User talk:Geopersona

Welcome...

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

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Espresso Addict (talk) 15:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS Thanks for your useful addition on the geology of Shutlingsloe‎‎. You might like to note that to get the reference list to show you need to add either {{reflist}} or <references />, usually in a section headed "References" or "Notes". Drop me a note on my talk page if you have any problems. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 15:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Espresso Addict - thanks for the welcome and the advice - finding your way around as a new editor is confusing - at least it's confusing me!Geopersona (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The help system is a little hard to negotiate, even when one's been around for a while! Do drop me a note if there's anything that's particularly confusing you. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 16:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you have deleted this small river from List of rivers of Wales‎. Up till now this list has included a;; named tributaries no matter how small and as such is consistent with the British Legal system of recognising all watercourses even if dry for part of the year - see The Water Act, The Rivers Prevention of pollution Acts,the Water Resources act etc etc. Is there a good reason for deletion ? There is no expectation that every entry needs its own page - this isn't a disambiguation page after all. Velela (talk) 09:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC) PS I do appreciate all th new stuff that uyou are putting on especially about Powys Geography which has been rather sparse. Velela (talk) 09:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response on my talk page. The naming issue is a difficult one. Firstly as this is the English Wikipedia it seems logical to use the English name but as you correctly note many rivers and streams only have Welsh Names. I have tended to use the Ordnance Survey names whenever possible although for many large rivers the Ordnance survey uses both variants. I guess I tend to err on the side of the Welsh names simply because they are Welsh rivers but have acknowledged that especially in the south and east of Wales the English names hold sway. My personal philosophy is that if a river has an established name either by custom and practice or as recorded on Ordnance survey that it ought to be included and some very small streams in Wales do have important and interesting historical and geographical significance. One other issue you might want to consider in the light of some of your edits is the cntant of articles about rivers. Up till now the articles on the major rivers (Taff, Ogmore, Neath, Dyfi, Teifi etc etc.) have included in them reference to the whole river basin including references to tributaries and to the headwaters even when the named main river does not itself extend to the headwaters. I notice that a chunk from the head waters of the Neath has been edited out into its own articles. My personal view is that someone looking for an overview of the River would probably want to know about Ystradfellte and the geology of the headwaters even if it is repeated in greater detail in other articles. I would welcome your views. Velela (talk) 22:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS If you ever have time on your hands the List of lakes in Wales could do with some detail filling in - I started on this marathon months (years?) ago but only access to limited information.

Re your last message the convention is usually to hold a conversation on one talk page or another (not often both as at present!) simply because it keeps the flow together. Where the discussion concerns a particular article or topic the whole discussion should be held on the discussion page of the article or copied there from the talk pages where the discussion was originally held. This gives other editors information about why certain decisions have been taken. Such a discussion led to the choice of 5 acres as the cut-off in the List of lakes in Wales, for example. Velela (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

have reinstated nant Llech pellaf
Geopersona (talk) 10:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification regarding Fforest Fawr and Fforest Fach. I have recategorized them under Category:Mountains and hills of south Wales. --Oddharmonic (talk) 00:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the wonderful and sometimes wacky world of Wikipedia! The information you've provided looks great, and I hope you'll be able to contribute much more. I've just looked at one of your new articles - Cribarth Disturbance - and have a couple of minor points. Firstly, it's normal practice to embolden the first mention of the article title in the text, which I've now done. Secondly, and especially when you're using concepts and terms which will not be obvious to the general reader - like Caledonoid or Caledonide (are they the same thing by the way?) - you should add a reference to the end of the sentence or paragraph where they first occur. If you can do that in that case, feel free to remove the tag which I've added. If you'd like any guidance or advice on anything here, let me know. Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ghmyrtle - happy to be advised by those who know what they're doing! I'll see if I can back up the Caledonide/oid matter and aid understanding.
Geopersona (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No prob - it's also good practice to indent your reply on a talk page, by using one colon : - as I've done here. Not a binding rule or anything, but it helps readers follow a discussion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's useful too - I wondered how to do it!
Geopersona (talk) 22:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted to just using 'Caledonoid' here which refers to the geographical trend ie NE-SW in most of the UK and am looking into defining the two terms elsewhere - perhaps on the Caledonian orogeny page - see discussion there.
Geopersona (talk) 10:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC) 10:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

disambig page to non-existent articles

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. Ironholds (talk) 05:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles now exists - deletion template removedGeopersona (talk) 06:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Geopersona, I applied an orphan tag to Afon Pyrddin per What is an Orphan? because I see only one article in main space (Nedd Fechan) that links to Afon Pyrddin and is not a list, redirect or disambiguation page (see Special:WhatLinksHere/Afon_Pyrddin). Afon Pyrddin has a lot of links to other articles, and that's good, but more articles need to be linked to it, so that people viewing other pages will be able to find and edit it. Please let me know if you think I've misapplied the policy. Thanks, Baileypalblue (talk) 06:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Geopersona. You might want to add an infobox to the river articles you've been creating: Infobox River. Good luck. ~Geaugagrrl ^talk 06:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Brecon Forest Tramroad requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I've replied on my talk page. Skinsmoke (talk) 13:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, after reading one of your articles at newpage patrol I was surprised to see that an editor who has contributed as much as you have hadn't been approved as an wp:Autoreviewer. So I've taken the liberty of rectifying that. ϢereSpielChequers 19:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that! Geopersona (talk) 20:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just dropping by to appreciate you for this excellent new article. Ben MacDui 09:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been my pleasure Ben MacDui. Took me down memory lane researching the article and gave me plenty of food for thinking about future excursions into the wilds.
Geopersona (talk) 19:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do call in if you are passing by. I notice that the "hilarious Eas Foss Waterfall" is not listed. See my talk page for details... Ben MacDui 11:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes- I'd seen the item. That's me going by the name on the OS 25K map which names it as Eas Fors. It's apparent that a lot of falls, not least in Gaelic and Welsh speaking (or indeed formerly speaking) areas have multiple name variants. And then there are the errors and copyright-protecting 'easter eggs' put in place by OS! Geopersona (talk) 13:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a short note to say I am pleased that you have become a participant of the WikiProject Cheshire; the project has few active editors at present and with your knowledge of geology you will be a valued colleague. Please improve the geology, and any other content, of the Cheshire articles. My own interest in the county has developed mainly into its heritage.

