User talk:Vsmith/Archive17

Archive 17 - 07/01/10 -

Robert Boyle

How can someone who died in 1691, 110 years before the Kingdom of Ireland, his birth place, joined United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in 1801 be British? Born in Ireland with it linking to Kingdom of Ireland would be the correct way of solving this content dispute. Also looking at the talk page consensus appears to go with the Irish solution thanks.Mo ainm~Talk 22:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

What I saw was an ip removing sourced info with no edit summary in explanation. Looking now at the history of the article I see edit warring by anons. So I've just semi-protected it. If consensus is shown to exist at talk, the change can be made. Vsmith (talk) 22:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the edition of Canary Islands wikipedia page.

Hello,

I have seen that you undid my changes in the Canary Islands English page at wikipedia. For your information, I am just removing some dead links (in order to match with the wikipedia quality standards) and correcting some mistakes in the information offered by that page. I am doing this according to the information read in Spanish-equivalent page:

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canarias

I am also making more accurate some nuances according to the Spanish page in wikipedia talking about the History of the Canary Islands:

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historia_de_Canarias

I would like to make use of this opportunity to correct the wrong information about the province of Las Palmas, where it literally says "(known as "Las Palmas de Gran Canaria", as the "GC" indicates on the local license plates)". This is a very common mistake, since Las Palmas de Gran Canaria is the Capital of the Province of Las Palmas and Capital of the island of Gran Canaria. But this province has one unique name, which is "Las Palmas". This province is composed by the islands of Gran Canaria, Lanzarote and Fuerteventura, and it's capital is Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, located in Gran Canaria.

Last, but not least, I would like to know, out of curiosity, which are the sources that does not match with the information I was trying to update.

Thanks in advance for your attention.

Yours faithfully

Rojsensimars (talk) 12:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for your explanation of your edit. Your edit appeared on my watchlist with "(Tag: references removed)" indicating removal of references by a new user. I checked and verified that refs had been removed - those with "ref name=..." were used also in other places in the page and their removal caused problems in the reference section. Also, you did not include an edit summary indicating what you were doing or why.

Now if you proceed again, please be sure your edits don't result in "red error messages" in the ref section and include an edit summary describing your actions or refer to a talk page discussion of the problem (and discuss on talk). Your above comment would be more "effective" on the article talk page - I'd suggest you add it there. Proceed with caution, thanks. Vsmith (talk) 12:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

About a biased page

Hello again,

I would like to know how to report officially the biasing of a page and that its content has been manipulated to offer only partial and interested information.

Thank you in advance.

Yours faithfully,

Rojsensimars (talk) 06:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Depends, what article? Canary Islands? I see User:Leirus has noted possible problems there just last week, is there a connection?

I'd suggest commenting on the talk page first and if there are no objections, then simply edit the article carefully - maybe small changes first. Use edit summaries and preview your edits prior to saving.

Try posting on a Wikipedia project page, see the banners at the top of Talk:Canary Islands for links. See: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spain and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa.

If something else, see WP:Dispute resolution. Vsmith (talk) 12:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

About Vedic Calculation Article

Hi Mr. VSmith! Pls have a look at the matter, I wanted to insert in the said article by the medium of the PDF link. http://sites.google.com/site/vinaymangal/VedicTimeTravel.pdf U'll find it most relevant to the topic. Pls let me know how I can add it in relevant pages —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinaymangal (talk • contribs) 12:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:COI and WP:SOCK. We don't promote our own stuff on Wikipedia. Using an ip to re-add or revert removals will get you blocked. Vsmith (talk) 12:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I understood it well Mr Smith! I have started a page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vinaymangal/Vedic_time_travel for making the same table in Wiki Table Format. Can you help in getting the format right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinaymangal (talk • contribs) 13:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Mr Smith! Can u pls help in above context.. tnx Vinay —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinaymangal (talk • contribs) 07:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

First you need independent verifiable sources. Simply adding a link to your own PDF file won't satisfy that. You may need to create two or three separate tables to include the other parts of your PDF table and avoid complexity. I have little experience in using wikitable format for complex tables. Sorry 'bout that. Vsmith (talk) 12:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

July 2010

Vsmith, Although one of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view, I would like to remind you not to undo other people's edits, as you did to the page Jewellery, without explaining why in an edit summary. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Your changes to the article Jewellery go against the Manual of Style. Your unjustified reversion of my contribution to the article reinstated grammatical errors and inconsistencies. Before I went to the effort of fixing the article, it was littered with CE/BCE terminology, even though a lot of the dates had already been written as AD/BC, which is the more encyclopaedic way anyway. Please stop interfering and see WP:AGF. (Huey45 (talk) 00:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC))

Heh...thanks anyway, but I'm well aware of all that rules stuff - and sorry 'bout the lack of explanation. As noted this time, you changed BCE in an image title to BC rendering it invalid - please check the effects of your changes. Vsmith (talk) 01:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

You are lazy and negligent. You should have just left the article alone in its corrected state. Your comment about being "stable with BCE since at least fall 2007" is wrong anyway, since some dates were written as BCE but the rest were BC/AD. If you're not prepared to make helpful contributions, then it would be best for you to just leave things alone.(Huey45 (talk) 01:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC))

Thank you for your kind comments. And thank you for finally not messing up that image title in your partial revert. I'll leave the BCE/BC stuff for others. Please read WP:NPA and WP:AGF Vsmith (talk) 02:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Plate tectonics 2

Plate tectonics is not semi protected anymore, I think it is a mistake. Volcano still is, and it has similar hits per day. I think it should have at least pending changes on it. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 05:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It's on my watchlist (and on many other's lists as well) and if vandal edits get too numerous it can be semi'd again. The pending changes thingy is a trial on selected articles and I don't think this was on the list - if the pending changes trial is deemed successful (another month?) then other articles will be added I presume. Vsmith (talk) 14:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I hope pending changes is successful. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 14:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Spam stuff

I would be grateful if you explain why my external links addition (Virtual Museum of Patagonian Fossils) to a few Wikipedia pages (Fossil, Ammonite, Ammonoidea, Petrified wood), have been today removed as spam. Yours, Damián Zanette

Dhzanette (talk) 01:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

When a user adds links to the same site to several articles the spam alarm dings. If it had just showed up on one article on my watchlist ... might have been ok(?). And the site is in Spanish. Do you have a connection to the website in question? or just like it? Vsmith (talk) 02:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt response. I realize now why my link additions looked ad spam.

I am the creator of the Virtual Museum of Patagonian Fossils (you can give a look to my personal website at http://sites.google.com/site/dhzanette/), and I still think that it may be of interest for those that read some of the Wikipedia paleontology articles. Being mainly an image collection, the fact that my site is in Spanish should be of relative importance. Besides, it would not be the first link to a site in Spanish from an English Wikipedia article, not to mention the hosts of English speaking people who also understand Spanish.

I will be grateful if you consider undoing the link removal. Thank you.

