User talk:Vsmith/Archive19

Artist stuff

Can you comment here [1] please?--Thgiled (talk) 13:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Please read the links I left on your talk page, gather some reliable references to establish WP:Notability and try again. Also avoid the appearance of promotion or advertising (or the real thing) in your writing. Vsmith (talk) 13:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, but I give up, too complicated for me, but this artist deserves to have a WP article, please look at his work and press reviews and you will be convinced, cordially --Thgiled (talk) 13:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Kostal Cone

Hello Vsmith - Thanks for adding the 'no footnotes' template to this article. Since you are a senior editor, maybe you can get some action from Volcanoguy where I haven't been able to as a newcomer. I put in a 'citation needed' template on June 13 and he deleted it the next day with some swearing at me. I posted a comment about this on Volcanoguy's talk page on July 1 and, to his credit, he has acknowledged what I know about this area and undid his revert of my edit. However, he still hasn't posted any references for his material. I have been editing and expanding the WP articles on Wells Gray Park, BC since January 2011 so I am a beginner, but have still been surprised at some of the disputes that arise and the bullying language used.Roland Neave (talk) 04:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Added a ref - "Volcanoes of North America" book (had to look it up on google books to verify as I've misplaced my copy:)

Some editors have attitude problems - have clashed with this one previously and he has toned down things a bit, still unpredictable and rebellious toward rules he doesn't like and has WP:OWN issues. Drop me a note if you encounter similar problems going forward. Vsmith (talk) 13:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I do not own any WP articles. Instead, I maintain them. Volcanoguy 20:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

FYI - Chronic Vandal

You've had to deal with this chronic IP vandal in the recent past. Perhaps it's time to elevate somehow? Anyway, just FYI (and I've no intention to add yet another now-embarrassing Wiki-warning to its talk page). Thanks JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry wrong address. There's WP:AIV and WP:AN/I, educational IP's aren't so easy to deal, only a system operator really knows how many edits got reverted. Nothing happens, if it isn't reported, I reported it now. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 18:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

YW --Chris.urs-o (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for catching this Chris, I was occupied elsewhere. Vsmith (talk) 23:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

As I probably should have expected, no elevated action has been taken by Fastily (to include even another absolute, final, last chance I swear warning [#4] as (s)he advertised...or did I overlook it?). While I understand that IP blocks (especially of .edu institutions) are no small matter, wouldn't at least another short one have been a more meaningful response? Or at least maybe blank its talk page for the eyesore and embarrassing testimony to WP impotency that it is? Ah well...can't get rid of the dang ants in my kitchen either. Onward. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting timing - the ip just vandalized John Kerry again while I was posting an eduip note on their talk ... so blocked for a year. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 00:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC) ... and ants are persistent vandals too, but my blocking powers are somewhat limited there :) Vsmith (talk) 00:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I neglected to mention my ISP's .GOD extension ;-) AND GOOD FRAKKIN' BLOCK! ;-)JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

LOL

Hey, can I use my sandbox as a source?TCO (reviews needed) 02:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Heh ... nah, that'd violate COI, jes use one o mine (custom made to order, cheap) :) Vsmith (talk) 02:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Cool breeze. Hey let's go give each other some plus signs!TCO (reviews needed) 02:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Zing ... plus signs? Mebe I need mo caffeine Vsmith (talk) 02:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Good Articles.TCO (reviews needed) 02:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah ... but mine are all good - or at least ingenuine (just ran across that here. roll on, too late for caffeine ... post 1900 hrs sleep interuption later. Vsmith (talk) 02:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

