User talk:Rolinator

Welcome!

http://www.lun.com/modulos/catalogo/paginas/2008/05/04/LUCPRDI02LU0405.htm?tipoPantalla=1260

Hello Rolinator, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Andrew_pmk | Talk 04:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - glad to have another geologist on board. And some of us US geologists do have a bit of deep training in economic geology :-)
Also thanks for the work on Hydrothermal circulation, that one has been on my to do list for awhile. Cheers, Vsmith 04:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from Steth

My reply is here, in case you didn't see it. Thanks! Steth 20:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Rolinator

Chiro

Hi .. I guess somebody must have misguided you. The problem we have with chiropractic has actually nothing to do with back pain treatment. In your case, the chiropractor is treating you like a physiotherapist and this is acceptable. The problem we have with chiro is that it claims, it can cure all diseases by treating vertebral subluxations. This is clearly a nonsense. ackoz 09:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Geologyjoint.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Geologyjoint.JPG. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sue Anne 02:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alps

Hey Rolinator! I understand you are a geologist from Austria. I have just written a couple of articles on the geology of the Alps, I wondered if you could read them through for me. I am a geologist myself but I have never done research on or in the Alps. Much of what i wrote can be untrue or oversimplified, so I would appreciate it if you can look at it. Thanx! Woodwalker 09:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Natural hisotry

If I remember correctly you asked me ages ago about the Natural history of Australia article I had in my user space. I've moved it to the main name space and would appreciate any help you can offer expanding the text. The main focus of the article isn't really the geology (you've got that covered :) ) but how geological and climatic events effected the flora and fauna.--Peta 08:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Anthophyllite.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Anthophyllite.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I've interpreted your statement at Image:Anthophyllite.jpg as close to {{No rights reserved}}. I apologize if this was not your intention, and of course feel free to change the tag. Good alternatives include {{cc-by-sa}} and {{GFDL}}. — Laura Scudder ☎ 21:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a photo of a rock. I have the rock. If someone can get rich off a photo of a rock, then good luck to them because I can't think of a way to get rich off anthophyllite! Rolinator 02:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civility and personal attacks

Please tone down the language and avoid personal attacks on talk pages. I have removed several uncivil comments and blatant personal attacks from Talk:Coal, both yours and the annon. editor. Please review WP:Civility and WP:No personal attacks. Wikipedia policy frowns on such language and you can be blocked from editing for it. I feel that you have a lot to add to Wikipedia, please focus on positive comments and edits and avoid future troubles. I am aware that some editors push some pretty wacky sounding ideas and POVs, but please be civil in your dealings with them. Also note that trolls usually just want to get a negative response - don't make them happy :-) Cheers, Vsmith 20:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorely in need of geological help

Have been translating 'anorthosite' article into French Wiki. Reader frowned on An40, An60, asked for elucidation. No clue. Any idea ? Help appreciated Anne97432 05:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anne,

The An number (An#) refers to the modal percentage of anorthite within the solid solution series Anorthite-Albite (anorthite being 100% calcic (Ca) plagioclase and albite being sodic (Na)). An40 would mean a plagioclase composition of 40% anorthite and 60% albite by cation percentage. See the plagioclase page. Plagioclase, by definition, comprises >90% of anorthosites.

Most rocks with >90% plagioclase are composed of anorthite plagioclase with An# of 80+; it is very very rare to find rocks with >90% albite-normative plagioclase (these are essentially tonalite-tronhjemite granites).

Hope that helps, as although i am argumentative and would go in to bat for you, I can't speak French to save my life. Rolinator 08:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does help :)

Of course, I don't understand what it actually means, but now I can add a solid footnote, that should keep him quiet for a while while he tries to figure it out :). And if you ever need help from the French into English, be my guest ! (same pseudo on French wiki). Anne97432 09:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subducted stuff

You probably already saw my question about subduction, please wait a few days before answering. I want to see if someone else has something to contribute (and I hope it's not a Russian quotation). Try to summarize, and I'll probably need clarification on some issues but if there are delays in the exchanges it might help draw in details from others which might otherwise be missed. I'm aware of some issues in the carbon cycle and water cycle, but don't know how outdated my info is. (SEWilco 04:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I'll add some stuff to that question, probably on Friday. (SEWilco 06:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Methane vs slag?