Dhzanette (talk) 12:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your openness. To put it quite simply, we don't promote our own stuff on Wikipedia. I may take a look at your site later. One option would be to upload (donate) some of your image files to commons for direct use in Wiki articles. Vsmith (talk) 13:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The Real Global Warming Disaster

You reverted an edit without providing a reason.[1] You asked that it be taken to the talk page, but I already did.[2] Can you please self-revert and participate in the discussion that I initiated? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

A "new editor" was repeatedly altering content, my edit summary was an invite for the new editor to discuss the issue - and yes, I could have worded it better. I still see nothing from that editor on talk. I'm of the opinion that when an edit is rejected, the proper response is to take it to talk. The "new editor" in question hasn't. As for the talk page discussion, I think User:Hamiltonstone has summed up the situation very well there. Vsmith (talk) 03:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am well aware that Hamiltonstone is defending what is arguably WP:OR. However, if I recall correctly, you are an admin and should know better. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

This "new editor" is quite obviously an old friend. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Boris. AQFK, are you concerned that "very critical" is too mild - and that some direct quotes from Ball should be used instead? Or just water things down to meaninglessness... And I'm not acting as an admin there - so how is what I "should know better" relevant. Vsmith (talk) 03:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm concerned about WP:OR. I would think that's pretty obvious given the title of the talk discussion that I started. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, obvious. Vsmith (talk) 13:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Meaning what, exactly? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Meaning that it is obvious what your stated concern is - exactly that and no more. Vsmith (talk) 13:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

If you're saying that you agree with me, then don't be obtuse and just plainly say that you agree with me. There's no need to be cryptic. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

No. Vsmith (talk) 13:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

If you're going to be cryptic, I'm done. Have a good day. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Vsmith (talk) 13:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Moles Chemistry page

Hi. I am new here, and I was one of the guy that tried to undo the vandalism on the mole chemistry wikipage. Anyhow, can you teach me the revert funtion? I guess the undo function would have worked, since the vandalism was the last guy editing it... Let me know which stuff I did not do right in trying to rectify the Avogadro's number so I can learn for my next edit somewhere else. And I am guessing this is like a sort of forum like PM in wikipedia to communicate with other Wikiusers. Flowright138 (talk) 12:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

First - thanks for fixing the vandalism that you caught. What I do in cases like that is check previous edits by the same user, either through the page history or through the user contribution link on the user's talk page. In the mole page incident, I just clicked the page history link and observed that the ip had made two edits - so I checked the first edit and found it to be vandalism also. And, yes talk pages are for discussing articles and activities concerning Wikipedia content. Vsmith (talk) 12:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Sweet - Cheers for the heads up! I will be under your care! (just learnt to indent text) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flowright138 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Opinion request

Would you please weigh in at the Examples discussion at Talk:Fringe theory? Thank you. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Noted and acted ... watching. Vsmith (talk) 23:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I noticed you warned me on my Talk Page, but not Tom - who reverted again. I won't revert him back, but is there a double standard here? I am asking this in good faith, and not accusing. It just seems odd that you singled me out when (as they say) "it takes 2 to edit war."Smatprt (talk) 00:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

At the time of my "warning", you had just reverted - so I thought I'd leave a cautionary note. Now I've just removed an edit involving some references that had been questioned on the talk page ... and the edit seemed rather "misplaced" in that paragraph as the debate is not settled. Was the addition of that content a revert of previous content? And, you're probably right that I should also caution "Tom" as well. Vsmith (talk) 01:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Um...only 1 of those refs had been questioned. Thus I supplied 3 new refs to purely academic sources. Yes - it was previous content that had been removed due to a question about that ref - which is why I supplied the 3 new and better ones. Does that make sense? In any case, I opened a new section about the addition, as well as the 3 new refs, so I'm happy to see where the discussion goes. Would you mind looking in at those comments and references as well? It's the last section called "SAQ Placement". Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 01:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, will look. Vsmith (talk) 01:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Disparate treatment

Why is it good enough for Clarence Thomas but not Bill Clinton?166.137.8.217 (talk) 02:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

No clue. Vsmith (talk) 02:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Me neither.108.18.185.163 (talk) 03:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Scientific support for Multi-Regional Theory of Human Evolution & the independent evolution of the Chinese from Homo Erectus

Dear Vsmith,

Thank you for your good faith edits!

It is tempting to simply dismiss the new peer reviewed scientific evidence that contradicts the previously accepted "out of Africa" theory of human evolution where, supposedly, all humans were descended from the same group of Homo Sapien ancestors and which subsequently gives "strong support" in favor of an independent East Asian origin of a separate archaic branch or separate species of humans, the modern day Chinese people. But unfortunately, the reality of human evolution during the past 4 billions of life on our planet Earth is not as clear cut as the "out of Africa" theory attempts to address it. The "out of Africa" theory tries to say that "ALL" humans are descended from the same group of anatomically modern "Cro Magnon" or Homo Sapien Sapiens and while some of the older previous studies did initially seem to support that theory, those studies were not all inclusive and did not test many aspects of human genetics and evolution. But within the last few years, new genetic evidence has been discovered as a result of numerous scientific studies that have been conducted which lend a strong support for the theory that the modern Chinese people, or conservatively, a subpopulation of the Chinese gene pool are descended NOT from anatomically modern African Homo Sapiens like other humans on Earth, but rather that they are the product of a separate evolutionary lineage going back at least 1.8 million - 2 million years ago to Homo Erectus in East Asia. And that the modern Chinese people today are not necessarily classified as "Homo Sapien," but more accurately they could be classified as a highly evolved anatomically modern form of Homo Erectus. You must remember that regardless of whether we are talking about Homo Neanderthalensis or Homo Erectus that we are talking about human beings. And even though they are a classified as a separate species of human beings, nothing can take away their "humanity," for if one of them were dressed up in a modern day suit, they would still be recognized as "humans."

I am a scientist and I would like to introduce to you the peer reviewed scientific evidence supporting a separate independent evolution of the modern Chinese people from an archaic species of Homo Erectus.

Please watch these links:

1.) Scientific evidence from the Chinese Academy of Sciences
2.) All Non Africans Living Today Are Part Neanderthal
3.) New evidence that Neanderthals interbred with Humans

Adding further support to the Multi-regional theory of human evolution are the recent DNA discoveries that anatomically modern African Homo Sapiens interbred with Homo Neanderthalensis or the Neanderthal man, in direct contradiction to the thesis of the "out of Africa" theory which specifically states that Homo Sapien did not interbred with Homo Neanderthalensis and that the Neanderthal simply "went extinct." Which has now been shown in peer reviewed scientific studies to be untrue, and that the Homo Sapien and Homo Neanderthalensis did indeed interbreed with each other. These studies are additionally supported by previous archaeological finds that show skeletons of humans who show hybrid morphological and anatomical traits of both species of humans, both Homo Sapiens and Homo Neanderthalensis.

