User talk:Peltoms

Glacial recession

Peltoms, thank you for your work on glacier retreat and related articles. I've noticed that you have uploaded a number of figures and photos. If possible, could you go back and add a bit more detail to the descriptions of these items? Especially with graphs, it would be useful to reference it to published work describing how the data was collected, etc. Also you might want to clarify whether images like Image:Glaciermassbalance.JPG are refering to global effects or some region of study, or something else. Do they include/exclude the major ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica, etc? It would be nice if you could add these kinds of details to the image descriptions. Dragons flight 08:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC) Okay, I can see the advantages of adding more information so that other articles can use them that I did not consider before.Peltoms 19:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once over

I just wanted to ask how you feel about the Glacier retreat article. Is it what you hoped for? What does it lack and or what does it have too much of? Is there a manner you would prefer it to have been written as contrasted to the nearly completed form we have now? In my opinion, I believe it is an excellent article. I do want to state that soem may wish to see it reduced in size when we nominate it for featured article. If that happens, maybe the Mass Balance section would be the best part to spin off into another article, which in itself, is an article that could be quite extensive. When you get a chance, let me know if you are pleased and I will then nominate it for featured article status.--MONGO 04:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article in excellent. Except for in the technical areas I trust your judgement, Walter and Lulu's. In terms of size yes it is mass balance that should be spun off, the Arctic Islands image is the only image that adds little. You probably saw the news on Greenland glaciers yesterday, well we had that covered here several weeks ago. I notice the climate change and global warming articles are much longer, due to a broader topic. However, to deal with glacier retreat well takes time. I think both mass balance and glacier runoff deserve an article at some point. I am alarmed and fascinated by the declining mountain snowpack, and that would have to be explored in a glacier runoff article. It is glacier runoff that is economically important.Peltoms 12:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I did see the article in USAToday about the Greenland glaciers...as I mentioned before, I am in a hurry this summer to get up into the Wind River Range and at least photographically document all I can...and then return every other year or so. Do you know if anyone is doing any surveying on the glaciers in the Winds? I do know that I read they have done some ice cores on at least a few of the largest glaciers, but I wonder if this is done on a regular basis. Not that I have that expertise. I also had a question for you about these rock glaciers, as I posted a link on the Galcier retreat discussion page. For instance, is the rock glacier at the base of Longs Peak in Colorado merely the remnant of a much larger glacier that has retreated into it's own moraine or talus, for lack of better wording? What I mean by this is, as I have understood that as glaciers reduce in length and thickness (mass) the rock and soil debris becomes more commonplace as a percentage of the glacial mass...eventully the glacier reduces in size to the point that the ice itself is almost unrecognizable and the movement or plasicity (sp) is then slowed to a crawl.

As a sidenote, the article length is probably fine as I have seen several other articles that have been featured that are longer...such as Abraham Lincoln. I think it can be easily explained that the information in the article needs to stay together as much as possible.--MONGO 13:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is very little surveying going on in the Winds. The UWYO did some work inthe 1980's, and yes the USGS has drilled the Fremont and Kerr has looked at Gannett Glacier and Dinwoody but only in a cursory fashion in the late 1990's. I have several old climbing books on the Winds with good glacier pictures. If you have such look to gain some of the same vantage points. Mammoth Glacier and Downs Glacier would be two key glaciers. The GPS of the terminus would be excellent to have. But as I said do not be too impatient this season the heavy snowpack will make the termini tough to locate until at least late July.Peltoms 13:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved

I moved a copy of Glacier retreat to my userspace for a major overhaul....User:MONGO/gr I have already commenced eliminating many of the headings and trying to make the flow of the article better...have a look...it is just another work in progress...if we like the end result, we'll replace the existing article which is not going to make featured status in it's current format and direction. I have kept every single citation and all the evidence. We also need to address some of the comments in the nomination and on the discussion page as we go, mainly with how this all relates to global warming or what effects this worldwide problem may have in a lot more detail.--MONGO 10:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds very good. However, I am more concerned with having a good article that will be usable for years, than having a featured article if it means shortening it by eliminating picutres and examples. We can go into the impacts more, though that again takes more time. Are the nomination comments located somewhere separate or are they just amidst the other comments? Peltoms 13:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you wholeheatedly. I am not in favor of removing any information. In addition to the discussion page for glacier retreat, the nomination comments are located here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Glacier retreat. Just so you know, almost all the comments have been about the flow of the conversation...creating a better transition from one oiece of facts and figures to another. On the article's discussion page, user Mclean has properly been doing a fact check where he is looking over our facts and making sure we have cited them correctly. If it's okay with you, continue to add whatever you wish to the main glacier retreat article and I will incorporate it into my version as I see things come up...maybe in a couple of weeks I will renominate it again after all the concerns have been addressed...but please look over my temporary version and let me know what you think by posting here or on my talk page. Thanks.--MONGO 13:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glacier retreat

Just to let you know I am only taking a short break from the Glacier retreat article and will return to it in a few days. I think I can get it smoothed out and renominate it for featured article, though that isn't really our only goal. Personally, I am more proud of the work I did there than any other article I been involved in. I have three more short stub articles to complete regarding National Monuments and then back to glaciers.--MONGO 14:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Renominated

