) 21:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am working on a pet project to help digitize information about the field of metalsmithing+jewelry. I started with making a page for Art jewelry forum (AJF), and have a list of artists that I would like to make pages for as well. The AJF page has been nominated for deletion because it is questioned if the organization is "notable". I am reaching out to you because I saw that you edited some pages that relate to studio craft, and thought you may have an informed opinion (unlike the mathematician who nominated the page for deletion) about whether or not it is a "notable organization". If you have an opinion, one way or another, please way in on the articles for deletion discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Art_jewelry_forumClarefinin (talk) 20:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just started reading the article on Australia. In the section Australia#Etymology, there are two block quotes. However, the second one is formatted differently from the first one. I don't understand the need for an asterisk and indentation. Would you mind looking at it? CorinneSD (talk) 15:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Chopped the link. No explanation or text - just google satellite images with an arrow pointing to a cemetery(?). What was the purpose? Vsmith (talk) 22:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry 'bout that ... I had earlier missed the in text part - or would have zapped that then also. Pure speculation and a link to a google sat image stored on a commercial website have no place in a Wikipedia article; please read WP:OR. By the way, I like old plastic models ... have several "a young kid back in the 50s" put together. Vsmith (talk) 13:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Talk pages are for discussing the article. You are free to discuss there, but would need more than speculation to gain acceptance - reliable sources rather than spec/OR needed. Vsmith (talk) 14:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just read the article on Macquarie Island. In the section on Macquarie Island#Geography, I noticed that there is similar information in the first and last paragraphs. I think perhaps the information should be brought together into one paragraph. Do you feel like working on it? If not, tell me, first, whether you agree, and second, where you think the information should be placed. CorinneSD (talk) 01:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can easily answer, if you don't mind. The title of the linked article is plural, so putting the "s" inside the brackets avoids using a redirect in this case. (In most cases it would result in a red link.) Zaereth (talk) 00:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) V and Zaereth Oh, I'm sorry for bothering you. I should have looked at the article title. Most titles are singular, so I just assumed it should be singular, and I had often seen the plural "s" outside the brackets. Of course you and the editor are right. That will teach me always to look at the article title. CorinneSD (talk) 01:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reading the article on the Bonin Islands, and in the second paragraph of the Bonin Islands#British possession section, the name "Nathaniel" is spelled two different ways. The first way has a link to an article where it is spelled that way. The second way is "Nathanael" (which is an unusual spelling). I don't know whether it would be safe to change it to "Nathaniel" or whether that spelling reflects a spelling in the source for that statement. Is there any way to check that? CorinneSD (talk) 16:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most likely an alternate spelling; for consistency I'd say make them both "Nathaniel". If someone objects - discuss. Vsmith (talk) 01:00, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You will see in this edit to Red Skelton[9] that an editor reverted an edit in which another editor had added some pretty disgusting material. Since it is so disgusting, I'm wondering whether the editor who added it should be either warned or blocked. CorinneSD (talk) 23:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A bit of disgusting vandalism by someone using a random ip for a single edit - not likely to even see any warning posted (especially 3 hours later). Such happens often, one of Wikipedia's flaws. Sorry 'bout that. Vsmith (talk) 00:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. You said "The Aleutian Islands" aren't on the margins of Asia", but you left the phrase "of the margins of Asia" after Ryukyu Islands. Did you mean to do that? I looked at the map of the Ryukyu Islands in their article, and it doesn't seem that they are too far away from Asia. CorinneSD (talk) 18:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is rather an involved sentence and could be rephrased. But, yes I meant that ... Formosa, the Ryukus, the main Japanese islands and the Kurils Islands south of Kamchatka are "of the margins of Asia" (and are considered as Asian); whereas the Aleutians aren't, they extend at ~ right angles from the others. So I've rewritten it. Vsmith (talk) 19:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I revised it. In my edit summary, I said that I had added "Today" to signal a contrast with the "originally conceived" and past tense of the "1st parag.". I saw later that it was not in an earlier paragraph, it was earlier in the same paragraph. It looked liked a separate paragraph in edit mode – but the signal indicated by "Today" is still needed (unless it is all about an older conception of Oceania). I didn't like the sound or look of "Included are" and "Excluded are", so I re-phrased the sentences. I understand the difference between Taiwan/Formosa, the Ryukus, the Japanese islands, and Kurils and the Aleutians, being on different continents. I just had never heard the phrase "of the margins" [of anything!]. I've heard "at the margins" or even "on the margins", but not "of the margins". I think "at the margins" is better. Let me know what you think. CorinneSD (talk) 23:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see the videos were added to YouTube by a David Pearson (on NENA and KENORALAND) -- but lacking any other info. Is that this David Pearson? The audio on my computer is not currently working making it difficult to evaluate the videos. I'm not sure of their status re WP:RS and would appreciate more information if you can provide some detail.
The Canadian Geology Series David Pearson (@ YouTube) is not the same at all as the one US one that you found. The YouTube series is a 1970s video series for maybe TV Ontario as part of a distance learning programme. I have no idea on how to find info on the Canadian one or weather the Canadian one is still alive.
Eyreland (talk) 03:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Vsmith, You reverted edits that were made in good faith, and you have no references (commercial or otherwise) to back up the 9.5 claims. Why did you do this? DeeJaye6 (talk) 14:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@DeeJaye6:, I echo Vsmith's statement: commercial websites are not acceptable sources for information at this or any encyclopedia, here see WP:VERIFY. Reverting is the accepted way at WP to reverse edits that violate such policies, and Vsmith will have wide support for his change. Le Prof 71.201.62.200 (talk) 05:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The recent edits I did in the cinnabar lede. Perhaps you can ID someone to take care of the structure Figure legend/description issue, so that that long tag can be removed? Cheers. Le Prof. 71.201.62.200 (talk) 05:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I edit the "Heat Pump" page, in order to remove this statement:
[b]"In heating mode, heat pumps are three to four times more efficient in their use of electric power than simple electrical resistance heaters."[/b]
This is a misleading information, to make people believe one heat pump can pump 3 or 4 times more heat than electrical heaters, meaning one heat pump give more energy than he spend, and this is a breach of physics principles, first and second law of thermodynamics.
No, they are more efficient - produce the same amount of heat with less energy, as they are transferring heat energy from outside air or the ground to inside air rather than by through electrical resistance in a heating element. Same amount of heat in your home w/ less energy / lower bill from the power company. Vsmith (talk) 11:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, please could I just ask you to confirm that when you deleted Phrase marker (back in 2005) there was nothing of importance in the history of the article either? I'm thinking of recreating it (or at least dealing with the topic within some other article). Thanks, W. P. Uzer (talk) 07:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think of this edit to Mire? [11] Of course, I don't know which word is more correct, but I think the word "general" is a little boring and overused on WP. CorinneSD (talk) 16:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Vsmith,
Please excuse my ignorance regarding acceptable links. I had scanned through the terms and conditions but did not see anything that prohibited such a link. However, I have since learned, thanks to your links, that links that sell items are to be avoided. Thank you for your edit.
Cheers,
Scott (www.atomicrockshop.com) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srisner (talk • contribs) 23:08, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem with that, we were all new once. I note that you include a link to that commercial website here which suggests that you have a connection with it. Please read WP:conflict of interest as we simply aren't here to promote our own stuff. Vsmith (talk) 23:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, V - I have two questions for you regarding the article Calamine (mineral):
1) The first sentence right after the two-item bulleted list is:
The two minerals are usually very similar in appearance and can usually only be distinguished through laboratory analysis.
I'd like to revise this slightly to avoid the repetition of the word "usually". I wonder whether you think one could be deleted, or whether one could be changed to another word. I wonder whether two adverbs are needed before "be distinguished".
2) I found the last paragraph interesting. I didn't know that metallic zinc didn't exist in nature. Why not? Also, the last sentence says, "Brass produced by calamine is called calamine brass." I had never heard of that before. Are there other kinds of brass besides "calamine brass"? CorinneSD (talk) 23:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded the first sentence. Zinc is a highly reactive metal and only very rarely occurs as a native metal as far as I know. Metal elements, with the exception of copper, silver, gold and platinum, rarely occur uncombined. Iron and nickel only occur in native form in meteorites and some very rare highly reducing terrestrial environments. Brass is an alloy and various "types" based on relative proportions of Cu and Zn exist. The "calamine brass" was named based on the source f the zinc. Vsmith (talk) 01:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since baryte has oxygen, systematics in the δ18O of these sediments have been used to help constrain paleotemperatures for oceanic crust.
Could you tell me what "constrain" means in this sentence? I figure that it means "used to help determine" temperatures of the oceanic crust in earlier epochs, but I had never seen "constrain" used this way. CorinneSD (talk) 23:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My take and supported by google search: severely restrict the scope; which as used re: temperatures would mean something like - define or limit the range of paleotemperatures.Vsmith (talk) 00:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm copy-editing the article on the Mendip Hills, and I wanted to ask you something. In the section Mendip Hills#Geology, I noticed that "Carboniferous Limestone" is capitalized throughout. Should it be capitalized, and, if so, could you tell me why?