I thought there was something familiar about the "Carbonate reduction" components. There are similarities with the blast furnace reduction of iron, but Scott2004 did not provide silicon so no calcium silicate could form. Silicon and calcium are both lithophiles, and I suspect where calcium is found in the mantle the more common silicon is probably also present. Would silicon being available promote many of the reactions which remove FeO from subducted crust? (SEWilco 05:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I think you are starting to see where there is some problems relating artificial reactions to the mantle. But to answer your question...round about ways anyhow, I've had a read up on wustite. It is found in metamorphosed Mg-rich limestones (ie; dolomites) in conjunction with periclase (MgO); periclase typically hydrates to brucite, a common mineral in high-MgO ultramafic rocks which have been hydrated (but absent in the main from talc carbonate metamorphosed ultramafic rocks).

I see the problem of getting wustite and calcite in the mantle firstly, for prolonged periods of time, and secondly in great volume, relates to the propensity for CaO to react with silica.

In the mantle, if hypothetically you had

olivine + water + CO2 --> magnesite + silica +/- talc, in the presence of the carbonate reduction reaction
Calcite + water --> CaO + CO2 + H2O --> CaO (FeO) + CH4

is that the byproduct of reaction 1 (silica) then knocks on into reaction 2's CaO and you would, probably, get CaFeSiO_x, or probably a pyroxene. If you substitute some MgO for FeO as the catalyst you merely make a more or less fe/mg rich pyroxene.

It is theoretically possible to avoid this by using siderite, to remove the Ca from the system and stop pyroxene formation, but it then is arguable that at 1200 degrees and GPa of pressure, that excess FeO turns into olivine again. Remember that prograde metamorphism of dunite, starting from the upper crust and going down, progresses through serpentine minerals, to serp-pyoxene, serp-pyrxene-amphibole and eventually up to metamorphic olivine again once the most stable mineralogical configuration of hat composition is olivine at a given T-P condition (upper amphibolite to granulite facies, generally).

Siderite isn't a usual mantle mineral. While it is difficult to physically mix a rock such that any carbonates become mixed with silicates, making Ca silicates (pyroxene) it is more likely that small scale melting of the rock occurs during subduction, which removes volatiles and incompatible elements. This is generally manifesting as back-arc volcanism and arc volcanism, as the subducted slab is dehydrated. Thus, by the tme a hypothetical carbonate-bearing oceanic slab hits the mantle, it has been metamorphosed and subjected to dehydration reactions, melting and so on. It is unknown if a potentially wustite-calcite bearing carbonate rock could survive this sort of treatment enroute to the mantle. It would be much simpler to assume not.

This is why i keep coming back to serpentinites; they exist at T-P conditions which favor abiotic methane generation; this is observed as current day methane in metamorphosed ultramafics, and they contain the appropriate transition metals and are reduced enough to chemically promote reduced carbon. The Scott experiment is a good argument that it is plausible, but it lacks applicability to real-world processes and compositions. Rolinator 08:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a term (which escapes me at the moment...trans*?) which is used to refer to FeO being removed from subducted slabs. I have the impression that this removal happens at less depth than would be expected for FeO-related alterations. Is it known if this removal involves formation of FeO within slab material, which then may react with things while it moves out? Or does FeO form around the outside where contact with mantle material causes reactions which cause the removal from the slab? (SEWilco 04:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Dehydration metamorphism (ie; blueschist metamorphism) involves altering the subducting oceanic crust; this includes the sediment, basalt, sheeted dyke-peridotite and lower slab dunite (typical ophiolite stratigraphy), the upper portions of which are likely retrograde metamorphosed during the eruption-rifting phase (ie; hydrothermal circulation) into serpentinites.

