Hello, Tobias1984, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for World Geodetic System. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
Hi Tobias. Thanks for adding those coordinates, very helpful. I had a look at your tag, it’s right on the mark! Thanks for the recognition! OscarK878 (talk) 14:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Tobias. Take care when using picture galleries. This is an en.encyclopedia and it isn't a picture gallery, commons.wikimedia is the picture gallery here. Kurile islands could have two pictures less. Take care when adding books to "#references". As I understand, books in references are actually used in the article. You could place some books in a "#see also" section, though. People revert these kind of things. If nobody opposes, I'll ask de.kartenwerkstatt if it's possible to translate to english File:Sibirien topo2.png. Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the suggestions. I already took care of the books and the picture gallery. I can also help with the translation of the map. --Tobias1984 (talk) 09:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Check if the description I gave of the usage of Ptychagnostus atavus in biostratigraphy is correct. While I can fill in the paleontological details without problem, I'm obviously not very familiar with the geological side, heh. I'll use your corrections as a guide to the rest of the stubs I'll be making, so please fix any errors in the description.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL22:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Formatting changes for Template:Cambrian_graphical_timeline[edit]
Hi Tobias. I thought you might want to know that I made some changes Template:Cambrian_graphical_timeline. I think it renders okay now, but I have only verified on Firefox. I think it should be the same across browsers, but I don't have access to others.
Specifically, I did the following:
For the vertical text, I added "line-height:10px;display:block;". This allowed the lines to compress so the text doesn't run beyond the boxes
For text that was displaced outside the box, I adjusted the "bar##-nudge-down=
Hello Tobias. It seems to be just you and me over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geology#Collaboration_for_December (not entirely unexpected) and in reality that means just you; I'll do whatever I can but it'll all be meta stuff - I am not a geologist.
Speaking of meta:
The robot job has been volunteered for by a new bot owner; it may take him a while to get it done. Will continue to try to guide it through.
Hey Arb! Thank you for setting up the task force page, I'm sure that it will get people more involved in meteorite topics. I hope progress isn't too slow, but I would blame it on a lot of Wikipedians preparing for holidays and taking snow days. I hope you have time for some snow days too, and we will just try to get the best out this month ;) --Tobias1984 (talk) 14:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No snow here yet; perhaps in the new year. It would make the children happy. I've just added an Infobox to your new Dronino meteorite which reminded me... There are now boxes on all meteorite articles, complete (as far as the information in the article allows) except for the chemistry fields which I didn't feel competent to touch. If you have the urge it would be well worth going through them all and checking / adding chemistry to the box. The easiest way to access them (as you doubtless know) is at Category:Meteorites by name. -Arb. (talk) 14:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My view today. We have had some nice snow the last couple of days (I uploaded a picture). I actually did't know that category yet. I think I can still go through the list today and look at the chemistry. I was wondering if we should add a to-do list to the task force page like at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geology? What do you think? --Tobias1984 (talk) 16:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now there's an uplifting view; lucky fellow. Adding a proper to-do list is a fine idea. There's some content for it here but the presentation you have in mind is preferable; more attention grabbing, brings it to the top where it belongs and can be made visible in other places if required. Go right ahead. -Arb. (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked daubréelite a bit and when I looked at what links here I found the daubréeite redirect. Seems daubréeite is a bismuth oxide mineral and I've turned your redirect into a new article. I had never heard of it before, but your spelling glitch led me to discover it - rather an interesting species altho' quite unrelated to meteorites. Keep on trucking :) Vsmith (talk) 02:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia editor Kieranian2001 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Reviewed as part of page curation. Interesting detailed article on geology complete with references and categories.Kieranian2001 (talk) 14:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
To reply, leave a comment on Kieranian2001's talk page.