flora and fauna

Good morning. On the Wikipedia page for biodiversity, the words "flora and fauna" were changed to "animals, fungi and plants" and, subsequently, changed back with the comment "flora and fauna cover it well". That is not correct. Biodiversity refers to all forms of life. Flora and fauna refer, respectively, to plants and animals. Fungi are neither. They belong in their own separate biological kingdom which has been widely recognized since at least the 1970s. Using the words "flora and fauna" as a shorthand for biodiversity is thus out-dated, inaccurate, misleading and inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. Various words analogous to flora and fauna have been proposed for the fungi, including "funga", "mycobiota" and "mycota", but there seem to be no similar words for the other biological kingdoms (Chromista, Protozoa etc.), so using such terms tends to exclude them, making consideration of the true extent of biodiversity more difficult. The phrase "animals, fungi and plants" is thus a significant improvement on "flora and fauna", and it leaves the door, so to speak, open for consideration also of the other biological kingdoms. Alphabetical order is non-judgemental and avoids arguments about relative importance of the biological kingdoms. Middgeaugh-Botteaugh (talk) 08:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The term biota might be preferable to 'flora and fauna', the phrase 'animals, fungi and plants' misses out most microorganisms. Mikenorton (talk) 09:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - yeah, biota is more non-discriminatory - but flora & fauna is more poetic ... Vsmith (talk) 12:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the phrase 'flora and fauna', as opposed to 'flora' and 'fauna' considered separately where they stand for the plant and animal kingdoms, is sometimes used (somewhat imprecisely) to mean all living things - you could always link it like this 'flora and fauna'. Mikenorton (talk) 13:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Pipes work :) Vsmith (talk) 13:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

So linked. Mikenorton (talk) 13:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

"Flora and fauna" is certainly poetic, but this page is not about poetry. The phrase misses out most microorganisms as well as missing out all fungi, so on that account is worse than "animals, fungi and plants" which only misses out most microorganisms. "Animals, fungi, microorganisms and plants" gets them all, but then the phrase "all living things", which seems agreeable to all, is shorter, it's plain English and not misleading.Middgeaugh-Botteaugh (talk) 22:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

This belongs on the article talk rather than here. The stub biota (ecology) linked by Mike seems a good target - and maybe it'll get a bit of needed attention. And I see the fungi as rather ignored in many areas ... so do support the idea of improving fungi coverage around here. Vsmith (talk) 22:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, and thank you for your kind words of welcome. It's a fascinating learning experience.Middgeaugh-Botteaugh (talk) 07:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

History of tech.

If everything I write in here is undone, erased, removed, etc and their is literally a ream of information I have to read in order to find out what exactly you want done in order to leave my addition in place. That is not "anyone can" that is violently not true! Anyone can, but all their work is deleted immediately because the average person does not follow your rules of publishing.

So short and quick! what procedure do I have to follow in order to keep what I write from being deleted!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TRWelling (talk • contribs) 12:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:Notability, references and WP:BLP and ...
That's w/out checking your contrib. hist. Vsmith (talk) 12:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

...and WP:OR now that I've refreshed my memory at History of technology. Vsmith (talk) 12:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

circle file

Where do I send my articles and corrections for you to more easily delete them? I would rather send them to a trash can email then have the smallest glimmer of hope they will not be deleted if I put them where I think they should go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TRWelling (talk • contribs) 12:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

irony

Talk about irony. I write an article about community censorship and how several times technology has been removed because someone in power had the ability to remove/delete and the response to that article; it was deleted because someone had a problem with what I wrote. It was all true, and had references to common understandings within; but it was still deleted.

That just drips with Irony.

That is like banning a book from the library which is a story about someone banns books from the library. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TRWelling (talk • contribs) 13:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Edits were not a test

Please understand that my edits to the page on Rachel Carson were not intended as an experiment but rather an effort to reduce the excess of unnecessary footnoting. Anything that is a fact about a subject -- such as the details of a person's life, events and utterances in the public records or widely available to public access -- need not be cited. If, for example, someone wishes to refer to a part of the Gettysburg address or the fact that Lincoln was born in Illinois, it is unnecessary to footnote that. In the case here, the consequence of such proliferation of unneeded footnotes is demonstrated: the text is repeatedly interrupted with reference numbers and the list of citation notes becomes disproportionately long and unwieldy.

Although some scholars are guilty of undercitation that verges on plagiarism, others may use overcitation to create an impression of great research effort or to promote one source over all others. Since the Carson and Silent Spring wiki entries include many (though not all) of the sources available on those subjects, the only reasons to use footnoting are for (a) reference to something ONLY available to the reader in that one source or (b) something that needs the support of evidence that it's true. Finally, in general if an entire paragraph of an entry is drawn from only one source, it's customary to leave the footnote number to the end and a citation that indicates the source of the discussion. (Just by way of information, I have worked for years as a copy editor for academic presses.) 14:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC) Littera9 (talk)