Blueschist metamorphism generally involves loss of volatiles, conversion of amphibole-chlorite seafloor metasomatism into Na-rich metamorphic amphiboles (glaucophane etc) with a loss of Ca, and potentially a change in the FeO:Fe2O3 ratio (ie; redox change). I'm not aware of whether the subducted slab becomes more FeO rich or less.

The mantle wedge, above the subducted slab, is the beneficiary of the volatiles and Ca which are driven off the slab. Hence, calc-alkaline magmas or arc magmas are generated. The granites formed under, for instance, the Izu-Bonin arc of Japan, tend to be calc-alkaline in character, potassic, and form two series. A "reduced" ilmenite bearing suite, and a "oxidised" magnetite bearing suite.

When I looked into granite gold metallogenesis, the ilmenite-magnetite divide is important because, the redox state of a granite is critical for which elements are able to be concentrated into ore deposits. However, I say "reduced" granites because both suites sit above the Wustite-Magnetite redox buffer and below the QFM redox buffer. The transition to ilmenite from magnetite is, from the work of various authors, a contribution from subducted slab sediment, generally rich in reduced carbon (graphite is reported from some ilmenite-series granites, which are the S-type of Chappell and White), a contribution from back-arc deplated mantle (which produced more Ti-rich melts, be they boninite basalt or granite) and a contribution from metasomatised mantle wedge and slab melts. The speciation between ilmenite and magnetite is thus complex, not just related to FeO and the slab itself.

This breakdown of the two granites implies that redox conditions and contributions of oxidised vs reduced materials changes with distance from the subduction zone. But it isn't really well understood, and it is also difficult to say whether the redox change in the granites is caused by the slab or what melts above the slab as it heats up. I would hedge my bets on the latter. But again, these two granite suites have different states of oxidation relative to one another within the confines of the two redox buffers. Also, the fact you can get graphitic granite argues that whenever organic detritus interacts with magma, it is equally likely to fix in the ultra-reduced conditions, and may actually prevent methane generation due to lack of ability to drive the bulk chemistry into conditions which change carbon from graphite to methane (ie; its so reduced that it takes a long while to push it into methane-carbon dioxide redox compositions). Then again, these granites are derived from melted sediments, so clearly carbon in them is entrained in solid form, not percolating through as CO2 gas.

In fact, if a granite is reduced enough, it will force all FeO into silicates, preventing any Fe oxide formation (lets say pyroxene and amphibole), which also cancels out any potential methanogenesis reactions involving wustite. Whether this means that slab melts can't form wustite-carbonate during subduction is another problem, because so far there's no evidence of this actually happening. In theory, yes. But there is no evidence. The only known carbonatite volcano also sits in a rift zone, so if a carbonate sequence melts (lets say to provide a reduced ilmenite granite), we are on current evidence unlikely to see it manifest as a carbonatite. I don't know if that answers anything, but the redox state of basalt melts behind subduction zones is something I'm not at all familiar with, and that is much deeper melting in much more mafic magmas. Rolinator 03:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gold in fluids

Unrelated to other discussions, I point out this URL because it mentions gold in fluids in the crust. Thought you might be interested, although it's likely you already know of it. http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/staff/jlowenstern/other/volatile_reviews.html (SEWilco 05:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks, but you are right. Lowenstern's stuff is known to me. Thanks for the thoughts. Rolinator 00:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Primordial water

