User talk:Kent G. Budge

This Wikipedian is deceased. Respectful comments of remembrance may be left below.

Thanks for visiting my talk page. If you are considering posting a message for me, please observe Wikiquette: *post new messages to the bottom of my talk page. *use headlines when starting new talk topics. *comment about the content of a specific article on the Talk: page of that article – not here. *do not make personal attacks or use the page for harassment of anyone. *sign your messages with four tildes like this ~~~~ . (If you don't sign, I probably won't reply because I won't know who you are.) Comments which fail to follow the five rules above may be immediately archived or deleted. Thanks again for visiting.

Hello, Kent G. Budge, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The Wikipedia Adventure (a fun interactive editing tutorial that takes about an hour)
• Wikipedia Teahouse (a user-friendly help forum)
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! We are so glad you are here! Sadads (talk) 03:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I won't disagree. It also suffered lack of good sourcing. :P not Chuck Norris ^{hit me} 10:07, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thx for posting this link. I'm always looking for good ones. Kermit T. Delano ^{red phone me!} 22:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why it's affecting me, either. I'm logged in as Kent G. Budge, all right, but when I click on an edit link on the Talk:Giant-impact hypothesis page, I get the page informing me I've been autoblocked because "Advanced Cell Bio post" has been using my IP. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 16:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah: Any ideas on this? The autoblock is just for creating new accounts, not editing pages, right? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:56, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333 - The block imposed on User:Advanced Cell Bio post was due to the abuse of multiple accounts in order to be disruptive - see this page. What's puzzling me here is why 127.0.0.1 is labeled as the IP address in this unblock request. Given the behavior I saw on the article the other day, my guess was that this was most likely vandalism by a group of students in a school, and they were just collaborating to be disruptive while sitting together or something... If I'm correct in my assumption, then I guess it wouldn't be surprising to see other accounts bumping into this autoblock... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

127.0.0.1 is definitely not my IP address according to whoami. Not even close. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kent G. Budge

Thank you for creating Ortiz porphyry belt.

User:Sam-2727, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

This is a great article. I appreciate the detail.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Sam-2727}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Sam-2727 (talk) 22:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sam-2727: Aw, I'm blushing. Glad you enjoyed it.--Kent G. Budge (talk) 22:59, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I clicked on your page because I liked your comments on the Citation discussion, and then I saw this chat, so I clicked on your article about these mountains. Very interesting, although much of the technical details were beyond me! I'm always amazed at the variety of solid information available on wikipedia – I learn something new every day. Thanks! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz: I hope the header was readable and informative. It's not always possible to make the body of a specialized article completely readable for general readers -- though one hopes to do one's best -- but the header at least should be generally useful. If not, I need to revisit it. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 15:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for identifying the source of the material in your edit.

This type of edit does get picked up by Copy Patrol and a good edit summary helps to make sure we don't accidentally revert it. However, for future use, would you note the best practices wording as outlined at Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia? In particular, adding the phrase "see that page's history for attribution" helps ensure that proper attribution is preserved.

I've noticed that this guideline is not very well known, even among editors with tens of thousands of edits, so it isn't surprising that I point this out to some veteran editors, but there are some t's that you need to be crossed.S Philbrick(Talk) 15:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I tried finding the guideline and ended up at WP:Reusing Wikipedia content which didn't help. Should have guessed it was something as simple as WP:Copying within Wikipedia. Now I have the link handy. I went ahead and did a copy template Io->Basalt. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 16:14, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to suspect that these are part of some kind of scam or scheme. --Licks-rocks (talk) 09:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Licks-rocks: Probably promotional. There have been similar recent edits to Moissanite trying to insert links to a particular jeweler who sells the stuff. Those are actually more clever; for example, a first-time editor (no telltale record) extensively editing the article, rearranging paragraphs, and arguably improving it in a few places, so that it looked like an extensive copyedit -- but in all that editing he slipped a link to the jewelry company. The right response is to revert and leave a uw-advert warning at the editor's talk page. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 13:33, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Banded iron formation you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Most Comfortable Chair -- The Most Comfortable Chair (talk) 14:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Banded iron formation you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Banded iron formation for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Most Comfortable Chair -- The Most Comfortable Chair (talk) 13:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Banded iron formation you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Banded iron formation for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Most Comfortable Chair -- The Most Comfortable Chair (talk) 09:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Geology Barnstar
		In recognition of your diligent efforts in bringing Banded iron formation from start to good article status. Thank you for all your hard work and dedication! — The Most Comfortable Chair 09:25, 10 October 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) 02:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to recover information from a deleted page? I know it's stored somewhere... Kettlebelly (talk) 06:39, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kettlebelly: I've never actually tried to recover a deleted page, so I'm not sure how much help I can be. But this looks like a good starting place. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 17:18, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	Mountain article cleanup
	Thanks so much for cleaning up Mountain, including adding references. It's a definite improvement! — hike395 (talk) 03:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are issues with this infobox which impact on certain articles. The matter has been raised with the infobox creator who has not been available for the last few days. Until they respond and resolve the issues, the Quaternary Period template needs to remain in the articles. Please be patient and await developments. Thank you. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@No Great Shaker: Please take this discussion to the Wikipedia Talk:Geology where it belongs. Thank you. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 15:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not until I hear from Benniboi01 who is best placed to deal with the problems. They need to be given the opportunity to resolve the issues first. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@No Great Shaker: I'm not against that discussion at all. I'm just saying my talk page is not the right place for it. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I wrote to you is because I have restored the template you removed from those five articles, so that you may understand what is going on. I am not inviting you to get involved in an investigation. Please leave the templates in place until Benniboi01 has resolved the referencing issues with their new infobox. After that, the old template can be removed if desired. Thank you. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kent,