You might be correct in a peer-reviewed paper. Wikipedia is a voluntary work, dynamic, editing never ends... As I see it, en.wikipedia regards each article as able to stand alone, each fact needs a reference (specially in biographies) and if only one source is used, the reference page is given. I think this is the ideal standard of the Manual of Style (WP:MOS). Or you choose "compulsory pending changes" as in de.wikipedia or you choose "each fact has a reference" as in en.wikipedia. Both ways have disadvantages. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 15:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to Chris for his comment, agreed. This is a different environment from your professional experience - please study the Manual of style. Basically your edit removed references from several places in the article. You did not write an edit summary explaining your actions - so I took it as basically vandalism. In the future please at an explanatory note as an edit summary to your edits. Vsmith (talk) 15:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I regret that I failed to make a comment in the edits, although I was unaware that this was required of those who edit less frequently than you do. I do still challenge the need for the long string of specific page references to exactly the same reference, time after time after time. It's not common to all wiki entries, by any means. And -- in contrast to a single citation at the end of a collection of facts ("Information found pp. 200-300, Lear"), the repetition does not add much. We might also disagree on whether ALL facts need citation - I maintain that if they appear in all the biographies/sources listed as reference (and in the case of Carson, many more could and probably should be listed), there's no need to cite just one of them. Otherwise, I understand that wiki is a dynamic entity, but not sure what it really adds to weigh down entries unnecessarily. littera999 16:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)16:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)~~

Sorry, it's the approach that the en.wikipedia community agreed upon. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 10:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

"The" approach -- as interpreted in one entry. No style manual can possibly apply, on an item-by-item basis, to every specific chunk of text; and the "en.wikipedia community" style manual is remarkably broad-brushed. Thus editors are interpreters with equally broad latitude to impose their individual interpretation -- which seems to be the main "agreement" of the community. By the nature of wikipedia, it's an on-going climbing match as to which editors can edit which others and who speaks more authoritatively than whom. The fact that the reference pattern and style of this entry is not duplicated throughout tells you that "the" approach here is just "an" approach. Finally and FWIW, I did not come to this entry randomly simply to pick at semi-colons - have some knowledge of the subject and the references. littera999 00:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littera9 (talk • contribs)

Buoyancy

Dear Mr. Smith:

I was browsing wikipedia's article "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buoyancy#Beyond_Archimedes_Principle" and found that a formula may be incorrect, or an additional explanation to its use was missing. Since I did not want to edit the article myself, I wanted to consult with another scientist. Specifically, near the end of the article, equations for Buoyancy and Acceleration are presented. My concern is in the missing factor of 2 dropped from the buoyancy force when applied to calculate acceleration. Should acceleration include such factor or because of losses due to measurement techniques makes the formula more accurate without the 2?

As it is explained in the article, acceleration is simply calculated from F = ma, where no factor of 2 is involved. Since the initial buoyancy force includes this factor, shouldn't the formula for acceleration include it too? I will appreciate your comments.

Cordially, (personal details redacted - avoid posting them in public here) Jul-11-11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.147.18.30 (talk) 18:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Seems Talk:Buoyancy would be the place to ask. I really don't want to get into deriving an equation here (laziness ... or something akin to it). Seems that section is unsourced as well. Vsmith (talk) 18:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

"WP follows IUPAC"

• I don't agree, rationale:
• List of minerals S (complete) isn't a IUPAC list.
• Sulphur is a valid mineral name (IMA/CNMNC) and names "don't change". IUPAC is inorganic/organic chemistry, no crystal cell.
• The element sulfur (S) forms more than 30 solid allotropes, some of them are minerals too: sulphur 01.CC.05, beta-sulphur 01.??, rosickyite 01.CC.05 --Chris.urs-o (talk) 11:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

And those all redirect to sulfur. List of minerals (complete) is a Wikipedia list, and therefor follows WP guidelines. There is a policy page somewhere on spelling of sulfur, aluminium and caesium. Vsmith (talk) 14:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)WP:CHEMMOS (which is Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(chemistry)) and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(chemistry)/Nomenclature. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I follow you Vsmith, but I still think the element sulfur (IUPAC) and the mineral sulphur (IMA/CNMNC) are different things ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 14:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we need an article on native sulfur or native sulphur (depending on sources/whatever) to make the point that the element is not the mineral. And thanks to Beetstra for the links I was too lazy to look up (the f/ph battles were back in 04/05) Vsmith (talk) 14:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Bosnian Pyramid

