User talk:RockMagnetist/Archive 4

< Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5 >

All Pages:

1 -  2 -  3 -  4 -  5 -  6 -  7 -  8 -  9 -  10 -  11 -  12 -  ... (up to 100)

WikiProject Bibliographies/Science task force

Many thanks for your hard work on this task force. I have send an email to User:APH who started the Science Pearls Project long ago. He has not been active for many years, but I thought he ought to know about it. I'm really still on holiday/wikibreak! --Bduke (Discussion) 08:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome, Bduke! As a WikiProject, it had a short revival, but it was long enough to save all those lists from deletion. Such a small WikiProject could not remain active, though. Now it has a good home. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Cryometer

So you mean that the page has a subscription-only access? You can list it as a copyvio of the print dictionary, if that's what you mean. Nyttend (talk) 15:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

That's what I wanted to do, but the template only allowed me to give a url. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I have modified it to provide the information on the talk page. Does that look right? By the way - this editor has several such violations, and I only tagged a small fraction of them. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Hai rockmagnetist,Sorry for my copyright violations.i have no intention to violate copyright law.My only intention is to provide knowledge.you have the right to delete any copyright violated material.But before deleting consider to rephrase content to avoid copyright violation.It is my personal request.I have no access to computer.Only through mobile I do write.I rewrote the cryometer article .Please say your opinion about article on my talk page.So in future I can write articles in my own words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnanadevm (talk • contribs) 07:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Copyright infringement in user space

I see that you moved Counter (physics) to User:Jnanadevm/Counter (physics), giving an edit summary that said "Copyright violation (copy of entry in Oxford dictionary of science)". However, copyright infringement is equally illegal whether or not the illegal copy has "User:" in its title. Copyright infringing pages must be deleted: it is not acceptable to merely move it into userspace. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry - I was trying to encourage the editor to revise the articles. There are several more such pages created by User:Jnanadevm, and I have been hoping that some administrator would delete the rest without my having to tag them all. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Request

I am requesting user RockMagnetist to assess my article cryometer about copyright status.So in future i can rewrite my articles to avoid copyright violation.I am also requesting the adminstrators to make a mobile version of wikipedia which must be has all features like desktop version.curren mobile version has no editing,history features.Please reply on my talk page or article talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnanadevm (talk • contribs) 06:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC) Hai,RockMagnetist thanks for your reply.You asked sources for some of my articles.treble (sound) is comletely my work and other editors.cryometer is written from oxford dictionary of science,1999,4th edition as source.photoablation is sourced from website jpslaser.com and another website.gobi manchurian is almost my own work.I am not a native speaker of english.i am from india.so sorry for my bad english.But I only contribute to enlish wikipedia.its my ambition.see my contribution history.I have reverted so many vandalisms — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnanadevm (talk • contribs) 16:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Hai,rockmagnetist thanks for your complement and your hardwork of research.Google books is not working in my mobile.I am using only basic java phone(sony cedar).It is horrible task to type or search in mobile.It took 60 minuts to write this para in my mobile.I am also agreeing with you about the title change of article cryometer.After completing your article cryogenic thermometry you can redirect cryometer to your article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnanadevm (talk • contribs) 10:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. It sounds like quite a challenge for you - I'm impressed that you keep contributing to Wikipedia under such circumstances. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Geology‎ page upgrade

Thanks. That is beautiful. --Bejnar (talk) 04:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

You're very welcome, Bejnar! RockMagnetist (talk) 04:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Ediacaran stuff in Cambrian task force

Hi I see you are adding a lot of Ediacaran biota pages to the Cambrian task force, for example Kimberella. Parvancorina is listed at the project page but not on its talk page. They were already in the Palaeontology project so there looks to be an overlap. I wonder why you have them in scope? Some of these have already met the task force target, so perhaps nothing will be done! I am not holding you back, I hope you can improve the articles. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Graeme. I don't really think of it as adding them to the task force. I just tagged the ones that were already listed in tables on the main page for the task force. I'm not part of the task force myself but I have been improving the WikiProject Geology site and thought the task forces should have the option of tagging their pages. However, I just worked on the ones rated C and above (I'm hoping someone else will finish the job). There is indeed overlap with Paleontology, but no redundancy - the Paleontology banners tag articles for the same task force! As for tagging articles that have already met the task force target - they still need to be protected from vandalism, and the task force needs to see what they have accomplished. RockMagnetist (talk) 14:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Capitalization