This draft had reached CSD G13 status, that is, six months without an edit. I made a minor edit to delay its deletion. Just thought I'd remind you of the draft in case you had gotten busy with other things. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I spend my time on Wikipedia mostly browsing the recent changes looking for vandalism. I find a lot. It gets kind of depressing how much effort is expended in actively or misguidedly trying to damage this wonderful project, so when I came across one of your edits, and saw they were so close to the antithesis of vandalism, so close to the ideal of Wikipedia editing, I had to leave you a message of thanks. Knuthove (talk) 19:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Do you mind telling me which edit you liked? It's good to get feedback on what works with readers and what doesn't. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 19:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was just your most recent edit on Magma which showed up in recent changes. I then saw your list of edits there, your editing philosophy on your user page and your work with Banded iron formation. It was the whole package which made me think that this is exactly what my idea of a good Wikipedia-editor is. So I don't have any specific advice. Just keep up the good work I think! Knuthove (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just second this and align myself with Knuthove's observations here. Thank you, Kent! cheers Geopersona (talk) 07:10, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kent: I have an idea to mitigate ocean acidification that you may be able to help me with.

Concentrations of CaCo3 in the worlds oceans has been dropping due to the dissolution of atmospheric CO2 forming Carbonic Acid, and thus inhibiting shell formation in mollusks and other marine fauna. Recent research suggests that the form of CaCO3 most needed is Aragonite. In nature that probably comes from the slow erosion of limestone - too slow for our purposes. To offset the amount of CO2 entering the marine environment we would need to trickle in large amounts of CaCO3 to increase buffering against Carbonic Acid.

I’m wondering if Gypsum would be an alternative worth considering? Our building industries waste huge amounts of gypsum drywall / wall board every day, dumping it in landfills worldwide; wherever drywall is used in new buildings or demolitions.I’m unaware if it is currently recycled back into new wallboard? If so, I suspect the percentage recycled would be quite low. I can envision collecting waste drywall at landfills, dumps or transfer stations, separating it from wood waste, shredding and screening it to separate the paper backing, or screws and purposely to increase the surface area, then allowing it to dissolve incrementally into the fresh water feeder rivers and lakes that feed to the oceans. Done on a global scale over time this may offset a significant proportion of the Carbonic acid impact.

My questions for you; is whether gypsum and aragonite are similar enough for this to work chemically; would the sulphites in gypsum dissociate to sulphuric acid and exacerbate the acidification problem; addition buffering capacity in fresh waters should not present problems as it is a transitory effect, but are there other things in drywall (binders etc) that might be harmful to aquatic fauna?

Please respond by email, thanks. Shawn Taylor Retired biologist [email protected] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1970:44DF:EA01:7D07:C52:C196:BB91 (talk) 16:44, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kent, I know that you've worked on the Pangea article recently, so I was wondering what you thought of the Pangean megamonsoon article. It hasn't been edited much since its creation by a SPA back in 2012. It doesn't look particularly fringe to me, but a lot of the references are dated. The Central Pangean Mountains article received a massive spike in views today, and I have done some expansion from its previous two sentence stub status, but I am wondering if it would be better if it is intergrated into the main Pangea article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:03, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that the Pangaean megamonsoon is pretty mainstream. I think this article just needs some touching up. I'll add it to my list. On the other hand, the Central Pangean Mountains seems like something that could be folded back into Pangaea. But I could be persuaded otherwise; the mountain belt is a big part of the lore of Pangaea and of the development of plate tectonics. I've never heard them called by that name (admittedly, not a subject matter expert) so we'd want to be sure that's widely accepted terminology. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 04:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Searching on scholar suggests thay 71 papers use the term "Central Pangean Mountains" including those by Christopher Scotese, one of the most eminent contemporary paleogeographers. According to this 2004 paper the terms relating to the "Variscan Mountains" are equivalent to the Central Pangean Mountains. I get 759 results for the term "variscan mountain" on scholar. "Variscan Mountains" and related terms could easily relate to any mountain ranges formed by the Variscan Orogeny though, and so may be a broader concept that the Central Pangean Mountains proper. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:51, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further reading suggests that "Variscan Mountains" are only used for the European part of the range, so the term "Central Pangean Mountains" may be best at it refers to whole structure including its North American part. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that sounds solid. I'm increasingly inclined to keep it as a separate article. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 14:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Central Pangean Mountains article received an astonishing 241,609 views yesterday, driven almost entirely from what I can tell from threads on Reddit. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that bumps it pretty much to the top of my list. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 01:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone and totally rewritten the climate section of the Permian article based on Phanerozoic Paleotemperatures: The Earth’s Changing Climate during the Last 540 million years by Christopher Scotese and collegues published last month. As it turns out, the Paleozoic ice age did indeed have glacial interglacial cycles like the current ice ages based on Cyclothems, which demonstrate that 55 cycles happened between 313 and 293 million years ago. I know that you have been working on the Ice age article so I thought that you might find this useful. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not so much; my proposal to merge Interglacial and Glacial period into Glacial cycle couldn't get enough support, and I didn't see a clear path forward from there. Nevertheless, that reference will come in useful sooner or later. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 13:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first source on the Central Pangean mountains claims they are synonymous with the Hercynian Megasuture. Does that sound right to you? From Google Scholar, it seems they get used in a lot of the same sense. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 00:42, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be specific about what reference you are referring to? Provide a direct quote if possible. Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From https://science.jrank.org/pages/2595/Europe.html: "The Central Pangean mountains arose from this mighty collision, and deformed the rocks laid down during the Paleozoic in central Europe. These mountains joined to the west with the Mauretanides of West Africa, and the Appalachians and Ouachitas of the eastern and southern United States to form a tremendous mountain range stretching along the equator for more than 4,200 mi (7000 km). The whole mountain range is called the Hercynian Mega-suture." Okay, sounds like they're regarding the CPM as just the European part of the Hercynian Mega-suture. Seems a bit at odds with other sources.

