User talk:Rudolf Pohl - Knowledge (XXG)

1672:

abstract of this theory which you present. Same here. EVERYTHING I state in the article can be found in Collins' papers and online publications, there is nothing whatsoever I have invented or made up, not a iota (this is even confirmed by the author himself). In science the standard practice is that you always write your paper with an answer and reply section at the end. So people can leave comments there, and if they completely disagree with your results/conclusions they are free to write - their own report with their own results. So that's how it works in science.

1676:

source, which is still alive and even corresponds with me ???? If you want to know a child's father you surely - ask the mother - as simple as that. Of course you are free to disagree with Collins - but then you have to add on another section ... and there you will have to work through secondary soures ! I have got nothing against secondary sources by the way, don't get me wrong - if you help me finding them ... Catch you later ...

1769: 2005: 1134: 1061: 988: 1389: 1320: 1697:

about. There are no other such summaries and evaluations that have ever been written independently in any other place or put into "talk sites". Therefore, I already did what follows your policy in the original document that was essentially deleted. I think the problem and misunderstanding is indicated above in that both of you thought that Collins wrote the article.

1459:- if you write about a painter you surely show the painting. And if I write about a researcher I shall give a summary of his/her results ... I'm not hung up about this Doug, really - if you don't like a nicely rounded out article just say so. To me it just seems a shame to be so stubborn ... what for really ??? Why such a narrowed vision ? Greetings 1540:"Collins' models for the metasomatic origin of some kinds of granitic rocks are supported by two prominent geologists who are igneous petrologists − Andrew Putnis now in Australia and Arthur Sylvester in the United States, and they have included him as a co-author in publications that are regularly referenced by geologists around the world. 1656:. I don't mean to be rude, but as you don't seem to have understood our basic policies, it's not a surprise or a sin that there were serious problems with it. Now you need to find reliable mainstream sources discussing him/his work and build it up from there. Note "discussing", not just mentions. Use the talk page. 1968:

No-one is trying to run down Lorence Collins's work. He just doesn't seem to meet the criteria for inclusion on Knowledge (XXG) and very few geologists do. His publications are only referred to in a few other papers and those are mainly ones written by him. I may be missing something here but I'm not

1874:

states that "Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Knowledge (XXG) articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by

1559:

Collins' articles are read in Linkedin by as much as 25 to 70 times each week by geologists from around the world, which is most unusual for this quantity of readings per week, and these geologists commonly go to this Wiki article for a summary of his research and a list of publications that apply to

453:

I have my thesis, but the pictures are all rephotographed plates from sets of originals stuck to an A2 board. The original pics are somewhere in my cellar, the only question is where? I'll check my thesis to see if any of the pictures or diagrams would be helpful at that somewhat lower resolution. If

1458:

What do you mean by unsourced ??? Just go on Collins website - and you and everybody can read his results !!! I was just drawing out the essence, the major points of his research, that's all. And I shall get the backing directly from the author if need be, he knows what I'm doing. Wiki policy or not

1361:

Dear Doug, what are you on about ??? All the research Collins has done can be consulted on his website which has been in existence for decades ! I'm merely summing up his key results, okay ? And I'm also in touch with Lorence, so he knows what I'm stating ! And if I get something wrong he'll correct

1469:

At least you left the publications this time, thank you, great, that's a start ... I got the "results" section ready now, so if you insist (and subsequently sleep better) I shall contact Lorence G. Collins to have a read and then give his go ahead... can't do more than that ... it certainly will be

1696:

The answer is that: Yes, there is someone else who wrote an independent summary and an evaluation of Collins research after he retired, and that is what I wrote for Knowledge (XXG) when I discovered his various papers and recognized their unusual value that the Knowledge (XXG) audience should know

1675:

The article I wrote for Wiki has been sitting there pretty much unchanged for many, many years now. Noone ever found anything major wrong with it, otherwise they would have responded asking for a change/rectification. Why should I go via someone else's comments/mentions/discussions when I got the

1952:

So after all this destructive scything going on, what about some constructive energy ??? How do you want to proceed ? Discard the article altogether, keep it merely as a stub, or have a rewrite ? Obviously you guys are neither geologists or petrologists, otherwise you would be aware that Lorence

1598:

Honestly Mike, I don't get it !!!! Do you want me to write a scientific paper about the research of Lorence Collins now ???? All this seems kind of ridiculous to me ... Why are you getting so funny all of a sudden just about the results ? Your logic consequently applied and this article wouldn't

1688:

So, it seems to be apparent that Mike believed that Lorence Collins wrote the article that subsequently was deleted almost 95 percent. Collins did not write this article. I did, and I did it independent of him, although he supplied some information, corrected errors, and provided some images.

