|(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)|
--SieBot 19:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- 1 Yes, you are correct.
- 2 Image:Tellnes.jpg
- 3 Image:1888_North_Canterbury_EQ_location.svg
- 4 Tip: Categorizing images
- 5 NZ location maps mass deletion
- 6 Carnmenellis
- 7 Fracking data and diagram
- 8 what makes Hoy standstone special/different
- 9 Geology of Dorset
- 10 TUSC token ca3bb1f06ef5e0c1e982a7daeb4a1796
- 11 File:HydroFrac.png
- 12 File:Bushehr aftershocks.png
- 13 File:Usoi Sarez.png
- 14 File:Geologic Clock with events and periods.svg
Yes, you are correct.
Mikenorton, I've made a mistake. The images are switched, because the cut plane isn't the same of the view plane. The image 1 is view looking in the plane of the S fabric and the image 2 is perpendicular.
Zimbres 20:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful informations about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.
|Image deletion warning||Image:1888_North_Canterbury_EQ_location.svg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Tip: Categorizing images
Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.
1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:
2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.
- [[Category:Category name]]
For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:
- [[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]
When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations"). Pro-tip: The CommonSense tool can help you find the best category for your image.
BotMultichillT 06:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Image:USGS 1045 Fig5.jpg is uncategorized since 17 March 2009. BotMultichillT 06:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Image:Riedel.jpg is uncategorized since 19 April 2009.
- Image:Flowerstructure1.png is uncategorized since 30 April 2009.
- Image:USCGS water tank 1940.jpg was uncategorized on 18 January 2012 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Image:USCGS Imperial damage 1940.jpg was uncategorized on 18 January 2012 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
NZ location maps mass deletion
Hi Mikenorton, the New Zealand location map File:1888 North Canterbury EQ location.jpg that you uploaded has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests, the discussion is at Commons:Deletion requests/NZ location maps2. Benchill (talk) 09:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for spotting that. I will fix it, but possibly not till tomorrow. Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 00:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Fracking data and diagram
Hi, we are starting a campaign against fracking in Slovenia (with ambitions to make it worldwide) and I would like to use and translate your fracking diagram for use in presentations, e-mails and later on a web page. If you would be kind enough to provide me with an editable image (and possibly some expertise) I would be really thankful. Please contact me at matic50 ( at ) gmail.
Matija Debevec (sorry for not being able to use Wikipedia properly and contacting you on your user page)
- Hi Matija, I produced that diagram to help people understand something about the process and to indicate the potential ways in which fracking fluids could have environmental effects. I am not myself against fracking, as long as it follows strong guidelines such that these effects can be avoided. I would be happy to provide a Slovene version of the diagram, as long as I know the correct terminology. I would prefer to do this myself so that I can be sure that the resulting diagram remains as neutral as it was intended. Mikenorton (talk) 23:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
what makes Hoy standstone special/different
I am wondering if there is something special/different about Hoy standstone compared to other stone son Orkney mainland? Also do you know if hoy standstone was used (in special cases) for buildings? In other words what makes it unique/special/worthwhile/different (or not worthwhile). I am working on an essay about neolithic settlements on Orkney and a possible relation with hoy hills (Ward hill and Culaigs: http://www.iol.ie/~geniet/maeshowe/eng/flashing.htm
Any help is welcome.
All the best,
- Hi Victor, the shape of Hoy is all about the type of sandstone, as you've presumably guessed. These sandstones are part of the Eday Group, which varies in character across Orkney. At the time of deposition, there were a series of active normal faults (a bit like the Basin and Range province of the midwestern US now) and the continuous sandstone known as the Hoy Sandstone was deposited on the western side (the footwall or upthrown side) of one of these faults (the Rackwick Fault). To the east of the Rackwick Fault (the downthrown side) the sequence is thicker but still mainly sandstone, with a few more non-sandstone layers in it. This area is in the footwall of another fault, the Brims Fault, across which the sequence thickens eastward still further. The thicker sequence consists of three mainly sandstone layers (the Lower, Middle and Upper Eday sandstones), separated by much finer-grained sequences of the Eday Marl and the Eday Flagstone. In these areas the topography is much more subdued. The Eday sandstones have been used for building, most famously in St Magnus Cathedral, but I don't know if the Hoy sandstone has been used in any substantial way. I don't recall seeing any quarries that would indicate this. For most buildings the flagstones make excellent building material. If I've not made this clear, or you have any other questions, please let me know. Mikenorton (talk) 11:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Mikenorton. Next time I am on Orkney I will see if Hoy sandstone is in some way used in Neolithic monuments. Most of them are indeed from flagstone I assume, like Standing Stones of Stenness and Ring of Brodgar. I thought that Maeshowe was also from flagstone. What do you think: http://www.maeshowe.co.uk/maeshoweabout.html ? There are these 'blocking stones' (on the ground now; see for instance http://www.maeshowe.co.uk/images/maeshowein34206304p.jpg ). Wonder if they are flagstones or sandstone?
Just asked the custodian of Maeshowe and they say that these blocking stones are 'Caithness stone'. Do you think this is closer to 'Stromness flag' or 'Hoy sandstone', or ...?