Please read the following evidence:

1.) NewScientist Neanderthal genome reveals interbreeding with humans
2.) Archaic admixture in the human genome, Neanderthal genes in modern humans
3.) Signs of Neanderthals Mating With Humans
4.) Discovery News "Neanderthals, Humans Interbred, DNA Proves"
5.) USA Today Neanderthals and humans interbred, fossils indicate
6.) BBC "Neanderthals 'mated with modern humans'"
7.) Official report Neanderthal/Homo Sapien interbred
8.) Cosmos Humans and Neanderthals interbred, according to our anatomy
9.) Neanderthals live on in DNA of humans

Below I have provided the results of scientific DNA studies that provide strong irrefutable support for an independent origin of the Chinese from Homo Erectus. These scientific studies have both been published in peer reviewed scientific journals and are well received by the scientific community. Please take some time to read them and feel free to ask me any questions regarding human evolution.

1.)Genetics Society of America's Genetics Journal, "Testing for Archaic Hominin Admixture on the X Chromosome: Model Likelihoods for the Modern Human RRM2P4 Region From Summaries of Genealogical Topology Under the Structured Coalescent" by Murray P. Cox, Fernando L. Mendez, Tatiana M. Karafet, Maya Metni Pilkington, Sarah B. Kingan, Giovanni Destro-Bisol, Beverly I. Strassmann and Michael F. Hammer.

2.)Oxford University's Oxford Journals, Evidence for Archaic Asian Ancestry on the Human X Chromosome by Daniel Garrigan, Zahra Mobasher, Tesa Severson, Jason A. Wilder and Michael F. Hammer

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.251.209 (talk) 03:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

You're most welcome. However, your arguments likely would be better made on the article talk page. Vsmith (talk) 03:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Climate

Stop your vandalism, please, or I will refer to the Administration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.161.5.250 (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Tanzanite

Why reference to jewelinfo4u.com as external site for tanzanite images are spam? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samdanielblr (talk • contribs) 16:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Because it is a commercial, promotional site. Please see WP:Spam. Vsmith (talk) 17:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Currently a (retired) "torturer of teenagers"

It's a wonder all my teachers aren't that cynical...ResMar 03:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Cynical? Yeah, guilty ... after 25 years of "forcing" students to use non-existent math skills in chemistry problem solving. One student after surviving my freshman physical science class - avoided taking chemistry to preserve her GPA (graduated top in her class) even tho she planned a career in nursing and radiology. Wonder if she enjoyed college chem? Vsmith (talk) 14:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Article Plagiarization

Would you mind either blocking this user or somehow stopping him from making changes to the page Hanadama? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanadama

User "PearlEducation" is consistently making the same change to the page, placing information on the page that is not true, but designed to further the claims made by him on his website, americanpearl.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by JPShepherd (talk • contribs) 18:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

He is also doing to the same thing to the page, Hanadama Pearls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JPShepherd (talk • contribs) 18:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

InternetHero

Thanks for blocking him. He's said on my talk page he will get a sock puppet if he's blocked, by the way. Dougweller (talk) 05:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Our friend

I agree. I note the timing is right too. SPI time? Dougweller (talk) 04:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it, do you want the honors? My internet connection is lousy today - took 3+ minutes just to load the edit screen for this section ... access thru Hughsnet, maybe my satellite dish is dirty or bees have occupied the sensor again. But think big ... solar flare messin' w/ the satellite. Now I hope the edit will save. Vsmith (talk) 01:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Didn't do it, but maybe it isn't needed right now. Dougweller (talk) 13:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. My system is back online -- but kinda busy around here [real world] now so won't be doing much [on Wiki] for a bit. Vsmith (talk) 03:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Deserts

WikiProject DESERTS invitation Hello Vsmith! I noticed your contributions to Sahara, and thought you might be interested in WikiProject Deserts, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of deserts of the world and their features. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks! Farjad0322 (talk|contribs) 22:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Headstone

I have reverted your edit at headstone - Like you I too initially thought it was spamming but then took the time to look at the link that you removed. I soon realised it is in fact quite a helpful guide to stone types. The document it refers to must be at least 40 years old and have no commercial value by now. The editor has also added everal other useful historical guides. I have explained this to the other editor. Ephebi (talk) 11:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Explained things on User talk:Quarry historian. Vsmith (talk) 20:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not spamming!

Vsmith, the page Rock magnetism keeps showing up on the potential spam list (e.g., Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam/COIReports/2010,_Sep_11) because my user name nearly matches the title of the page. Is there any way I can stop this from happening? Or should I even care? RockMagnetist (talk) 21:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a list added to by a bot, don't think it's anything to worry about - just name similarity. If a live editor hassles you about it, tell 'em to come chat with me. Or you could introduce yourself to the bot manager, User:Beetstra - methinks he's a reasonable chap. - or see that black box at the top of his talk page. ... Keep up the good work, Vsmith (talk) 01:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I decided to introduce myself. RockMagnetist (talk) 03:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

the Public Policy Initiative Assessment Team wants You!

Hi Vsmith,

I saw some of your contributions on an article that falls within the scope of Wikiproject: United States Public Policy, and I was hoping you would be interested in assessing articles with the Public Policy Initiative. I have a science background too and would appreciate another scientific voice on the project, especially in assessment. There is more info about assessment on the 9/13/2010 Signpost. If you're interested or just curious you can sign up on the project page or just contact me. Thanks! ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 22:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... the pages linked above present a confused message and the Wikimedea link doesn't work. The United States Public policy project would seem to cover WP articles about US Public Policy, but the story I get from visiting the links above seem more concerned with helping professors teach or students write WP articles. So, come back when you-all can present a less confused message. Vsmith (talk) 23:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

MN copyvio?

Hi. Can I draw your attention to Talk:Echoes_of_Life:_What_Fossil_Molecules_Reveal_about_Earth_History and the discussion of possible copyvio there by MN? I've tried to discuss this with him but he has been his usual incivil self, so some kind of escalation is required. Thanks William M. Connolley (talk) 20:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Another inappropriate canvassing attempt? These are really mounting up. Fell Gleaming^talk 20:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm...perhaps the problem was caused by the fact that you began the discussion without explaining how the edit was a copyright violation and your unnecessary focus on the contributor and not the content. In fact, both of you are guilty of that in that thread. This is a nice example of how editors should not interact with one another.