1671:

Okay Doug, fine. Now the Article "Lorence G. Collins" is about science and a living scientist. So what do you do when you were to write a contribution about let's say Einstein's relativity? You get the original paper of course, (you learn German - joke), you digest it and then come up with an

1551:

Sylvester, A., and Collins, L. G, 2008, K- and Si-metasomatism created K-feldspar megacrystic granite in the outer shell of the Vrådal pluton, Telemark, southern Norway , Session: MPN-03 Mineral replacement and mass transfer in hydrothermal systems: From the nanoscale to the megascale; oral

700:

Good job with the rewrite. However, there are a couple of Harvard ref tags in the article with no reference provided in the ref section. Dunbar & Berger (1981) and (Casey et al. 1979) in the "Sedimentation" section. (Garrison & Fisher 1969) and Iljima et al. 1978 and (De Wever &

1641:

I am not insulting anybody. The article has been reverted to a stub, that is the simple reality of it !!! How would you feel if someone comes along and puts one of your articles into the wastepaper basket - and all the invested time with it ???? I am sure you would not be very charmed.

1073:

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

1146:

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

1563:

I hope that this is helpful and the Wiki Board will now allow the insertion of your Results section as well as the many publications. Your Results section is well-written. I have made some editorial suggestions, adding some punctuation, word changes, and word explanations."

1711:. Now that I've looked through Collins's publications I am not clear that he does meet those guidelines - very few other papers or books seem to mention his work. I see that the article has been nominated for deletion and I'm not sure that it will be kept for that reason. 1692:

Also, Doug said: "…we need someone else (meaning someone other than Collins) to have summarised his results before we can use it. Is there anywhere that Collins' work has been written about in those general terms, perhaps at the time of his retirement from teaching?"

1517:

thanks. Yes, it may seem odd but that is just the way we work. What things about a subject do independent reliable sources think are significant? Just as we don't let the subject of an article write their article outside of a few technical things perhaps.

1000:

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

437:

Hi Rudolf, thanks for restarting the shear zone article, I'd been meaning to do that for a long time. I'll try to add some inline references wherever I can. I should dig out some of my field photos and maps (if I can find where I put them). Cheers,

1969:

seeing evidence of him being a "key figure" or surely other geologists would be referring to his work a lot more than they do. For what it's worth I am a geologist and I looked at lots of myrmekite in the time when I worked on deformed granitoids.

479: 1567:

So the "Results" section is ready and updated now with links - waiting to be published. I am sure it will improve the article a great deal. If you still think it is biased in any way you are always free to add your changes at any point !

1578:

Rudolf first apologies for misspelling your name - now fixed, I have no doubt personally that you are providing an accurate summary of the results, but we need someone who has done so in print that can then be cited. It's all about

1483:

Rudolf, it's a pain, but we need someone else to have summarised his results before we can use it. Is there anywhere that Collins' work has been written about in those general terms, perhaps at the time of his retirement from

364: 1544:

Putnis, A., Hinrichs, R., Putnis, C. V., Golla-Schindler, U., and Collins, L., G., 2007, Hematite in porous red-clouded feldspars: Evidence of large-scale crustal fluid-rock interaction, Lithos, v. 95(1), p. 10-18.

2048: 1174: 1101: 1028: 157: 1338:, which is against Knowledge (XXG)'s policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses 943:. 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 1489:

As far as the papers are concerned, for an artist we generally only show a handful of the pictures and likewise I would expect just the most important papers (perhaps by number of citations) to be listed.

2032:. 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 1158:. 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 1085:. 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 1012:. 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 2018: 1323: 1727:

If you would like to preserve an intact wikisource backup of an article (it may work with minor modifications on a wiki with less strict requirements), an easy way to do it is using

1546: 1435:

to discuss his research, not your own analysis of it and its importance. Note that we generally avoid statements about importance, etc unless they are independently sourced. See

1897:. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves.}} 1375:... and cutting out the literature, what sort of sabotage is that I would like to know ??? I shall be putting it on again, don't you worry - till it sticks !!! 808: 569: 1288: 897: 792: 751: 634: 553: 1937:

Obviously both those links expand considerably upon what I've posted above. The fact that no one has noticed the problems with the article is irrelevant.