2) The last sentence of the Geology section is:
The hills gave their name to the rare mineral Mendipite, an oxide of lead, with chlorine, formula Pb3O2Cl2, an example of which has been found at the head of Ebbor Gorge.
I just wondered if the commas around "with chlorine" are necessary. Also, and this is a minor concern, I wondered: if the mineral is so rare that it is named after the Mendip Hills, it seems a little odd to say, "an example of which has been found". Is it that rare even in the Mendip Hills that only "an example" has been found?
1 The "Carboniferous Limestone" is a formally defined stratigraphical unit of the region. A general reference to some other limestone unit deposited in the Carboniferous Period would have a lower case "l". Altho usage in geological literature is at times inconsistent.
2 No, the comma before "with chlorine" is not needed - example of excess commaism. And that "an example" bit is rather odd as the type locality is Churchill, Somerset and that is where the gorge is located. Don't know if the orig discovery was in the gorge.
3 "if you have the time ..." - hey I'm retired and have lots of time. But, will I get around to it? or will I wander outside and enjoy a cool, rainy August day...? (Have read and there be a bit of fixin' needed ... and it'll pro'ly nag at me...) Vsmith (talk) 13:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm...just followed that copyedit guild link ... I s'pose the king there will p'raps be upset that I didn't follow their protocol or whatever :) Vsmith (talk) 16:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I just got chewed out for putting the "Working" template on three articles on that Requests for copy-edit page, meaning I had agreed to copy-edit those articles. I was actively working on at least two of them (see my talk page). Apparently, I'm only supposed to work on one at a time. You did a lot of work on the Geology section of Mendip Hills! Wow! I'm retired, too, and this is one of my hobbies. I wish it were cool and rainy here. It's warm and a little humid. I noticed in the section Mendip Hills#Quarrying, "carboniferous limestones", uncapitalized, in the second paragraph. Should that stay that way or be capitalized? CorinneSD (talk) 00:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cap'd the Carboniferous Limestone there for consistency, even a "general reference" to limestones of the Carboniferous the Carb should be cap'd. We had 1.5 inches of rain with a high of 78 °F - rare cool wet day here in the Ozarks. Vsmith (talk) 00:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
V, I've just started copyediting Exmoor (I've already left a comment about the lede at User talk:Rodw#Exmoor.) I noticed that there is an external link in the caption to the map of Exmoor in the infobox. Should there be an external link there? CorinneSD (talk) 16:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. I looked at both pages to which you provided a link, but did not see any explanation. I guess it is because it is a protected area that it can have the external link there. CorinneSD (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've seen it used on several park type pages. Maybe it is there because no-one bothered to question it. Or else a holdover from the good old days before ref tags, when bare ext links were commonly used as references. Vsmith (talk) 17:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since the main editor for Exmoor, Rodw, is leaving for a vacation, I thought I'd ask you this question. I figured you could probably answer it:
I see the word "upland" in the section Exmoor National Park and again in the section on Geology. Since that word is not common in American English, I wondered what it meant, exactly. When I entered the word in the search bar, it led to a disambiguation page. I wonder if there is an article, or section of an article, that would define "upland" and to which you could create a link. I didn't know which item on the disambiguation page would be the correct one. CorinneSD (talk) 22:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me my ignorance, V, but there is something about the last sentence in the section Exmoor#Geology that doesn't make sense to me:
The bedrock and more recent superficial deposits are covered in part by moorland and supported by wet, acid soil.
If you take out the middle of the sentence, this is what is left:
The bedrock and more recent superficial deposits are...supported by wet, acid soil.
I don't see how bedrock, or even superficial deposits on top of the bedrock, can be supported by soil. Is this a specialized meaning of the verb "support"? I can understand the plants that grow in moorland being supported by wet, acid soil. I just can't picture bedrock supported by wet, acid soil. CorinneSD (talk) 00:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd change to ... are covered in part by moorland which is supported by wet, acid soil. or something akin to that - haven't looked at the reference tho'. Vsmith (talk) 02:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've made the changes you suggested. In the first paragraph of the section Exmoor#Ecology I found a term called "blanket mire". I clicked on the link, and it led to a summary page. I found it in the list, then clicked on that. I still don't know what a blanket mire is. How do these links help a reader? CorinneSD (talk) 02:38, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the link to target blanket bog. Maybe if and when the specific mire type gets an article, this link could target that instead, but for the moment it wasn't helping anybody. Mikenorton (talk) 11:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Help!! I was reading System (stratigraphy) and I found several sentences were so dense that I thought, either this is way over my head or something is wrong with the writing. I fixed one sentence (would you mind checking to make sure it is correct?), but then the following paragraph was equally poorly written. System? or "A system"? (etc.) This article is for you. CorinneSD (talk) 22:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gah! That is rather garbled ... This article is for you. Gee thanks :) Don't recall seeing that one before (not on my watchlist anyway) - or maybe I looked and gagged. Should perhaps be reverted to the first version back in 08 by User:Woudloper. Chopped garbled 2nd para and shuffled a bit - maybe I'll look at it again in the morning ... Vsmith (talk) 02:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. I cut away the (imho) excessive wording. If we want to promote other (stub sized) articles with blue links, it would be more of a service to the reader to list them together in a "see also" section underneath. I personally do not see why, though (but please feel free to add if you do). Cheers, Woodwalkertalk01:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was reading the article on Glenthorne (linked from Exmoor), and I wanted to add a conversion template for hectares to acres at the beginning of the article, and then I realized there was a link at hectare. How do you add a conversion template when the word is linked? Or don't you? Maybe the link is not necessary if the template is added. CorinneSD (talk) 23:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think a conversion template is really needed as the link defines it. Could delink and then add the conversion to whatever units ... Vsmith (talk) 03:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I liked the photo in this article so much that I added it to my collection on my user page. I tried to create a caption using the words in the article even though I didn't understand them real well. Would you mind looking at the caption and telling me whether it is correct or not? I'd appreciate any suggestions you have for modifying or shortening it, or making it more interesting. It's near the end of my user page, right after the image of the Lena Delta. CorinneSD (talk) 23:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just copy-edited Phineas Gage while reading it. I just have to ask you about the citation style. I have never seen an article using this style. You'll see that it is unusual both in Edit Mode and in the article. I find the reference numbers – and letters – a bit distracting. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 02:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seems someone is re-inventing the wheel there. Don't know where this style was discussed other than on the talk page there. Vsmith (talk) 14:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The River Axe appears above ground just north of Wells, Somerset and flows westwards to the Bristol Channel just south of Weston-super-Mare. The Exe starts at Exe Head on Exmoor and flows southwards into the English Channel at Exmouth. They both get their name from the Brythonic word for water isca, but they are very different rivers. Mikenorton (talk) 23:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Please don't fucking drop in on my talk page and leave mysterious, cryptic notes to read various articles, as if I'm in your high school classroom, and I need to try to suck up to you for a higher mark and really am hanging on what your opinion is. If you have constructive criticism, I'd love to hear it, but it would be helpful to at least tell me WHICH EDIT YOU FIND PROBLEMATIC IN THE FIRST PLACE, and to say WHY, rather than sending me to an article I've already read, and which doesn't in any respect appear to be pertinent to either of the edits I made. Enjoy your day. Kingshowman (talk) 15:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please drop the shouting and foul language as it reflects rather poorly on you. A simple thank you for the note would have been more productive. Vsmith (talk) 16:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your failure to grasp what the word "synthesis" means reflects poorly on you. It is shocking how rude and boorish you are. "A simple "thank you for the note" would have been more productive." Other editors concurred that your note was "unhelpful and cryptic." Linking to a wikipedia policy page does not thereby make the policy relevant to the situation at hand. Mindless linking to irrelevant pages "reflects rather poorly on you" as does your incessant hounding me on pages you have not previously indicated any interest in.Kingshowman (talk) 21:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking at the latest edits to Bonin Islands, and I saw a sentence that didn't read quite right. It's this sentence in the lead:
"Bonin Islands" is the common name in English for Ogasawara Guntō, from the Japanese word bunin (an archaic reading of 無人 mujin), meaning "no people" or "uninhabited".
The long phrase "from the Japanese word bunin..." really should follow "Bonin Islands", or just "Bonin", not "Ogasawara Guntō". I was about to reword it as follows:
"Bonin Islands", the common name in English for Ogasawara Guntō, is from the Japanese word bunin (an archaic reading of 無人 mujin), meaning "no people" or "uninhabited".