While you are working on the articles, please bear close attention to their referencing. Many articles get stuck when it comes to improving them because a previous editor has failed to provide a citation and, if the information cannot be confirmed by a new editor, it has to be deleted, which is a great pity. You probably know that there is good guidance on this at WP:CITE which contains some useful templates. Best wishes, and enjoy your editing. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the changes you made but right of way (transportation) isn't a disam page. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 06:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right - just me getting confused! Geopersona (talk) 05:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you moved River Rhymney to Rhymney River? In British English the noun River preceeds its name. Welshleprechaun 20:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the unusual cases of Rhymney River, Sirhowy River and Ebbw River. I can't immediately think of any other examples but these three are unusual. See any Ordnance Survey map for example. Thanks Geopersona (talk) 20:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 01:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Courcelles! Geopersona (talk) 21:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you/would you butt in on this discussion? Sorry to do this to you as its one of the ongoing debates in Wikipedia but it would help to have some idea of why you created the article, the source material you used etc. --Snowded ^TALK 14:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You beat me to it Snowded, I was just about to ask Geopersona the same thing. It would be good to have views about this from someone who knows a little more geology than moi. :-) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, someone has questioned the notability of the above article that you started. Quantpole (talk) 14:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Quantpole - I've added a few refs for good measure. cheers Geopersona (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the lists. I have stubbed Northern Ireland faults and Wales up to D. Hope these be expanded,Starzynka (talk) 21:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commendable yes - but please be aware that many of the items in these lists would struggle to achieve a level of notability to warrant their own Wikipedia article - same applies to the Waterfalls of Scotland article - although to a lesser extent IMO. Geopersona (talk) 19:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated your article at T:TDYK. Hopefully I'll be able to get back to it as well in the next few days, but as it's my daughter's 16th birthday I may have other priorities! Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just been using my bot to copy coordinates from Waterfalls of Scotland, and there seem to be at least a couple of data problems. In the original list, Eagle’s Fall has a broken national grid reference with an odd number of digits. (I've fixed this one myself, using Geograph as a source.)

Also, after a couple more spot-checks, it's clear that the coordinates given for Eas a' Chrannaig were nonsense (see http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=55.42851,-6.69792). (I've also fixed this, in both Waterfalls of Scotland and the linked page.)

However, this seems to be quite a high error rate for just a couple of spot-checks: I wonder if you could go back and check your data sources, and perhaps spot-check some more of the coordinates in this article, just to be sure? -- The Anome (talk) 06:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I've just checked the first 27 in the list (A through to C) and found one more of the same type where the prefix letters were incorrect (NN instead of NS) and have fixed it. Could be more of that type I guess. Geopersona (talk) 07:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have now checked a further 50 (D through to Eas Dhomhnuill Dhuibh) and found no further errors beyond what you found. A qucik scan for odd numbers of digits through the whole list revealed no more of this type either. There may yet be more errors but I don't think the error rate is as high as you had feared. Geopersona (talk) 08:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I guess I was just unlucky with the spot check. I can also confirm that there are no other odd numbers of digits anywhere in the list other than the one entry that is now fixed. -- The Anome (talk) 10:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 27 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bideford Bay, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Hi, I came across an ancient book about coalfields at Google, [1]. I thought you might be interested as there are some interesting diagrams. I don't understand reusing such things so I steer clear but there might be something of interest. I expect you have already come across it.:)--J3Mrs (talk) 14:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that J3Mrs. I've just followed the link and it looks as though there'll be some interesting material there. I'll take a longer look when I've time. thanks Geopersona (talk) 14:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, I have now had a quick look at the talk page and at first glance I couldn't see any overlap between hte changes I'd made and comments on the talk page, but I could easily have missed something. Clearly there is scope for considerably more work on the article.

Ehrenkater (talk) 18:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, lots more could be done yet. It partly depends on what level we drop down to in terms of size of watercouse. I personally wouldn't want to see every last stream added in - save that level of detail for articles on individual rivers systems perhaps, if it's felt to be required. Geopersona (talk) 19:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am trying to improve the River Glen article, but there are a number of geologicial bits for which I have no idea where to look for references, and since you have in the past updated these sections, wondered if you know of refs for them. If you do, it would be greatly appreciated. Bob1960evens (talk) 18:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bob - I've replied on your talk page. Geopersona (talk) 09:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've left a response there too. Bob1960evens (talk) 09:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a geologist, are you able to help with the query I have raised on Talk:Greenschist? Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded at Talk:Greenschist Geopersona (talk) 16:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Others arrived there before you, but it's all been helpful. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Geopersona. I was very interested in your entry concerning Maen Llia, especially the part regarding the shadow. I have looked at the references on the page, and they don't seem to mention it. Can you tell me where you found this information please. I have seen the story about a drinking stone linked to other megalith's, but Maen Llia is the first I know of that gives a shadow as the possible source of this myth.

Beaconsfan (talk) 23:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Geopersona! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