BTW, isn't WP:CP the proper venue for escalation? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

BTW: That dispute was only one hour and 17 minutes long before WMC came running to an admin.[3][4] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow - camp followers? First, I'm the admin that issued the copyvio block last spring and second I was on that page - fixed the spelling of Kreibs at 19:45, 23 September 2010. So there was a reason for asking me about it. Then just after saving that edit the world called and I went offline for a bit (about 2 hrs). Now, the content under discussion is a rather close paraphrase and I was checking it when life interrupted. So I'll go back to that talk and comment there. And it would be helpful if the unhelpful kibbitser crowd exit my talk page - go improve an article, I have a distaste for drahma hounds. Vsmith (talk) 22:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Since from looking at this no one told you, the block has been removed and you were declared an involved administrator. I thought you have the right to know this. You can see it at Mark Nutley's talk page. For the record, his talk page is on my watch list. --CrohnieGal^Talk 23:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Heh, thanks. Seems some admins are lacking in common courtesy. Yes, I'm aware of the unblock and have commented on the unblocking admins talk. Ah well, I should just stick to adding content and blocking vandals ... don't really need the drama stress. Thanks again. Vsmith (talk) 23:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, thanks for your help. I'm sorry that other admins don't have quite the same level of courtesy. Best, William M. Connolley (talk) 07:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• This matter is being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision#This_should_be_brought_to_the_arbitrators_attentions . . dave souza, talk 22:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, just got back online and noticed that. I've been avoiding that quagmire ... but, aw well. The block I made (good, bad or otherwise) was totally unrelated. Thanks for the note though. Vsmith (talk) 22:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Good thinking, it is rather a swamp. We await the outcome with trepidation. . . dave souza, talk 22:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

There are too many swamps here, but clarity is all. I may have taken a different view if you had linked in your block to [this] or even [this], but even so, those are old links and we aren't all up with current events. It's debatable whether you are involved, but it seems that you made content-based edits to the article, and that should bar you from blocking, at least without seeking a third opinion. Perhaps I should also have done the same, but I saw it as involvement. AN review is always there for contentious cases. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 23:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. Yes, I most likely should have provided more info and would gladly have had you asked. I was actually thinking of posting the block on WP:AN for review or comment, but life interrupted and your unblock occurred before I got to it. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 23:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• - As you appear to be overly involved in this area please do not use your tools in the climate change area, especially in a blocking manner, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 20:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

"...overly involved...? And just what does a book about organic geochem have to do with climate change? And what brought you here now ~ 2 weeks after the fiasco? And who are you that you should care? All sorts of questions here :) And, no I have no intention of admin action in the cc area. Vsmith (talk) 21:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Just came across the issues after looking a users contributions, I appreciate your declaration, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Previously Blocked User talk:38.97.5.250

You have previously blocked this user, I don't know the protocol for blocking again. He is making further disruptive edits again. Thanks for your help as an Admin. QuAzGaA 21:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Geology

Noticed you added some references to the Magnet Cove page. Any particular interest in that area? -- Riffsyphon1024 (talk) 15:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I like weird rocks :) I have a copy of the USGS Prof Paper and may expand the article ... sometime... Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 18:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I visited the site in 2006 and have been trying to get a copy of the Erickson and Blade paper. It's likely inspired me to want to study weird rocks for my career. :) -- Riffsyphon1024 (talk) 19:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I got bit by the weird rock bug in grad school - alkali intrusives, carbonatites, fenites as well as layerd intrusives, Bushveld and Sudbury etc. My thesis advisor had worked on the Bushveld for his dissertation. But I got sidetracked by skarns (weird rocks) and porphyry copper systems, weird in their own way. Anyway, good luck on your weird rock career plan. I got my copy of Erikson and Blade on ebay a few years ago - great source for finding unusual books or do a search on bookfinder.com - may be pricey though. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 21:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, most of the rare stuff nowadays has to be obtained through the internet. Would also like to look into the Bushveld Complex and Sudbury district (the latter actually an oblique impact crater). I am also familiar with copper units, checking out amygloidal belts in Upper Michigan, and skarns interest me along the boundaries of the igneous intrusive units. Thanks for your perspective and see you around Wikipedia, or in the real world. Denver is just around the corner. :D -- Riffsyphon1024 (talk) 06:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Apology

Hi, I'm sorry for mentioning you at the arbitration case about Climate change and not telling you. I did plan to but I got called away from my computer for awhile and when I returned I noticed at the PD talk page that you were already commenting. I did put an apology there too. Sorry, --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem, although I try to ignore most of it (sanity and all that) I do have it watchlisted and had noted it. Although I'd prefer to avoid the drama fest - I knew that block would likely drag me into the quagmire ... so not unexpected. Apology accepted anyway - thanks, Vsmith (talk) 21:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, it is important to me about the apology, so I very much appreciate you accepting it. I also agree about what you say about this. I had it watch listed but I saw things that after I looked and followed all the dif, I had to respond as an outsider. I have had the sanction board on my watch list since it started, along with talk pages from both sides so I've seen what has gone on. I have to admit this case has been a big learning experience for me, so whatever happens with this case, I will at least feel something positive happened. Thanks again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Show-hide box at half-life

You made this edit to delete this show-hide box which you said is "non-working". Could you be more specific? Do you see the box at all? Does it not "show"? Does it not "hide"?

It works fine for me.

I can solicit advice at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) for how to make it work properly if there's some wrong setting. Thanks! --Steve (talk) 17:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm - just undid my previous as now it works fine. Before when I clicked "show" the page reloaded - not sure what I did wrong ... ?? Maybe it was just too late and I should've gone to bed. Sorry 'bout that, Vsmith (talk) 21:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

OK thanks! Have a good day. :-) --Steve (talk) 23:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

RE: pH

The intent of today's edits to pH was to put the most relevant (to myself and presumably many) users first. As a teacher of middle school students I find that unless what they need, or at least a hint of what they need, comes soon they will not venture on. I feel the pH article needs an introduction including the most relevant information and not a quick dive in logarithmic mathematics. Ylnats (talk) 03:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC) Stanly Martin

Went back and took a look. Decided to shift the basic info up from the end of the lead section to near the top and make the pH/p[H] discussion a second paragraph. Hopefully that helps. No guarantee that someone else won't undo it though, that's the wikiway. Cheers. Vsmith (talk) 13:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. Thanks. 17:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.55.215.1 (talk)

WP:Volcanoes

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Volcanoes, Volcanoguy asks: "if mines within volcanics should be included". I do not have a problem with volcanic pipes, stub quality level, start quality level. Copper minning in flood basalts is more of a problem, I think. Would u like to throw ur two cents? Thx. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 19:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Changes rollback question

Hello,

I'd like to discuss your changes (rollback) to my external links. They were put into appropriate categories and these links are not leading to commercial/promotional web sites and I just can't understand why you are removed them.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mphoer (talk • contribs) 13:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:EL. When I see external links added to multiple articles by one user which simply add links to image sites the WP:Spam alarm goes off. We just don't need such links to image sites. Please also read WP:COI - not saying you have a conflict of interest, just that yyou should be aware of the page. Vsmith (talk) 13:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Revert edits

Just an FYI, I opened an investigation[5] in case you with to comment. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Email

Hello, I sent you an email. There was a little problem sending it, so please let me know if you got it. It has to do with your discipline of study, and I hope you don't mind. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