You recently added Earth and Planetary Science Letters to {{Meteorites}}. This is undoubtedly correct but there's nothing in the article that makes it self-evident. Would it be possible for you to add a sentence or even just a word to make it clear that meteorites and/or meteoritics are a primary topic of the journal. -Arb. (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Re your recent edit to Itqiy meteorite. A numbered list followed by a single bullet point in External links does look odd (until you get used to it) but it's standard; See also is explicitly for links internal to Wakipedia: Wikipedia:See_also#See_also_section. By the way, great work completing all those assessments. Three days to go. -Arb. (talk) 18:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted my edit and added a ":" so the two lists align. I guess that is a good way of reducing the change in indentation. Three days left for the collaboration of the month, but hopefully we can continue working in the task force next year. --Tobias1984 (talk) 19:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really an expert on this template code. Is it possible that the first if-else-relationship (the one that adds the default picture) prevents the second if-else-relationship to recognize that image is undefined (because it is defined with the default picture)? Anyway, I hope you and your loved ones have a really great new year! --Tobias1984 (talk) 22:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They're asleep now. Good wishes for 2013 to you and yours too. The bug was a spurious "</includeonly><noinclude>{{doc}}"; the </includeonly> deactivated the new code. There are 34 meteorites in the category as of just now. A pleasing first edit of the year. -Arb. (talk) 00:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well lunar and martian meteorites are considered clans in one of my sources. I'm not sure we have a duo or trio article. Wouldn't those be considered grouplets? --Tobias1984 (talk) 20:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll make those two clans then (if you don't get there first). As for duos and trios, you are quite right; I'd misremembered Binze, Lauretta, McSween, et al (very edifying read that one, by the way). Will eliminate Duo. -Arb. (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Might be an idea if you added your source to the lunar and martian articles and a few words about being in a clan too. -Arb. (talk) 21:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another topic. Do we have a definition for "Compositional type" anywhere? The infobox has a link to the wrong place right now. -Arb. (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that this classification goes back to Maskelyne 1862 (or 1863?). So maybe it could link to "Meteorite Classification#Maskelyne Classification" where the tripartition could be explained. Or we make an own article about the Maskelyne classification. What do you think? --Tobias1984 (talk) 22:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The tripartition is covered at Meteorite_classification#Traditional_classification_scheme is it not? As for "Maskelyne Classification", there's already a fair bit in "Meteorite_classification#History" so if you add another section watch out for overlap/duplication. Getting back to "Compositional type", if it can be said to be "in widespread use" it would conveniently fit at Meteorite classification#Terminology. That said, I don't have a strong view where it goes, just that it should be in and somewhere linkable. Let me know what you decide (so the infobox link can be fixed). -Arb. (talk) 23:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would love to argue about this subject, but I have no idea how the algorithm calculates the importance of an article. Is there a way where the template is automatically set to the calculated importance scale? Then all the article would have the same consistent rating of their importance. Seems like a bot could calculate that once a month and adjust the settings. --Tobias1984 (talk) 07:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A bot might do that eventualy but for now it's a little trial of an idea of mine that needs a reality test. That's why I'd really value your opinion (as you have an overview of the full range of articles and some specialist subject knowledge) about whether the algorithmic assessment is reasonable for each of these four or if you feel your original rating is the correct one and should prevail. The fact that neither of us has full insight into the details of the algorithm is unimportant; we can still have an opinion about whether or not it looks/feels right for a particular article. I say "feels" because an element of intuition undoubtedly comes into it when we rate articles subjectively. -Arb. (talk) 12:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would't you also think that the articles about groups should be more important than the members of that group? Maybe the algorithm uses the interlinkage of the articles and we just don't have enough links pointing to primitive achondrite for example. To me all the articles about groups and grouplets should be at last mid to high. But maybe that will happen anyway once we introduce more single meteorites and improve the inerlinkage of all the articles. --Tobias1984 (talk) 13:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At a guess you are back at Uni and busy with your studies but if you have the time and haven't yet seen it Meteorites/Articles with one redlink would be well worth a skim by your knowledgeable eyes. There are sure to be some quick wins left; I've done all that were obvious but you will likely spot others. -Arb. (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to get to it today or tomorrow. I'm also sandboxing another article right now. I'm a bit more busy, but there always has to be room for a little Wikipedia ;) --Tobias1984 (talk) 07:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"...create red links to articles you intend to create, technical terms that deserve treatment beyond a mere dictionary definition and topics which should obviously have articles..."
"Do not create red links to articles that will likely never be created..."
"In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there is no existing candidate article, or article section, under any name."
"A red link to an article that will plausibly be created in the future should be left alone rather than being created as a minimal stub article that has no useful information."
"Red links serve the purpose of notifying readers that a need exists in Wikipedia for creation of a new article with at least minimal information content; the creation of minimalist marker stubs simply to get rid of a red link destroys this useful mechanism."