This is not (entirely nor even primarily intended as) a frivolous question. I have been looking at the wiki-list of geological faults in England and cannot find mention of any fault in Essex (nor Suffolk, Cambridgeshire, Norfolk ...). I had understood that even in Essex, if you were to bore through all the clay for long enough, you'd get to rock. Is this rock without faults? Have they been somehow smoothed out of recognition by all the clay dumped on top of them? Or is it simply that no one looked? I think this question may be outside the immediate scope of existing wikipedia entries, and if you do not have an answer for me it will no doubt serve me right for ... wondering. But you looked like the sort of person who just might be able to jot down an answer inside a minute and with seconds to spare. And you already read the question, for which thank you. Regards Charles01 (talk) 06:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have answered on your talk page. thanks Geopersona (talk) 06:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if that change was inaccurate: I was basing it on several paleontological papers which treat the Wealden as a supergroup, which includes (confusingly) a Wealden Group (see an example chart here. Because the text of the article seemed to include other "Wealden" formations I thought it best to change the article title--however maybe it would be less confusing to restrict the article to cover the Wessix and Vectis formations alone. MMartyniuk (talk) 12:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stratigraphic naming confuses all of us at times - I've certainly been misled on occasions - the paper reference you point me towards would at first glance seem likely to be authoritative - just that different authotities say different things! I'll check with a colleague at BGS for his take on matters. cheers Geopersona (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Geopersona. This might be outside of your main focus of interest (i.e. the northwest of the British Isles), but I had noticed you'd created the article Portland Group (geology) recently, and there's a bit of a discussion going on at Talk:Geology of Dorset#WikiProject Dorset Assessments, specifically regarding if and how to treat geology and geography articles at the county level (with particular reference to Dorset obviously, though there are I think wider applications/considerations). Any comments you may have regarding the topic being discussed, would be welcome. Thanks. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Geopersona, I've reached about my limit for now on the Orcadian Basin article in my sandbox. I would rather that somebody else added this, as I do refer to my own work twice, so some checks would be in order. I will have only intermittent internet access for the next few weeks, so we can leave it like that if you want, but please go ahead and make the move if that's your preference. Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 17:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I've added a map to the draft in my sandbox. I'm fairly happy with it, but would appreciate your views, particularly regarding the references that I've made to two of my published papers. If you think that it looks OK, I'll make the page move and add my text. Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Looks good to me - hope you don't mind but I made one or two items of text into wikilinks. Map looks neat though if the text on the face of the map can be made slightly bigger then it'll make for easier reading though one can always click and open it of course. As to self-reference; the papers are multi-authored and peer-reviewed in reputable journals which points to objectivity, it seems to me. I'd have happily added that sort of detail from them myself had I previously been aware of them. best wishes Geopersona (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I may just make the map a bit bigger for readability. Mikenorton (talk) 22:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Geoperson. I've just made a change to this article, but i want to be sure i'm correct. You wrote that Aberystwyth is in northwest Powys, but unless they've moved it since my atlas was printed, it's in Ceredigion. The only concern i have is that the grits themselves may be in Powys, which isn't reflected in the article now. Can you please check it & make sure i've not boobed? Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 20:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making the change LindsayH - you're quite right! I don't know why on earth I wrote NW Powys! cheers Geopersona (talk) 22:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Geopersona. Thanks for your recent answers to some of my questions on article talk pages. I am wondering if you'd be interested in taking a look at Early Jurassic, which even for a non-geologist such as myself looks a bit 'iffy' (technical term) in places. I have concerns about the duplication of the explanation for the term 'lias', and also the paragraph which begins "Perhaps the best example of a Liassic coastline, in the world, are the superb cliffs of the Vale of Glamorgan..." - which not only seems a rather grand claim, but it then goes on to refer to "Carboniferous sandstones/limestones", which seems somewhat incongruous. I would just edit the article myself, but I don't feel sufficiently confident in my knowledge, so I thought I'd see if someone more knowledgeable fancies having a bash at it. Any interest to you? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. I'm pretty familar with and indeed fond of the coast in question since it's not too far from me. The majority of this heritage Coast is formed from the limestones and shales of the Lower Lias, though these are underlain by Carboniferous Limestone in the Ogmore and Southerndown areas and there are hints of Triassic age Mercia Mudstone Group rocks too. As regards the name, I was aware of the quarrymen connection but the supposed Cornish link is a new one on me. As regards grand claims for Liassic coasts it's arguable that if the Lias Group only occurs around select bits of the British coast and low relief parts of the near continent then it doesn't have too much competition! And I wouldn't want to argue the relative merits of the Glamorgan, Dorset and North Yorkshire coasts with you - they each have their strengths and indeed their devotees! cheers Geopersona (talk) 19:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems my concern was unwarranted (as I said, I'm not a geologist!), though I wonder if its a good idea for the article to support the Glamorgan coast's claim as the best Liassic coast by then listing the Carboniferous deposits first (or is it normal to always list the oldest deposits first?) But thanks for taking a look anyway - I find it always pays to consult someone with greater knowledge (even if that does only show up my lack of it - I didn't know the distribution of the Lias Group was so restricted). Thanks again, PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the non-NPOV language from the article and swept away the Variscan orogeny which took place prior to the formation of the Lias beds. The VO did result in the angled and truncated Carb Limestone beds which underlie the Lias but that story is best told elsewhere. Geopersona (talk) 20:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a much more informative description of the cliffs, and better explains why they're notable. Makes me want to go and have a look! Thanks, PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. See http://www.geograph.org.uk/search.php?i=28860841 for more. And a visit to Dorset has moved up my list once again! Geopersona (talk) 04:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's an amendment to the RM proposal, here. Comments are invited; what do you think? Moonraker12 (talk) 21:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Moonraker12 - I have replied there. Geopersona (talk) 05:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation! I've added a little clarification to the article. Rubisco (talk) 21:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of rock formations in the United Kingdom. proposal regarding the scope of the list. -- Bejnar (talk) 19:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again 'Gp'. I noticed your recent addition about the complicated faults at Compton Valence, and wondered if you could advise if there are any online sources for that kind of info? I've been slowly chipping away at a gestating "Geography of Dorset" article in my sandbox, and would like to write something a bit more authoritative about the geology. There's also some work I'd like to do on the geology in the Dorset article itself, and then of course there's still the Geology of Dorset article which needs sorting out. West Dorset in particular is a bit difficult to get to grips with without ready access to relevant texts/maps, as it is quite complex. Any advice? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 17:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should treat yourself (or better, get someone else to treat you!) to a copy of the new publication which I refer to on that page. The memoir has 161 (often colourful) pages dediacted to entire WHS coast and inalnd to Cerne Abbas and thereabouts, and all for £24 - available via BGS's online shop or take yourself down the motorway to BGS HQ at Keyworth to browse the publications on offer there. Otherwise there's a limited amount of info on BGS's website within the lexicon and elsewhere which I reference in the articles where I've made use of it. cheers Geopersona (talk) 18:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I live in London at the moment, so I'll try the BGS site in South Kensington instead (I haven't been there before, but imagine I could end up being tempted to spend lots...) PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Geopersona. Do you know anything about the Bracklesham Group and Barton Group, and how they relate to the term "Bagshot Beds"? Is the latter an outdated term? Have the Group terms superceded it? I know you've done quite a bit of work on groups, so hope you're able to help out. Thanks. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 00:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The names of so many geological units have changed over the years, not least because the International Commission on Stratigraphy is trying to standardise conventions across the world - and of course many geological units pass uninterrupted from one nation to another - we of course are more isolated/insulated than most! The hierarchy is this; (supergoup) > group > (subgroup) > formation > member > bed or flow. Traditionally various units were referred to as xxx Beds or yyy Beds but if that sequence of rocks is noww labelled as a formation or group then the inclusion of the word beds within it is potentially confusing so it is dropped. Confusion still arises of course as the old name hangs around in the literature, if not as long as the rocks themselves then at least for decades. For years we have referred in my own patch to the Plateau Beds and the Senni Beds as identifiable parts of the Old Red Sandstone of the Brecon Beacons but since both now have formation status the 'beds' element of the two names which has become embedded in the consciousness of the geo-informed public is having to be dropped. I still slip into adding beds where I shouldn't! It seems that the Barton and Bracklesham sequences now have 'group' status (whereas they'd previously enjoyed a range of names) and the Bagshot sequence is a 'formation' (I derived my knowledge of it from here: http://www.bgs.ac.uk/Lexicon/lexicon.cfm?pub=BGS) cheers Geopersona (talk) 06:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It would perhaps have been less confusing if the ICS had decided not to carry over any terms from the old conventions into the new - then it would be obvious which convention a term belonged to. Maybe geologists just like their 'beds'! Actually your mentioning of strata passing uninterrupted across national boundaries reminds me of another question I have: is it at all true to claim that the UK possesses a significant proportion of all the rock types formed globally between the Jurassic and mid Paleogene? (This is another Dorset-orientated question - I hope you don't mind!) PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm somewhat outside my area of expertise with the late Mesozoic/Cenozoic succession but I'd say it was likely to be true - it's a pretty continuous succession preserved in southern England and certainly one of the most intensely studied. Add to this the equally (or more) continuous record beneath the UK waters of the North Sea and you've got something pretty comprehensive. cheers Geopersona (talk) 04:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We're missing most of the Paleocene in England, the oldest preserved Cenozoic deposits onshore are Thanetian in age - the full sequence is of course preserved offshore as you rightly say. Mikenorton (talk) 07:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mike! Geopersona (talk) 18:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both of you for addressing my query. As someone who hasn't formally studied geology at all, this is all new for me - being a Wikipedia editor is great for learning! I'm curious now to find out why a particular section of a sequence should be missing from an area. In this instance (the missing Paleocene) is it because the area was uplifted during that time and hence didn't experience deposition? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 06:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is presumably the case as we also lack the upper part of the Maastrichtian in the UK as well. This is generally described as a relative fall in sea level (possibly global, although the history of the Cenozoic in the UK and in Norway is of episodic uplift of the current land areas). There are a series of unconformities onshore, which are matched by coarse sandy units offshore. This paper (I can send you a pdf of the full paper if you're interested) describes the link between the onshore and offshore and speculates that the uplift is related to the Iceland plume and magmatism associated with the break-up of the Atlantic. Mikenorton (talk) 06:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! I think that at the moment the abstract of the paper is sufficient for my needs, although if the full paper covers the formation of the Thames Group in any detail, I might come back to you on this one (if you're amenable), as at some point in the future I expect to need to write about the Thames Group as it manifests in Dorset (which I'm working on in various ways). (I'll also need to get email enabled presumably - I'm assuming that's a simple process?) PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Gp. If you remember, a while back we discussed various aspects of the above article (at the talk page here), and as part of that discussion I suggested the possibility of arranging the article into a table format. Well, I've been tinkering about on and off in one of my sandboxes (here), to see what such a format would look like. I've only started filling in the Dorset section, so you'll have to scroll down to that to get a proper impression, but I was wondering what you think of the format in principle? I think it looks kinda neat, especially with all the images, though it would necessitate a lot more work to complete it. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 19:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about the volume of work it would require - I've started on similar projects myself - the waterfalls pages for England, Scotland and Wales come to mind and they have consumed plenty of time! But, I like to think that they have some communal value. I'd solicit comments from a wider auduence as to what columns it might be appropriate to include - locational column/s seems obvious but 'public access' perhaps less so - might be preferable to leave that aspect to individual articles if it is worth noting. And while I'd agree that it is 'kinda neat' as you put it, it may become a very large page with so many images so that aspect would be worth considering. cheers Geopersona (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the potential size is a concern; I wondered about doing articles for each county (or defined section of coast, such as 'East Coast of England'), rather than the whole UK. Alternatively, and building on that, I've considered expanding the focus to include all physical coastal features; such an expanded article(s) would obviously have to be at county level (and have a different title), but it/they could be quite a useful resource. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You beat me to it in removing the info about local residents (I got caught in an edit conflict, which is why my edit summary doesn't make total sense). But I did a bit of research and it seems the snowdrops info is sufficiently notable to have been written about, so I re-inserted it, albeit in a more encyclopaedic prose style. Has this small village ever had so much wiki attention in one day, I wonder? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 19:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I did feel a bit guilty about removing so much when someone had gone to some trouble to include it - I had thought to put something on their talk page by way of both encoragement, guidance and explanation but must admit to having failed to do so. Geopersona (talk) 20:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've been looking at Waterfalls of Scotland, Waterfalls of England, Waterfalls of Wales and at the sole sources given, namely