Is there a reason you blanked Primordial water rather than moving it? Do you think the content is worth moving to a better title, or redirecting to a similar term? Please reply at Talk:Primordial water. By the way, there's a deletion process you can use if there are pages you think need permanent deleting. Angela . 04:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consider an AfD. I'll be happy to help you start one. - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A brief response as I am @ work; I think (?) I explained on the talk; there is no practicable scientific method of ascertaining if water from the mantle is primordial in a cosmochemical sense; only the volatiles carried with the water. Mediate the crap out of it if you want in the meantime, I'll be back in from fieldwork in a week. It was also a topic AFAIK with only a couple of links, one of which was hydrothermal vent, where it was used in isolation and without any basis in fact aside from the point raised directly above.Rolinator 05:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soil science vs Engienering, Cone penetration test

Hi! I'm a little curious why you changed Cone penetration test from a geology-stub to a soil-science stub? Soil science, in my experience, generally refers to a branch of agronomy, which the CPT is not used for (usually). Argyriou (talk) 17:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is very little to no useful data to be gleaned from the majority of geological science in knowing how compacted soil is; pedologists would probably use the CPT more than someone studying volcanic rocks or metamorphism, yes? Its either that or engineering, civil or otherwise. I have been finding that geology-stub is applied to anything to do with anything at all and, being a geo, tend to try to find a substitute for things which aren't anything I have heard of in my geology experience. Like this, which is probably a civil engineering test. Cheers. Rolinator 23:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cone penetration test is definitely an engineering test; and the article is tagged as an engineering-stub. The CPT is sometimes useful in engineering geology, and as it can be fitted with shear and pressure wave receivers, can also be useful in seismology, but it is primarily for engineering. I'll remove the soil-science-stub, and leave it as only an engineering-stub. Argyriou (talk) 23:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Every so often I go through the geology stubs and weed them down into minerals, soils, engineering, skiing, etc, because I figure that if an article is stubbed properly then it will reach an audience who knows how to expand it. So thanks. Rolinator 23:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lava

I've just been reading the Lava page. It's really good. There was some discussion about putting it up as a featured article. I've just been through that experience, which was not at all pleasant. It just happened that the first two peopl who commented on my article were not interested in subject matter (didn't appear to be, anyway!) but merely in whether the article conformed to the Manual of Style (which it didn't.) They were also very critical about the fact that even though it had a Bibliography of I can't remember how many books, it only had a few inline cites. They wanted literally everything to cite a book, not just those comments that might need backing up but simple facts like "lava is hot stuff that comes out of volcanos". Some Featured articles only have the cites that are necessary, but if it is reviewed by a real pedant, it's not worth the effort. My article ended up with about 80 inline cites until I got fed up and deleted quite a lot of them.

Anyway, my suggestion is, put your references in and also give examples of things like speed. They don't have to be exact. It's OK to say "the larva flow may advance at less than 5 kilometers an hour".

Best of luck! --Amandajm 13:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, stuff it. You're right, too much effort required. It can be a little gem of quality, with its own charming flaws, in amongst the dross of Wikipedia, without needing to be a featured article.Rolinator 00:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

welcome

To the WA project (my random welcoming system in operation here - buit like my unfinished stub on Mount Read Volcanics) hope you enjoy it - you might be the only geol we have - so be prepared for questions! SatuSuro 13:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've worked for scintrex (v short time) v long ago - at mt lyell when it still was - usually as a gfa (multiple meanings there) - and still have a thing about west tas - hence my west coast range art (which is very weak on the geology) - but what I was going to say - is that when you create a west poz art - on the talk page - look at the arts of yours that I have just tagged - add those - it makes sure theyre in there in the wa project! SatuSuro 13:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also I was on scholarship in canberra in 1997 and an old friend from Darwin NT had written a brilliant article on archaeology and crazy ideas - I must find it/him - as it would fit into the age of earth arguments as a bit of science i suspect!

I always like the way pop sci folks play with the north pole sequence for the age of life on earth alone... :) SatuSuro 14:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I also bid you welcome! Will spend sometime reading articles linked to you, very interesting. Your contribution to WP:WA would be indispensable, esp. geology component in general articles. I'm trying to improve dampier/ karratha articles at the moment as readers may be looking them up (gas pipeline). Regards Fred.e 18:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Petrology

I just added more stuff to Petrology, and I have a better feeling of your understanding of what's going on down there. You're working with the background of what patterns have been noticed of rock behavior around the globe, while I've often poked at bits of chemistry which haven't been generally noticed so probably aren't common. The conditions where the mass of observations has problems is when there's a faulty assumption (such as if we'd noticed asteroid impact events before discovering Yellowstone and accepted Yellowstone as an impact crater) or missing information (such as the fellows in 1911 who noticed magma differentiation but didn't know about plate subduction). The hunt for understanding goes on. (SEWilco 09:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

"Mineral redox buffer" discussion

Please check discussion page for plan for suggested changes. Note especially the proposal to delete sulfide-sulfate material from this entry and to have someone create a new entry to treat sulfides and oxidation in greater detail -- but I am not qualified to create such an entry on sulfides. Could you and would you do so, if I made extensive changes to the redox buffer entry? My background does include use of oxygen buffers and calculation of oxygen fugacities, and so eventually I might create a page on oxygen fugacities in geology -- if so, what should such a page be titled? Omphacite 18:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given it is late at night and I am a wee bit tipsy from egg nog and wine, I cannot answer definitively, but, the redox buffer page is indeed an imperfect grab-bag at the moment for the whole trio of concepts; redox buffers, fO2 and sulfide-sulfate systems. So go ahead and do whatever you feel neccessary and the only criteria for naming a page should be; brief and related to the subject matter. It could be oxygen fugacity (rocks) or similar.Rolinator 02:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Australia (continent)

Hello and Happy New Year - just wondered if you were aware of the discussions at Talk:Australia (continent)? It is mostly semantics and conventions, but they are trying very hard to decide how to name and develop that article. I've tossed in a few things geological to help (??) them, but I wondered if you as a "local" might be able and willing to help them more than I can. Cheers --Geologyguy 04:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

heheh you found what prevents some doing edits - they wander into talk instead - on things that really dont need it! (Australia continent) Have a good new year SatuSuro 04:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I just reverted your comment -if someone saw that they give you a hard time - re wkpdya's a goldfishbowl :) gotta be carful da language mate! SatuSuro 23:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the plural used in clastic rocks?

Why does clastic rocks have a plural article title? Wikipedia:Manual of Style says the singular should be used except when there's a particular reason to prefer the plural (e.g. the Beatles, etc). Michael Hardy 23:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you never answered, I went ahead and moved it. Michael Hardy 03:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hamersley

Hello,

There's a push to get Hamersley, Western Australia to FA status. I've just added a section on natural history in which I have pretended to be a geologist. I'd appreciate it if you would at least check the geology bit for gross stupidity. If you're willing to improve it or fill in some red-links, they would be even better.

Cheers,

Hesperian 02:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't too bad. Not much more to be said...and good luck!Rolinator 06:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks heaps. I had been trying to include a reference to Spearwood Dunes, but it didn't flow.

I might take a little bit out again. Deciding how much context to include in an article on a suburb is a bit of a balancing act. Perth Basin is certainly relevant, but I don't think defining the scarp is. Hesperian 06:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continental Crust

Hi! Kenorland article edit you wrote that "core formation occurred within 100Ma of earth fomation"? I really do wish you could find the article on this. As far as I know - which isn't too far I admit - we have no indication of continental crust even forming this early. Do you have any sources? Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kenorland" Valich 03:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Johnston Greenstone Belt

Hi again,
I've been working on Mallee (biogeographic region) recently, and it has been suggested that the Land Use section include discussion of mining. Lake Johnston is just inside the northern border of the region. If the greenstone belt and Emily and Maggie are roughly north of the Lake Johnston, then they are outside the Mallee region; if south of Lake Johnston, then they are inside the Mallee region, and warrant mention in the article. Any insights? Further discussion at Talk:Mallee (biogeographic_region)#opinion. Hesperian 12:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Lake Johnston Greenstone Belt continues south from Lake Johnston itself for over 80km. So Emily Ann and Mggie Hays are at the northern end of it, but the greenstone belt itself is quite large. Rolinator 07:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Hesperian 09:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carbonate hosted lead zinc ore deposits