But then I wondered whether it was even necessary to say, "the common name in English for Ogasawara Guntō" since "Ogasawara Guntō" is given as the Japanese alternate name right at the beginning of the lead. I thought I'd better ask you before I change anything. While you're there, could you look at the last two edits, one changing "Tokyo Prefecture" to "Tokyo Metropolis" and the other changing "Ogasawara Isands" to "Bonin Islands" [12]? Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 15:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Restored Ogasawara Isands to the template per the ref note just below. Tokyo Prefecture is an old 1940s term and seems not used now, whereas Tōkyō Prefecture redirects to Tokyo. The Bonin/Ogasawa Gunto bit in the lead is overkill (much ado 'bout nothing) in the lead - I'd say chop some. Vsmith (talk) 16:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Do you mean just chop "is the common name in English for Ogasawara Guntō" from the sentence I quoted above, or also the mention of Ogasawara Guntō in the very first sentence? CorinneSD (talk) 23:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm - what did I mean?:) Maybe: "Bonin Islands" is the common English name from the Japanese word bunin (an archaic reading of 無人 mujin), meaning "no people" or "uninhabited". Or something similar to keep the origin of Bonin. Sorry that I didn't clarify before ... or that my thinking was fuzzy. Vsmith (talk) 01:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings and thanks for the comment on categories for Paul Ramdohr. How to add? When trying to edit and add category of List of mineralogists, it shows in red type as nonexistent. The Prospector (talk) 21:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Micrometre enjoys a 2% share of current spelling, compared to 98% split between micron (predominate) and micrometer. That is a clear consensus. See n-grams for micrometre, micrometer and micron.
I did take it to the talk page - you haven't. Why not follow your own advice. The consensus IS for micrometer.
And you are revert a lot of other changes beside just spelling. What is your justification for that? You need to look at each point/edit I make if you don't like it - wholesale reverts such as your amount a form of vandalism, IMO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:cd22:4e0:daa2:5eff:fe90:cb17 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 17 August 2015
I see you have now - a post to an old discussion thread in mid-page is easy to miss. The thread you posted to was a comment from a year ago, would be better to start a new one. Vsmith (talk) 01:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case you don't have Lake Baikal on your watchlist, could you take a look at this group of edits to the article? [14] I know I don't like the construction "being..."; I'd rather change it to a separate sentence. I don't know what the predominant style for indicating years (AD/BC or CE/BCE) was before the edit; didn't look. Over to you. Corinne (talk) 03:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seems that the BC/AD was added in Feb 2014 and prior to that neither BC/AD or BCE/CE were used. The long sentence with the "being" phrase: being a site of the Han–Xiongnu War, could/should be re-worded. Vsmith (talk) 10:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please make sure you discuss rather than blindly reverting reasonable edits. Also, a welcome to wikipedia would have been more appropriate than launching an edit war. If you're too close to the article I suggest moving on. 49.183.48.62 (talk) 05:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would need a bit of a clue: why? There is that Email this user link above left. Also... why have you copied another user's userpage as your own? You should at least give credit for the source of all those images. Vsmith (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, V - I was just looking at the latest edit to Sedimentary rock to see the image at the beginning of the article. I think it's a fine image, but when I read the caption, I felt that it was missing an indication of where the sedimentary rock was. I'm sure the caption is clear for an expert, but for a non-expert, there is no specific indication of where the sedimentary rock layers are. Corinne (talk) 16:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've fiddled with the caption, I assume the rock layers are in the Alborz Mountains per the coordinates given in the image file, but don't know the details of rock layers in the image. Vsmith (talk) 21:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... just noticed your comments on Wilson's talk page. Seems maybe I misunderstood your question above? Didn't realize that you were asking about the Utah image. Vsmith (talk) 01:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And I hadn't realized you had edited the other caption. ;) What do you think of the caption now? Corinne (talk) 02:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC) P.S. I think you did improve the caption of the image of the sedimentary rocks in the Alborz mountains. Corinne (talk) 02:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The changes Wilson made were an improvement. The phrase marginal marine bothers me a bit, but there is no handy article to link to for the concept of sediment deposition in a marginal (near shore) relatively shallow oceanic environment. So I won't fiddle with that for now. Vsmith (talk) 02:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is this edit to Oceania correct? [16] Just judging from the areas highlighted in green on the map, Indonesia is not included in Oceania. If this one is not correct, then the change from 14 to 15 in the subsequent edit isn't, either. Corinne (talk) 22:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seems rather a mixed mess :) The lead includes more broadly ... and the Malay Archipelago. Then in the Demographics section the green on the top map includes Indonesia - so why not the flagiferous list... Vsmith (talk) 03:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
V, I'm reading the article on Zapovednik and copyediting as I go. Since I saw some inconsistency in the font of the word zapovednik – sometimes italicized, sometimes not – I decided to italicize it throughout since it was a foreign word, but now I'm seeing the many italicized words and I'm wondering whether I should continue italicizing the foreign words when I come to them (there are others besides zapovednik) or keep at least zapovednik in regular (Roman) font except perhaps right at the beginning of the article. I'm torn between the MOS guideline of italicizing foreign words (foreign words that have not been accepted into English) and not overloading the article with italicized words. What do you recommend? Corinne (talk) 00:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would italicize the word in "The literal English translation of zapovednik is..." and "The term zapovednik, ..., but probably not the others ... ? Vsmith (talk) 03:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In such cases I often turn them into references "the creation in 1919 of Astrakhan Zapovednik<ref> redo the link as a ref </ref>" or something similar as I dislike bare inline ext. links. Vsmith (talk) 03:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Highly sensitive to grazing, soil disturbance, burning, plowing, and other cover alteration, restoration potential can be very low and regeneration very slow.
The entire first phrase, up to "alteration", is an adjective phrase that, I think, should be describing this type of land – desert and xeric shrubland – whether it's one or both of those I don't know – but right now, it appears to be describing "restoration potential". Can a "restoration potential" be "highly sensitive to grazing, etc.", or is it the type of land that is "highly sensitive, etc."?
I also wonder whether using both "restoration" and "regeneration" in such close proximity is a good idea, and whether "restoration potential" being low and "regeneration" being slow are not too close in meaning to warrant using both phrases. Corinne (talk) 16:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the captions to the map in the lead of List of transcontinental countries, the third caption, next to the light blue square, is ungrammatical. Can you figure out a way to change the final phrase so that it becomes grammatical? (I'm too tired to read the entire article.) Corinne (talk) 02:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
hmm...
Current: Countries that could be considered transcontinental depending on definitions and claim legality
Possible reword: Countries whose transcontinental status depends on either the legal status of their claims or on the varying definitions of specific continental boundaries.
Thank you both, Vsmith and Rothorpe. I've added the version at (a), above. Would you mind looking at it now? Do you think it would look better if the second line were indented just below the first line and matching the indentation of the first line? I don't know how to do that indentation for the second line. If you put in the indentation and it goes to three lines, would it be worth trying to keep it at two lines by removing a word or two such as "either" or "used"? Corinne (talk) 23:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
V, are you upset with me? You've ignored my ping on my talk page. If I have, I certainly didn't mean to offend you and I apologize; I will even delete my revised comment. Corinne (talk) 18:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Canal St. Confidential is dropping November 6 as of today, it should be under currensy discography as his next studio LP. This is to get fans to know when new music will drop. Thanks. Sbennici5 (talk) 19:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please post YOUR comments concerning my editing, if you wish to post such comments, HERE - on YOUR talk page. Thanks 2602:306:CD22:4E0:DAA2:5EFF:FE90:CB17 (talk) 03:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC) BTW: There IS a consensus - by at least 10 to 1 - ignoring it won't change it. What is needed is an appropriate title (MICRON) that reflects the common usage, not a now archaic, irregular form. The talk page for that article reflects ALL this, so please take the discussion there, where it belongs. Instead of trying to make this something personal with me. Thanks 2602:306:CD22:4E0:DAA2:5EFF:FE90:CB17 (talk) 03:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In response to a request for a copyedit at WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests, I began to read and copyedit Aucanquilcha. I'm always happy to read about another volcano. I made a number of minor edits to improve the prose. Then I noticed that, while the beginning of the article was full of grammatical errors, the further I got into the article the better the writing became until there were no errors. Then, suddenly, there would be a few sentences with a lot of basic errors in them, and then the perfect prose returned. For the first few sections, I read every word (trying to learn something). After a while, I realized that the prose was so detailed and so quasi-technical that it might have come directly from a geology textbook and I stopped reading. I don't know whether this editor wrote the entire article and just had some lapses in grammar here and there, or just wrote a few sentences himself/herself and copied the rest from a textbook. I'm not sure, but maybe parts are too detailed and too technical for a Wikipedia article. Also, if parts are copied, that's not good, either.
Also, I noticed several times references to different periods, but with no link and no explanation, as if the reader is supposed to know what these periods are.