• Ordnance Survey 1:25,000 scale Explorer map series, sheets 309-470
• Ordnance Survey 1:25,000 scale Explorer map series, sheets 101-346
• Ordnance Survey 1:25,000 scale Explorer map series, sheets 151-266

respectively. The history seems to show that you created these articles. Does the form of the reference mean that you extracted all the members of these lists one by one from the maps concerned, or were the lists published as such? And if the latter, could you let us have their publication details? Many thanks. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 09:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SamuelTheGhost - Indeed the former is the case - I simply took the names published sheet by sheet by Ordnance Survey. cheers Geopersona (talk) 17:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that information. I was particularly interested in the Scottish falls called Cauldron Linn or Caldron Linn (assuming those names to be interchangeable). I had no trouble getting sources and links for the one on the river Devon, and have used them in the article, but the other one, supposedly near Doune, seems a bit elusive. I'm beginning to believe that it must be very small, or have changed its name, or something ... SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I checked and the grid ref was wrong - I have corrected it from NN 700058 to NN 700048 I'd previously chcked a lot of grid refs after a similar error came to light and the error rate was small but with so many in the list, there may be one or two still incorrect! cheers Geopersona (talk) 07:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 16:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My next query concerns Eas Creag an Luichde, which the Bing map spells "Eas Creag an Luchda", and google search yields several pictures of the fall under the latter name, while references to the former all seem to be wikipedia clones. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. 'Luichde' looks like an error - I'd agree that it should be 'Luchda' - at least using OS 25K mapping as the reference! cheers Geopersona (talk) 21:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've moved it. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 10:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sorting out my clumsy mistakes at Fforest Fawr Geopark. I have corrected the map label. I still don't know how I got Carmarthenshire into my head. However there is a confusion as to whether the Waterfalls Centre is in NPT or Powys. Both the Centre and the Angel Inn describe themselves as in Pontneddfechan, which is in Powys, and the back of the 'Welcome to Neath Port Talbot' sign and the National Park boundary sign are in the forground of my picture, ie west of the buildings. But the OS map gives the river as the boundary of both the county and National Park, putting the Waterfalls Centre in NPT, but outside the Geopark, and in Glynneath rather than Pontneddfechan. It is not a big deal, but is a bit confusing to claim that it is both in Pontneddfechan and NPT. If there is a source that can reliably back that up (ie that Pontneddfechan straddles the border) that would help things. RobinLeicester (talk) 00:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robin - no problem. I can understand the confusion - I spend a lot of time explaining the complex administrative arrangements in the area to various folks. As you've appreciated, OS 25K mapping confirms that the centre and the inn lie in NPT and indeed in the community of Glyn-neath whereas the larger part of the settlement lies within Ystradfellte community in Powys. Various websites eg http://www.perfectpint.co.uk/best-real-ale-pubs-UK/1614/Angel-Inn indicate the inn's postal address to be 'Pontneddfechan' even if their bins are emptied by NPT. And again, authoritative sites such as this - http://www.breconbeacons.org/visit-us/information-centres-new/waterfalls-centre-pontneddfechan confirm the Centre's location. And of course the 'pont' of the village name is half in the one and half in the other! As to the sign, many such name signs are not on the exact boundary but some yards from it in either direction due to considerations of visibility and road safety. cheers Geopersona (talk) 06:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just dropping you a quick note about a new Wikipedian in Residence job that's opened up at the National Library of Scotland. There're more details at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland#Wikimedian in Residence at the National Library of Scotland. Richard Symonds (WMUK) (talk) 15:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than putting a move request on "X craton" talk pages with existing "X Craton" redirects just leave me a note and I'll do the move as an uncontroverial move. That is unless someone objects ... Vsmith (talk) 20:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - will do! Thanks for your help by the way. cheers Geopersona (talk) 20:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and merge them. :) Abyssal (talk) 13:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Geopersona! Thank you for putting so much work into Englands geology. I made a small template that currently only links to the county-specific geology articles. If you wan't to add other regions or other important stuff to the template you can find it at Template:Geology of England. --Tobias1984 (talk) 11:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a member of WikiProject Wales, WikiProject Cardiff or an user who has contributed to Welsh articles we invite you to contribute to a new project, Living Paths!: articles, images, translations... Lonely Planet rated the coast of Wales "the best region on Earth" in 2012, yet there is a very low number of articles on the history and culture of places along the Coastal Path. This promises to be an exciting project as it gathers momentum with many Users joining in across the world.

If you are interested in training groups in Wales, please leave a message on the Talk Page. Let's make this WikiProject, like the path itself, the best on earth! And let's put Wales back on the map!

Cymrodor (talk) 11:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you've previously helped with the Geology of Somerset, could i ask your advice about Glastonbury Tor? The article is currently being reviewed (I'm aiming to get it to GA standard) and a question has arisen on the talk page about Blue Lias and Jurassic sandstone. Would you be kind enough to comment or edit the article.— Rod ^talk 12:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I used the text you provided and later nominated the article at GAN. The reviewer has highlighted various issues, most of which have been dealt with but, on Talk:Glastonbury Tor/GA1#Another read-through has suggested " the paragraph on the geology is very hard to follow". Is there any chance you could take another look or respond to the reviewer to clarify what the problem is?— Rod ^talk 21:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment left at article's talkpage. Geopersona (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody else having this problem? I can access them via Google Chrome but these two articles cause some error in the system when using Internet Explorer to browse and edit Wikipedia - the effect of which is to lock me out of the site. cheers Geopersona (talk) 21:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting the same. It doesn't lock me out of the site - it totally crashes. (I don't use IE8 which I keep purely for Windows updating and dire emergencies - and hadn't visited either of those pages). I've posted at VPT and (possibly to shut me up - I tend to make a fuss...) they've sprung into action. Seems possibly something to do with River Severn. It's keeping them out of other mischief, anyway... Peridon (talk) 13:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Peridon! Weird this one - but checking just now I see that Edokter has fixed it - hurrah! Geopersona (talk) 16:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can I pick your brains again. There is some discussion going on at the talk page of Wookey Hole Caves about the geology section and I wondered if you had any thoughts? Also if you had any time to look at the closely related Ebbor Gorge that would be great.— Rod ^talk 11:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you had the time or inclination there a couple of other Somerset hills which would really benefit from your geology expertise. Burrow Mump which has a little bit "The hill is 24 metres (79 ft) high, and stands at a strategic point where the River Tone and the old course of the River Cary join the River Parrett, above the surrounding low lying land of the Somerset Levels. It is made of Triassic sandstone capped by Keuper marl." and Solsbury Hill which has nothing on its geology.— Rod ^talk 18:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Geopersona (talk) 20:42, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant (& quick). Thank you.— Rod ^talk 20:48, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can I pester you again.... Wookey Hole Caves is now nominated for GA and the reviewers comments are at Talk:Wookey Hole Caves/GA2. In particular the comment "The Hydrology and geology section is particularly difficult due to an abundance of technical language." is taxing me and if you were able to clarify or explain any of the terms that would be great.— Rod ^talk 19:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.— Rod ^talk 19:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