"{{Cite" is a template's title, it's a programm. The programmers use capitalization to diferentiate it from the subroutine. The subroutine "title=" is written without capitalization, for instance. It's programmers syntax, discipline keeps the script code tidy. They keep a better overview this way. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 09:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you referring to a particular edit I made? RockMagnetist (talk) 14:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Yup, plate tectonics, Revision as of 22:32, 15 March 2012. It doesn't matter much on en.wikipedia because wikilinks get the first letter capitalized always by MediaWiki. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 14:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

That was the dab solver's work, actually. All I asked it to do was disambiguate a couple of links, but it tends to do a lot of little things I didn't ask for. But as you say, it doesn't matter much on en.wikipedia. Does it matter on other wikipedias? RockMagnetist (talk) 15:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

If the first letter remains unchanged, then it'd be different, so red link. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 20:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Six-bar linkages

Thank you for the advice. I think this is just part of the Wikipedia experience for better or worse. I will add the links that you recommend. Prof McCarthy (talk) 16:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Glad to help! RockMagnetist (talk) 17:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

SFD

Hello RockMagnetist

Thank you for all the tips re wiki editing.

Regarding Pinnacle brochure copyright, I am not sure what copyright applies to a promotional pamphlet that also has been entered as an exhibit to a lawsuit. You mentioned that I removed my comments on SFD talk page, I basically thought I was being too talkative in justifying changes whose merits would appear to be self evident.

Did you ever have a look at the NXT web page and their explanation of how SFD supposedly works ?

Best regards --Alik 72 (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Alik 72. I haven't really thought about the issues being discussed - I was mainly looking at the talk page. Rather than being afraid of being too talkative, you should worry about not appearing to respond to any of the criticisms. So I think it would be better to restore your comments (but in their proper place, not at the top of the page).

If I have some time, I'll try to look at the page and the links. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Ferromagnetic coins?

Thank you for a correction in Magnetism. But the coins contain nickel for example. The nickel is ferromagnetic, μ >> μ_vacuum. The attraction (magnet-coins) is strong. So the coins are ferromagnetic (or ferrimagnetic a better term)? Sorry for bad English. Fizped (talk) 16:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Fizped. It is generally good practice to answer a comment on the same page, so the discussion is easier to follow. If I leave you a message on your page, I will be watching your page for a while. If you're not sure someone is watching, you can use the {{talkback}} template to notify them; I will put an example on your page.

I don't know about the coins in your picture, but recent U.S. coins are an alloy of 97.5% zinc and 2.5% copper. Add any more than about 15% zinc to copper, and the alloy is no longer ferromagnetic at room temperature. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, RockMagnetism. I looked at the composition.

• 100 forint (hu): The outer ring is made ​​of steel, nickel plated. The seed also of steel, coating 75% Zn, 25% Cu. Hungarian Wikipedia → 100 HUF
• 1 penny (uk): Copper-plated steel - since September 1992. http://www.royalmint.com/discover/uk-coins/coin-design-and-specifications/one-penny-coin
• 20 lipa (hr): 5% nickel and 95% iron. http://www.kunalipa.com/katalog/kovanice/20-lipa.php

Fizped (talk) 19:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Quite different from the American coins! I suppose the 20 lipa coin might be ferromagnetic, but I doubt the other two are. I recommend you put this information on the description page for your image. RockMagnetist (talk) 01:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:W-screen-static

Template:W-screen-static has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 02:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Macromolecular structure validation article

We appreciate your feeling it was ready to go live. However, one problem we'd meant to resolve before that was how to rename it to Structure validation (macromolecular), with a hatnote or eventually a disambiguation page. Most people who want this article will search using just "structure validation", and with the current title they don't get there at all directly. But many of the hits are to XML schema validation, which may eventually want its own page, and some are to mechanical engineering. Do you have advice on the most robust and feasible way to accomplish this?Dcrjsr (talk) 14:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I had no opinion on whether it should go live, but since My very best wishes chose to move it, I thought a link to the article would help others. RockMagnetist (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

PR comments available

FYI: I posted some comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Algoman orogeny/archive1. --Noleander (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Noleander. I added a comment linking to them on talk:Algoman orogeny. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad I could be of help. It is customary for the nominator (of any review: GAN, PR, FAC) to be prepared to act on the comments of the reviewer. Otherwise, reviewers would stop doing reviews (because there would be no purpose to do a review if the comments were going to be simply noted & archived). Is it your intention to implement some of the PR suggestions? I don't mean to come across as hard-nosed; I'm just curious if you are familiar with the normal practices at PR. It would make me feel warm & fuzzy to see some of my suggestions actually implemented :-) --Noleander (talk) 20:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow response to your review. I agree that someone should work on your suggestions, but I wasn't expecting that it would be me. It happens that when I was reorganizing Wikipedia:WikiProject Geology/Peer reviews, I saw this request for feedback and thought that it would be a good test case for our new peer review process. However, I seem to have overestimated the level of interest that Bejnar had in this article. The article is well outside of my area of expertise, but I'll try to find some time to work on it. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I am humbled (and thankful) for the hours and hours of work to take "my" article to GA.Bettymnz4 (talk) 13:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