The "hoax" is not referenced. The first reference is of Colin Woodard, December 2009, "The Pyramid Man", Smithsonian 40:9, however, the original article is not provided. Also, the third reference, The great Bosnian pyramid scheme by Anthony Harding, British Archaeology November/December 2006, was written before any major excavating had been done on the mountain, and Harding himself was only on the site for a very short period of time when he did visit it. His main argument is that it's ridiculous to think this could have been made by men as long ago as is claimed, because they were just hunter gatherers. This isn't a scientific argument, it's an opinion. And since 2006, we have found multiple megalithic human structures that predate ALL known civilizations. One being Gobleki Tepe (11000 years old), and the other being the underwater Japanese temple (7500 years old). There is no conclusive proof that this is a hoax, there are simply assertions that it is a hoax. Hoax should be taken off of the "See Also" list as it gives the reader a biased view. Also, since Anthony Harding's main argument is based on what he thinks he knows about pre-history (that no advanced civilizations existed before 4000BC), which has since been proven otherwise, these references should be treated the same as references FOR the pyramid (which have all been removed or said to non-scientific or opinion).

And please, explain to me what qualifies "pseudoscience" to be in the 'see also' section. What specific ways was Osmanagić not following the scientific method? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happyending1 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Take it to the article talk page. Vsmith (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thomas H. Jordan

Can you help add to this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.125.23.218 (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Inorganic compound

Dear Vsmith, please take a look at Talk:Inorganic compound. An editor purports that most (earth's? crustal?) minerals (by mass, I guess) are of biological origin. some minerals indeed are processed by microorganisms - elemental sulfur from sulfate rock, phosphate rock. But the major constituents being bioprocess? In any case, please help contribute.--Smokefoot (talk) 18:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Removal of comment

I suggest you talk to the user about the problem as he dosen't listen to me. He will probably delete it again just like the Franklin volcanic complex with no sources whatsoever. Just his opinions. If it gets deleted again I'm just going to undo it. Volcanoguy 20:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

BTW why are you stalking me? Volcanoguy 20:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

No "stalking" involved, Hike395's page is on my watchlist just as yours and lots of other users I've interacted with. Vsmith (talk) 20:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok sorry. I thought you were because you appeared in quite a few of my edits in a row. I nominated the template for deletion here to see what other users think. Volcanoguy 15:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I recreated this last night. I know I told you before I was going to make an article about mining in Temagami so I just thought that article would be of interest to you. Volcanoguy 15:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Few lines about phosphoric acid

Hello,

Hi, I'm shiva, a 24 year old guy from India. I'm a chemistry maniac and have a small lab in my home. I did write few lines about the reactivity of phosphoric acid earlier today. I do not know why you have deleted them. I've written those lines only after I've done enough experiments with phosphoric acid in my lab. You can check it with other chemists too if you have any doubts regarding this.

Thank you, Shiva — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shivag123 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, but sorry, we can't accept original research, which is what you apparently tried to add today. All info here must be supported by reliable, third-party sources.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Collective info

Hello,

Thanks much for your message. Yes, of course, it is based on my original research. But, it does not mean my info is not true. All published articles are based on the research. Any other users (especially experts in chemistry) can change my comments if they are not correct. I'm always trying to give my best. Infact, I have learned a lot from wikipedia. Many thanks to your team and users who are doing such a wonderful job over the years. I usually write what I've read from different sources (including wiki) and learning from my research. It is just a collective info not baseless. I do not want to copy exactly what a particular author or book says. I would be very happy if your team let me write more.

Thanks again, Shiva — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shivag123 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Still, we can't accept original research due to our policy on verifiability. The policy is verifiability, which isn't necessarily the truth.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello Shiva, and thanks to Jasper for answering while I was busy elsewhere (had to put up an electric fence to keep the raccoons out of the corn patch).