yes. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Geopersona (talk) 18:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is notable. A simple Google search will reveal numerous hits where it is featured in articles on the wbesites of many print media entities such as The Guardian, Dorset Life etc. It features regularly on the BBC. I can add this information as can others, yourself included and thereby make it a better article. That would be a better option than deletion don't you think? My point is - you could have improved it rather than threatening this stub with a quick deletion. Whatever you may think as an admin, it is perceived by me as a unconstructive move on your part. Geopersona (talk) 18:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message (and editing) on Exmoor Group. Happy for you to remove the bit about no glaciation. As I said I'm not expert on rocks & got myself in a tangle trying to explain relevant bits on Avon Gorge (which is described as "at the southern edge of glaciation during the last ice age") and Cheddar Gorge (where "meltwater floods" are given as an explanation of the formation). I'm happy to go with your expert knowledge.— Rod ^talk 08:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your work on the Exmoor Group and other bits of Somerset geology. I was wondering if you would cast an eye over Black Down, Somerset where I've just added a geology section.— Rod ^talk 16:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rod - it's been fun. Re-read your biog and, like you describe of your experience, the act for me of researching each of these articles has led me to a greater understanding and appreciation of the area, even though I'm across the water from Exmoor and Somerset, They're not quite in my backyard but I can see Exmoor each time I take the kids down to the coast. I'll take a look at Black Down but not this evening - I've devoted more time than is good for me to research online today - both for WP and the day-job. best wishes Geopersona (talk) 21:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The geology section reads well; it all hangs together. My only thought relates to the final sentence which, though perfectly fine in itself, is not geological. However it would, if expanded upon, fit neatly into a separate section following naturally on from 'geology' and which might of course be styled 'Vegetation', Ecology' or some such according to content. cheers Geopersona (talk) 06:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A happy new year to you! Can you expand this one?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:22, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we can find some refs a bit more recent than 1841. The BCFZ probably originated as a thrust fault during the Variscan Orogeny, was reactivated during the Mesozoic as a normal fault and again as a reverse fault during the Alpine Orogeny. Let me get some references together. Mikenorton (talk) 18:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've briefly expanded on it from Woodcock and Strachan but I'm sure Mike can improve significantly on this. Happy New Year all. cheers Geopersona (talk) 13:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've made a start, but I need to add a lot more about the Mesozoic and later history. Mikenorton (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can I pick your brains again... Dolebury Warren is up for GA review. At Talk:Dolebury Warren/GA1 the reviewer asked about whether the geological history could be improved (based on this discussion which mentions the ice age). As I've recently learned from you about glaciation being further south than previously thought & your expert geological knowledge of the area I suggested asking you whether you have anything you could add/edit?— Rod ^talk 16:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rod - I'm unaware of any suggestion that this site was subject to any glacial action. It lay well outside the area affected by the Devensian glaciation and somewhat beyond the limits usually offered up for the Anglian glaciation though uncertainties remain. In common with other localities immediately beyond the ice-sheet margin, I would expect that this site was subject to periglacial action: one might expect a tundra landscape to have prevailed for several thousand years. I can't immediately offer up a reference for this though. The Anglian glacial influence was ice pushing in from what is now the Bristol Channel and Severn estuary, rather than anything 'home-grown'.

As regards the bedrock geology, one could if one wished go into more detail of the limestone succession and the extent to which the strata dips steeply to the north. One might reference the BGS's 50K Wells sheet or the overlapping 1" scale 'special sheet' of the Bristol District or indeed the on-line versions of this mapping on the BGS website. cheers Geopersona (talk) 13:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks if you could add a sentence or two on that I would appreciate it especially as periglaciation is a new term to me and I'd only get it confused with Paraglacial.— Rod ^talk 13:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see - the challenge will be to find any references! Geopersona (talk) 17:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Another user has just added a link on River Parrett to a stub Yeovil Sands (which was redlink because of capitalisation). I've found a few references (added to the article) which indicate this is no longer the correct name - but I'm unsure what the article should now be called as it seems to have several names - any ides?— Rod ^talk 21:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rod. I do find many of these stubs set up by Abyssal rather irksome - and 'geologic formations' in Britain?! British English should be applied to articles dealing with British topics. Rant over. It would appear from this source - http://www.bgs.ac.uk/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?pub=BDS - that the term has been superseded by the Bridport Sand Formation in formal use. Geopersona (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was starting to do some editing on Bath stone and came across a link to Bathonian Series which has update banners and suggests a merge with Bathonian on Talk:Bathonian Series. Do you have any thoughts?— Rod ^talk 14:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added a line at Talk:Bathonian Series cheers Geopersona (talk) 17:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You might be intersted in this: d:Wikidata:WikiProject Geology/Lists of sedimentary units by country/United Kingdom It is an automatic lists of stratigraphic units based on data on Wikidata. --Tobias1984 (talk) 10:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Geopersona (talk) 18:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Long time no see! Hi. I note that you've edited the Llandovery Group article, placing this epoch in the past tense, as if it's declassified. If it's not now counted as an epoch, should it not be removed from all timeslines / articles etc eg ? I note that the online Britannica refers to it in the present tense. PS I'm no geologist! Manu thanks! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 05:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Butting in here - The Llandovery Epoch/Series is the name for the earliest/lowermost part of the Silurian. The Llandovery Group is another beast altogether, referring to the lithostratigraphic unit. This name began with a unit called the Llandovery beds, a term coined by Murchison (although he originally grouped them with the Caradoc beds). Lapworth defined the Llandovery series as the basal part of the Silurian, which is the origin of the Epoch/Series that is in use now. As a lithostratigraphic term the series appears to have become also known as the Llandovery Group during the 1860s, a name that persisted into the 1920s. The most common designation thereafter was the Llandovery rocks. Currently the British Geological Survey does not use this term at all in its lithostratigraphic sense, so it is historical in that usage. These 1911 Britannica articles are a pain to deal with - the term was never much used in comparison to 'beds', 'series' and 'rocks' over the years. Maybe if I can gather good enough sources for all this, I'll take a stab at improving the article. Mikenorton (talk) 11:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mike's right, and I do agree re 1911 articles - leave it to me and I'd probably delete the majority and start again! The lay-person encountering modern geological nomenclature will often be left puzzled enough without the historical material thrown in as though it were still meaningful. cheers Geopersona (talk) 20:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, many thanks to both of you for such clear, concise answers. I've translated into cy, and will rejig as soon as I get the lead from you. Many thanks, diolch yn fawr! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 08:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Croeso! Geopersona (talk) 20:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's refering to Millstone Grit