You're very welcome! You did a nice job on the article, and it just needed a push to get it past the line. RockMagnetist (talk) 14:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

references

Good day

I have entered information on the wikipedia topic "Jeanne d'Arc Basin". It was considered a stub and requested more ino.

I am a first time contibutor to Wikipedia though I have published in peer-reviewed journals. I intend to add figures and core photos later.

I used the "sfn" code to produced a number list of references as I was trying to follow the format of the wikipedia page on "plate tectonics". However, I don't know how to link those notes to the actual references. Could you please provide any guidence on this topic?

Also, when I first go to the Jeanne d'Arc page it first shows the old stub page at the address http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_d'Arc_Basin but if I click on the article tab, it switches to my contribution at the address http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_d%27Arc_Basin The only difference between the adresses is the apostrophe ' is %27 Is this standard or is there something that I have done, have not done, should have done?

All guidence greatly appreciated.

Sincerely, GeoIainK GeoIainK (talk) 23:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, GeolainK, and welcome to Wikipedia! First, the page names. When I click on those links, I get two pages with different addresses but the same content and the same history (click on the View history tab). I think both addresses are pointers to the current version, which is [1] right now. RockMagnetist (talk) 00:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

As for the citation anchors, the bad news is that to make them work you have to use citation templates like {{citation}} with |ref=harv (see the documentation for {{sfn}}). I have modified the Howie 1970 reference to show you an example. Note that the normal layout for references includes a bullet. RockMagnetist (talk) 00:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I will put any further comments on the article on its talk page. RockMagnetist (talk) 00:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

History of the'Earth

I hope it will become a good article. I see you are doing a nice job, I tried but just didn't have enough time to scour through the entire article to tweak it and look for/fix all the refs. Good luck. Cadiomals (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Glad you like the changes. It is more difficult than I expected to find suitable sources for some of the material! Still, it seems that citations are the only thing holding this article back from GA. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

WP Geology in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Geology for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject-specific RC pages

They need to be manually maintained, but simply list all articles in a WP on a page and click or link to the Related Changes for that page. Example: Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:Chemical_elements. Cheers! --mav (reviews needed) 15:12, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but who would want to maintain a page with over 8000 articles? Someone started Wikipedia:WikiProject Geology/RecentChangesSourcePage long ago to do something similar, but it hasn't been maintained and I'm certainly not eager to keep it going. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:53, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Replied to your comment

Thanks for your instructive comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Savage bibliography! :) I've replied to you there. Hope you'll find it helpful. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 01:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you responded to my comment, Cirt. A lot of people contributing to AfD's seem to think it's a vote, but it is the quality of the arguments that determine the decision. I was trying to anticipate the thinking of the admins. Good luck making this a featured list! RockMagnetist (talk) 02:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

On second thought, it's not too hard to create a source page using Wikipedia Version 1.0 tools and a regular expression editor. I have created a new watchlist for Geology. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Signpost

Some notes

"I like Geology the best". Thx ;)

About WikiPro Rocks and Minerals: combining project banners

In order to get an overview of the mineral articles, I added most of the 1,161 banners

There are many stubs (including one liners), redirects, and University of Houston (GEOL 3370) does homework here

It's nice to have this option left open

"I would like to see how large each change is"

Mind you, experienced vandals save a small edit in the end and undo it :[

Rasteraster, MaxWyss, are geophysicists, but they aren't active editors

Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 12:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Twinkle

Do you use Twinkle? It is helpful in reverting vandalism and makes placing warnings on peoples' pages very easy. It also assists editors in creating reports at WP:AIV. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll give it a try. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that is a nice tool! Perhaps most of all I appreciate the handy menus of warnings.RockMagnetist (talk) 18:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Link removal

Hiya. With 78.61.59.33 I removed a counter-canter link in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_%28leg%29 You restored the change and indicated:

>There didn't seem any point to removing a perfectly good link. That was the first appearance of the term in the text and therefore the most appropriate place to link it.