Finally, (and this is minor compared to the possibly bigger issues I raised above), I tried to find an article to link to for "arc magma". Should it be to the article Volcanic arc? Even in that article, however, I didn't see much specifically about "arc magma". Over to you. Have fun. Corinne (talk) 02:26, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked the Geology ref (#4) and see no reason for concern re: copying. I don't have ready access to most of the others. Will read through it closer for other problem stuff as time permits, the "arc magma" could be linked to Continental arc. Vsmith (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. Thanks for reading the article. I've got to make sure you get credit as a copy-editor. I was just looking at your edits. In the sentence in which you added a link at "scoria" – [20], what does this sentence mean? Is there a word missing?
That section needs work, but I can only - so far - access the abstract for the ref. It would seem the lava and scoria are found on top of the Tuco volcanics ... but I'm currently confused about the "Tuco" or "Toco" volcano as I don't find the names on the map. There is a Cerro Toco, but it is to the southeast quite a distance. The link you provided above was fun... :) Vsmith (talk) 02:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Corinne Being the editor who expanded the article, I should comment here. I know that copying stuff - or even closely paraphrasing it - is not OK copyright-wise (as well as plagiarism-wise) and thus did all stuff in my own voice. That said, when I am writing large amounts of text without copying, my spelling and grammar tends to slip rather rapidly. The Toco/Tuco thing was a typo; I've fixed it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing that Toco typo, the map in the article doesn't show it or some of the other volcanic features mentioned - so the "Aucanquilcha cluster" section is a bit confusing. Vsmith (talk) 01:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw that User:GeoWriter reverted my edit at Aucanquilcha[21] in which I had changed "erupted" to "erupting". I don't understand how "Erupted after a probable 2 mya hiatus,..." can be grammatically correct. "Having erupted", perhaps, but not "Erupted". "Erupting after a...2 mya hiatus,..." is a participial phrase. Perhaps "Erupted after..." is volcanologist jargon. Could someone explain how this construction could be correct? Corinne (talk) 15:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, geology guys, at the risk of annoying you, I have to explain why "Erupting" is correct in this sentence. "Having erupted" would be correct if the verb in the main clause that follows it were in past tense, but it isn't in past tense. It's in present tense ("is"), so "Erupting" is correct. Compare:
Having erupted after a probable 2 mya hiatus, the 6–4 mya Gordo group continued to erupt for another 200 years. [hypothetical example to illustrate verb tenses; the past form of the participial phrase, "having erupted" means that the volcano group erupted before it "continued to erupt". It doesn't matter what the second verb is. What matters is that it's in past tense.]
Erupting after a probable 2 mya hiatus, the 6–4 mya Gordo group is located...
The participle "erupting" does not mean that the volcanoes in the group are erupting now. However, I do think it would improve the clarity of the sentence if the time when the volcanoes last erupted were mentioned after "Erupting":
Erupting X million years ago after a probable 2-million-year hiatus, ...
By the way, as you can see, I just changed "after a probable 2 mya hiatus" to "after a probable 2-million-year hiatus". Doesn't "mya" mean "million years ago"? If so, that phrase does not make sense, as you can see here: "after a probable 2 million-year-ago hiatus". Corinne (talk) 15:55, 10 September 2015 (UTC) I mean, it does not make sense if the hiatus itself was of 2 million years' duration. If you mean that the hiatus was 2 million years ago, then it needs to be re-worded as: "after a probable hiatus 2 million years ago". Corinne (talk) 15:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Possible redo - current: Erupting after a probable 2-million-year hiatus, the 6–4 mya Gordo group is located... maybe change the order to: The Gordo group, which erupted 6–4 mya following a probable 2-million-year hiatus, is located... as the Erupting... bit may be read as is currently erupting. Vsmith (talk) 16:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is an example of an antecedence meaning it or its ancestor existed before the mountains.
There is a link at "antecedence", and it goes to an article on genealogy. I didn't see anything in that article related to rivers or geology. I went to the disambiguation page for antecedence and saw one article that might be a better one: antecedent moisture, which deals with hydrology. I also found an article on drainage system (geomorphology) in which the only mention of "antecedent drainage" is in the section on Discordant drainage patterns. Should the link in the French Broad River article be changed to one of those articles? Corinne (talk) 16:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The history of your ip shows only four edits from 2007 - were you using that ip back then? Probably not as it is labeled as dynamic Century Link. Vsmith (talk) 22:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I went there to post a block notification and found a copy of my user page - that sorta got my attention. Keep on truckin' ... Vsmith (talk) 00:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
V, I need help formatting an external link in my list of useful external links at the top of my talk page. I had "Tool for counting characters:", then the external link after it. Then I thought I could put "Tool for counting characters" with the link, so it appears blue like "Earwig's CopyVio Detector" just below it, so you could click right on that phrase. So I added "Tool for counting characters" after a pipe within the single square brackets, and saved (or at least previewed) it. I was puzzled as to why all of the phrase appeared except for the word "Tool", so I thought maybe it was too long. First I deleted the colon. That didn't help. Then I changed the phrase to the shorter "Character counter", but the word "Character" disappeared. How can I get the phrase "Tool for counting characters" as the link itself, so I can click right on the phrase to get to the website? What am I doing wrong? Corinne (talk) 17:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressed_correlative - [Fulguritics] "Verification-biased" aptly describes, without implicating any specific form of specious reasoning, the variety of retropolative backward inference that many agenda-driven, career-focused researchers' efforts at suppressing alternative hypotheses at preliminary stages of methodological progression, as the conclusion has already been affirmed by force of "common sense." It is only a matter of months before YD impact, and many other putative impact hypotheses, crumble by rigorous application of their simplistically-applied techniques toward model falsification, already suspected by scores of scientists, by route of the non-obscurantist explication of mathematically and empirically-resolved fulgurite evidence. I am quite privy to the means toward this end. Thaddeus Andres Gutierrez 19:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fulguritics (talk • contribs)
My what a pile!
privy: "sharing in the knowledge of (something secret or private)" ... or something to do with "an outhouse".
How's your chemistry? There has been a request for a copy-edit of the article Steroid at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests#Steroid, accompanied by an interesting comment, for at least a week. I wonder if you have time to review this article. Chemistry was not one of my strongest subjects, so it's a bit difficult for me to understand. Otherwise, I would do the copy-edit. If you are not interested, can you suggest someone else? Corinne (talk) 00:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Basic chem : OK - organic and biochem : not so good. The article is readable even w/ my lack of specific background, that said - yes, 'twould be rather gibberishy to someone w/out basic chem background. Sort of like advanced math articles - most of which assume the reader has the knowledge and doesn't need to read the article (math geeks writing for other math geeks). After all that rambling, no - not interested. Willing to attempt specific questions should you want to work on it. Vsmith (talk) 00:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. O.K. Chemistry was my worst subject in high school and I barely managed to pass an introductory chemistry course in college. I think I'll pass on this one. Corinne (talk) 02:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
V, is the Italian plural form of "Breccia" ever used in English? If not, I don't see any reason to provide that form. See [23] What do you think? Corinne (talk) 15:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1) There is a sentence in the middle of the paragraph that doesn't seem to fit in the flow of sentences. I'm going to copy the entire paragraph here in small type and put the sentence in bold so you can find it:
In 1885 Melchior Neumayr deduced the existence of the Tethyan Ocean from Mesozoic marine sediments and their distribution, calling his concept 'Zentrales Mittlemeer' and describing it as a Jurassic seaway that extended from the Caribbean to the Himalayas. However, Edward Seuss is generally seen as the first person to shed some light on the existence of this ancient and extinct sea. In 1893, using fossil records from the Alps and Africa, Suess proposed the theory that an inland sea had once existed between Laurasia and the continents which formed Gondwana II. In this moment of Earth's life, however, these two continental masses were united in a unique supercontinent, called Gondwana III or Pangaea. He named it the 'Tethys Sea' after the Greek sea goddess Tethys. Suess first proposed his concept of Tethys in his four-volume book Das Antlitz der Erde, which translates to The Face of the Earth. When the theory of plate tectonics became established in the 1960s, it became clear Suess's "sea" had in fact been an ocean. Plate tectonics also provided the mechanism by which the former ocean disappeared: in plate tectonic theory, oceanic crust can subduct under continental crust.
Is this sentence saying that Seuss had been wrong in thinking the inland see had once been located between Laurasia and the continents which formed Gondwana II? If it isn't saying that, then I don't understand what this sentence is doing here.