I renominated Glacier retreat and you may wish to watch the commentary here : [1]. The article wouldn't exist without all your efforts and I am appreciative of your contributions, always.--MONGO 11:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may also wish to chime in on the article talk page as we are discussing the article title again. Thank you for your assistance.--MONGO 13:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naming

I added more also to Glacial Lake Outburst Flood combining some information from the article Glacier run. I agree with you that the title of Glacier retreat since 1850 is not going to be an oftcued google entry...I can creat a better redirect page that will automatically redirect to the current title. In other words, if someone googles a certain passage, it will redirect them without them having to make even one mouse click to Glacier retreat since 1850. What, in your educated opinion would be the best couple of words that would be used...Glacier retreat, retreat of glaciers, recent glacier retreat, glacier retreat and global warming....or something else altogether?--MONGO 17:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!

You are a a major contributor to Retreat of glaciers since 1850 which is now a Featured article....good work!--MONGO 06:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC) That sounds good, what does it mean in reality to be a featured article--in terms of key words-- recent glacier retreat, climate change glacier retreat, global warming glacier retreat, shrinking glaciers, declining glaciers. Peltoms 12:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the featured means, it has undergone a form of peer review and a fact check, (and I was surprised at the excellent fact checking that went on), and that it is one of only about 950 or so of the one million articles in Wikipedia that are considered reliable, well written and encyclopedic. So I can use any of those terms such as glacier retreat...I suppose we want folks to find the article through a google search, so I will work on some redirects so when they google glacier retreat maybe they will get to the Retreat of glaciers since 1850 article.

Have a look at Glacial Lake Outburst Flood as I added some images and a little text...it may need a little tidying up.

Finally...if I were to start a Project page about glaciers...should it be titled Glaciers or Glaciology. The project would encompass all articles related to Glaciology from the one we just got featured to individual glaciers to mass balance, etc. The project would be formatted something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Protected areas is, and the purpose is to ensure that we can group all glacier related articles under one banner, making them more cohesive and maybe even draw more interested parties in. Let me know if you have any interest in this and if so if it should be a Glacier or a Glaciology Project. Thanks!--MONGO 13:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the focus in on the glaciers than it is that, if the focus is on the scientific methods than glaciology. So if your list is surging glaciers, GLOF's, Glacier Retreat, Glacier Mass balance than it would be glaciers as that is the focus. I note that snowpack in Wind River Range is notably below normal on the east side of the range and slightly above normal on the western flank. http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/snotel/. Peltoms 12:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that...I have been watching this NOAA link off the National Weather Service snow depth interactive maps and I have to say that this time of the year, I am used to seeing snow at lower areas than it is now. A mid august trip into the Fitzpatrick wilderness of shoshone national forest will put me at dinwoody and gannett glaciers at a good time to at least photograph them. heres the NOAA page... and I'll get to work on that project before this week is over. Thank you again.[2]--MONGO 12:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Main Page

Sort of like Wikipedias front cover...Retreat of glaciers since 1850 will be on the Main page on 4/18/06 [3]...so don't change that channel.--MONGO 11:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glacier National Park (US)

Hi, Peltoms...glad to see you're still around...I am commencing my work on the article Glacier National Park (US), to try and get it to featured status. It has almsot no mention of the glaciers there amoung other things. I remember in the Glacier retreat article that as of the year 1850, an estimated 150 glaciers existed in the park, now, according to this easily discerable edit on this page (about mid way down the page), there are only 27 as of 2005...indeed, I will probably live to see the end of all glaciers in that park unless things change significantly...the mass balance is such that, as you well know, the change si going to have to be drastic. If you care to watch and help when I get to the geology and glaciers section, please do. Maybe after that I can ask both you and Wsiegmund to work to get North Cascades National Park to featured status, although the vandalism and the odd arguments do get tiresome.--MONGO 04:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Glaciers

I started a new project that might interest you. I think all the information is on the page linked above, so if you wish to help out, don't hesitate. It's just beginning so there will be improvements as we go.--MONGO 15:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glacier mass balance

I do believe that this is the version that I reviewed. I would say that it has been greatly improved since, and I would recommend that you resubmit it for GA status if you feel it is up to GA standards. Tarret 14:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peltoms...I made a number of adjustments to the article to have it be rated as "good"...if you want, the changes I made can be seen in this consolidated edit. Maybe there is more you'd like to add more...we can even make it clear that little if any mass balance studies are taking place outside North America and Europe, excepting New Zealand of course. I can renominate it for good article, or submit it to peer review and see if it is near to becoming a reatured article if you wish.--MONGO 15:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After workiing on glacier retreat than we can turn our attention back to this article.Peltoms

Peltoms, there is no reason we can't have expanded articles about particular areas such as Glacier retreat in the North Cascades National Park or Glacier retreat in Alaska...or similar articles...I would be willing to do what I can to help with such articles if you are interested. The main article, Retreat of glaciers since 1850 is a summary of the worldwide evidence anyway, so a more specific group of articles which gives expanded details on a regional basis would not hurt us.--MONGO 19:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pleistocene glaciation