Perhaps this discussion should go on the talk page. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 16:24, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on the basalt article. There is still a problem with integrating technical terms with lay language.

Consider the first sentence:

Basalt (US: /bəˈsɔːlt, ˈbeɪsɒlt/, UK: /ˈbæsɔːlt, ˈbæsəlt/)^[1][2][3][4] is a mafic extrusive igneous rock formed from the rapid cooling of low-viscosity lava rich in magnesium and iron^[5] exposed at or very near the surface of a terrestrial planet or a moon.<ref name="levin-2010-58-60">

This is very off-putting to a layman. It is certainly true that one can click on the links and figure out what mafic means, etc. But Why should the lead be so full of jargon? What do you think? Sbelknap (talk) 18:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's always hard to strike a balance in a lead between the various audiences for the article. Basalt is highly visited, so the lead should be comprehensible, interesting, and useful, say, to an intelligent middle school student. "Mafic" we can deal with by supplying a brief definition, such as "lava rich in magnesium and iron (a mafic lava). We might be able to do something similar with "extrusive. I have plans to revisit this article at some point and work specifically on comprehensibility; I think I've improved my skills at lead-writing since I last put a lot of time into this article.

One thing we don't want to do is "dumb it down". Mafic is a fundamental property of basalt (which implies low-viscosity); so is extrusive. The goal is not to cut out basic information lest we overwhelm the reader, but to explain the basic information. As I said, I plan to revisit this one at some point.

FWIW, if you've read my bio page, I'm not a professional geologist except in the loosest sense -- I once worked with a geology team on a groundwater modeling code (computational physics is my gig) and in the proces got a USGS certification in groundwater modeling. Over twenty years ago. So I'm actually a layman, though admittedly probably not the average layman. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 18:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on not dumbing it down. Your terse in-line definition is good, it *teaches* rather than *baffles*. Also, an interesting thing is that low-viscosity magma that also extrudes to a place where it can freely flow results in the rapid formation and thus small grain of basalt.Sbelknap (talk) 18:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nature is full of little ironies. I may revisit this some this weekend; I think I'm ready to try pushing another GA nomination, and this one seems close.--Kent G. Budge (talk) 19:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		The Geology Barnstar
		For your relentless improvement of Wikipedia's coverage of geological topics. Keep up the good work! Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm blushing. Thanks. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 22:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Basalt you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of JackFromReedsburg -- JackFromReedsburg (talk) 13:20, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Basalt you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Basalt for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of JackFromReedsburg -- JackFromReedsburg (talk) 15:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit and this edit, that source is just plain wrong. There's also the matter of source opinion seemingly confined to Hawaiian lavas, which are obviously not representative of all lavas, or even "hot-spot" lavas in particular, or even types of Kilauean eruptions (see next paragraph).

For example, the "fresh", gassy lavas emitted from Pu‘u ‘Ö‘ö (as opposed to, say, the partially degassed Kilauea crater-lake lava drained in the 2018 Lower Puna eruption) invariably remained pahoehoe no matter how far they traveled from the vent or how much the flow had cooled, save when tumbling down steep inclines, during which traversal they temporarily evinced a'a characteristics before changing back to pahoehoe at the bottom (something once thought impossible), and remaining pahoehoe until congealed (e.g., the destruction of. Meanwhile, the lavas emitted during the ongoing Geldingadalur eruption by and large have not developed the characteristic ropy or stringy pahoehoe surface crust despite 1180F-2000F initial more-than-sufficient interior temperatures. (Notable exception here, with the frequent-visitor author stating that pahoehoe only occurred on one day and from one particular vent. You'll note that temperatures is not the determinant factor.)

When observable video directly contradicts a listed source's claims, the appropriate thing to do is to deprecate the source and apply a citation-needed tag to the changing editor's commentary. (That is, if you do not accept the usgs.gov source linked above.)--Froglich (talk) 13:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion belongs at the talk page for the Lava article, not here. This is not personal (or should not be).

Meanwhile, if you have reliable sources indicating that cooling is not the only factor in pahoehoe to a'a transitions in a single composition (which is what that particular sentence discusses) there is absolutely nothing wrong with adding that information to the article with the necessary source cite. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 14:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Temperature has nothing to do with it. It's a correlation/causation fallacy. As we're seeing in Iceland, even barely-mobile, fully-outgassed, paste-like a'a can have core emissivity in the yellow-white spectrum.

@Froglich: I repeat: This discussion belongs at the talk page for the Lava article, not here. This is not personal (or should not be). If you have reliable sources indicating that cooling is not the only factor in pahoehoe to a'a transitions in a single composition (which is what that particular sentence discusses) there is absolutely nothing wrong with adding that information to the article with the necessary source cite. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 22:55, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Basalt you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Basalt for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of JackFromReedsburg -- JackFromReedsburg (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 8,558 views (713.2 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of May 2021 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on improving the Hot springs article! Thanks for all your contributions. Netherzone (talk) 21:34, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aww, I'm blushing. Thanks. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 21:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am very impressed by your work on geology articles here. I was wondering if you had any guidelines or techniques for creating outcrop maps for certain geological formations (example: [1]), since I may be interested in making similar maps in the future. Do you use a GIS program combined with digital copies of geological survey maps, or is your method a bit simpler? Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 01:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how much help I can be. I find a good digital geologic map with the exposure area, paint the exposure black by hand using GIMP, then use some software I've written to take the modified geologic map image and map the blackened areas onto a suitable base map (in red). It's a pretty krufty process but the results are sometimes pretty reasonable.--Kent G. Budge (talk) 02:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think I could make that work. Thank you! Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 16:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kent, I noticed that you have added your photo of Vadito Group muscovite schist to the Schist article. Thanks for uploading this photo and adding it to the article. It is a nice example. It reminds me of my field work on some similar exposures of schist in my part of the world. I think I located your schist exposure on Google Maps at www.google.com/maps/place/36°12'12.7"N+105°48'46.6"W/ Am I correct? Also, the photo seems to have fish-eye lens distortion which gives the outcrop a curved appearance but, if I did find the correct outcrop on Google Maps, the outcrop and road are actually straight at this location. I suggest that it may be helpful to viewers of the photo if this distortion is mentioned in the Wikipedia article(s) captions and the photo's Wikimedia Commons description page. GeoWriter (talk) 14:50, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a panoramic photo that does have inherent fish-eye distortion. I'll add that comment. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 23:32, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I really like what you did with the subunits. I should do something like that with the Dakota; the info box is getting large. However, I think a correlation chart would be in order for the Dakota, but highlighting how certain units are included in some places and not in others. It is very complicated with some units changing in name only but also the fundamental definition method differing between states.

Isn't the Mancos in the San Juan Basin rather than the San Juan Mountains Province.

I am also think that Colorado has abandoned the Colorado Group in newer publications. I am sure the term can still be found in older maps, but the only groups retained in the recent state strat chart are the Dakota (naturally) and the Benton (strangely).

IveGoneAway (talk) 11:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@IveGoneAway: GEOLEX shows Colorado as still active as a group name, though that may not be the final word. Mancos is about as complicated as Dakota, but I figured the breakdown by sedimentary basin was at least better than a long alphabetical list of units, some of them used once by a single author then forgotten. Yes, Mancos is in the San Juan Basin, though depending on where the boundary is put, it may slop over into the San Juan Mountains Province. I think the original defining publication actually mapped it near Telluride while naming it for the more characteristic outcrops near Mancos. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 14:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it may take a bit for passively "disused" to advance to abandoned. But short of a positive statement of abandonement, it is difficult to infer "no current usage" in any state from absence of mention in current publications. Purgatoire was abandoned in 1987, yet it appears carried over into Ludvigson 2010. Kansas sees no use for it, and papers now mention it only to say it is not going to be mentioned (rock who shall not be named?). The only current usage I see in the US is in the Central Plains States and in the hydrocarbon basins leading me consider either 1] it has become a drillers term (key in judging structure, in the Smoky Hills, early drillers would hand dig to the Fencepost limestone to look for faults and anticlines) 2] it is more significant as a source rock than the Montana? The Colorado has taught me to be careful with pre-2000 sources. To my mind, the Mancos is rather simple, everything marine; the southwest assigns Dakota to the lowest sands, Kansas assigns it to the middle sands, and the northwest assigns to the top sands, or not.

Anyway, if you have any insights on current Colorado usage, I would appreciate them here.