All the best,
- Hi again Victor, I assume that Maes Howe is constructed from flagstone slabs (Stromness flags or Rousay I suppose) as both the Ring of Brodgar, Stones of Stenness and Skara Brae are for sure. I've never quite made it to Maes Howe, but I've visited the others. 'Caithness stone' would definitely be the flagstones, as Caithness used to export its flagstones around the world. These stones would have come from Mainland Orkney I imagine rather than Caithness. This book  suggests that the stone came from Cruaday Hill, still an active quarry on Mainland working the flagstones (Stromness in this case). Mikenorton (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Mikenorton, Thanks for this explanation/link and indeed I assume the stone did not come from Caithness (but I understand also that 'Caithness stone' is from the same 'bed' as Orcadian stone: http://www.gairland.com/stone.html
But what about these blocking stones? Do you think these are also flag or could they come from Hoy (I know it is difficult without a real visit)? Here is one for the small recesses: http://www.doughoughton.com/webpage/jpg/060/060856.jpg and here is the block that can close off the passage: http://www.monumental.uk.com/site/research/proj/acoustics/images/maeshowe2.jpg <on the left side is a large block of a few ton>
Thanks very much for your feedback, really appreciated.
AlL the best,
- The Caithness flagstones were indeed deposited in the same lake as the Orcadian flagstones. The only stones in the tomb that are not obviously flagstone are the thicker slabs just beneath the opening, but the flagstone beds do get that thick occasionally - makes sense to get them all from the same quarry. The stone on the floor of the tomb beneath the opening (is that what you mean by blocking stone?) is almost certainly flagstone. Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 22:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Indeed that stone (with some sloping sides) on the ground in front of the opening (recess) is a blocking stone. The other one (in the other picture and below this flat horizontal stone) is pushed back in a recess (and is very big: say 100*90 cm and than in depth a triangular form). One can pull it out of that recess and make it block the passage entrance.
So these all are flag stone (I thought flag stone would only make nice flat stones;-). Thanks for your input (and sorry for these naive questions).
All the best,
- Happy to be of help - there are no naive questions. The flagstones do make good slabs but they are cross-cut by joints, which some times create rather small blocks (as can be seen in the picture from Caithness that I've added - note the rectangular blocks at the edge of the main bedding surface at the right), just ready to be trimmed into a blocking stone. Mikenorton (talk) 10:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
So the size and the sloping (non-rectangular) angles (http://www.iol.ie/~geniet/maeshowe/eng/scot10.htm section: The four blocking stones) is not something that can indicate if it is Hoy sand or Stromness flag. A pity, I had hoped something Hoy-ish (unstratified stone) was in these buildings;-) Thanks again for all your help. Much appreciated.
All the best,
- Hi Pterre, glad someone's keeping me honest - thanks, now fixed. Mikenorton (talk) 21:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
TUSC token ca3bb1f06ef5e0c1e982a7daeb4a1796
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!
|Hello, Mikenorton. You have new messages at Jmabel's talk page.
Hi Mike, first tahnks for your nice illustration: HydroFrac.png . I'm wondering if by chance you also have a vectorised form at hand, so it could be translated easier to different languages. Best would be an .svg. Cheers --Morray (talk) 07:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Morray, I've had trouble in the past uploading svg files created in inkscape, although I believe that I may be able to get round this by saving the file in Plain SVG format. Alternatively I could just e-mail you the original svg file. Mikenorton (talk) 14:28, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you very much Mike! I think everything renders fine? I cropped borders and optimized the SVG file a bit but apart from that everything seems fine as far as I can tell. The only problem I encountered were the fraccing fluid containers that you've drawn as 3D boxes: When resizing the page their position changed. Actually this seems to be a bug in Inkscape (see the bug report I created) which I worked around by converting the 3D boxes to paths (Path -> Object to path in Inkscape). --Patrick87 (talk) 00:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
|File:Bushehr aftershocks.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Specify the real source of the image. This may not be your own work, if you do not own space satellites. Files without a known source are removed from the Wikimedia Commons. --Радион (talk) 09:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
- The source was already made clear in the file description. I did forget to add the PD-Worldwind template - now added and I've copied some of the text from the description into the source. Mikenorton (talk) 12:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- Difficult though it is to see what was going on in Woudloper's mind when he drew up the original diagram, I'm going to guess that he added the connecting line (originally in white) to the land plants bar to show that they developed well after the plants appeared (boosting oxygen levels), but that's just a guess. We could change all of the connecting lines to black, so that they carry no implications. There's a discussion at en:Talk:History_of_Earth#Errata_and_placement_in_graphic_needs_correcting about further tweaks to this diagram. Mikenorton (talk) 10:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Mike, AnonMoos,
- I followed the discussion at wp-en last week but saw no reason to react then and there. My activities on the Dutch Wikipedia (mostly improving Asia-related coverage and being a member of the Dutch arbcom) currently absorb most of my wiki time, but I keep a watch on WP-EN.
- The new version of the diagram looks nice, but the lines supporting the texts were not meant to be in the same colours as the curved ones around the 'clock'. It seems more logical to make the former black.
- The curved lines are to suggest increasing complexity by appearing at crucial steps in Earth history. They do not necessarily relate to the events mentioned.
- Cheers, Woudloper (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2016 (UTC)