E-mail received - will respond later (need more coffee now). Vsmith (talk) 11:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Decimals - American vs European notation

Vsmith, a recent editor of Earth's magnetic field apparently fell prey to a confusion between the American and European styles of decimal notation. To a European, the number 3,450 would be about three and a half. Do you know of any Wikipedia policy that addresses potential sources of confusion like this? RockMagnetist (talk) 13:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Bloomin' furriners, why don't they write 3·45? As a Yerpean myself, the version with the comma reads as three thousand four hundred and fifty, 3,45 would just be puzzling. Fortunately, the common British (and American) usage is sanctioned by MOSNUM so this part of Yerp along with our former colonies wins. Will leave the magnetic battles to yourselves, hope that assists, dave souza, talk 14:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Dave. It was surprising that there was confusion in this case where a date was specified using a {{Ma}} template that points to a geological time scale. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The IP in question was from Sweden and I've found in the past that not all non UK europeans are familiar with the comma as a thousands delimiter, but it's not normally a problem if you point out the link that Dave provided. Mikenorton (talk) 16:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, have tried out the template and it does indeed add a comma, perhaps it could be persuaded to use a thinspace giving the format "3 450 million years ago". Beyond my technical capabilities, so guess we'll have to keep pointing people to MOSNUM. . . . dave souza, talk 19:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Dave n Mike got that while I was awol (off celebratin the Missus' birthday :). I agree with Dave that the thinspace thingy would be preferable for science & tech articles. Haven't played with the {{Ma}} template ... seems a sci/tech thinspace version could be created, ... Vsmith (talk) 21:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Wish her a happy birthday from the Wikipedia folks! I passed the thinspace suggestion on to Template talk:Ma. Thanks for all of the comments. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

However, this quote from Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Delimiting (grouping of digits) should be kept in mind: "note: the thin space character and its HTML entity,  , do not render correctly on some browsers or on screen readers used by visually impaired people."

Hmm... gaps works for me (Opera) {{gaps|4|500|000|000}} 4500000000 ... wasn't aware of that before. Wonder which some browsers they're referring to? Or was that not for gaps? Comparison follows shift left...←

4500000000 gaps compared with

4 500 000 000 spaces

Vsmith (talk) 01:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

That is a subtle difference! RockMagnetist (talk) 02:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Reverted edits / Topomapper.com

Topomapper.com is one of the largest online accessible topographic map collections, mainly soviet military maps. Actually I am not aware of any other online viewer with a seamless worldwide coverage of topographic maps up to a scale of 1:100.000. For many countries in the second and the third world these maps are the best available map source. Please take some time and use the "Multiple Map View" to compare with maps from Google&Co. You will see much more cartographic information on the Russian military maps compared to Google,Yahoo,Bing, etc., especially in African and Asian countries. The page is free and there is nearly no advertising (just a very small link to a map store in the lower left corner). I hope you will recognize the significance of topomapper.com and undo the reverted edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gis-team (talk • contribs) 21:49, 4 November 2010

Please add content to Wikipedia articles rather than spamming external links. Do you have any connection to the site linked? I would suggest posting a note on the article talk pages and let the "regular editors" there decide if an external link is warranted. Vsmith (talk) 22:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the corrections!

I just wanted to thank you for your support on the revisions to the Sedimentary Rocks page and your corrections for my incorrect capitalization and headings. I should really apologize for overlooking the capitalization conventions, that is a mistake I will not make again! I have several other suggestions for this article and would like to continue to propose/make changes to it. Thanks for taking the time to help get me trained up and for helping me try to improve the article! Rygel, M.C. (talk) 14:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome and no problem, we're all learning here. Keep up the good work. Vsmith (talk) 03:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Promontory, Utah

I have been working on this page a lot longer than you. Your edit is non-constructive. You have not made a case as to why this information cannot be mentioned. The celebration at Promontory concluded the meeting of the railheads but at the time the transcontinental railroad was not fully coast-to-coast.

It's funny when I meet people like you on here, they always hit me with the same responses, it's unreferenced, has no sources, or POV. But all that demonstrates to me is that's it's all WP:IDL. Why? Because I never add anything that I have not verified myself. I know the rules. Took me all of 60 seconds to find these published sources making my point: here 1, here 2, 3 and here 4.

So what is your problem? You don't like the idea an registered IP can be right? That we're all dirty socks and vandals, huh? I am trying to contribute to an encyclopedia by adding information. What is your edit trying to achieve? Take a deep breath and move on, OK86.145.5.181 (talk) 13:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The article is about Promontory, Utah, a location in north Utah. The info you want to include is rather irrelevant to that article. It might be relevant in the Golden spike article about the ceremony itself, or the First Transcontinental Railroad article, but not this specific location article about the connecting of the two railroads. Please read WP:AGF and WP:OWN, from your edit history your first edit was at 13:28, 8 November 2010, so for all I know that's it. Vsmith (talk) 14:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The references you list above would provide great material for a Wikipedia article about the bridge itself or the history of the region. However, if you read the First Transcontinental Railroad article you'll see that other bridges in the east were also not completed at that time. "In 1873, the Union Pacific Missouri River Bridge opened and directly connected the East and West." Vsmith (talk) 14:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

DiamondAura

Thank you for placing that there, but someone keeps deleting it. As well, there is a comment someone made about they didn't think DiamondAura should be on the CZ page. The problem with that, is when you type in DiamondAura in the Search Box that's the page it forwards you to. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Str1Rck (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Removed as unsourced promotion. Doesn't belong in lead section. Perhaps the redirect needs to be changed or deleted. Vsmith (talk) 15:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you - looking into how to change the redirect.Str1Rck (talk) 15:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Temagami greenstone belt

I started a discussion on my talk page about this particular greenstone belt. Feel free to give your advice. Volcanoguy 09:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Stillwaterite

Hello Vsmith,

I am a geology student at UT Austin. Our project in Mineralogy class this semester is to choose a mineral and write a wikipedia article about it. I chose Stillwaterite.

I noticed that you edited the article, and I justed wanted to ask if you were the editor who deleted my information on the dangers of arsenic in arsenic-bearing minerals. If so, why?

I look forward to hearing back from you.