So, it needs someone with a clue as to which Martian meteorites (or whatever) could sustain an article (ie meet Notability guidelines) and which are just generic. Is that you? -Arb. (talk) 14:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That does make sense. In that case better to leave the red links where they are for now and let future you and future me decide what to do with them :) --Tobias1984 (talk) 14:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I changed most of the links from meteorite pages that were "Fe-Ni", "FeNi", "Fe-Ni-alloy", "FeNi-metal" etc.. to meteoric iron. I thought that if people would still link to FeNi it should list all the alloys or combinations of the two elements and not just redirect to meteoric iron. Not sure if it is a good idea though. --Tobias1984 (talk) 14:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One red link: Rocks & minerals v. geology v. other[edit]
I've broken the large, unwieldy list of single red links into smaller sections and asked various WikiProjects for help with relevant bits of it. If you've got a few minutes would you look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Geology/Meteorites/Articles_with_one_redlink_by_topic#Rocks.2C_minerals.2C_geology.2C_etc and split it into Rocks and minerals items versus Geology items. When you're done I'll compare your rocks and minerals selection to what we've already asked them to help with to see if I missed any and also ask Geology project for help with Geology items. You have a better grasp then me of the fine distinction between these fields, hence this request. Also, if there are any links that "belong" to neither project best highlight those too. Many thanks. -Arb. (talk) 22:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure I can safely modify the template {{Geologic Ages Inline}}, what if (with no rush) I drop a list of the right ages somewhere, e.g. on a subpage of my user page. Than you could check the syntax and cut-and-paste. --Kaapitone (talk) 13:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I note that you have removed the non-SI units from the Russian meteor article per MOS. MOS states that miles and feet should not be included in "science" articles, but they are found as conversions in the article about the Tunguska event and 2012 DA14. These might be considered as historical and news, respectively, rather than pure science articles. For consistency, it seems appropriate to allow feet and miles in the article about the Russian meteor event. Regards. Edison (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-SI units are used all over Wikipedia even where MOS specifically depreciates them. I don't think that that is consistency, but a set of editors trying to convert every single number on Wikipedia so they don't have to familiarize themselves with the SI-system or do the conversion. --Tobias1984 (talk) 17:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. While my strength in Wikipedia is molecular biology and astrobiology, and I've been drawn to the Polonnaruwa (meteorite) article because of the unusual claims of living organisms within. The preliminary consensus by biologists and (local) geologists is that it is not a meteorite at all. Is there a way to determine if that object has been recognized as a meteorite by the competent meteorite experts? Thanks for any help you may give. CHeers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BatteryIncluded! You probably have read these commentaries on the science behind this rock:
I think as a rule of thumb you can say that any rock that is not included in the meteoritical society bulletin database or the natural history museum database is not a meteorite. The first article also has a picture of the rock. As a geologist I can tell you that that is the last thing I would pick up and call a meteorite :). --Tobias1984 (talk) 14:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. That team just released another paper on the elemental analysis of some rocks. Verifying that it is a meteorite with embeded diatoms, has repercusions in astrobiology. I am interested in your opinion regarding their bias/neutral science and conclusion. I don't want to give it too much weight in the Wikipedia article as they are going against the opinion of all other scientists who have looked into these rocks, and Wickramanshe has a history of publishing unverifiable and unreviewed papers (as in the Journal of Cosmology.)
PS: Keep in mind this is a new 'meteorite' found 2 months ago, unrelated to their previous claims of extraterrestrial microbial life.
Again this is a really weird publication with the weirdest approach of identifying a meteorite one could possibly think of. They are just publishing meaningless from machines they don't understand. The fact that none of these people have any idea of what they are doing is that they first coat a sample with gold to look at it with the electron microscope, and THEN they analyse the chemistry and write: "The gold is from the coating". Well why didn't they just use another piece of their "meteorite"? :) They intentionally don't use cheap and reliable methods (like a thin section) because that would show that their just looking at some limestone. --Tobias1984 (talk) 14:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know their biology techniques have been intentionally twisted and plain dishonest BS, and am not surprised they are doing the same with elemental analyses. Thank you for your feedback. BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You created an "one liner" stub (ixiolite) :[ User:Ixfd64 created one liner mineral stubs beginning with 'A' (November 2006, e.g. arctite, arcubisite, artroeite), they are still very small stubs :[ Please, don't create one liner stubs :[ Calm down, chill out and keep cool ;) There is no deadline for improving Wikipedia ;)