I don't see how it's a good link if it redirects to the original article itself? I would justify redirecting to the Counter canter section further below in the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter_canter#Counter_canter) but now? Makes no sense to me.

--Antanas26 (talk) 11:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

You're quite right, Antanas26(talk). I didn't notice that it was redirecting back to the article itself. I have changed the redirect in Counter canter to Counter_canter#Movements_at_the_canter. Sorry for misunderstanding your change. I confess that I check edits by IP editors less carefully because so many of them are vandalism. RockMagnetist (talk) 14:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

That's alright. And I confess that I was too lazy to log in. :) Nonetheless, it's still an ambiguous case. Now "counter canter" redirects to a little paragraph on counter canter in "Canter" article; however, in the article "Lead (leg)", counter canter section (like I indicated before: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter_canter#Counter_canter) is much more elaborated and also has a diagram. I think I would actually redirect "counter canter" to that section in the "Lead (leg)" article, still remove that first link, and if one still wants to mention this link to "canter" article, in "Lead (leg) article I would note somewhere "For other specific movements of the canter read xxxx" (which would also include a little paragraph on counter canter). Or something like that. Darn. That gets so complicated :)) Regards. --Antanas26 (talk) 18:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

If you want to change the redirect, I won't revert it ;) RockMagnetist (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Weathering heights and lows

Gareth, something went wrong when you were patrolling Weathering for vandalism. I had reverted vandalism by an IP editor; then you reverted my edit, restoring the vandalism, and added a warning to my page. Didn't you notice anything unusual about my page, i.e., signs that I make a lot of constructive contributions to Wikipedia? RockMagnetist (talk) 21:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies ... was already on my way here to remove the template that STiki automatically posts ... and I was beaten to the rollback by you, so I rolled your revision back. Then Mikenorton got involved, and all I can say is "Sorry." The template has been deleted, and no hard feelings, I trust. Kind regards, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 21:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I was more amused than annoyed. Quite a shock to see that on my page! Sounds like STiki may be a bit too automatic. I use Twinkle myself, and it seems just right. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I am pleased you are so goodnatured about it. The automatic choice – and issue – of warnings to all is something we are trying to alter at STiki currently. I was glad to have the opportunity of destroying yours as soon as you brought it to my attention. Thanks to Mike too.

All the best, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 22:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Mantle plume

I altered the lead sentence of the Mantle plume article in an attempt to make it clearer. Could you take a look at it? Thanks. --Bejnar (talk) 06:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Seems a bit of a mouthful. It's a common problem I see in leads - an attempt to give a complete definition in one sentence. Ideally the first sentence should be as simple as possible (but not simpler, as Einstein would say). Since a plume only has a diapir during the initial rise, that part can be left until later. Here is a suggested rewording:

A mantle plume is a hypothetical narrow column in which hot rock rises from the bottom of Earth's mantle to its crust.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by RockMagnetist (talk • contribs) 16:56, 28 May 2012

Birch's law

I responded to your comments on the linear nature of Birch's law on its Talk page (I had made that edit without logging-in). I just wanted to let you know in case you hadn't seen it.

Le Duf (talk) 04:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:American Geophysical Union publications

Category:American Geophysical Union publications, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Tagged for notability

You tagged Carmen Gaina and list of minerals named after people, isn't it exteme? We have porn stars, second league sportsmen, minerals stubs (one liners and 0.0025 mm across). Some of the names are notable, so the list is ok. Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 19:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Your argument for Carmen Gaina is pure "What about article X?"; you should read the notability criteria for academics. Similarly, if you read the notability criteria for stand-alone lists you'll find that the notability of individual entries is irrelevant.

I'm just tagging these articles, not proposing them for deletion. But someone else could propose them for deletion, so you should focus on establishing notability. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, list of geologists: "The following is a list of famous or notable geologists." So if the list of minerals named after people got a bunch of notable/ Wikimedia article titles, then the list is ok. A professor with a meter high publications (with many citations) is ok too, the Talk:Hawaii hotspot#Carmen Gaina section is about a breakthrough. I'll read carefully the Wikipedia:Notability ref. Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 04:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Ironically, List of geologists does not provide any references to establish notability. I didn't tag it because it seems extremely unlikely that such a list would be challenged. Some good points are made at the discussion I started at WikiProject Lists. RockMagnetist (talk) 04:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

< Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5 >

All Pages:

1 -  2 -  3 -  4 -  5 -  6 -  7 -  8 -  9 -  10 -  11 -  12 -  ... (up to 100)