No edit summary |
Nagualdesign (talk | contribs) |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
:Having taken some advice on this I have again reverted your latest edits.<sup>[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pelagic_zone&diff=814510058&oldid=814415566][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bathyal_zone&diff=814510067&oldid=814413195][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hadal_zone&diff=814510085&oldid=814415505]</sup> Please '''do not''' restore the material without further [[WP:BRD|discussion]]. Pinging previous contributors to those articles: {{Ping|Tom.Reding|Rhinopias|Epipelagic|M layman|In ictu oculi|Rrburke|Fmadd|Mashaunix|Oshwah|Materialscientist|Nyttend|Cwmhiraeth|RN1970|DavGxyz|Junosoon|Snek01|Shaded0|Cirriphilia|JWNoctis|Wiae|DeniedClub|Josqu|Arjayay|RN1970|Dawnseeker2000|Finlay McWalter|Fama Clamosa|Magioladitis|Giraffedata|Thelistofgenerals|Ifnord|Serols|Atvelonis|TheDoormouse|SignOfTheShadow|DocWatson42|Ogress|Nbarth|Ragityman|Entranced98}} Would some of you please take a look at Ainundil's recent edits and the discussion above and weigh in. I don't know enough about oceanography to make a call one way or the other, and Ainundil appears to have copious amounts of references to cite. If he's right then there's something very wrong with [[Hydrothermal vents]] and the references ''it'' cites. Thank you in advance. <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em">[[User:nagualdesign|<b style="color:#000">nagual</b>]][[User talk:nagualdesign|<b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b>]]</b> 06:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC) |
:Having taken some advice on this I have again reverted your latest edits.<sup>[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pelagic_zone&diff=814510058&oldid=814415566][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bathyal_zone&diff=814510067&oldid=814413195][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hadal_zone&diff=814510085&oldid=814415505]</sup> Please '''do not''' restore the material without further [[WP:BRD|discussion]]. Pinging previous contributors to those articles: {{Ping|Tom.Reding|Rhinopias|Epipelagic|M layman|In ictu oculi|Rrburke|Fmadd|Mashaunix|Oshwah|Materialscientist|Nyttend|Cwmhiraeth|RN1970|DavGxyz|Junosoon|Snek01|Shaded0|Cirriphilia|JWNoctis|Wiae|DeniedClub|Josqu|Arjayay|RN1970|Dawnseeker2000|Finlay McWalter|Fama Clamosa|Magioladitis|Giraffedata|Thelistofgenerals|Ifnord|Serols|Atvelonis|TheDoormouse|SignOfTheShadow|DocWatson42|Ogress|Nbarth|Ragityman|Entranced98}} Would some of you please take a look at Ainundil's recent edits and the discussion above and weigh in. I don't know enough about oceanography to make a call one way or the other, and Ainundil appears to have copious amounts of references to cite. If he's right then there's something very wrong with [[Hydrothermal vents]] and the references ''it'' cites. Thank you in advance. <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em">[[User:nagualdesign|<b style="color:#000">nagual</b>]][[User talk:nagualdesign|<b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b>]]</b> 06:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC) |
||
::First - I'm not a native English speaker. You have the right and the duty to doubt about anything. |
|||
::Second -About the citation "Deep-sea primary production at the Galapagos hydrothermal vents" I send you the link to read it(at least you can rear its abstract). http://science.sciencemag.org/content/207/4437/1345. The fact that Galapagos Rift, studied in this article is at 2,550 m deep is crucial. This citation is used to prove that vents exist in Abyssal zone (more than 4000m), but at 2,550 is the bathypelagic zone 1000 to 4000m; hence this reference is not suitable for the Abyssal zone article. Was a mistake in my firs correction to say that are no vents in Abyssal zone, but the discussed reference is not about abyssal zones. I added new references that are about this zone at [[Pelagic zone]] article, that can be used for the [[Abyssal zone]] article. |
|||
::Thirth - Yes duplication was an error. I pretend duplicate the references in the text not in the bibliography, because vents exist either in bathypelagic zone and in the Abyssal zone and cited articles talk about both zones. |
|||
::Forth - I don't understand the contradiction. (Maybe the redaction can be impruved) Trenches and rifts are totally different things. volcanic activity occurs at rifts in mid ocean ridges in Bathyal and Abyssal zone. Hadal zone or Hadopelagic zone, is located in the ocean trenches, and there are not volcanic or hydrothermal activity there. You can verify this fact in any geology text book or serious web pages. Also you can read the wikipedia articles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-ocean_ridge, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceanic_trench. |
|||