2) I joined the last clause beginning "in plate tectonic theory, oceanic crust..." to the sentence before it with a small change in punctuation. However, if this last clause is to stay in this paragraph, I think a connection has to be made with the subject of the article, the Tethys Ocean. It shouldn't be left up to the reader to guess. I read earlier in the article that "the floor" of the ocean moved, or subducted, below the crust of the continent into which it was colliding, so that would be the connection, but I'm not sure all that detail is needed here. What would you think of just deleting "in plate tectonic theory, oceanic crust can subduct under continental crust", and maybe even "Plate tectonics also povided..."? This is all explained elsewhere. Corinne (talk) 20:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity I read the article on the Valais Ocean, and, as usual, copy-edited as I read. I just wonder if it is clear enough that the phrase "the two landmasses", in the third sentence of the first paragraph in Valais Ocean#Tectonic history refers to the Iberian microcontinent and Europe and not to any of the other landmasses mentioned earlier in the paragraph. Also, several times in the article it mentions "tectonic windows". What are these? Is there an article, or a section of an article, to which we could link the phrase that would explain it? Corinne (talk) 00:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See Window (geology) for tectonic window. Yes, it's referring to Iberia and the rest of Europe - could word differently perhaps. Off to bed, had a long hike in the woods today and gotta get up early. More tomorrow. Vsmith (talk) 01:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Vsmith, thanks for the welcome message, giving useful links to beginners and for being helpful. Just recently, I got around to exploring Wikipedia's messaging system, so the thanks is very belated.Thanks once again,2know4power (talk) 20:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC). P.S. Conversation is here.[reply]
V, I was looking at your recent edit to Permian, and I was looking at the chart, or table, at the upper right where it shows mean oxygen level, CO2 level, temperature, etc., and in the first column where it shows ocean level, it says "above present day". Then I read what's in the box to the right of that, and it says,
Relatively constant at 60 m (200 ft) in early Permian; plummeting during the middle Permian to a constant −20 m (−66 ft) in the late Permian.
I'm wondering if, instead of "above present day", it would make more sense to say, "relative to present day" or "relative to present (day) ocean level(s)". I figured the 60 m (200 ft) was above present day ocean levels, but the rest of the information is not above, it's below. (If you do decide to change it, then wouldn't a plus sign need be added before "60 m" and "200 ft"?) Corinne (talk) 01:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seems you are right and would be better as: "Relative to ..." - but that "above present day" is built into the template. Maybe tomorrow ... if I can remember how to access it :) --Vsmith (talk) 02:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
V, I found a stub that needs expanding, if you have nothing to do. It's Sanidine. Also, in Perthite, could you put in the right conversion template for the three dimensions of the largest perthite crystal ever found? Right now it's in meters. Corinne (talk) 20:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The effect is produced by alternating layers of two types (in moonstone feldspar the layers are orthoclase and albite) at a scale near the wavelength of light (c. 0.5 micron) – this leads to light scattering and interference.
I'm just starting a copy-edit of Confederate Memorial (Romney, West Virginia), and I was looking at the infobox and saw the date that the memorial was unveiled. Right after it, it says, 148 years ago". I think there is a template that one can use so that the number will update automatically every year without one having to do anything. Do you think that would be appropriate to use here, and, if so, can you tell me what the template is or where to find it? Corinne (talk) 00:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I take exception to your characterization. You had a stub you wanted expanded and you want attribution, I gave you both. Why do you have a stub only? Perhaps because there is little available in the literature. I just happen to be one of the acknowledged experts in this field. My book is referenced multiple times by multiple people on gemstone topics throughout Wikipedia and is the only one that really treats this gemstone variety in a comprehensive manner, If Joe Blow posted the same material would you delete? So...Let me repeat:
Much of the material on quality in gemstones is necessarily without objective foundation, that is, if such a foundation must be measurable scientifically. Beauty is, as they say in the eye of the beholder and my opinions are, therefore only an opinion.
Seems like your approach to "no original research" includes both published and non-published. What if the author of the published material is making the contribution? Should it not be attributed? Must someone else come along and make the attribution? My book is virtually the only book on the subject of quality in gems so much of my material has not, by definition, been published elsewhere. I wonder what you might have said to Galilleo were he alive and tried to make an "original" contribution. Given the rules, Wikpedia would still be defacto promoting a flat world view. Much of what I might write would be, by definition, unsupported by other publications. Therefore I see little use in making any additional contributions. If it is not already posted you will construe it as orignal and delete it and if it is "my point of view" then it is "promotional" and you will delete it. Sorry, don't believe I have any wiggle room.
BYW Secrets of The Gem Trade is out of print. Hard to promote a book that is no longer for sale.
It appears the book in question (Secrets of the Gem Trade) was published by Brunswick House Press and little seems available about that. Appears to be for self-publishing and not a reliable press. Self published material fails WP:Reliable sources. Therefore, it seems to not be a good source regardless of who would use it here. Vsmith (talk) 21:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting line of reasoning, borderline insulting, but perhaps I would be a bit crotchety if I had your job. If you check you will find that virtually all serious gem/gemology books are published by small presses or are self-published. This includes such luminaries as Richard W. Hughes, John Koivula, Rene Neuman, Antoinette Matlins, Fred Ward the late John Sinkankas. Same goes for mineralogy, your field?Gemwise 14:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC) The book was a best seller and well reviewed by the major reviewers including Gems & Gemology, Gem Market News, Rappaport, etc. Much of the information in the book was taken from articles I published in Gems & Gemology, National Jeweler, Gem Market News, Colored Stone and GemkeyvMagazines. Unfortunately, several of these magazines have ceased publication and only G&G retains any sort of archive, so references would be difficult to check. Sorry, I originally said my work had not been published elsewhere, guess I wasn't thinking about magazines and only parts of chapters were published previouslyGemwise 14:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC).
So, if I paste in the information without attribution, it will not be promotional, correct? So, then you can tag as REQUIRING ATTRIBUTION and perhaps someone will come along and footnote my book. That, I take it, will be acceptable.
Platitude 14:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC). I believe this constitutes a signature.
If you add content based on your own work then it is still WP:COI, promotional and as you worded that - an attempt to deceive. Not a wise move. And, no - good mineralogy sources are not self-published, but are either scientific journals or reputable publishers of science works.
And you should learn to sign properly, just type four tildes at the end and Wiki interprets that as your sig when you save. Vsmith (talk) 19:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was just looking at the article on Tree crown measurement, and I saw a line (actually, a measurement formula) that was in one of those gray boxes that appears when a space is inadvertently left at the left margin. I took out the space, and saved it. Then I saw that it was in regular font and two following formulas were in italics. I didn't like the italics, so I removed the italics from the second and third formulas, and saved. [24] Then I looked later in the article and saw a number of formulas in those gray boxes. Since I don't really know how those formulas should be formatted, I decided to leave them alone and ask you to look at them. What's the best formatting for those types of formulas? Corinne (talk) 21:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I could not find, in my travels, a clear description of what the terms "A X Y" zeolites are, nor what terms like "ZSM5" or "5AMG" or "CaA" vs "LiX" mean. Likewise I couldn't tell if the zeolite page would be the right place to put them. You've recently edited this page, and I wondered if you might add something along these lines.
Riventree (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It does, and it looks better now. I noticed that the second column of names is longer than the first column. It would look better if either the columns were equal or the first column was slightly longer than the second. Corinne (talk) 01:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ZGF's design submittal estimated a total project budget of approximately $545,000 ($943,664 today), including construction costs, design and engineering fees, inspection and contingency, permits, soil reports and testing, but not administrative costs.
I paused at "$943,664 today", because it's not clear when "today" is, or was. I'm wondering if there is a template one can add that will update the dollar figure according to inflation as the years pass. If not, then perhaps "as of 20--" or "in 20-- dollars", depending upon the year in which this information was added, would work. Can you help me figure this out? Corinne (talk) 01:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, my gosh. I didn't think to look in edit view. I had never seen a template for dollar figures that uses the word "today", and updates the dollar amount. I had seen a template for years in the past, but not dollars. That's clever. Corinne (talk) 15:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
V, you may have told me this before, but I have forgotten how to form the link to a definition in Wiktionary. I thought it was Wikt + pipe + the word, enclosed in curly brackets, but it doesn't work. Corinne (talk) 02:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi V! Probably should histmerge that, to preserve the edit history. You're now the editor of record for entering all that text in the sandbox, so if it ever goes back live, the edit history is incorrect. CrowCaw03:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Vsmith! I ask your input on the issue discussed at talk:calorimetry and hess's law about the heat of neutron capture and isotopes generations reaction. I see from your page that you are a dabbler in anything scientific, therefore your input is valuable.--5.2.200.163 (talk) 15:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello how are you. i'm having a personal attack with the User:Knowledgebattle, a user throwing personal opinion upon the articles, so i undo his edit's. as here and here. Many of other user's undo his edit's as here, since he is pushing the Category:Christianity-related beheadings in different places even it's not related or throwig his presonal opinions upon the articles as here which been also revert and here and here, so i'm not the only one who's undo his edit.