EdwardLane (talk) 17:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I was wondering if you'd be interested in participating in Wikipedia:WikiProject England/The West Country Challenge in August. A chance to win £250 as well! If contests aren't your thing we welcome independent contributors too. If interested sign up at participants. Cheers!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, at Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge we're striving to bring about 10,000 article improvements and creations for the UK and Ireland and inspire others to create more content. In order to achieve this we need diversity of content, in all parts of the UK and Ireland on all topics. Eventually a regional contest will be held for all parts of the British Isles, like they were for Wales and the Wedt Country. We currently have just over 1900 articles and need contributors! If you think you'd be interested in collaborating on this and helping reach the target quicker, please sign up and begin listing your entries there as soon as possible! Thanks.♦ --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is funny you cleaned up my edits (thanks by the way), I had just noticed you were a major contributor to those articles and was going to ask you to take a look at them. I just expanded Algeria and Angola (barely, they were in the best shape so I started with them), and I intend to expand every African country's geology article to start class. I don't have any geology knowledge or experience, so the copyedits and fact checking are much appreciated if you have time. Thanks! Kees08 (talk) 06:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being on my watchlist, I thought I'd check out what was happening at these articles - I'm pleased that someone else is taking an interest in these things. I always had in mind to initiate more African geology articles and expand those I'd started. thanks Geopersona (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welp, got all the ones that existed up to start class. I apparently don't know jack about geology, but I learned some through the experience. Kees08 (talk) 06:44, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 08:54, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

.

Hi. This month The Women in Red World Contest is being held to try to produce new articles for as many countries worldwide and occupations as possible. There is over £3000 in prizes to win, including Amazon vouchers and paid subscriptions. Wikimedia UK is putting up £250 specifically for editors who produce the most quality new women bios for British women, with special consideration given to missing notable biographies from the Oxford Dictionary of Biography and Welsh Dictionary of Biography. If you're not interested in prize money yourself but are willing to participate independently this is also fine, but please add any articles created to the bottom of the main contest page even if not competing. Your participation in the contest and contributing articles on British women from your area or wherever would we much appreciated. Thanks.

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Hi Geopersona,

Thanks for dropping me a line about the changes to the Rhondda article. Firstly I completely agree with you regarding the usage of Big Rhondda, Little Rhondda as terms of use when speaking in English. No one does it. I'm a product of the Rhondda and it never happens. I've conducted a brief dig through my library, to see what usage writers on the topic prefer and not many even translate the rivers / valleys into English, not even E.D. Lewis' definitive text The Rhondda Valley. He just calls them the Fawr and the Fach. Same the Encyclopaedia of Wales. The only one I've spotted so far is John May's Rhondda 1203 - 2003: The Story of the Two Valleys which does translate them and he uses capitals; (Big Rhondda) and (Little Rhondda). I'll see if anything else pops up, but I hope this aids the discussion. Yours FruitMonkey (talk) 12:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Geopersona, I noticed that you've been working on articles on the geology of Britain's national parks. Regarding the Lake District I made a start on a draft at User:Mikenorton/sandbox/Geology_of_the_Lake_District. I know that I'm supposed to start from the sources and write what they say, but as ever I write what I understand to be the case and then find sources to back that up. I broke off from doing this to focus on other things, but I will try to put some effort into turning my draft into something worthy of mainspace. This was just to let you know that I have made a start, should you be thinking of tackling this subject. Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 08:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mike! Yes, I have been but I'll avoid looking at the Lakes now that I know - look forward to seeing that one. Cairngorms apart, you'll note that I started on the simpler ones. Your way of working sounds similar to my own. Any improvements you can make on Cairngorms or others would also be gratefully received. best wishes Geopersona (talk) 10:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's in mainspace now. It still needs sections on structure, mineralisation and mining and a few more citations, but it's there. Mikenorton (talk) 10:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Splendid. You'll see I've added the Geol of NPs template at the foot. cheers Geopersona (talk) 18:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Geopersona, I placed the hatnote on the above article because I cannot find the link to New Forest. Therefore, I would recommend that you critically look at the lead section to see if it can be improved. Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I don't understand why you can't find it as the link is there at the start of the second sentence of the article. It says (and I've bolded it in the excerpt below):

This article describes the geology of the New Forest, a national park in Hampshire, in Southern England.
The geology of the New Forest comprises a succession of largely flat-lying sedimentary rocks of Palaeogene age laid down between about 66 and about 34 million years ago, in the centre of a sedimentary basin known as the Hampshire Basin.

cheers Geopersona (talk) 21:26, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies - I am only infrequently active these days & I only just saw your post of six months ago at WP:ISLET. As it says at WP:GOODISLE, there is some gudiance about section orders but "Note that some GA reviewers may have their own ideas about section ordering. This makes consistency across the project hard to achieve." It is a weird situation really. As someone once suggested it is an odd thing that we all call ourslves 'editors' when what the Wikipedia project really needs is an Editor. Any additional expertise on the articles is of course very welcome. Ben MacDui 11:24, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Geopersona!