::Five - You have discovered that the article "Hydrothermal vent#Black smokers and white smokers" must be corrected also, because there is no "Hadal spreading centers". First it contradicts all the scientific articles and books that exist (also it contradicts itself). In fact, deepest hydrothermal vent is at 4,960 m deep, ([https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/04/100412-worlds-deepest-undersea-volcanic-vents-hydrothermal/ news.nationalgeographic][https://www.livescience.com/17823-deepest-hydrothermal-vents.html livescience.com]) this fact is cited in the wikipedia article; Hadal zone is below 6,000 m!!, but this and other articles says that there are vents in hadal zones... !!!! .... Second, you cannot use another Wikipedia article to prove you are right, as [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source|wikipedia is not a reliable source]]. I added some of scientific references that you and other editors can read. The mistake about hadal zones/trenches and vents are everywere in wikipedia, and in the web. If you search in internet about vents and trenches/hadal zones you can find a lot of websites (sadly with wikipedia at first place), however, if you use Google Scholar or if you read a geology book, you will not find any article or book talking about vents or hyothermal activity in trenches or hadal zones. |
|||
::Sixth - I sincerely hope that you and other editors take a closer look at my contributions. I don't have fear to a serious analysis, and I aware of my writing errors, but, I hope that you and other editors seriously study the real cientific material in order to correct this scientific misconceptions. You can read my references or in any serious book in your library or talk to any expert in your local university. My professional authority is nos relevant. This is cience, facts are relevant, and you can verify the facts if you study. But if you wana contact me: pnunez@fcien.edu.uy, https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Pablo_Nunez_Demarco |
|||
:::Thank you for your response. I'll respond to each of the points you made by number: |
|||
::#Since English is not your first language I suggest you make [[Wikipedia:Edit requests|edit requests]] on article talk pages, where other users can copy-edit your work before adding your contributions to article space. |
|||
::#I read the abstract, thank you. As I mentioned above, the abstract may not cover everything, and the mentioning of one particular depth in the opening paragraph may be irrelevant. As also noted above, the [http://vents-data.interridge.org/category/region/galapagos-rift?order=field_depth&sort=asc InterRidge Vents Database] shows that vent fields within the Galapagos Rift alone vary from 1,555 meters to as deep as 5,100 meters. |
|||
::#The duplication was among the least of the problems, as... |
|||
::#..the part that you had duplicated - ''"Many organisms live in [[hydrothermal]] vents in this and other zones."'' - contradicted the other part that you had added - ''"There is a common misconception that there is vulcanism or hidrothermal activity in this region..."'' - and I'm not sure how I can make this any more obvious. In case you didn't realize, that was the edit you made to [[Pelagic zone]]. Also, just because a particular textbook says that there are vents in one region it does not follow that there are no vents in differing regions. In fact, as I've already stated, according to the [http://vents-data.interridge.org/ventfields?order=field_depth&sort=desc InterRidge Vents Database] there are vents at every depth down to 5,800 meters. If you wish to contend that the source is unreliable then we can discuss that, but first you ought to click the link and read the data yourself. |
|||
::#Again, there is nothing wrong with the references at [[Hydrothermal vent]] as far as I can tell. It seems like you simply haven't read them, despite multiple attempts on my part to steer you in that direction. The sentence in [[Hadal zone]] that you seem to have a problem with is, ''"Most life at this depth is sustained by marine snow or the chemical reactions around thermal vents.."'', but there are indeed vents in the deep ocean trenches at least as far down as 5,800 meters. You would argue that it isn't below 6 kilometres so is therefore not hadopelagic, others might argue that the definition of hadopelagic is ''"the deepest region of the ocean lying within [[oceanic trenches]]"'' and has less to do with specific depths. It could also mean that chemical reactions around thermal vents ''in the waters above'' provide nutrients in the hadal zones. I suggest that you discuss these things at [[Talk:Hydrothermal vent]] before editing that article. |
|||