887: 804: 565: 497:. Your English writing style is excellent too. Thank you very much. Signed, just an anon IP editor who's been around on Knowledge (XXG) for a long time. 528: 1608:

Far out and well done, congrats !!! Must be feeling happy now .... Is that what the encyclopedia is becoming ??? A collection of 5.8 million stubs ???

1707:

Because of the huge number of academics that potentially could have articles written about them the project has developed notability guidelines - see

883: 396:

Thank you for your "Reworking" of English. The article is better written now. On the other hand, you included a lot of red entries in one editing. --

1837: 1986:

Aha, good Mike. Didn't know you are actually a geologist ... So what were your conclusions about myrmekite then ??? Symplectites or more to it ???

226: 214: 1547:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229146362_Hematite_in_porous_red-clouded_feldspars_Evidence_of_large-scale_crustal_fluid-rock_interaction

1284: 893: 788: 747: 630: 549: 524: 741: 650: 2070: 1886: 1188: 1115: 1042: 968: 1953:

Collins is quite a key figure in the ongoing debate about granitoid genesis - just by the way .... But that is probably beyond your scope.

1685:

One last statement: Mike said: "…we don't let the subject of an article write their article outside of a few technical things perhaps."

737: 646: 498: 1708: 164: 1841: 1859: 1327: 26: 1339: 1335: 48: 2066: 1184: 1111: 1038: 964: 2041: 1236: 1167: 1094: 1021: 890:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 744:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 43: 785:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 627:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 546:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 106:, I thought you may want to check the proposal of merger and cast your vote in relation of the additional section to article 1829: 1780: 1758: 115: 1833: 1343: 1849: 1274: 1405: 955:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to

53: 2053: 1179: 1106: 1033: 960: 1393: 782: 624: 543: 323: 1919: 1890: 1401: 519:

Hello, User:Mikenorton said that you know structural geology and french language. Are you interested in editing

334: 271:

in common language many seems to prefer a wider term "Vaishnavism", which however appeared to relate to Vishnu.

33: 22: 2029: 1221:

I've linked to the French and German Knowledge (XXG) articles on this topic and added a tag on the talk page.

1155: 1082: 1009: 60: 1904:

is a key part of scholarly work. However, Knowledge (XXG) editors must not base their contributions on their

1816: 502: 494: 1926:. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are 1278: 64: 1745: 307: 1908:

original research. Knowledge (XXG) editors must base their contributions on reliable, published sources.

1845: 1788: 956: 76: 68: 1943: 1662: 1632: 1524: 1449: 1414: 1352: 1270: 454:

I don't start adding references (or anything else) within the week, feel free to give me nudge. Cheers,

701:

Origlia-Devos 1982) in the Diagenesis section. Could you provide reference details for those - thanks,

38: 1974: 1716: 1588: 1495: 1261:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

800: 561: 459: 443: 423: 401: 2012: 1440: 1436: 1142: 1069: 996: 978: 932: 923: 256: 143: 103: 1247: 319: 2025: 1876: 1871: 1424: 1151: 1078: 1005: 952: 936: 1776: 1762: 1397: 1331: 867: 657: 88: 29:. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: 493:

For your skill and hard work in having created such an excellent, comprehensive, new article as

520: 287:

or the principle of "God is love", was pre-Christian. There were and are many traditions where

75:(~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out 2146: 2108: 1901: 1812: 1740: 1304: 1225: 913: 852: 767: 686: 609: 315: 118: 2037: 1163: 1090: 1017: 948: 940: 330:; If you see a need to widen or restrict the scope please voice your opinion - it is wanted! 2060: 1987: 1957: 1938: 1698: 1677: 1657: 1643: 1627: 1609: 1600: 1569: 1552:

presentation at the 33rd International Geological Congress, Oslo, Norway, 6-14 August, 2008

1519: 1471: 1460: 1444: 1409: 1376: 1363: 1347: 1262: 706: 242: 230: 207: 102:

Rudolf, You were recently contributing to articles that are in the scope of the new project

2040:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2033: 1882: 1799: 1792: 1653: 1623: 1619: 1428: 1215: 1166:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1159: 1093:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1086: 1020:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1013: 951:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 944: 181: 1970: 1712: 1584: 1512: 1491: 455: 439: 419: 397: 380: 295: 1894: 1432: 390: 1340:

combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say

1281:, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. 255:

Also, if you are ready to help with editing and assessment of the scope, please see the

1553: 1243: 1228: 1211: 280: 1798:

While all constructive contributions to Knowledge (XXG) are appreciated, pages may be

1580: 1295: