User talk:Jackdann88

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

You have received these suggestions because we are currently running a study to see if SuggestBot is helpful for newly registered Wikipedia editors. Normally SuggestBot only makes suggestions for users who ask for them explicitly on the SuggestBot request page. We will not post suggestions on your talk page again unless you ask for them. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find a complete consent form with contact information on the SuggestBot Study page.

Stubs: Detachment fault; Magothy Quartzite Quarry Archeological Site; Alcove; Plateau; Fiorite; Geological Survey of Ireland; Indiana Geological Survey; Moganite; Geological Survey of India; Oakley Stone; West Quartzite Range; Strike and dip; Quartz arenite; Bishop Tuff; Geyserite; Fred Church; Chiricahua National Monument; Stansbury Island; Deposition (geology)

Cleanup: Grand Canyon; Homelessness in the United States; Uranium mining in the United States
Merge: Geography of Georgia (U.S. state); Venus of Tan-Tan; Hanging Rock State Park
Add Sources: Cryptocrystalline; United States Geological Survey; Torridon Hills
Wikify: Wetland; Tony Grove Lake; The Ferro Alloys Corporation Limited
Expand: Theater of the United States; French fries; Geology of Andorra

SuggestBot picks the articles you might be interested in based on the articles you've edited and using a number of different techniques: following links from them to other articles, matching articles based on their content, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedia users. It tries to recommend only articles that others have marked as needing work, such as stub articles that need to be made longer, clean-up articles that need writing help, and so on. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you choose to participate we encourage you to leave feedback on these suggestions, which you can most easily do here by editing your user talk page. We'll stop by later to read them.

Regards, Nettrom (talk), project researcher and SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Hi Jackdann88, thanks for adding stuff to the Geology of East Sussex article. I've tweaked it a bit, hopefully without changing the sense in any way. For the references it's best to use the various cite templates, as bare urls don't give much information. The most convenient way to use them is to switch on 'refTools' under 'editing gadgets' in the Gadgets tab on 'my preferences'. It takes a while to get the hang of it but the result is worth the effort in my opinion. Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 15:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Hi Mike, I'll start to do that from now, I was wondering how I go about getting those nice and neat lists up! What else do you think I could add to the Geology of East Sussex page; I was thinking about explaining the basin inversion a little better, maybe with diagrams (cartoon scale of the progression through time?); as far as individual lithologies they're not really that interesting - surely if someone had an interest in that there are plenty of resources elsewhere (BGS and local pages). Thanks, Jackdann88 (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I indented your reply above and changed the section heading to just bold so that this thread stays all together in a single section. I'm not a particular fan of 'Geology of an area' type articles, I prefer to work on particular structures such as the Armorican terrane or the Lizard complex, although I did produce a Geology of Orkney, but that's quite self-contained. We already have articles on the London Basin and Hampshire Basin, which the Geology of Sussex fits in well with, although I think that a Weald Basin article would be worth having. As to content, I have no suggestions but I'll give it some thought. The Inversion (geology), article could do with expanding if you feel like having a go at that. I created it a long time ago and I haven't got around to doing anything with it - I spend too much of my time writing earthquake articles, most of them used to contain no background on the geology and tectonics, so that's where I've directed my efforts. Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks, sorry I didn't know how to do that, would it not be a good idea to add a piece on the start complex with the geology of the Lizard, as they are considered to be closely related [1]? I'll probably stop, bar the odd tinker to add slightly more tidy information on the Geology of East Sussex, looking at comparable articles it's far exceeding the content of those and move my attentions on to your suggestions, Thanks Jackdann88 (talk) 19:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to apologise for, there's a lot to learn here and you'll find that people are generally helpful. As to the Start complex, it would probably justify its own article IMO (in my opinion), including Dodman Point perhaps. Mikenorton (talk) 19:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike, Was just wondering on a couple of things;

I've found a pre-ophiolite description of what the BGS though the Lizard Ophiolite was before it was 'discovered'; would it be beneficial to add it onto the page? Its from the BGS SW England Geology Book, pub 1975.
I note that you've done work on the geology of Norway, I did my 3rd year dissertation on the geology of Salangen (south Troms, just thought I'd say if your planning a big expansion in this area I'd be happy to lend a hand.

Thanks, Jackdann88 (talk) 19:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Jack, there's already something in the Lizard article about green's diapiric peridotite model (last paragraph of the 'serpentinites' section). I have a copy of 'Landet blir til' the huge and comprehensive account of the Geology of Norway, but I haven't yet found the energy to start on what is a mammoth undertaking, but maybe one of these days, in which case I would happily take you up on your offer. Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 21:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weald basin

Hi. I see you have just created an article on the geology of the Weald basin - thanks for your work. However, there is already a Weald article with a Weald#Geology section. Your new work has more information and references, so I'd suggest merging your new material with the existing article (and I've tagged the new article as such). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was thinking of greatly expanding on the structural geology of the Weald; which people just wanting to know about the general environment of the Weald might not really want to know about, I'm also thinking of trying to combine the Weald basin with the Weald–Artois anticline since they are both basically the same thing (the basin has been inverted into an anticline) Would it be valuable for me to also be expanding the Weald#Geology section?Jackdann88 (talk) 09:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK, that sounds like a better approach. In that case, it might be good to expand your new geology article as you suggest, and then rewrite the Weald#Geology section of Weald as a short summary headed by a {{Main|Weald basin}} tag? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Inverse Basin Diagram.svg

Hello. File:Inverse Basin Diagram.svg seems to be broken. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Yeah I accidently uploaded a svg rather than a png file, the correct file, used on the article is: File:Basin inverse fault reactivation Diagram.png, would it be possible to delete the File:Inverse Basin Diagram.svg file?Jackdann88 (talk) 17:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No sooner said than done. If you ever need anything like that deleted, just add the template text {{db-g7}} and someone will get it done. Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]