::#I really have no wish to drag you through the mud, but you don't exactly inspire me with confidence either. You were the one who claimed to be a university professor, which I agree is irrelevant, or at least less important than [[WP:V|verifiable]] facts. I have a strong feeling that you have read a few books and those books are probably outdated, since the scientific study of the ocean depths is ongoing, and I dare say that more knowledge has been gained about the subject in the past 10 years than in the previous.. well, ''forever''. Science books go out of date pretty fast. I know this as I have read a great deal, and have often found myself stopping to check the publication date when an author isn't quite up to speed on current findings. The fact that you think the deepest vents are at 4,960 m but our source says 5,800 m tells me that the source is probably more up-to-date. In fact it wouldn't surprise me at all if even deeper vents have been discovered in the past few months. |
|||
:::As far as moving forward with this, I'd like you to at least read everything discussed here in full, and look through some of the links provided before responding. And I think it may be for the best if we wait for an uninvolved editor to weigh in. I hope that's okay with you. <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em">[[User:nagualdesign|<b style="color:#000">nagual</b>]][[User talk:nagualdesign|<b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b>]]</b> 09:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 10:01, 9 December 2017
Removing referenced material
Please do not remove properly referenced material, as you did today at Abyssal zone[1] and Bathyal zone[2]. Such edits are considered disruptive. I have since reverted your edits. I reverted similar edits you made to Hadal zone[3] and Pelagic zone[4]. I also note that you marked these substantive edits as minor edits, which you should not have done. Again, this sort of behaviour is considered disruptive. Please try to be more careful when making substantive edits in the future. If it happens again you are likely to receive an official warning. nagualdesign 22:38, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- I added back in the material on serpentinization[5] (ref) so it wasn't all bad. Credit where credit's due. nagualdesign 05:39, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- That is not properly referenced material, ¿do you read it? because it contradicts you... I'm a Geoloigist Profesor in the Univeristy... you are contibuting to fake information.. Read the abysal zone cite that you restore: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/207/4437/1345 ... in the abstract says clearly that the hodrothermal vents are at 2550 meters deep, that is not the abysal zone. And, of course, that is not a properly referenced material.
- Considering that you cannot even spell Geologist, Professor or University you'll have to forgive me for doubting your supposed credentials. The citation that I restored to Abyssal zone (double s) was a Science article by D.M. Karl, C.O. Wirsen and H.W. Jannasch titled, "Deep-sea primary production at the Galapagos hydrothermal vents". No I did not read it since the reference isn't available to me, but I have no reason to doubt its validity. The paragraph in question was, "Some sea floor locations, such as mid-ocean ridges, are unique in that they contain hydrothermal vents. These vents emit geothermically reduced sulfur compounds that allow for microbial primary production, sustaining many benthic organisms in absence of the sunlight required for photosynthesis." If you disagree with this please explain why. Thank you for the link to sciencemag.org but since it is only a small abstract it does not really help. The fact that it states that the Galapagos Rift is 2,550 m deep, among other things, may be irrelevant. I'm no expert, but it seems to me that the abyssal zone includes the ocean floor, and therefore contains benthic (bottom-dwelling) organisms. I suggest that you discuss this with other editors on the article talk page.
- I see that you have now made further edits. Your Cientific fact correction (sic) of the Pelagic zone article added back the sentence that you had previously removed - "Many organisms live in hydrothermal vents in this and other zones." - while also providing copious references, but you have duplicated it and the references for some reason, which isn't necessary. You also added the following paragraph, including even more references; "There is a common misconception that there is vulcanism or hidrothermal activity in this region, however volcanic activity occurs at mid ocean ridges in Bathyal or Abyssal zone. Hadal zone or Hadopelagic zone, is located in the ocean trenches in active margins, despite there are called active tere are not volcanic or hidrothermal activity in the ocean floor." Putting the spelling and grammar aside, the paragraph directly contradicts the other now duplicated and referenced sentence, and I strongly suspect that the part about 'common misconception' is original research based solely on your own experience here at Wikipedia.
