User talk:Paul H.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome!
Hello Paul H., 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:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
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! — Dunc|☺ 19:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Tollmann's hypothetical bolide
Hi. Thanks for your edits to Tollmann's hypothetical bolide. I have slightly toned down the language. At times I think you crossed the line between presenting evidence and arguing a case. Also you were overlinking, that is linking the same word many times. For example the first mention of Holocene should be a wiki link but subsequent use of the word Holocene should not be linked. I've fixed that. Anyway take a look at the page and see if I've damaged anything. Zeimusu | Talk page 05:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Peer review/Geology of the Capitol Reef area/archive1
I would love some feedback from a real geologist. :) I'm just an enthusiastic amateur. --mav 22:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Dholavira Ancient Metropolitan City
Dear Paul H. I have visited your user page and discussion page. I would be thankful for comments on Dholavira Ancient Metropolitan City. Many Photos are also available on link.
Regards vkvora
[edit] Concretion image removal
Hi, Paul. I'd like to discuss the removal of the image 
from concretions page. I believe that the image, which shows concretion and tektite of the same shape is very interesting for understanding origin of concretions and adds a value to the article, if for nothing else at least by forcing viewers to think. Often concretion are forming around something. That image could help to understand how concretions get their strange shapes. I'd like to learn your opinion, please. Thanks.--Mbz1 16:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
[edit] Coconino Sandstone
Paul, your comment at Talk:Coconino Sandstone is being cited there to show that "at least one" conventional geologist supported marine origins of the sandstone. It's obviously an extreme minority view, but I've supported the idea of briefly mentioning the creationist claim and noting that it's been refuted. You've said that "it is true that one conventional geologist, Dr. Glenn Visher, back in the 1990’s argued that the Late Paleozoic Coconino Sandstone, and Mesozoic Navajo Sandstone, were both deposited underwater." From a couple of later notes I've found, it's clear that he was being quote mined and his controversial papers referring to the Navajo were being misquoted. Any comments? . .. dave souza, talk 16:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Old and Young Earth Creationist are quote mining as Visher's comments, which consist of a single paragraph and a couple of figures in a college textbook, on the Coconino Sandstone. He never did publish any detailed discussion of why he specifically interpreted the Coconino Sandstone to be marine in origin. There was only a detailed paper, which was published in the Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, on why he interpreted Navajo Sandstone to marine. That paper generated several detailed replies from other geologists, who disputed in great detail the interpretations, which were also later published in the Journal of Sedimentary Petrology. In case of the Coconino Sandstone, Visher confused parting lineation with parting step lineation, the latter which is very common in eolian sandstones, and is 100 percent wrong in implying that the shells and bones of marine animals having been found in the Coconino Sandstone. (None have been found in the Coconino Sandstone.) Also, his methodology of using grain-size curve to interpret depositional environments has been proved to be unreliable. That he uses his grain-size curves to argue for the marine deposition of the Navajo Sandstone show how unreliable, even useless, it is for determining depositional environments. Of course, Old and Young Earth Creationists, in their quote mining, neglect to mention that the arguments made by Visher about the Navajo and Coconino Sandstone have been discredited and abandoned by conventional geologists. I cannot find any conventional, noncreationist geologist, whom currently regards the Coconino Sandstone as having accumulated underwater. When the arguments against the marine origin of the Coconino Sandstone and above facts were publicly noted, a certain Young Earth creationist simply falsely accused me of "ranting". Paul H..
- Thanks very much, I've removed the quote mined reference from the article and referred to your helpful reply on the article talk page in explaining my action. Will aim to expand the article to briefly outline the explanation based on eolian processes, unless someone beats me to it ;) . . dave souza, talk 17:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Talk: Sodom and Gomorrah
Just a friendly warning. Editing talk pages is generally frowned upon. --Kraftlos (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