Last June I rode up US 160 keeping an eye peeled for Greenhorn and Fort Hays in the Mancos.

IveGoneAway (talk) 23:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm slowly coming to the view that, as vastly useful as lithostratigraphy is, it's still artificial classification of messy features of nature by humans -- and stratigraphers seem to love arguing over this stuff. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 00:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lithostratigraphy is the foundation of all of the others stratigraphy. I don't know how messy it is if a person can look at a rock bank in the 1880s and correctly predict verification of orbital forcing (and forgive them for wrongly guessing that glaciers have to be involved) (I grew up puzzling over the very same beds, but in Kansas). The nastiest (and really only) argument I have run across on the WIS was on the Dakota Talk page, and I got no sense that they were enjoying the argument. Couple of links:

* A geologist "club" came up with this for the western shore in Colorado: Cretaceous Chart & Fossils See how simple the Mancos is (they hide the three second-order cycles in the Dakota, though.)

* This is the hottest IRL argument I have run into after Waagé (1955): ... the unresolved Dakota problem in Utah I thought his fence chart was the best until I saw the one above, and he does give an excellent overview of the origins of the difficulties with the WIS; although I curiously get the opposite take than his from his citations.

New Mexico geography/geography/railroading/industry/orbital forcing is an interest of mine after Kansas, especially from Albuquerque to Taos. I am afraid that I expect that I will pester you later.

IveGoneAway (talk) 13:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC) 13:31, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's a New Mexico thing, or even an individual thing: The New Mexico boundary fault. Taos to Albuquerque is definitely my stomping ground. I was just up past Taos a couple of weeks ago to look at the Latir volcanic field: Wanderlusting the Amalia Tuff. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 13:58, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Black Mesa ...

The only volcanics Kansas has are the bentonite seams (and mostly invisible kimberlites north of my house).

IveGoneAway (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy, could you please fix up ref number 6 in that article? It refers to a work that is not given in full but also does not seem to be identical to any of the other sources cited ("Lucas|Harris|Spielmann|Berman|2005"). Cheers! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:22, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and number 7 has the same problem. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:23, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, thanks. Copy and paste error. This paragraph reworked some stuff from Arroyo del Agua Formation. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 15:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have been working on and off to find/make a wiki template that returns the date-time in seconds (minute-accurate) for the next Full Moon. I can do it with searches through a list of Full Moon dates, but maybe you have a better idea.

IveGoneAway (talk) 02:33, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This would seem to be within your background, but I wondered about your interest in Milankovitch Cycles. You may know, the last twenty years have seen the coupling of Orbital climate forcing with radiometric bentonite dating to develop high resolution of dating of sedimentary structures of all Periods, particularly, non-glacial times.

Last April, an editor saturated the Milankovitch cycle page with citation needed tags. Several of these were trivial, and the remainder are rather easy to close out (when I fool myself into thinking that I have the time to do so).

Another task would be to update the page to non-glacial applications.

Just sounding out your interest.

IveGoneAway (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding a long time copyvio on his article. I've declined to revdel the material as that would require me to also revdel the subsequent 1200+ revisions since the offending material was added in 2005. This is impractical and per Wikipedia:Revision deletion#Large-scale use I think that simply removing the material, as you have done, is sufficient action in this case. Nthep (talk) 16:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking at this. I didn't know reverting the one revision requried reverting everthing subsequent to it; I agree that is not a great idea. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 16:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

sadly, yes. It's all revisions from the one it was added in to the one preceding its removal. Nthep (talk) 17:05, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I had to check, but it seems you were quite right in making this revert to reinstate a capitalised P to 'period' after Triassic, Jurassic, etc. However, your edit summary justification cited a style manual outside of Wikipedia, whereas we have our own WP:MOS which overrides all others. So you might prefer to cite WP:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Geological_periods in future edit summaries. All the best, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:23, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick Moyes: What I cited is not just an ordinary style manual, but the guidelines of the International Commission on Stratigraphy. There's really nothing more authoritative, so I'd argue that if WP:MOS contradicted this, then it would be WP:MOS that needed to change. That said, yes, it's good that WP:MOS reflects the international guidelines, and I'll cite it should the situation ever come up again. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 14:03, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, and I would support you in arguing that. I think we both agree that citing MOS (when it supports the international view) is easier for us to do, and better understood by everyone here. Sorry if I sounded unnecessarily pedantic. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:09, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I don't know whom to address this to, but I see that you created somem of the Categories like Category:Minerals in space group 206. The problem is, there are lots of materials that form crystals but are not minerals. I think they should be included along with the minerals. But that means we should change the names to something like Category:Crystals in space group 206. Do you agree? Do we need to get the agreement of others? And how do we go about changing their names? I don't even see a "Move" option. Please ping me. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 10:47, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eric Kvaalen: It makes sense to me. The problem, as you've discovered, is that category pages can't be moved the way ordinary article pages are; it requires administrator intervention. Furthermore, it appears that category pags can't be redirected, so a robot then has to be invoked to go systematically change the category links. I confess that getting that for a good hundred category pages seems daunting. I think it would require a discussion we could point to with strong buy-in for moving the entire set of articles. Perhaps that discussion could go in Category talk:Minerals by crystal system. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 14:10, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but who's gonna go look at that talk page?? Maybe we should just start a new set of categories called "Crystals in space group..." and somehow put the old categories as subcategories of those. Do you know how to do that? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 15:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eric Kvaalen: That sounds reasonable. You'd create Category:Crystals in space group 206 (for example) and then edit Category:Minerals in space group 206 to change its supercategory from Category:Cubic minerals to Category:Crystals in space group 206. Fortunately, I made the space group categories nondiffusing, so these minerals are already independently assigned to Cubic minerals. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 15:55, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I recommend making your new Categories:Crystals in space group 206 a nondiffusing category. My rationale for doing that for space groups is that a sizable number of readers recognize the crystal classes but not the space groups, so it's a good idea to have the crystal class as an explicit category on the article page along with the space group. I think this would be true of crystalline materials generally as well. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 15:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So how does one create a category as "nondiffusing"? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 18:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You insert a template at the top of the category page. Any of the existing mineral space group category pages can provide an example. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 18:35, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying to make it a nondiffusing subcategory of "Cubic crystals"? (That is a "system", not a "class".) Eric Kvaalen (talk) 19:49, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think so. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 20:13, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I've done it for space groups 206 and 227 (both include forms of silicon, which unlike diamond is not a mineral). Can you check what I've done? Unfortunately the minerals don't appear in the new categories. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 07:53, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is okay. Category:Minerals in space group 206 appears as a subcategory of Category:Crystals in space group 206 which is probably fine for now. They're still part of the category tree; you just have to click down a level. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 14:08, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see that there's already a category called "Cubic crystal system" that has subcategories like "Chemical elements with body-centered cubic structure‎" and so on. So I guess people have been putting non-minerals into those categories sometimes. Maybe we should put all those into the category "Cubic crystals"? What do you think? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 10:31, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eric Kvaalen: I think those two categories ought to be merged, though I don't have a strong opinion on which name to keep. You can find instructions on how to make a merge proposal in WP:Categories for discussion and when you've opened a discussion, ping me and I'll add my support. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 16:30, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think it's better to have both a category "Cubic crystal system" and a category "Cubic crystals". At Wikipedia:Categorization#Category tree organization they say there are two kinds of categories, "topic categories" and "set categories". "Cubic crystal system" is a topic category, whereas "Cubic crystals" is a set category. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 04:53, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that makes sense. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 14:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Kent, hope you’re doing well. I should let you know that the reason I made that edit was actually to match the other period articles as I had seen them, so you might need to take a look at those as well. Cheers Italia2006 (talk) 18:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, it's possible other chronostratigraphic articles need work on capitalizations. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 18:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Minerals in space group 180 indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Minerals in space group 152 indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Minerals in space group 154 indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	Volcano of Quality
	For your tremendous efforts in cleaning up geology pages, especially cleaning up 16-year-old copyvio in Oceanic trench, I hereby award you this Volcano of Quality! — hike395 (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think your edits to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Felipe_volcanic_field have some bad information. I would have noticed a four mile high volcano north of town. 2601:8C0:37F:6A83:7074:F1F7:CA3B:7F19 (talk) 20:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You think? It looks like I got meters and feet mixed up. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 21:18, 15 November 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) 00:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kent G. Budge

Thank you for creating Schizophoria.

User:Herpetogenesis, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

I've been working on brachiopods as well, so this is a welcome addition. Keep up the good work!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Herpetogenesis}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{{Re|Herpetogenesis}} Glad to help. My knowledge base is more physical geology, but I also maintain New Mexico-related geology pages and would like to get rid of the pesky redlinks to fossil genuses. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 18:29, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kent

You reverted my addition to Rastsvetaevite just now, which was attempting to fix an error in its use of the {{chem2}} template in a citation. If you check the linked template documentation, you'll see that there is a known problem in using it in CS1 and CS2 citations. We have been discussing this recently at WT:WikiProject Chemistry#Help needed and have started to fix the affected articles. I don't know why your browser didn't show the error as others certainly do, giving templatestyles stripmarker in errors in the references section. I'm not bothered if you want to leave the Rastsvetaevite example as it was but you may find that another editor makes a similar change later as we proceed with corrections. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:33, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael D. Turnbull: Thanks for your kind response and explanation. The use I reverted was in an article lead as part of the text (not within a citation) and I didn't make the connection to the stripmarker error. (Which, you must admit, is really weird.) Already self-reverted pending a fix to the template. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 16:40, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. As per the linked discussion, I don't think we can fix the templates easily (more than one gives the error), so we're going through the affected articles and doing it by hand! Using superscript/subscript tags is fail-safe. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:49, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kent G. Budge

Thank you for creating Diaphragmus.

User:Herpetogenesis, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Nice work! I've also created dozens of new articles on brachiopod genera and species.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Herpetogenesis}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Herpetogenesis: Thanks for the kind words. I'm much more knowledgeable about physical geology, but you can't do that long and not find a need to learn more paleontology. I work a lot on New Mexico - related geology articles and am finding myself trying to fill in red links for fossil species mentioned. Do not hesitate to correct errors -- I pretty much have to take references from fossilworks and Google Scholar as I find them. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a really interesting career! If you have the expertise, you can also add extinct genera to Taxonomy of the Brachiopoda, which I had created a while ago. HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kent G. Budge,

I have been notified that you have reverted my edit on the page Giant-impact hypothesis. I understand that my edit will eventually be reverted due to a lack of reference, but I would like to discuss further about why I made the edit.

A few days ago I read from the page Orbit of the Moon that the Moon's orbit is actually special among Solar System moons, that it is closer to the ecliptic plane, rather than the Earth's equatorial plane. In comparison, the major moons of all 4 gas giants, including the Galilean moons, even including the 2 asteroid-size moons of Mars, excluding exceptions such as Iapetus and Triton, all orbit the planet's equatorial plane. Although I am by no means an astronomer, this information sparked an idea in my mind: maybe this is one of the evidences that the Moon didn't form together with the Earth, otherwise it would have orbitted around the Earth's equatorial plane. Suddenly, it makes more sense to me that the Moon was created by some forces along the ecliptic plane, which is where most other Solar System objects orbit the Sun.

Maybe it is not a great idea for me to directly edit my idea into a Wikipedia article, considering that other evidences listed on that page are much more sophisticated than the one I provided. But if you regard me as a student still trying to understand how the Solar System works, you can probably understand that I was trying to make sense of the knowledge I have previously acquired. I have heard about the giant-impact hypothesis before, but I have never thought about how the Moon's orbit is unique among Solar System moons, so that realization was almost a eureka moment for me.

By posting this message, I'm not hoping that you would withdraw the revert of my edit, because I was indeed putting my own thoughts in the public in an irresponsible way. But I am trying to get your feedback about this issue, whether my deduction is reasonable, and your advice on how and where I should discuss my thoughts publicly in the future, from the stance of a more experienced intellectual.

Windywendi (talk) 01:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It actually sounded plausible when I read it, but since it was unsourced, I went looking for a source to back it up at Google Scholar. When I could not find one -- in fact, the papers I found seemed a bit at odds with the idea -- I was obligated to remove it. Please remember that WP:NOR rules out putting new ideas on Wikipedia that have not been previously published in a reliable source.

Are you familiar with Google Scholar? You might try the search term "giant impact hypothesis" "ecliptic" and see what it brings up. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 01:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kent G. Budge, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. However, you should consider adding relevant wikiproject talk-page templates, stub-tags and categories to new articles that you create if you aren't already in the habit of doing so, since your articles will no longer be systematically checked by other editors (User:Evad37/rater and User:SD0001/StubSorter.js are useful scripts which can help). Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! – Muboshgu (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
140		Cerium(IV) oxide (talk)	Add sources
52		Verneshot (talk)	Add sources
56		Granulite (talk)	Add sources
321		Time formatting and storage bugs (talk)	Add sources
125		Greywacke (talk)	Add sources
318		Doomsday argument (talk)	Add sources
77		Migmatite (talk)	Cleanup
31		Gravitational anomaly (talk)	Cleanup
30		Global terrestrial stilling (talk)	Cleanup
51		Eagle Ford Group (talk)	Expand
1,079		Heat death of the universe (talk)	Expand
102		Tectonic uplift (talk)	Expand
59		Prewrath rapture (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
366		Roche limit (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
30		Orthocerida (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
32		Rock microstructure (talk)	Merge
392		AI takeover (talk)	Merge
145		Earth ellipsoid (talk)	Merge
26		Geology of England (talk)	Wikify
71		Human impact on the nitrogen cycle (talk)	Wikify
145		Human impact on marine life (talk)	Wikify
6		Geophysical signal analysis (talk)	Orphan
3		Central Montana Alkalic Province (talk)	Orphan
3		Pawnee Creek Beds (talk)	Orphan
18		Hawaiite (talk)	Stub
6		Cookes Range (talk)	Stub
11		Zuñi Mountains (talk)	Stub
19		Capitan Mountains (talk)	Stub
38		Florida Mountains (talk)	Stub
36		Granitoid (talk)	Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kent G. Budge, In the article on Lignite the reader must be able to associate the specifc energy values quoted in the article with the form of lignite for which they were measured. Currently this is not clear in the article. A form of Ligite with 25 - 35% carbon content is not compatible with a specifig energy of 10 to 20 MJ/kg. If it were then Lignite would be by far the most environmentaly friendly form of coal!! I am not a coal expert, so please if you are the primary author of the Lignite article please make clear to what form of caol the quoted specific energy correspond and what their carbon content is. Thanks J.Sitte (talk) 21:59, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jsitte: Yes, that could use some clarifying. When I was trying to improve the article a few months back, I also found it confusing until I realized how much of an apples to oranges comparison problem there was with multiple basis definitions. Dry ash-free yields the maximum BTUs and wt% carbon and as-is yields much lower values for both, because as-is includes the very high moisture and ash content. I tried to say a little about it later in the article but it may not be clear enough still. I'll revisit when I get a chance. In the meanwhile, I'll post the problem at the Talk:Lignite page in case another editor can get to it sooner. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 22:39, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have begun the good article review for Alluvial fan. This will take several days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 06:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Alluvial fan you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Reaper Eternal -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Alluvial fan you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Alluvial fan for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Reaper Eternal -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Alluvial fan you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Alluvial fan for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Reaper Eternal -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Geology Barnstar
	Congrats on getting alluvial fan, a level-4 vital article, to GA! It's always nice to see important topics like that get the care they deserve. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