- You made a similar Cientific fact correction to the Hadal zone article, adding the same paragraph about the 'common misconception' along with some random bits of whitespace. And as I said in my previous edit summaries, this contradicts what it says at Hydrothermal vent#Black smokers and white smokers. Perhaps you do know what you're talking about, who knows?, but your edits to Wikipedia are at best rather sloppy and your attitude seems to be combative. For those reasons I'm going to request that other editors take a closer look at your contributions. I hope you understand. nagualdesign 23:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
For any editors trying to make sense of all this, it may be worth referring to the map at Hydrothermal vent#Distribution based on the InterRidge ver.3.3 database, which I have linked to show the deepest lying vents first. As you can see, there are at least 26 known vent fields at or below a depth of 4 km (abyssopelagic). Despite what 'Profesor' Ainundil is saying, we have verifiable information from a reliable source that hydrothermal vent fields have been found ranging from 5,800 m deep all the way up to the ocean surface. Focussing solely on vent fields of the mid-ocean ridges they still range from 10 m deep down to 5,100 m, the deepest of which being in the Galapagos Rift, the subject of the contested Nature article (the shallowest vent field within the Galapagos Rift is the Eye of Mordor Seamount at just 1,555 m). Make of that what you will. Personally, I'd like to see Ainundil's credentials as "Geoloigist Profesor in the Univeristy", since I suspect he may be telling porkies and I can't abide lie-tellers, but I'll keep my pointing finger in my pocket for the time being. nagualdesign 03:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- Having taken some advice on this I have again reverted your latest edits.[6][7][8] Please do not restore the material without further discussion. Pinging previous contributors to those articles: @Tom.Reding, Rhinopias, Epipelagic, M layman, In ictu oculi, Rrburke, Fmadd, Mashaunix, Oshwah, Materialscientist, Nyttend, Cwmhiraeth, RN1970, DavGxyz, Junosoon, Snek01, Shaded0, Cirriphilia, JWNoctis, Wiae, DeniedClub, Josqu, Arjayay, RN1970, Dawnseeker2000, Finlay McWalter, Fama Clamosa, Magioladitis, Giraffedata, Thelistofgenerals, Ifnord, Serols, Atvelonis, TheDoormouse, SignOfTheShadow, DocWatson42, Ogress, Nbarth, Ragityman, and Entranced98: Would some of you please take a look at Ainundil's recent edits and the discussion above and weigh in. I don't know enough about oceanography to make a call one way or the other, and Ainundil appears to have copious amounts of references to cite. If he's right then there's something very wrong with Hydrothermal vents and the references it cites. Thank you in advance. nagualdesign 06:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- First - I'm not a native English speaker. You have the right and the duty to doubt about anything.
- Second -About the citation "Deep-sea primary production at the Galapagos hydrothermal vents" I send you the link to read it(at least you can rear its abstract). http://science.sciencemag.org/content/207/4437/1345. The fact that Galapagos Rift, studied in this article is at 2,550 m deep is crucial. This citation is used to prove that vents exist in Abyssal zone (more than 4000m), but at 2,550 is the bathypelagic zone 1000 to 4000m; hence this reference is not suitable for the Abyssal zone article. Was a mistake in my firs correction to say that are no vents in Abyssal zone, but the discussed reference is not about abyssal zones. I added new references that are about this zone at Pelagic zone article, that can be used for the Abyssal zone article.
- Thirth - Yes duplication was an error. I pretend duplicate the references in the text not in the bibliography, because vents exist either in bathypelagic zone and in the Abyssal zone and cited articles talk about both zones.
- Forth - I don't understand the contradiction. (Maybe the redaction can be impruved) Trenches and rifts are totally different things. volcanic activity occurs at rifts in mid ocean ridges in Bathyal and Abyssal zone. Hadal zone or Hadopelagic zone, is located in the ocean trenches, and there are not volcanic or hydrothermal activity there. You can verify this fact in any geology text book or serious web pages. Also you can read the wikipedia articles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-ocean_ridge, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceanic_trench.