Hi there, Peltoms. I know you are extremely busy, as am I. I am wondering, however, if you would like to assist me in writing articles (or an article) relating to the Pleistocene glaciation. I'm currently interested in just getting a main article that most people would be interested in to learn more about the so-called Ice Age and the glaciation's impact on our world today (which should be separate from the Pleistocene epoch article, in my opinion), and from there perhaps write more specific articles, such as it's effects in North America (currently in the main article there), and other regional locations across the globe (and perhaps get even more specific details, such as I have done with glacial history of Minnesota). It's a rather tedious project, in my mind. I'm not sure if you would be able or willing to help (I was simply told you're a professional glaciologist). Regardless, thanks for your time. ~ UBeR 19:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct they do need alot of work. Obtaining the references to backup everything you point out is the key. This will insure that you are accurate, at present their are many mistakes in the articles. That is fine, you have to start somewhere. Do not try to do too much with the Minnesota article let the Pleistocene article do the heavy lifting. I will help but I am not promising much time until October. I will also direct you to material you need to both read and comprehend so the glaciation process makes more sense. It takes more time than one would think to put together a good article. Peltoms

Thanks for the reply, Peltoms. I understand references are key here, as they act the crucial component of verification that is essential to this encyclopedia. As I did with the Minnesota article, I find it easier to write a cogent article and later find references to support the article. This may or may not be the ideal manner in which to write an article for Wikipedia, but it works for me. There are enough supporting sources to verify most of what's in the Minnesota article, it's just a matter of making them correspond to the article, which may or may not require a little bit of content change--but it shouldn't be anything too drastic. I hope to do this with the Pleistocene article, but any other way would be fine. The goal here is to make a comprehensive article that is both accurate and complete. I can't distinguish what you find as erroneous at the current moment, so any specific insight you might have would be quite helpful. I also understand the glaciation process quite well, but I'm sure your expertise in this area will be invaluable if you do decide to help. Again, thanks. ~ UBeR 01:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:Whitechuck glacier 1973.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Whitechuck Glacier 1973.jpg. The copy called Image:Whitechuck Glacier 1973.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 11:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Whitechuck Glacier 2006.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Whitechuck Glacier 2006.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Tidewater glacier cycle

Peltoms, the above article has been tagged for speedy deletion. I added a "hangon" notice and hope if you have time that you'll be able to alter the wording and structure to keep the article from being deleted...I am simply short on time right now or I would do it myself. It is an article that we could use so I hope you see this in time as I have only requested 24 hours, and they may not even keep it that long. I didn't know your family had a place in Wyoming...I intend to get bust with more articles about what I can find regarding Wind River glaciers soon.--MONGO 17:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work...that looks fine...I would like to make the end references cited in the text...I should have more time to devote to the article in the next few days.--MONGO 05:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 13 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tidewater glacier cycle, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--WjBscribe 08:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quaternary glaciation

Hey there, Peltoms. I am trying to get quaternary glaciation (current ice age) to FA status because of its primary importance to glaciology and paleoclimatology. I was wondering if you could take a look at it and tell me what you think. There's obviously quite a bit of work to do yet. ~ UBeR (talk) 02:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just realized I asked you about this article back in September of 2007. It has changed quite a bit since then though! ~ UBeR (talk) 03:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glacier

Peltoms, feel free to write according to your common knowledge base on the subject matter at the glacier article. As far as refs go, just add it as best you can and I'll worry about dealing with the cumbersome details of wiki-formatting those refs. I doubt anyone else on this website has your knowledge base on this subject matter, so we'll follow your lead and I can do what I can to get it to Featured level...which is my current goal on this project. Glad to see you're able to help out.--MONGO 17:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retreat of glaciers since 1850

Hi Mauri. Just thought although you are adding a lot of good stuff one edit you did might be in the wrong direction. I've mentioned it on Talk:Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850#Antarctica. Polargeo (talk) 08:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to identify myself. You added a comment on my PIG paper in TCD. Polargeo (talk) 08:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about me I am certainly not a global warming nut. I have spent some time cutting Antarctic stuff (and other stuff) out of the Effects of global warming article when it shouldn't be there. I've also been trying to stop people blasting Antarctic related articles with lots of headline grabing things on warming and melting. I think what you are trying to do at retreat of glaciers is spot on :). Polargeo (talk) 14:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Retreat of glaciers since 1850, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- TS 18:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO discussed this notice with me and expressed concern that it might deter you from working in the area. I just want to reassure you that the notification is purely formal and in no way reflects on the quality of your work or your conduct, which as far as I'm aware are both excellent. --TS 18:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Glacier mass balance may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

and Hydrology of Bolivia| publisher =Bernard Francou, Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD|date=January 2001| url =http://www.ird.fr/us/actualites/fiches/2001/127.htm| accessdate = 2008-
global climate than are individual temperature stations, which do not show similar correlations ref>{{cite web|last =Tangborn| first =Wendell| title =12. Mass balance and runoff of the partially

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]