— Maile (talk) 00:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit to Braided river you used {{sfn|Boggs|2006|p=248}} as a reference. No such work is defined in the article, so the reference is meaningless and the article is added to Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. If you could fix this that would be great. DuncanHill (talk) 19:13, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kent, I'm familiar with your work here, altho I don't know that we've had an actual conversation before. Firstly, thank you for the work you do on the encyclopedia. Secondly, I saw that you reverted an edit I made on the Hot springs article. Which of the two journals are the predatory one, or are they both? I found them thru the National Institute of Health. There has been much written about ancient use of hot springs for "therapeutic" use, so I'm certain that I can find a better citation. Netherzone (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone: Thanks for your polite reply. OA Macedonian Journal of Medical Sciences is flagged as a predatory journal. Something to be aware of regarding the NIH site is that listing of an article there is not an endorsement of its reliability; for whatever reasons, NIH routinely lists articles from predatory journals. Med Secoli isn't flagged so it may be okay to put than one back. If you do, I suggest putting it at the very start of the section as a kind of introduction to the topic. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 18:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kent, I'll follow up on this later today. I appreciate your quick response, and understand what you have communicated about NIH not vetting articles from predatory journals. In the future, I'll keep that in mind before adding a ref to a "scholarly" journal. Netherzone (talk) 18:05, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone: You may find this useful: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Headbomb/unreliable This is a script that you can install for your username that flags sources. Anything that comes up red ought to be reconsidered. In addition to things like predatory journals, it flags some self-published sources and other social media and things like YouTube that are not reliable sources. It's what flagged your source for me when I reviewed your edit. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that script sounds like an excellent tool. Will install it today! Netherzone (talk) 18:13, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, While I understand your personal preference for British English, you have now re-introduced an inconsistency that I corrected. Whoever it was who used the British English form "mould" did so within a subsection "Molded shapes" that also uses the "mold" form in the text. While WP accepts either variety of English, because of your revert, now the article has a mixture, which if I recall is discouraged. You may consider changing the rest of the article to your preference so at least it is consistent. Furthermore, I changed "aluminium" to "aluminum" because IUPAC (the "I" meaning International), a worldwide standards organization, recommends so, and WP's article on the element is "Aluminum" not "Aluminium". You may see documentation of the IUPAC nomenclature of the periodic table here: [2]. Xblkx (talk) 10:59, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Xblkx: I don't have a personal preference for British English. I am, in fact, an American, and I have flagged articles either way depending on what appeared to be the original dialect. I am also a STEM Ph.D., am familiar with who IUPAC is, and note that the very source you link spells it "aluminium", not "aluminum." And I just checked; the WP article title is also "aluminium", not "aluminum". On this particular issue, you may want to take a look at WP:ALUMINIUM. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 13:48, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kent G. Budge. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Heat content (fuel), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 23:34, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Saltpeter and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 3#Saltpeter until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Tevildo (talk) 23:15, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the source was not self published Meatballspino (talk) 19:12, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion belongs at the talk page of the article, not at my personal talk page. Kent G. Budge (talk) 19:41, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saw your notification about the car crash, sounds like a traumatic experience. I hope you are recovering well. It's good to see you editing again. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:29, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I posted this comment one day after you passed away [3]. I deeply regret not talking to you sooner. Godspeed, and thanks for everything. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Goodbye Kent, I'm glad to have known you, however briefly. Your contributions to the Geology wikiproject talk page will be missed. --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:24, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2016 February Tamil Nadu meteorite incident, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 February Tamil Nadu meteorite incident until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was very sorry to hear of the passing of Kent G. Budge. He made many excellent contributions to the encyclopedia. [4] I am very grateful for his work on geology and New Mexico articles, and in particular for his help with hot springs articles. Kent, where ever you are, you will be missed by the community. For those wanting to know more about his work outside of Wikipedia see his notes for a book he was writing here: Supervolcano: A Geologic History of the Jemez, and his road-trip blog Wanderlusting the Jemez Rest in peace fellow traveler.Netherzone (talk) 18:56, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

can i have a source for his detah? IsraeliEditor54 (talk) 17:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://losalamosreporter.com/2022/11/29/obituary-kent-grimmett-budge-mar-31-1962-nov-10-2022/. Netherzone (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rest in peace Kent! -- Hamid Hassani (talk) 18:27, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Minerals in space group 212 indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Minerals in space group 213 indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]