Hi, V - I was just looking at the article on the Alans, and in the section Alans#Early Alans, there is a map, and just below and to the left of it, a block quote beginning with the number "4.". I keep my screen at 150% (because I have just a small laptop), so that quote appears as a narrow column of text going down the left, with a lot of white space to the right. I looked at it in 100%, 110% and 125%. At 100% it looks all right -- the quote appears as nearly an equal-sided box. At 100% it is still all right but with the quote narrower. At 125%, it starts to look odd, with a lot of white space to the right of it. Is there any way you could change the formatting so that at 125% and 150%, the quote doesn't become so narrow and the white space doesn't become so extensive? Corinne (talk) 16:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Shifted the map up to the top of the section (the map image was causing the text squeeze). Works OK for me now and I have my screen zoom set at 175% (I edit from my recliner with my monitor ~ 4 - 5 ft. from my face - probably why I tend to doze off in mid edit at times). Vsmith (talk) 22:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It looks fine now, thanks. Well, that's an interesting way to edit. It's good to know I'm not the only one who edits with screen zoomed to a high percentage; now I know if I see similar problems in other articles, you'll be sympathetic. Corinne (talk) 23:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Arid Diagonal is a result of the locking of the South Pacific High caused by the barrier formed by the Central Andes and the rain shadow the Southern Andes casts over eastern Patagonia.
I thought that just "locking" by itself didn't say enough. Since the South Pacific ocean is west of South America, I assumed that the "locking" was a kind of locking out, that is, a locking out to the west, of the South Pacific High, preventing moisture from coming inland, east of the Andes, in the southern half of South America. I was considering adding a few words to indicate that, to better paint a picture of what happens, but then I read a sentence later on, actually the entire second paragraph, that made me think I was wrong:
The origin of the aridity of northern part of the diagonal is linked to two geologic events: a) the rise of Andes—an event that led to the permanent block of the westward flow of moisture along the tropics, and b) the permanent intrusion of cold Antarctic waters along South America's west coast.
It's the part that reads "an event that led to the permanent block of the westward flow of moisture along the tropics" that made me think my understanding of "locking" was wrong. I can understand a blocking of westward-flowing moisture by the Andes making northern Peru very dry, but I don't see how that would make central and southern parts of South America (areas south of the Amazonian basin) dry. I should think that would be a case of eastern-flowing moisture from the Pacific being blocked. (I realize that the second half of that first sentence kind of explains the lack of rain in south-central and southeastern South America.)
What am I not understanding here? I would just like to make that statement about "locking of the South Pacific High" a little clearer. Corinne (talk) 16:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is a bit confusing and "locking" seems to need clarifying. The Peruvian/Northern Chilean coast dry region is in the trade winds latitudes with prevailing winds from the east/southeast and thus offshore and aided by the clockwise airflow around the South Pacific high pressure. The Patagonian region is the result of the rainshadow to the east of the southern Andes - analogous to the Great Basin Desert in the rainshadow of the Sierra Nevadas. The cold Humboldt Current adds to that by bringing cold water (cold water → less water vapor in the air above) from the Antarctic northward adjacent to the Peruvian coast. Thinking ... Vsmith (talk) 17:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for working on it. I think "blocking" makes more sense than "locking", and your addition of "trade winds" and "westerlies" helps. Here is the sentence as it is now:
The northern portion of the Arid Diagonal is a result of the blocking of the trade winds by the barrier formed by the Central Andes and the South Pacific High and to the south in the westerlies the rain shadow the Southern Andes casts over eastern Patagonia.
Of course you know I defer to your much greater knowledge, so I hope you won't be offended if I point out that the second half of this sentence is not as clear as the first half. I think it would help if the two halves of the sentence had a similar structure. It might even help to break this into two separate sentences. Would it sound too simple to you if we repeat the pattern of the first clause?
The southern portion of the Arid Diagonal is the result of... Well, to vary the structure a bit we could change "is the result of" to "is caused by":
The southern portion of the Arid Diagonal, which is in the westerlies, (or) / which lies in the path of the westerlies, is caused by the rain shadow that the southern Andes cast over eastern Patagonia.
Corinne and Vsmith: by "locking" I meant that the South Pacific Anticyclone is "stuck" or has "become fixed" at a certain position. The South Pacific Anticyclone is centered around the Chilean-Peruvian Sea and not on for example on the Paraná Basin or Easter Island. Thus, certain physiographical features might help to fix, trap or lock anticyclones to certain locations. That is how understand the issue. Correct me if I am wrong. Dentren | Talk08:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, V -- As I told you above, I'm copy-editing Climate of Argentina. I'm progressing slowly, partly because it's not a particularly fascinating article, at least not yet (a great deal of detail on temperatures, etc.). I'm still in the "Seasons" section. I've got to ask you about the sentences in the various seasons sections. Here are two sentences in Climate of Argentina#Winter:
In the extreme south, the moderating influence of the ocean results in a mean temperature of less than 4 °C (39.2 °F). At higher altitudes in the Andes, average winter temperatures can be less than 0 °C (32.0 °F)
In the first sentence, I don't understand the use of "less than" before the temperatures. If it's a mean temperature, the mean temperature should be given, shouldn't it? Adding "less than" may make the reader wonder, "Well, how much less than that?" I think it's confusing.
In the second sentence, it uses "average...temperatures". Is that a synonym of "mean temperatures" or something different? If it's the same thing, shouldn't the same term be used? If it's different, why use different terms for different regions?
Also regarding the second sentence, it's got the "less than" again, but this time it's "can be less than", which adds another degree of vagueness.
Are these all proper types of sentences for describing the weather?
If you read the subsequent sections on spring, fall, and summer, you'll see similar constructions. I don't know whether to change any of them or just leave them. Corinne (talk) 01:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
V, I've gone on to the sections after "Seasons". I'm making edits where I know the syntax or word form is wrong, but I'm not changing much else. It's a huge amount of detailed information, perhaps too much. I think I might need your help on this article. See, first, Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests#Climate of Argentina, and then the linked peer review page, Wikipedia:Peer review/Climate of Argentina/archive1. In the peer review, you'll see that other editors found the article overwhelming, and said that some paragraphs were too long. I don't know whether the editor who wrote the article, User:Ssbbplayer, has already cut material or split paragraphs in response to the suggestions, but, if not, I wouldn't know what to remove and where to split paragraphs. Corinne (talk) 01:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Corrine. Your friendly-neighborhood passer-by here. Your question interested me (strictly from a writer's perspective) so, out of curiosity, I took a look at the article. My personal opinion is that much of it is written like someone citing weather bureau statistics, which is excessively boring. Most of those numbers would be better in the form of a graph or chart than in text. I think doing that would make the article much more manageable. All-in-all, it just seems far too detailed, but that's just my two cents. (PS: The use of "less than" average makes no sense, although it was probably a misguided attempt to show variability; like saying an average temp is around a certain value.) Zaereth (talk) 02:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did tried to cut some material since September but I did had problems with cutting some things down, now that I might have cited too much stats (originally, I though that it was insufficient info). Ssbbplayer (talk) 02:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it's too detailed, but that it's repetitive. Most of the sentence attached to the numbers are the same. (Keep in mind that I mean no offense.) The way the numbers are listed is something like saying, "The first letter in the alphabet is "a," while the second letter in the alphabet is "b," and the third letter in the alphabet is "c,"..." At some point it's easier just to make a chart showing the whole alphabet. Then there is room for the main points to flow without being interrupted with scads of numerical references. Does that make sense? Zaereth (talk) 02:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. That makes sense. I am supportive removing repetition if it makes the article better. Keep up the good work and thanks for improving it. I really appreciate it The difficulty lies with the fact that the country has a diverse climate. Personally, when I decided to expand this article back in June, editing it is challenging. There were very few editors willing to copyedit and at that time, expansion was the main focus before copyediting. Now I am pretty busy so I cannot do too much of this. While certain areas were easy, some areas such as Patagonia and Northwest Argentina gave me the biggest trouble as they have diverse climates. Another problem is that many of the weather stations are concentrated in the Pampas and there are very few in Patagonia and Northwest Argentina. Ssbbplayer (talk) 03:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ssbbplayer I'm glad you appreciate our comments. I am certainly glad to continue to help you with copy-editing, but, when you have time, you will have to make the charts and tables. I thought you might find it helpful to look at other climate articles and see how they are organized. Look at Climate of the United States. I think the article on the Climate of India is especially well organized and illustrated. Vsmith, I looked at Climate of Russia, and there's a great Koppen-scale map there, but at 150% screen resolution, it practically goes off the page to the left and right and squeezes text into a narrow column. Is there any way you could move it down so that it doesn't do that so much? User:Zaereth Thank you for your comments. Let's continue to watch the article and help Ssbbplayer get the article in shape, after s/he has done some more work on it. Corinne (talk) 17:28, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's a little better. Now it doesn't interfere with text. However, it is still wider than the text column and goes off a bit to the right. In order to see the entire map I have to move the screen to the left (with the shaded bar at the bottom of my screen), but I know most people don't enlarge the screen as much as I do, so I guess it's all right. Corinne (talk) 03:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just shrunk the image a bit - don't want to reduce too much for readability. It worked OK on my monitor at 175%, will check it with my laptop ... sometime :) Vsmith (talk) 03:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the difficulty, Ssbbplayer. Writing is never easy, plus I come from a land where the climate is also very diverse. (See: Climate of Alaska.) These article could serve as templates to follow. Personally, I don't know much about wiki-coding charts, except to go find one that looks good, see how it's coded on the edit screen, and then copy its format. Hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 23:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice. I did used other climate articles, particularly the Climate of India, Minnesota, Australia, and Climate of the United States as a rough guideline. The statistics section on mean temperatures and precipitation has been added a couple of months ago. I am not sure if I should add a table that show the average temperature of Argentina as a whole, similar to the one that the Climate of the United states has. I tried a test edit on it though it appeared to large with both the climate chart and the weather box templates. I really liked how the climate of India and climate of Minnesota articles used it. I used the table from climate of Minnesota article since monthly temperatures convey more useful info than seasonal info; many sources provide normal values by month so using seasonal values may run into WP:OR. Ssbbplayer (talk) 01:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the comments, I will create the page related to the regional climates present in Argentina that were suggested by simply copying most of the text as of now with some little tweaks. This is similar to how the climate of India does it with how they split up the regional climate section. I am unsure about the climate change part since it does not include any info related to greenhouse gas emissions and its sources, and the politics of it. Ssbbplayer (talk) 17:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