Thanks, Viaspeciale (talk) 18:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I removed it as unsourced and rather irrelevant general info in an article about a very rare arsenic bearing mineral - only reported from a half dozen geologic sites. If it is present in large concentrations in any of those areas and actively mined, then the arsenic if present in the waste rock would be of concern and should be included with specific references to reliable sources concerning its significance and/or dangers with regard to the specific mineral resource. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 18:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

How did u find out that Stillwaterite is being edited ??? --Chris.urs-o (talk) 18:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

That was a bit freaky :) User:Viaspeciale asked the question above and I took a new look to answer and made an edit - then noticed yours ... fun. Now, if you show up on merenskyite ... Vsmith (talk) 18:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Seriously :) I think it is better to know what the UT Austin, Mineralogy class is doing out there :) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 19:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Quite a few article creators there - makes you wonder how their prof is grading their work (when I keep "messing" with 'em :). Still quite a bit of clean-up needed and still discovering new ones. Vsmith (talk) 19:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Stillwaterite 2

I appreciate your response. I will let my professor know. Viaspeciale (talk) 23:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you would have your prof contact me - either here or by email, my email is enabled see the toolbox to the left. Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 23:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

UT Austin - Mineralogy class - Article creation on August-November 2010

A-B, (7 articles): Amarantite (User:Ij735), Amesite (User:Amullins27), Amicite (User:Jwellis89), Annite (User:Sncervantes), Apachite (User:Lindseygerman), Babefphite (User:Jnc225), Bayldonite (User:Jonkerz),

C-E, (11 articles): Chesterite (User:Jburke430), Christite (User:Tupoo), Cuprospinel (User:El Mayimbe), Curite (User:Gibsonc3), Cymrite (User:Kelhansard), Devilline (User:Ccolleps), Dyscrasite (User:Gabinho27), Edenite (User:T.Prather), Emmonsite (User:Ecfinkelman), Ericssonite (User:Friedshrimp007), Eveite (User:Berneynator),

F-J, (15 articles): Fettelite (User:Katiebales), Fluckite (User:Ecfinkelman), Fluoborite (User:Mcbob3692), Fluorapophyllite (User:Aceljuri), Frankamenite (User:Emilyfrank3), Gabrielite (User:Gabriel najer), Gananite (User:Sheik777), Geerite (User:Grant202), Gilalite (User:Giaznna), Goldmanite (User:Krys3275), Gormanite (User:Sirbrentski), Grandreefite (User:Molyru), Hagendorfite (User:Krys3275), Jolliffeite (User:Jhart2222), Jonesite (User:Jdm1989),

K-M, (22 articles): Kainosite-(Y) (User:Hellofpreta), Kamiokite (User:Kaitlin.Moran), Kanoite (User:Noahk90), Karlite (User:Hchristensen48), Keyite (User:Kslocum), Kochite (User:Beehaby), Kröhnkite (User:Jkkoen), Laplandite-(Ce) (User:Rania553), Leightonite (User:Frisbey8201), Liddicoatite (User:Strickja), Loveringite (User:Nessiecakes), Lulzacite (not logged in), Macdonaldite (User:Kelseyhornung), Madocite (User:Flecke), Malayaite (User:Aillemaco), Marialite (User:Mav967), Marrite (User:Marilyn.kohut), Marthozite (User:YazeedN3), Mendipite (User:Strickja), Metazeunerite (User:Anm2248), Minyulite (User:Smenouar), Mooihoekite (User:Vickywu28),

N-R, (14 articles): Nabalamprophyllite (User:Ecatlos), Naldrettite (User:Tim eischen), Nambulite (User:Vanessaforsyth), Nichromite (User:Lbf338), Pääkkönenite (User:Wonderartist), Perite (User:Jefficecold4), Phosphuranylite (User:Joelgdz3), Pinalite (User:Dmhattie), Pyroxmangite (User:Jocelynperroux), Quintinite (User:ZenArcade84), Rameauite (User:Ramutexas5), Raspite (User:Rshah1018), Roaldite (User:Rania553), Roselite (User:Rshah1018),

S-T, (22 articles): Sacrofanite (User:Ahmed omar31), Salzburgite (User:Jburke430), Sampleite (User:Geostud), Samuelsonite (User:Sbek78), Sarabauite (User:Sarahbrysoncoyle), Schäferite (User:Skibo112), Schröckingerite (Groundhogwilberwiever), Sewardite (User:Iwg75), Shandite (User:Slewis72), Simpsonite (User:Timothypool), Sincosite (User:Tmorton166), Skaergaardite (User:Mholin), Stellerite (User:GabbersBorealis), Stillwaterite (User:Viaspeciale), Studenitsite (User:TDong315), Suessite (User:Mm45883), Sweetite (User:Sms290), Switzerite (User:Vjs368), Tamarugite (User:Geogeoanrez), Tinaksite (User:Gatchgatch), Tsumebite (User:Strickja), Tyrrellite (User:Tyson549),

U-Z, (8 articles): Uvite (User:Hammondator), Vladimirite (User:Jacksavage3 ), Vlasovite (User:Strickja), Wakabayashilite (User:Zonenozw), Walfordite (User:Krys3275), Xilingolite (User:Doubrava), Zairite (User:Rshah1018), Zorite (User:Wonderartist)

User:Strickja and User:Geogeoanrez have article creations on August n November. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Great - more later. Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 16:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for linking -- now I have no 'scuse to avoid 'em :) Onward. Vsmith (talk) 04:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

YW, I love overviews. Things are complicated: Handbook of Mineralogy, c. 1900 names; List of minerals (complete), c. 4000 names; Category:Minerals by crystal system, c. 500 articles (with liquids and Category:Amorphous solids). --Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Added phosphuranylite - just ran accross it by accident, added in Sept. How many more?? And I see you've been updating/link fixing [list of minerals (complete)], thanks. Haven't done much with that since we created it back in 2005 (worked with User:Jolyonralph to import/wikify the list from Mindat) - no doubt needs more work to fix links and add new names. Guess I should compare with the current Mindat database list. Vsmith (talk) 15:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

YW. I checked all, maybe missed more than one, there are 99 new articles !!! The list is ok, u probably got the notable ones. Enormous list, wow, congrats, very helpful. Maybe the categories of minerals should get an overview. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 15:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

On the other side, some mineral names redirect to simple inorganic compounds as Molysite to Iron(III) chloride; Griceite (Lithium fluoride); Calomel (Mercury(I) chloride); Sinjarite (Calcium chloride); Cotunnite (Lead(II) chloride); Chlorite group: Clinochlore, Nimite, Pennantite, Baileychlore, Cookeite, Donbassite, Gonyerite, Odinite, Sudoite, Orthochamosite. I think it would be nice to have the formula or a sign in the list in this case. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Geerite got a notability template. If it is on the List of minerals F-J (complete) than it is notable enough, right ??? --Chris.urs-o (talk) 13:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Just expanded Geerite and rmv'd the templates. As for the chlorite variety redirects, I made those last week after noticing one variety (chamosite) had an article - some of the others likely need a separate article also, though they're not very "glamerous" for mineral collectors :) Chlinochlore and pennantite are quite common in metamorphic rocks and hydrothermal alteration. Don't think we need to start adding formulas to the "big list". As for the ones that redirect to chem articles, I think those perhaps should get on a priority list for articles - at least the more common ones. Always more to do, cheers. Vsmith (talk) 16:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thx, yeah, always more to do, cheers. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I am a Geology student and I made this wikipedia page for a project that is due tomorrow. I just talked to my professor and need to edit my version, so I will be undoing your version, but tomorrow you can revert back to the style you choose. Sorry for this inconvenience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindseygerman (talk • contribs) 22:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

How about telling your prof to look in the article history for your version. Vsmith (talk) 01:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Uluru

Uluru is owned by the Indigenous tribe around Uluru. It is their spiritual religious site. They own it now. They have always owned it.