I created the continent-based list of geoparks for Europe, just as for Africa, Latin America and North America. These latter ones contain a short summary on their respective geoparks network as well. In case of Europe, the description of the European Geoparks Network is also written. This way, I think the EGN article should redirect to the list. Just wanted to ask it, before placing a redirection in that article, without consultation of its creator. Vivereb (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too concerned either way provided there is no loss of information likely to be useful to someone viewing the pages. The EGN's significance has changed since the creation of the article of course with the establishment of the UNESCO Global Network as the overarching body. thanks Geopersona (talk) 06:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the length, the article of EGN is kept, but updated with the information from the EU geopark list and a new map. So both articles will contain a relevant and not overlapping information Vivereb (talk) 15:41, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a good way forward. thanks for keeping me in the loop. cheersGeopersona (talk) 18:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, mind taking a look at your edit of Sgurr nan Conbhairean? It broke the infobox. I'd fix it, but I'm not sure what was intended. Thanks! Jessicapierce (talk) 05:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jessica - don't know what happened there except that I was trying to correct Huddsblue's original grid ref error and made the whole things fall apart! I usually check that edits have worked but must have rushed that one - anyway seems to be okay now. cheers Geopersona (talk) 08:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, feel free to add your articles to this! † Encyclopædius 21:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You kindly added this section to Seil and I wondering if you'd be interested in doing something similar for Belnahua, which I am in process of tarting up? I am afraid I don't feel confident enough reading the geo-maps and have not been able to find much online. Ben MacDui 13:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course - leave it with me! cheers Geopersona (talk) 16:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Ben MacDui 07:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An IP has recently added Gamber Brook to List of rivers of England there is also a Garren Brook listed next to it. Most tribs I can find by using the WAG GIS system via the Ynys Mon's definitive footpath map, but unfortunately, that resource stops at the English boundary. Do you know anything of these trips or are they perhaps just inventions? Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   12:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Velella - well, it seems that they're both valid entries and should have been in there before now - surprised in particular that the Garren Brook hadn't been noted before - it enters just above Symond's Yat. I have however corrected its tributary to being a left bank (L) one rather than (R). cheers Geopersona (talk) 17:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I am new to Wikipedia and I have submitted an article for review. Here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Igor_Grigorievich_Chervanev This article is about an Ukranian scientist in the fields of geomorphology, physical geography and geoecology. However, other Wikipedia editors claimed the article was written like an advertisement and that the author (me) is closely related to the subject. We do share the same surname but are not related. I barely know him. Can you please review this article and advise me on what to do next?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki2802 (talk • contribs) 09:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but I am not in a position to review such a submission. thanks Geopersona (talk) 15:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Geopersona. A while ago, you commented in the talk page for Defynnog. I've now sketched out a draft replacement for the problematic sentence, and I'll be leaving it on the talk page for others to review for clarity and source-quality. Feel free to take a look and comment/correct improve it! 79.72.153.137 (talk) 14:25, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You seem to have been left off an original ping list for this one. Your involvement in place articles could suggest you might interested in this topic. Thanks. See:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_England/Parishes_RfC Acabashi (talk) 14:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, quite! It's like they forgot to put in the six-and-three-quarter inches as well! (I was going to say good point but it is too horrible a pun and doesn't really work all that well on the Cheviot of all places ...) Cheers DBaK (talk) 10:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Geopersona, thanks for that discrete insertion of a heading in my post over there - I'm not sure how I managed to omit it in the first place! -- DeFacto (talk). 18:39, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Croeso/you're welcome! Geopersona (talk) 11:11, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DragonofBatley (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pembroke Limestone Group, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Newport.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Thanks for the attention to detail and the work you and Mikenorton put in, to bring Geology of Dorset up-to-date. Ykraps (talk) 08:04, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ykraps: Mike did the most of it, beyond your earlier 'heavy-lifting', that is - but thanks! Geopersona (talk) 10:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I came across the page List of vales in England and Wales that you created. The page is useful and seems complete, however the grouping of England and Wales together here doesn't seem right and so the page needs to be split into the pages List of vales in England and List of vales in Wales. Scotland also has vales including e.g the Vale of Leven which also makes the England and Wales grouping in this context seem strange.

Thought I would come to you with the request first. Would you be happy to go ahead with this, please?

Thanks for your time and best wishes!

Titus Gold (talk) 01:16, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware of the Vale of Leven until just now so hadn't considered mentioning Scotland so an England-and-Wales list made sense to me. I think that both that single Scottish name example (which would make for a short list for Scotland were we to go for separate lists for each nation, though perhaps there are more?) and the 6 or 7 Welsh ones are linguistic imports from England, having previously been imported from French as I understand. By all means propose it if you wish; I'm happy with the current arrangement, as I think it's of interest to compare the geographical incidence of the name in both countries - and could be altered to Great Britain if adding Scottish examples. thanks Geopersona (talk) 19:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Forgotten Landscapes Project has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Zero secondary sources to demonstrate notability

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. AusLondonder (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a brief mention on the Blaenavon World Heritage Site page is all that's needed - I have myself thought this stub was a little thin! Geopersona (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A book was published by Torfaen County Borough Council today which details the development of the World Heritage Site at the core of the FLP area - it refers to the establishment of the FLP on 115-117 (Blaenavon: Building a Future on The Past by John Rodger, 2024)

Hi - I'm here to ask a big favour! I shall not mind at all if the answer is an emphatic no! I've been working to improve the article on the current county of Monmouthshire. It wasn't in the best shape, [2], and although I think it's improved, there is still a lot to do. One of the things I need is a summary paragraph on the current county's Geology. It doesn't need much, as I can refer to the excellent main article, Geology of Monmouthshire - there's the flattery! - but a short summary would be immensely helpful - that's the ask! My problem is that I know very little about rocks, and I'm not really sure how best to summarise the content of your article, taking the most suitable, high-level, cites, but excluding the Western third of the county - basically the South Wales coalfields in the north and west and Newport in the south, which no longer sit within Monmouthshire. If you were able to draft a summary para., I would be enormously grateful. But if you have neither the time or the inclination, I shall absolutely understand and will have a go myself. Thank you for a very comprehensive main article, which shall remain the primary point of reference in any event. KJP1 (talk) 08:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks KJP1 - let's see what I can do. cheers Geopersona (talk) 18:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fantastic - thanks so much! I see you are already in discussion with another editor who shares my interest in Monmouthshire. Whether to include Otter Hole is, of course, entirely up to you. It looks, at first glance, to perhaps warrant a mention at the county level but, as I said, I know next to nothing of geology, and have a considerable aversion to caves, particularly any that require crawling! KJP1 (talk) 20:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've uploaded a file at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Modern_Mons_bedrock_geology.jpg Open to observations . . . . Geopersona (talk) 17:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Geopersona, I hope you are keeping well. I'm coming to the end of my expansion of the Monmouthshire article and am now pondering putting it forward for a Good Article nomination. I wondered where you might have got to on a paragraph summarising the current county's geology? If you no longer have the time, or the interest, I will completely understand, but conversely, if you are working something up, I wouldn't want to go to GAN prematurely. Thanks again and best regards. KJP1 (talk) 12:51, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll take a further look, having got over an especially busy period elsewhere recently. cheers Geopersona (talk) 21:39, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]