V, I have just submitted a request at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop#Climate of Argentina[26] to have the legend put into English. Just in case they didn't know Spanish, I provided a translation for the Spanish legend. For "Mas de", I offered "More than", "Greater than", or "Higher than". Since it's for mean temperatures and mean temperature ranges, which is the best term for the first item in the legend? Corinne (talk) 23:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Greater than" sounds the best, more than the literal translation of "more than" (as "mas" means more and "de" is a preposition). It can be abbreviated too. Ssbbplayer (talk) 03:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Corinne. Thanks for bringing up the issue with images. I did not know how to resolve that one the most as I am not an expert on editing images. Ssbbplayer (talk) 04:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ssbbplayer You're welcome, but I did not get your ping, probably because it was not enclosed in curly brackets. Vsmith Would you mind looking at the solution, i.e., the second map, posted at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop#Climate of Argentina? I have two concerns with it: 1) The symbols may confuse some readers. I think words, such as "Greater than" or "Higher than" (for the first item) and "From X to Y" or "Between X and Y" for the others, are clearer. 2) If, for some reason (and I hope not), it is decided that symbols are better, would you check that they are right? It seems to me that the horizontal "greater than" carats (< and >) are not facing the right way, but I may be wrong, and I do not understand what the lower-case "x" is for. Corinne (talk) 01:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK - missed this earlier. The new "math based caption" is great for math geeks ... but not for the average reader. Words would be better, but if we are going for "any language" ... the inequalities should at least all be reversed "(big # ≥ x ≥ smaller #) where x is temperature range represented by the color on the map. Vsmith (talk) 02:15, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Vsmith Did you see my request to you, just above? Also, I have finished copy-editing Climate of Argentina. When I copy-edit an article, I usually go back to the beginning and read the article through again. However, in this case I feel I've had enough of temperatures, precipitation, means, and averages for a while. (Maybe I could re-read it tomorrow, but not right now.) If you have time, would you mind reading it through just in case there is something that doesn't sound right to you? Thanks in advance. Corinne (talk) 00:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm replaing to your message about Moldavite page update:
I'm Vsmith. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added, because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. Vsmith (talk) 14:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I gained the information in a book and added it to External sources section with a link to the author page. Is it a spam?
In the part Use is reference to a Moldavite museum with link to their web - it looks like spam. Or not?
V, in the article Kingdom of Hungary (1000–1301), which I copy-edited a few days ago, there is a kind of quasi-edit war going on between an IP editor and the writer of the article, Borsoka. Please see this edit by Borsoka and the four or five edits before this one: [27]. I had left an edit summary asking the IP editor to start a discussion on the talk page (see also the tone of his/her edit summaries), and instead of doing that s/he just re-added the deleted material with a source (which I am unable to judge). Is there anything you can do to help Borsoka here? Corinne (talk) 17:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi V. I was asked by a non-editing friend to add a link to the German Wikipedia's page on the Deutscher Monistenbund since the English Wikipedia has no article on the Monist League. If you have a better solution than mine, I'd be grateful -- anything but leaving Monist League in red with no link at all. With a reference to the German page at least non German-speaking readers can use the translation function.
Thanks,
robrob (talk) 02:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive my clumsiness -- I haven't edited much at all for ten years. One becomes rusty and forgets the details. Including a direct link to de:Deutscher Monistenbund is exactly the solution I was looking for! Thanks so much. I hope some day soon someone with time and an interest in it will translate the German page and create it on the English wikipedia. Until then, you have helped increase the availability of knowledge to the public with this solution. Many thanks! -- rob — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.69.161.2 (talk) 16:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
V, I had never heard of this section of forest before. I thought this article might benefit from the addition of a map showing the area and one or two photographs of the woods themselves. Here is a link to "Big Woods" in Google images: [29]. Can we use any of these? Corinne (talk) 02:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
V, I was skimming the article on Astronomical Unit to find out what "AU" stood for (saw it in the article on V774104, the most distant object in the solar system, or something, an item in the news on the Main Page), and I was puzzled why there were no commas separating the groups of numbers in a very large number of meters near the beginning of the article. Can you tell me why the commas were left out? Corinne (talk) 23:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC) Corinne (talk) 23:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes. You're right. But I learned something. Thanks.
By the way, I was reading about numbers in India, and I was astonished to read that they put the commas in large numbers in different places! They group the numbers differently. I wonder why, and what the groups are. Corinne (talk) 01:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Vsmith. It would be fine to simply cite that "The word ‘fossil’ was first used by the Roman writer Pliny ‘the Elder’"? I think that this information is relevant to the history of palaeontology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Policarp (talk • contribs) 13:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrote that bit to: These granite outcrops are commonly found in the eroded valleys below the volcanic ridgelines. - hope that works. I was working on that section this morning, but had to leave for a few hours. Vsmith (talk) 23:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
V, just out of curiosity I was looking at a recent edit by Beagel to Dana Energy. While reading this short article, I made a few copy-edits. I wonder if you can help me clarify two things in the article.
1) In the first paragraph in Dana Energy#History, I saw "EPD". I didn't know what the letters stood for, so I entered it in the search bar. It led to a disambiguation page with a lot of things on it. I wonder if you could look at that disambiguation page and see if there is one that would fit, and create a link to it.
2) Near the end of the article, a sentence ends, "due to the long period of transition". I couldn't figure out what was really meant. What transition? The deal was called off. Do you think it was a delay in finalizing the deal? Corinne (talk) 00:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Added a likely expansion of the EPD bit (googled ...). I assume the "long period of transition" refers to the four year delay in the process, but don't really know - maybe ask Beagel. Vsmith (talk) 03:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
V, do you have Plate tectonics on your watch list? Look at this edit [32] and edit summary. Then look (in the Revision History) at the eight or nine edits just before it by the same editor. Was this editor undoing separate edits individually? It's just a little odd. Corinne (talk) 00:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Vmsith. Under what grounds did you see fit to remove the description of "racist" from an introduction to Woodrow Wilson? Many primary sources including his own words make clear that is a fact not an opinion? As it stands his page looks rather glowing with any discussion of "civil rights" hidden well below his achievements. I am curious that's all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factsaregreat (talk • contribs) 02:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Undue for the lead, I've also removed the "opinion piece" quote that was not properly sourced. The subject is covered in the Civil rights section of the article. Vsmith (talk) 03:33, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was just looking at Geastrum fornicatum, linked from Geastrum quadrifidum, for which I'm working on a summary for TFA, and I saw that the text of a quote in the section Geastrum fornicatum#History is, at my 150% screen resolution, squeezed into a narrow column to the right of the image of the brown mushroom. The text looks all right at 110% and 125%, but at 150% it doesn't. Is there any way to fix that? Corinne (talk) 02:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't have a problem until I increased the resolution to 200%. Moved the image down to the description section to avoid the conflict. Seems the taxobox forces any left images to display below the level of the taxobox end. Does it work for you now? Vsmith (talk) 13:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. I looked at the wrong article. In the Geastrum fornicatum article, history section, there is now (at 150% resolution) a fairly large space after "James Sowerby wrote", before the quote. But at least the text is not squeezed to the side, so I guess it's all right. Corinne (talk) 15:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That template forces any left images and I guess quoteboxes down; seems there may be a fix for that - but I don't remember what it was... Vsmith (talk) 16:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An IP editor blanked the entire article of Michael (archangel). I just undid that edit at [33], but I notice that, two edits back, a bot reverted previous vandalism by the same editor. Perhaps the editor should be either warned or blocked. Corinne (talk) 15:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
someone presumed to delete the Wikipedia page about the German geoscientist Ott Christoph Hilgenberg.