It is unbelievable that you, a yank, would claim ownership of this knowledge and disrespect the local language group by supporting climbing of the rock.

You have no knowledge of the area and the culture. This section in wikipedia is missing vital information, and you do not have the critical ability to include appropriate and factual information.

It is unbelievable that the other person from Tennessee would say "most people are not Aboriginal" as though that is then okay to walk on their culture.

Had you visited Uluru, and if you even had a passport, you would know that the local clan is not well.

This naff section reads like a tour guide. Do you even know how many people choose not to climb Uluru? Look that up - it's common knowledge here.

Because you are not local, you also do not know which media outlets are worthy of quoting - don't you?

To enlighten you about what Uluru means to the traditional land owners: Uluru is like the Vatican, the White House, Pearl Harbour, your local church, etc.

Would you advocate drilling holes in those sites, putting a hand rail on them, and letting people walk over them and urinate on them?

That's what happens at Uluru - check your research - talk to some Indigenous Australians for a change.

It is not okay to walk on Uluru.

Your section says it is okay and that goes against the local culture.

Your section is biased, and shows a US viewpoint. You have not consulted Aboriginal Australians, and you do not care or understand why you should. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.128.34.114 (talk) 01:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that. It is not "my" section, it is a Wikipedia article. If you wish to make changes that last, you need to provide verifiable references to support your edits. Edit warring for your preferred version won't work and as several ips were involved, the page was semi-protected for a while. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies. Vsmith (talk) 01:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Acid Rain

Hi! Would you be interested in reviewing the Acid rain article with me? A lot of the references are really out of date. For instance the section you edited a moment ago has a reference from 1993 saying acid rain has significantly impacted Scandinavia. That is at most a historical aspect of the 1980's early 1990's. After the collapse of communism the brown coal fire power plants in east Germany and Poland shut down/cleaned up so this is really not a problem any more. There is a lot of up to date information such as from the EMEP [6] but it requires quite a lot of effort to review the materials. As you have been active on this article before would you be interested in a critical review of the sources? I would like to find up to date references, 2005 onward preferred.

My background is in forestry/chemistry/industry and I haven't heard acid rain mentioned as problem since the early nineties. A colleague mentioned one of the reasons was that coniferous forests, as we have in Scandinavia, are actually quite hardy and not very sensitive to changes in acidity (in a limited range of course). Again, finding the references are tricky.91.153.115.15 (talk) 17:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It's on my watchlist, so will be watching and maybe help out at times. The article gets quite a bit of vandalism and problematic edits and most of my edits over the past 2-3 years have been reverting/correcting cruft. I was quite involved with the article back in 05-06 if I recall, but that's old stuff now. Not really wanting to get heavily involved in researching and a rewrite now - 'though it no doubt needs it. Good luck. Vsmith (talk) 01:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, the page gets semiprotected from time to time as admins tire of the vandalism drivel. So I'd suggest getting an account if you plan on long term work here. Vsmith (talk) 01:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the nice warm welcome to Wikipedia. It was very thoughtful and helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knotsofair (talk • contribs) 16:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

AfD

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolutionism (2nd nomination), since you contributed to the article. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Laterite

Hello, I am the author of an previous Wikipedia article on laterite,which was totally deleted by Bettymnz4 and replaced by her owwn text. Although her statements are carefully documented by references from the Internet, I find many serious mistakes in her article together with subordinate statements and a lack of essential information. I could try to remove these defects but I do not want to start an edit war. I would like to discuss this matter with you in some detail by e-mail (redacted). In the website www.laterite.de you can find further information. Best regards from Germany, Schellat (talk) 19:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Er... we don't "own" articles here. I haven't looked at the laterite article lately, but as I recall she did some pretty good work. Of course, there may be errors to correct and improvements to be made, so have at it. Don't see any need for email - the article talk page is the place to point out potential problems and discuss solutions. Took a quick scan of your website - will look closer later. Vsmith (talk) 22:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

However, my e-mail is activated - see the link above left, you are welcome to email me if there are concerns you'd rather not state on the article talk page. Vsmith (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I could not find your e-mail address, therefore I present some corrections and suggestions here: Laterites are not formed by mechanical weathering but by chemical action only. They do not cover one third of the continental area of the earth but much less. Bauxites do not consist largely of clay minerals and aluminium hydroxides but of gibbsite, goethite, hematite and frequently quartz (if derived from quartz-bearing rocks). Kaolinite percentage of bauxite ores must be low, because it impairs aluminium extraction. Bauxites are not sedimentary rocks, but a variety of laterite with high aluminium contents. Granites, gabbros and peridotites were never volcanic rocks but (plutonic) igneous rocks. Sulfates of iron and aluminium are meaningless in laterites. There are no links to the Wikipedia articles on bauxite and nickel laterite deposits although they are much more informative than the respective statements in the laterite article. I recommend to delete the chapters on road building, water supply and water treatment, because they are only of local interest. On the other hand the information on genesis, composition and varieties of laterites should be broadened.

Laterite is a much disputed matter early from the beginning 200 years ago and even today definition and genetic aspects are still disputed among involved geoscientists. Bettymnz frankly revealed in her talk page that laterite was unknown to her before she read my short Wikipedia article and decided to delete and rewrite it. Well, for a total laywoman her article is not bad which she obviously wrote on the basis of a Google research. The peer review by Ruhrfisch only produced some formal improvements. All together, it is very problematic, if laymen interfere in difficult scientific topics and not a good publicity for Wikipedia. Good luck with laterite! Schellat (talk) 12:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

E-mail address: menu on the left, Toolbox, option E-mail this user. "There are no links to the Wikipedia articles on bauxite and nickel laterite deposits" - where are these pages ??? --Chris.urs-o (talk) 15:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Cris for combining posts while I was thinking 'bout the situation. Seems Schellat's concerns re: the article should be copied to talk:laterite for others to consider. Will do that. I've linked and piped a bit above.