I took that picture at a restaurant. Thought it looked kind of cool. Not sure if it will be kept on Commons as a piece of modern art :) --Tobias1984 (talk) 13:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that you are active at WikiProject Geology so I wonder if you can help with this. A few days ago I created a new article for paleontologist Donald Prothero which I have also nominated for a DYK. Afterward I learned about the bot that lists new geology articles but I notice the Prothero article is not on the list despite containing a lot of the necessary keywords. Does that indicate a need to add keywords to the bot? The reason I ask is because I want to get a better understanding of how the bot works so that I can create a search for new articles in the area of scientific skepticism. I'd appreciate any help you can provide! Allecher (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just used a picture of the geologic time sale 2012 and copypasted the colors with Gimp. Probably that is not the best way to do it. If you have the exact RGB values it might be time to update the English version once more. --Tobias1984 (talk) 07:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reference was not replaced when I did the edit request. The colors in the GTS2012 are slighty more pastel, probably for readability. The correct reference should be: http://www.stratigraphy.org/index.php/ics-chart-timescale I don't know if those RGB values are written down anywhere, but those are the images I used to read out the color values with Gimp. --Tobias1984 (talk) 09:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know that you were one of the only people working on the Geology of North America article. I have been working on the article in my sandbox as noted on the talk page. I have gotten quite a ways on that article, and I would be interested to hear what you think about my draft? I would be inclined to move my draft to article space for Geology of North America, and move the current article back to Geology of the United States where it belongs. I tried to include most of the sourced information from the current article. Do you have any thoughts? --Al Climbs (talk) 00:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I remember that we even thought of deleting it, as it was just a huge collection of red links with very little content. As AlClimbs now has a more appropriate Geology of North America article the old one can be moved to Geology of the United States and we will try to sort out things from there. --Tobias1984 (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for helping me through that mess I created. I know that Geology of the United States now needs a lot of work, but I am somewhat sick of those two articles, and I am disinclined to work on them. The cleanup from this will be worse than trying to sort through the administrative issues I created. Again, I would stay and help but I am sick of them. Also, I feel I need to end by repeating thanks for helping that along. Think I need to make note of what happened at the Wikiproject Geology? --Al Climbs (talk) 01:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad I could help. And things like that are bound to happen sometimes ;) I also wouldn't worry about the cleanup. I looked through the history of both articles and I think nobody will mind the way we handled this. I also sometimes get tired of some topic. Best is just to take a break or work on something else. When you are ready to work on it again it will be fun to see what other people added. --Tobias1984 (talk) 06:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I hope you put this page on your watchlist. Listen, I'm afraid that I can't approve the DYK nomination yet until editing has settled down or issues (including unrelated ones that would affect the article, like tagging) are addressed. Hopefully, you can resolve these issues or have someone else interested to do so. --George Ho (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I only nominated the article. Don't have the time nor the interest to argue with the IP-editor who highjacked the article. Thanks for the message. --Tobias1984 (talk) 15:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Crisco told that guy off, so... you can semi-retire, not fully, from DYK. To be honest, IP comes across as vain, vindictive, petty, dangerous, and someone I cannot socialize with. --George Ho (talk) 00:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tobias1984, the IP has asked for Greenland to be included on the first image (and maybe the second). This may be a reasonable request - the Greenland article indeed says it's physiographically N. Am. - in which case either the image or its caption need to be updated. Or if the request is unreasonable, if you'd explain it to me then I'll update the DYK; either way, once that's done I think we can proceed to DYK. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chiswick! I will try to crop something together from another map. Could you maybe change the hook to something less bad than what I suggested. --Tobias1984 (talk) 15:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're asking me? My geology extends to granite, marble, and slate... ok, limestone as well. (just kidding). How about something like
I like that hook. Nice and simple and nobody can take offence in it. I changed the map to something that includes Greenland. --Tobias1984 (talk) 15:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
geology Thank you for contributing with scientific background quality articles on geology and mineralogy, by country and about single people, such as Karl Hugo Strunz, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
You're welcome. Are you planning to do more work about the geology of Ireland? Would be nice to have better coverage of that area. --Tobias1984 (talk) 12:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concerns for an early Mars sample return until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Warren Platts (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
During this work I noted that some information in the list of the GBSP-article is not consistent, but I will leave those to you to deal with, i.e.:
Discoaster brouweri is identified as haptophyte, while D. surculus is identified as a calcareous nannofossil. Both are correct, but it is a bit odd to use two different terms where the reader probably does not realise both are haptophytes that have conserved as calcareous nannofossils; I'd definitely prefer the information given on the haptophyte page to the the information on the pages calcareous and fossil;
the end of the fossil record of Discoaster brouweri is called extinction, while for D. kugleri it is called "Last Common Occurrence" (a term that merits some further consideration: the capitals suggest that it is an official term, but there is no wiki article, nor does it occur anywhere else on wiki, and it evades me with what in this occurrence is common).
Hello! Your submission of Geology of Russia at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Orlady (talk) 01:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC) 
Done--Tobias1984 (talk) 09:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC) 