- Five - You have discovered that the article "Hydrothermal vent#Black smokers and white smokers" must be corrected also, because there is no "Hadal spreading centers". First it contradicts all the scientific articles and books that exist (also it contradicts itself). In fact, deepest hydrothermal vent is at 4,960 m deep, (news.nationalgeographiclivescience.com) this fact is cited in the wikipedia article; Hadal zone is below 6,000 m!!, but this and other articles says that there are vents in hadal zones... !!!! .... Second, you cannot use another Wikipedia article to prove you are right, as wikipedia is not a reliable source. I added some of scientific references that you and other editors can read. The mistake about hadal zones/trenches and vents are everywere in wikipedia, and in the web. If you search in internet about vents and trenches/hadal zones you can find a lot of websites (sadly with wikipedia at first place), however, if you use Google Scholar or if you read a geology book, you will not find any article or book talking about vents or hyothermal activity in trenches or hadal zones.
- Sixth - I sincerely hope that you and other editors take a closer look at my contributions. I don't have fear to a serious analysis, and I aware of my writing errors, but, I hope that you and other editors seriously study the real cientific material in order to correct this scientific misconceptions. You can read my references or in any serious book in your library or talk to any expert in your local university. My professional authority is nos relevant. This is cience, facts are relevant, and you can verify the facts if you study. But if you wana contact me: pnunez@fcien.edu.uy, https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Pablo_Nunez_Demarco
- Thank you for your response. I'll respond to each of the points you made by number:
- Since English is not your first language I suggest you make edit requests on article talk pages, where other users can copy-edit your work before adding your contributions to article space.
- I read the abstract, thank you. As I mentioned above, the abstract may not cover everything, and the mentioning of one particular depth in the opening paragraph may be irrelevant. As also noted above, the InterRidge Vents Database shows that vent fields within the Galapagos Rift alone vary from 1,555 meters to as deep as 5,100 meters.
- The duplication was among the least of the problems, as...
- ..the part that you had duplicated - "Many organisms live in hydrothermal vents in this and other zones." - contradicted the other part that you had added - "There is a common misconception that there is vulcanism or hidrothermal activity in this region..." - and I'm not sure how I can make this any more obvious. In case you didn't realize, that was the edit you made to Pelagic zone. Also, just because a particular textbook says that there are vents in one region it does not follow that there are no vents in differing regions. In fact, as I've already stated, according to the InterRidge Vents Database there are vents at every depth down to 5,800 meters. If you wish to contend that the source is unreliable then we can discuss that, but first you ought to click the link and read the data yourself.
- Again, there is nothing wrong with the references at Hydrothermal vent as far as I can tell. It seems like you simply haven't read them, despite multiple attempts on my part to steer you in that direction. The sentence in Hadal zone that you seem to have a problem with is, "Most life at this depth is sustained by marine snow or the chemical reactions around thermal vents..", but there are indeed vents in the deep ocean trenches at least as far down as 5,800 meters. You would argue that it isn't below 6 kilometres so is therefore not hadopelagic, others might argue that the definition of hadopelagic is "the deepest region of the ocean lying within oceanic trenches" and has less to do with specific depths. It could also mean that chemical reactions around thermal vents in the waters above provide nutrients in the hadal zones. I suggest that you discuss these things at Talk:Hydrothermal vent before editing that article.
- I really have no wish to drag you through the mud, but you don't exactly inspire me with confidence either. You were the one who claimed to be a university professor, which I agree is irrelevant, or at least less important than verifiable facts. I have a strong feeling that you have read a few books and those books are probably outdated, since the scientific study of the ocean depths is ongoing, and I dare say that more knowledge has been gained about the subject in the past 10 years than in the previous.. well, forever. Science books go out of date pretty fast. I know this as I have read a great deal, and have often found myself stopping to check the publication date when an author isn't quite up to speed on current findings. The fact that you think the deepest vents are at 4,960 m but our source says 5,800 m tells me that the source is probably more up-to-date. In fact it wouldn't surprise me at all if even deeper vents have been discovered in the past few months.
- As far as moving forward with this, I'd like you to at least read everything discussed here in full, and look through some of the links provided before responding. And I think it may be for the best if we wait for an uninvolved editor to weigh in. I hope that's okay with you. nagualdesign 09:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)