Schellat's comments about expert users vs layman contributors who often don't understand what they are trying to write about do highlite a significant and "real" problem, but as long as the Wiki community devalues expert contribution versus "Randy in Boise" there's little we can do except chip away at the root. Vsmith (talk) 16:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

YW. Just wanted to improve a bit. He did not find ur email, used twice the same section heading and administrators do not have time (by definition ;). As I see it, layman as experienced editors do have a better language for layman, and get the formating better. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again ... and yes experienced lay editors do good -- just hit a sore spot from another area for me. Re: the lateritic nickel ore deposits page I linked above, it was written by an Aussie geologist who has left the building it seems, don't rightly know why. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 17:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Copied pertinent parts of above discussion to talk:laterite. Vsmith (talk) 16:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Mineral classification stuff ... break

Yeah, climate change is a real drama !!! :s I watch ur page, just to know what is going on, hope u don't mind ;) U r always steadily active ;) User:Schellat might be right under Category:Economic geology point-of-view, but locally, the last 3,000 years, road building, water supply and water treatment is ok in the article. He lists some flaws n tweaks but mixing tellurides n tellurites is worse ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 17:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey thanks for fixing the tellurite/telluride confusion, that was on my loong mental to-do list :). You deserve a barnstar for all the work on mineral classifying/categorizing you've been doing - my watchlist is swamped :) A note re: your sandbox expert list, Awickert is in sedimentology/structure rather than mining and my work was on the geology of porphyry copper deposits - yeah, worked for a mining company for a while in the 70s long time ago. Vsmith (talk) 18:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Well duh, misread that striking a bit above. Gotta learn to read. Vsmith (talk) 18:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

(:p) By the way, the classification of minerals is not an easy thing. I dreamed of a taxobox like the living organisms/ Linnaeus: Category (Superclass), class, group (supergroup), subgroup. But many minerals stand alone, and some old groups cross the superclass and class border :[ --Chris.urs-o (talk) 19:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Yup, quite difficult - I started using Dana's system to organize mineral articles back in 04 with great plans for a detailed system like you are doing -- but got sidetracked a bit & didn't finish. Others started mineral categories by cations which bugged me at first...but there's lotsa room and someone might want to know what minerals contain indium or some such. Come to think about it, 'twas the first global warming arb case that sidetracked me ... Should learn to ignore some stuff. Vsmith (talk) 19:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Forget the climate warming/ change. We're in an economic downturn, in a Pacific Ring of Fire earthquake cycle, in a devaluation of paper money... This cools the planet down by itself, and the news ticker will have other headlines. Dana helps, but mindat.org selected the real important groups, I think. I was just annoyed finding the Category:Silicate minerals and Category:Hydroxide minerals so populated, and cleaned it up a bit. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 21:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

In case you're really bored...

Your input might be helpful here. Trying to provide additional incentives for WikiCup participants to focus on articles that really matter in the area of chemistry and mineralogy. Guettarda (talk) 03:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Me? Bored? Heh ... with some 3000 obscure minerals to write up. And an endless to do list - like that Sierrita Mountains article I've been planning... so much red out there :)

Wikicup?? Don't think I ever heard of it -- no interest in it. But that's not what you're asking. You want some input on what mineral or chem articles deserve some 2x multiplier on a game I know nothing about, right? Specific articles or more general classes? Thinking... Vsmith (talk) 04:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Basically, can you think of a qualifier (or a few qualifiers) that can separate the really important topics from the ones that are just important. What kind of articles should we really have, that it's a bit embarrassing that we either lack articles, or lack adequate articles. Something like that. But don't let it take you away from what's really important - making sure that the last week of school is torture for your students writing those 3000 mineral articles :) Guettarda (talk) 04:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Blabbed a bit there ... now coffinite is beckoning :) Vsmith (talk) 15:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 14:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

US volcanic fields

Could u support ur own suggestion please?

(Support [Category:Volcanism of state XYZ] and parent cat Category:Volcanic fields of the western United States per Category:States of the Western United States)

I'd like to close this never ending listing and sort the US volcanic fields by US state. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 09:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Physical Geologic Driver

You posted a request for an expert reference on Extinction Event in Physical Geologic Driver and directed me to the talk page. Thought I would initiate discussion on your talk page, since I could not find where you were directing me. I can begin with my record of the Extinction Event discussion section if you would like to have it posted here? The article was also posted in the no original research page which one of the experts there indicated to add the chart as well. My understanding is that simple math is allowed as long as all the data is referenced, also every line in the paragraph has verifiable reference(s). I await your reply and direction you wish to move. -morbas-Morbas (talk) 04:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Replied at Talk:Extinction event#Physical Geologic Driver Vsmith (talk) 15:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Shiprock, Navajo Nation and USA

Hello,

If you feel that it is important to list a country abbreviation in this article, then I agree that "USA" is better than "US". However, I don't feel that either is needed in the article. I won't revert until we can discuss the matter.

As a general rule, I don't think that every spot in the USA needs to have "USA" explicitly in the lead of the article. I believe that a state identifier such as New Mexico, and a county identifier, such as San Juan County, are adequate. Any reader unfamiliar with these areas can visit those articles to learn more.

In my edit summary, I didn't say that the Navajo Nation is NOT in the United States. However, as it is a semi-autonomous nation, I don't believe that it is necessary to emphasize its location within the United States in articles about places in the Navajo Nation. There is an additional level of cultural sensitivity called for here, in my opinion. The Navajo Nation is extremely protective of its autonomy over Shiprock in particular. I welcome your thoughts on the matter, and will watch your talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 19:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

This is not a US encyclopedia. Therefore the previous users addition of US was a valid edit. The Navajo may have some autonomous status - don't know about that. However, they and their homeland are a part of the United States and to suggest that we shouldn't state that New Mexico is in the US for fear of disturbing Navajo cultural sensitivities is quite simply absurd. Vsmith (talk) 00:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

This has nothing at all to do with whether or not this is a "US encyclopedia". I don't think that an article about something located in Cairo needs to also specify that it is in Egypt, or an article about something in British Columbia needs to also specify that it is in Canada. Articles about Cairo and British Columbia make that clear. I did not claim that the previous edit wasn't "valid" but rather that I didn't believe that it was necessary in this particular case. I went to that new user's talk page, and wrote a friendly explanation welcoming them, explaining my edit, and inviting discussion. Native American editors in the past wanted to remove all descriptions of the history of rock climbing at Shiprock, and I disagreed and added even more information. Rock climbing is part of the history of Shiprock. Clearly, I am unafraid of "disturbing Navajo cultural sensibilities" when it improves the article. Of course, we state that New Mexico is in the United States - explicitly in New Mexico and in many other places where that is useful. In this case, the location of Shiprock is already specified by state, county and Indian reservation. Is a fourth geographical description really necessary? I don't think so. But since you feel so strongly about it, I will let it stand. Cheers. Cullen328 (talk) 01:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Classification of minerals

Merry Xmas Ho, Ho, Ho :D I might need 2011 to work on this stub: Classification of minerals. Have a look, pls. Comments? Good? Bad? Don't know? --Chris.urs-o (talk) 17:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Bah humbug - Ho, Ho, Ho - Have a Happy :)

Took a look and modified a bit. That is an ambitious project! In general I rather dislike links to categories within article space, but ... maybe an exception here - don't recall what the MOS or other guidelines say about it. Maybe move the "Extras" section to the end - or chop most of it, keep the IMA notes. Added to my watchlist to keep track of progress.

Vsmith (talk) 18:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Really, really ??? I thought it just as an overview with the most important groupings. I hope it is not the mountain that u think it is ;) Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 19:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)