This was done for the questionable reason that Hilgenberg’s theory is not scientifically proven.
His theory is not proven indeed, but this is no reason, to delete the page about him as an important person in the history of geosciences. An encyclopedia is not only about theories that are accepted today but also about the history of sciences and about the biographies of important scientists of the past.
Nobody would delete the page about Eratosthenes because his map of the world is outdated:
I made a copy of the page before the deletion. The english page was a translation of the German Wikipedia page.
I made a minor revision and a new upload here: [[34]].
An english version must remain available for all english speaking historians who study the history of geosciences. There is no necessity to delete the biography of any scientist of the past only because his views are not actual any more. If this would be the case, there would be no necessity of an encyclopedia at all. You could delete almost everyone who lived in a past century if you consider the outdated theories they were repesenting at their time as criterion.
The deletion of Hilgenbergs biography is an act of disrespect against the German geological research. Most of the present time basic knowledge in Geology is owed to the work of German geologists. All Americans use the German terms for the geological formations, which is the international terminology.
It is an important point, that Hilgenberg refused to join the Nazi-Party. For this reason he didn’t get an admission to become a student of geology at the University of Berlin and became an engineer although geology was his main field of interest. Hilgenberg is one of the founders of the theory of a growing earth.
Citation of the english Wikipedia:
In 1888 Ivan Osipovich Yarkovsky suggested that some sort of aether is absorbed within Earth and transformed into new chemical elements, forcing the celestial bodies to expand. This was connected with his mechanical explanation of gravitation. Also the theses of Ott Christoph Hilgenberg (1933, 1974)[7][8] and Nikola Tesla (1935)[9] were based on absorption and transformation of aether-energy into normal matter. In 1889 and 1909 Roberto Mantovani published an hypothesis of Earth expansion and continental drift.
Hilgenberg was born in 1896, Carey was born in 1911.
Hilgenbergs book was published in 1933. Careys book was pubished in 1976.
It would be a distorsion of the history of geosciences and an act of disrespect against the German researchers to have own pages about all the others, which is correct, but to pic out the German, who was one of the first and delete his biography. Therefore I strongly suggest to restore the original page or use this revised PDF instead: [[35]] .
V, I remember seeing somewhere in MoS a guideline that says not to mix en-dashes (meaning "to" in the range) with the word "to", in other words, it should be either 150–200 km (93–124 mi) or 150 to 200 km (93 to 124 mi), not 150–200 km (93 to 124 mi), but I can't find it. Do you know where it is? Corinne (talk) 01:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC) P.S. I'm just beginning a copy-edit of Telopea truncata. See the second sentence. I'd like to be able to point to the guideline in MoS if and when I change the combination there. Corinne (talk) 01:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, but it makes sense - don't see why anyone would want to mix 'em. Go ahead and make them consistent, and if someone complains - have them explain their reasoning. Vsmith (talk) 01:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the conversion template is not being used there in order to get round numbers for the feet, and maybe they didn't notice that they used a different pattern. (I know there is a way to get the rounded numbers in a conversion template, but I'm too tired to look for it now.) Which do you think is preferable for that spot in the article, the word ("to") or an en-dash? Corinne (talk) 02:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was just glancing at the article European Americans and I noticed something odd about a map. The map is titled "Ancestry map". It's a colorful map of Europe, with I guess nationalities labeled all over the place on the map (I didn't look at them carefully). However, at 150% screen resolution, many of the labels are way off and above the continent of Europe. I thought, well, it's probably because my screen is enlarged to 150%. So I decided to look at it at 100%, and then move up by increments. At 100% it looks fine, but as soon as I increase the resolution, the labels begin to go off the map. What do you think? Corinne (talk) 01:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that template (Template:European American map) is a problem there and it is rather useless in my view. To make it work at larger screen resolution would require shifting the rather excess tabulated data a bit. Not up to it now ... maybe later ... Vsmith (talk) 03:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... well - "holiday card" does sound sorta lame. Maybe "Seasons greetings" card - or whatever the card producers call 'em to reap more $$ ... my pref would be Bah humbug card, but I'm just a grouch :) Vsmith (talk) 03:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was reading the article on Kerogen, and I saw that "Type", in "Type I", "Type II", etc., was capitalized earlier in the article but lowercase later in the article, so, to make them consistent, I capitalized the later instances. Now, upon looking at the article, I'm wondering if perhaps, because the word appears so frequently, the capitalization isn't a little distracting. I don't know if there is a "proper" format, but if you think they all ought to be in lowercase, let me know and I'll change them. Corinne (talk) 17:41, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency is good - but personally I'd de-cap 'em all (unless reference treat them as proper nouns). I would also decap the names (Sapropelic, Planktonic ...) in the headers per MOS.
In fact I'd leave the "Type" out of the header --- example:
Before I read Kerogen, I read Carbonaceous chondrite and made a few minor copy-edits. I wanted to ask you about something. It's not a big issue, but I think it's something that may need clarifying. In the section Carbonaceous chondrite#CB group is the following sentence:
Although these chondrites contain +50% of nickel-iron metal, they are not classified as mesosiderites because their mineralogical and chemical properties are strongly related with CR chondrites.
1) In the last part of the sentence, we read: "are strongly related with CR chondrites". "Are ... related with" is not usual wording. Usually, it's "related to" or "associated with". I don't know if "related with" is geology jargon. (I see in the next section, "CK group", it says, "related to the CO and CV groups", but I don't know if that is referring to the same type of relationship.) Should the phrase stay as it is or be changed?
2) In the first part of that sentence, it says, "...these chondrites contain +50% of nickel-iron metal". I'm wondering if we could delete the word "of". It would then read "...these chondrites contain +50% nickel-iron metal". (Also, what would you think of changing "+50%" to "more than 50%"?) Corinne (talk) 17:55, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
for 1 - change to "related to..." or better as "associated with..."
V, I was just looking at the latest edit to Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary[37]]. It does look like it is a bit clearer than the previous wording, but I noticed that sentences in the paragraph seem out of order. This sentence is about a direct result of the asteroid hitting the earth: what happened to the atmosphere. The sentence before this is about the effect of the atmospheric conditions on plants and animals. Don't you think that the effect on plants and animals should follow any description of effects on the atmosphere from the asteroid? Corinne (talk) 18:09, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
V, I liked the photo of a carbonaceous chondrite so much that I added it to my user page: [38]. I couldn't figure out from the image file exactly how I had to attribute the photo. When I'm just using it on my user page, do I have to provide the external link? If not, I'll remove it, but if so, could you look to see if I formatted it correctly? I was trying to show the full name of the photographer (or uploader), James St. John, but for some reason, only "St. John" is visible in the caption. Could you tell me first, whether I need to give the external link in the caption, and, if I do, how to show the photographer's full name? Corinne (talk) 18:36, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For an external link replace the pipe "|" with a single space. For use on WP (including your user page) the ext link is not needed as clicking on it brings up the image page w/ the attribution. Vsmith (talk) 19:46, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the welcome message and helpful links. I suspected that I would have to trace back to the original sources, instead of just using another WP article as a reference. Just didn't want to waste time doing unnecessary work.
Hello, V -- I was just looking at the latest edit to Endorheic basin: [39]. The new paragraph is actually well written, but I noticed that, whereas what was removed had a reference, this new material is unsourced. Corinne (talk) 01:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello V;
I see (and scratch my head over) your earnest, persistent and disruptive editing to the page Emirate of Sharjah by vandalizing the name of the Persian Gulf.
I'd like to ask you to stop. This is disruptive, against the rules of and not in line with the ethics of Wikipedia (or any other, for that matter).
Meanwhile, have yourself a Happy New Year.
Thanks, Kamran the Great (talk) 01:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have me a might confused, first you thank me for repeatedly correcting a link and then you come here to accuse me of vandalism for the opposite of my actions. So, I'll just assume there be a bit of confusion and have a laugh about it. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 01:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome for the laughs! did a bit of laughing myself after I realized what I'd done. "a bit of confusion" is right. I did mean to thank you and tell off the other user who keeps repeatedly vandalizing the page. my apologies... the rant was not meant to be directed at you.
Done I have created the pages Climatic regions of Argentina and Climate change in Argentina similar to the Climatic regions of India and Climate change in Australia, Climate change in Canada and Climate change in the United States pages. These pages contains more detailed information than the one on Climate of Argentina. About the charts that you were mentioning, I think I would use the weather box template or create a table. I will add it in once I have the time. Ssbbplayer (talk) 22:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