Your recent article creation Carbonate hosted lead zinc ore deposits does not contain any references. Please cite your references for this article. Thanks ++Arx Fortis 04:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christ, you ridiculous pedant. DIY it on google.Rolinator 11:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I want you to spend six weeks tagging all the fricking stub articles for references. Why you don't can only be because there's 2.5 million articles on wikipedia where its OK to write one sentence and claim whatever the hell you want (i cite resource extraction) whereas if you put in more than one minute's effort, your efforts cop a citation tag and no doubt a pedant tacking on a deletion five minutes later. You heroes. I wish I was like you.Rolinator 11:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't let 'em get to you. Thanks for writing the article - one more to cross off my to do list. :-) I've added a couple refs - won't satisfy Arx up there, but...
Also I have redirected the resource extraction thing to mining, as it was really a bit of junk. Hadn't run across it before. For a bit of humor, I note that it was written back in 04 by a user called Pedant - oh well...
Keep up the good work and don't let the pedants get to you. Cheers, Vsmith 13:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rolinator...I am surprised at such hostility from a polite request. I was trying to be civil. It's your contribution. Cite your own references. It's obvious you know more about the subject than I do, so I assumed you would have access to the appropriate reference material. (Not all references are accessible via "Google.")

I agree...there are way too many articles on Wikipedia without sources and that are, quite frankly, crap. That does not apply to the article that you created and you shouldn't compare it to those others. In keeping with the higher standard, references are apropos. At a minimum, references show that the article is not original research and removes the issue of "a pedant tacking on a deletion five minutes later" as you mention above. My motivation for encouraging citation was simply to assuage the possibility any such circumstance.

Lastly, I am not a pedant. I do not hold others to a higher standard than I do for myself. Any articles I've created, I've cited my own references and encourage others to do the same per the guidelines. ++Arx Fortis 03:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oil shale

Hi, Rolinator. Last year you added significant part of the geology section of the Oil shale article. As the whole article grew too big, recently we created several spin-off articles, including Oil shale geology. I wonder, if you could be interested assisting to improve this article, and also create appropriate summary for the geology section of the main article. As there is plan to nominate these articles for GA, I would like to ask your assistance to add inline citation for all hard data and facts. There are some tags where references are needed. Thank you in advance.Beagel 18:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see how it goes, but I'm not really flush with access to a good literature searching tool as i'm out of university. Rolinator 06:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I listed Oil shale for the new peer review and related spin-off articles (Oil shale extraction, Oil shale geology, Oil shale industry, History of the oil shale industry, Oil shale reserves, Oil shale economics, and Environmental effects of oil shale industry) for the peer review. Your comments and edits will be most welcome. Beagel 17:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mantle Composition

Concerning your Wüstite "citation needed", I took the 7.5% FeO directly from the table "Composition of Earth's mantle in weight percent" under Mantle_(geology)#Characteristics. You can move your "citation needed" to that whole table, if you like. --Ben Best 02:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben, there's a difference between FeO wt % and wustite weight %. You are inferring that all FeO in the mantle is present as wustite. This is not the case. Most FeO in the mantle is in fact present as olivine or pyroxene solid solutions. I'll edit it out. Rolinator 03:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, Rolinator. My request for explanation/justification is at Talk:Wüstite. --Ben Best 05:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uranium Ore Deposits

Thanks for your article on uranium ore deposits. I will definitely pitch in to expand the article. Tharikrish 16:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has taken some time, but I have an expansion and revision that I am almost ready to take live. Feel free to take a look at it in my sandbox. It still needs work and expansion in areas as I track down more info. Turgan ^Talk 01:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Mining

Hi Rolinator, I see that you add a lot of material to Mining and Geology. I am currently trying to start a wikiproject on mining if you would be interested in contributing. Thanks--Kelapstick 17:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the mining pages are in a really desperately poorly organised state. I'll help where I can. Rolinator 06:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For sure they are, I have spent the last couple days just sorting redundant categories, and am nowhere near half done. For the most part they are also in bad shape. Thanks --Kelapstick 12:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I noticed. Rolinator 08:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to speciesism

Please be aware that talk pages are not for general discussions not related to improving the article. It's also convention that new comments go at the bottom of the page. I can't follow what your reasoning was with the comment, but speciesism can apply to any species. Richard001 08:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is, however, not applied in the article so much to carrots as it is to a neo-political construction by vegans and retards. By its very nature "speciesism" is a fallacy; if by the act of slughter or exploitation of another species for food or economic use a human is speciesist and thereby deserving of opprobium, clearly sharks are speciesists too and we shouldn't like them. Nor wolves, which are speciesist toward sheep last time I checked. Life feeds on life. If I don't make sense, its only because I'm on the sam wavelength as animal rights activists.Rolinator 04:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge of coal mining and sub-surface mining

Hello! Beagel pointed me to where I can find you, as you are interested in articles regarding mining. I've started a discussion regarding the merger of sub-surface mining into coal mining - I'd appreciate your opinion. Cheers and thanks in advance! --Ouro (blah blah) 10:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Alluvial desert

An article that you have been involved in editing, Alluvial desert, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alluvial desert. Thank you. Paleorthid (talk) 07:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chop chop! My opinion is in the comments. Rolinator (talk) 12:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Equal-angle and equal-area projections

Hi, Rolinator. An old comment of yours at Talk:Structural geology suggests that you are handy with Stereographic projection. Perhaps you also use the Lambert azimuthal equal-area projection for plotting data? Recently both of these articles have been improved, but the applications could always use more work, especially in the latter article. And Pole figure is pretty shabby. Just an invitation. Reply here if you like. Cheers -- Joshua R. Davis (talk) 21:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look. Unemployment lends one to wikipedia... :P Rolinator (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phreatomagmatic eruption

I have noticed your interest in geology in general as you edited some work of mine on the ignimbrite page, so i wonder if you wouldnt mind taking a look at this article that i created, and maybe giving some feedback on technicality, manual of style etc? First real edit so just want to know what is good and what is not. Would be much appreciated. Cheers Russjass (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome work. No real problems, just a few spelling/typo errors. Rolinator (talk) 09:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:DMRDlogo.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:DMRDlogo.gif. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --18:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oil shale geology

Hi. I nominated the Oil shale geology article for the GAN. You are welcome to comment and improve this article. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Big Tom, Bronx

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Big Tom, Bronx, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Non-notable topic. After 4 years, it's still a stub, and a poorly written one at that.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sub-surface mining

Hi, I started a discussion about changing Category:Sub-surface mining to Category:Underground mining, I wanted to see what the thoughts of other participents of WikiProject Mining were.--kelapstick (talk) 17:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about Stone Mountain Article

A colleague and I are working on a book about Georgia geology, for the lay person. Recently the educational staff at Stone Mountain Park called our attention to the Wikipedia article on Stone Mountain. We were able to trace the majority of the wording in the geology section of the article back to an entry you made in January 2007. We also noticed that you put a photo from the mountain taken in February 2007 into Wikimedia, and that you are the author of another Wikipedia article on restite. From that we concluded that you have visited the mountain and that you are probably the original author of the content you added (some of which now also appears in a couple of other places on the internet).

Some of the material you added was new to us. We would like our book article on Stone Mountain to be in tune with the Wikipedia information, and would appreciate your sharing with us the source of several points in the article that we had not seen in the literature about Stone Mountain (such as Grant, Size, and OConnor, 1980, from the 1980 GSA Atlanta Field Trip #3) - whether these were based on your own observations or whether you might have a reference for them. You amended a previous entry: "Embedded in the granite are pieces (xenoliths) of metamorphic rocks—gneiss and amphibolite—presumably entrained in the magma as it ascended through the earth's crust." to read:

"The xenoliths of the Stone Mountain granite are composed of two types ofmetamorphic rocks;gneiss and amphibolite xenoliths of the country rock torn from the conduit as the granite ascended through the earth's crust. These xenoliths are generally angular, display a foliation, have feathery black amphibole, and have a reaction rim of pale yellow orthoclase around them."

I was unable to find mention of amphibolite xenoliths in Grant et. al. 1980 - instead it states (p. 47) that "lithologic variations include biotite, muscovite-biotite, and garnet-mica schists, and less commonly, biotite-plagioclase gneiss and granite gneiss. Tourmaline-mica-schist...is an uncommon variation)" I realize that the previous Wikipedia writer first mentioned the amphibolite xenoliths, but you added some detail. Did you see what you describe (where?) or is it in some literature I have overlooked?

Then you added the words, "Other xenoliths are composed of restite and are generally rounder, lack the amphibole and reaction rims and have weaker foliation. These are cognate inclusions and were presumably the rock which the granite melted from. The presence of abundant metamorphic xenoliths and restite infers that the granite is an S-type granite formed from melting of sedimentary metamorphic rocks." I did not find mention of restite xenoliths at Stone Mountain in the literature, and have not seen the inclusions you are describing. Do you have any pictures and location information you could send? Also, your Wikipedia restite article talks about restite in both I-type and S-type granites - should there have been reference to the type of restite in the latter sentence? And why would metamorphic xenoliths necessarily imply an S-type granite? The granite is considered S-type based on its chemistry - but the schist and gneiss xenoliths at Stone Mountain have been interpreted as part of the country rock.

Lastly, you inserted the paragraph, "The granite displays an east-west foliation, and abunant muscovite. The muscovite is probably metamorphic in origin. Late metasomatic veins of black tourmalne, K-feldspar, and amphibole are present through the granite and manifest as pale feldspar-filled fractures, often with large fans of amphibole." According to Grant et. al. (1980), there are locations with flow foliation, with a variety of orientations showing folding about a N65W axis. Most of the mountain is massive (essentially unfoliated) granite, though - one of the ways Stone Mountain Granite differs from the granitic gneisses in the area. It is a two-mica granite, so muscovite is indeed abundant. I am puzzled by the statement that the muscovite is probably metamorphic in origin. I am not a petrologist - is there something I am missing here?

The tourmaline-bearing dikes such as you took your Wikimedia picture of are certainly one of the special features of Stone Mountain. I am puzzled by the reference to large fans of amphibole, though. Do you have location information, pictures, or a reference to an article about this?

I would greatly appreciate your taking time to help us clear up some of these points, so that the general public can get consistent information about the geology of Stone Mountain whether they consult our book or Wikipedia. RoadsideGA (talk) 11:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent discussions at WikiProject Mining

Hi, there are some discussions you may want to weigh in on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mining about:

Naming conventions for multiple mines with the same name
Using "Categorty:Metal mine in Country" in community/company articles
Capitalizing the word "mine" in article titles

Cheers, --kelapstick (talk) 16:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back!

Hi Rolinator, good to see you back. Thanks for pushing forward on the List of Rock Types page, it will be interesting to see what other users think of the change. At some point, not right now as I'm a bit busy with the day job, I would like to discuss with you a rewrite of the Shear (geology) page; I'll be in touch about that. Cheers. Mikenorton (talk) 11:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Yeah, amazing what unemployment does for your spare time. If you want to rewrite shearing, I'm all for it. I did most of it myself, ages ago, so it could do with an upgrade. Rolinator (talk) 14:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]