What Jasper said -- we base our editing here on what is published elsewhere by reliable sources and not on our own work or knowledge. The bit you added to phosphoric acid was not backed by a valid reference and was added where it didn't belong in the flow of the article. I removed it for those two reasons and not because the info was wrong. If you want to re-add it to an more appropriate place in the article and back it up with a good reference there will be no problem. Any wording problems can then be corrected. Thank you, Vsmith (talk) 00:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring

What's wrong with the information I added to the Island article? It had references unlike most of the article. Another user reverted my original edit without discussion. I don't understand. Denghu (talk)

See talk:Island where another user has explained synthesis to you. You are using two sources to draw a conclusion which neither explicitly supports -- and even if it seems quite logical, it is still synthesis and original research. Vsmith (talk) 01:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. When you get a moment, will you take a look at the discussion on Talk:Island again, since I'm clearly not getting through to Denghu. Am I wrong that if saying "Fact A and Fact B therefore Conclusion C" is original synthesis if the sources for Fact A and B do not mention Conclusion C, then saying "Fact A and Fact B" and leaving the reader to infer Conclusion C is also not allowed, especially in the context of an opening sentence which says that the paragraph is about "standards" to differentiate A form B?

Your additional input would be appreciated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Cascade volcanoes

Template:Cascade volcanoes has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. —hike395 (talk) 19:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Signature in the Cell

Happy to see it protected, but could you possibly block Asteckley for edit warring? No admins seem to be active at either WP:3RR or WP:ANI. I believe he made five reverts in 24 hours. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the account was blocked while I was sleeping :) Vsmith (talk) 11:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Sinistral and dextral

I’ll assume your peremptory change to this page was some outworking of WP:BRD, rather than an arrogant hijacking of the consensus-building process.
If it was the former, I’ve reverted, and the discussion is here. Moonraker12 (talk) 11:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

So you returned it to a state with no support that I can see - can't help but wonder why. And you come here bristling and throwing accusations and WP essay stuff around. The only consensus I saw was that the dab page you just reverted to was not adequate - so I returned it to a page that had been quite "workable" since 2004, while the discussion continued. What consensus I noticed seemed to be toward your userpage draft, which I sorta supported in my follow-up comment. Now all I see is "wall-o-text" arguing there ... so, have fun. It'll be interesting to see the result. Maybe then I'll create Sinistral and dextral faults ... or something like that to quickly cover the topic and avoid the mentioned adjective problem (which bothered me also - there are quite a few of those) .... who knows Cheers :) Vsmith (talk) 16:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems I was bit gruff here:

To answer your wonder, the principle I was following was keeping the status quo ante; leaving the page is it is, when there is a content dispute (or as it was before the dispute started)

And the decision to change the original article to a dab was in April; the objection to it being a dab was in August (here) which has been going on since.

Also, most of what was there before isn't lost; it's now at Fault (geology), particularly the Strike-slip fault section. Moonraker12 (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism possible

Hi Vsmith,

Sorry to bother you again. I am currently monitoring the R.U.S.E Wikipedia page and I found some guys vandalising the website. Just to let you know there are guys messing up the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.U.S.E. Revision as of 16:54, 4 August 2011 by 91.61.134.130 and Revision as of 17:52, 6 August 2011 by 78.69.135.117 Thanks! Flowright138 (talk) 10:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems your last edit there was to revert a bit of vandalism, good. Sorry, but I have no knowledge or interest in the topic. Just follow Wikipedia policies and discuss on article talk pages when disputes arise. Thanks. Vsmith (talk) 13:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Black Mesa (Oklahoma) -- Thanks for Cleaning Up My Meager Contribution

Thank you for cleaning up my small additions to the Black Mesa (Oklahoma) article. I'll try to get with the program for any future contributions. Again, thank you for shining the light.

I don't know what to do about this, but the article says, "The lava came from the Piney Mountain in southwestern Colorado." That might be true, but I doubt it. Searching for "Piney Mountain" shows it to be in far north central (slightly west of center) Colorado. There might be another Piney Mountain in southwest CO, but I can't find it on a map. There is no citation in the article for the source of the lava that created Black Mesa. So far I've been unable to find a scholarly article which addresses the issue. I'm disinclined to edit that statement when I don't know what the true source is. However, it is unsettling that the article contains a statement that I'm pretty sure is wrong.

Thanks again for your guidance and patience.

Gray Strickland Tulsa, OK — Preceding unsigned comment added by SoonerLater (talk • contribs) 21:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The Piney Mountain bit comes from the Encyclopedia of Oklahoma website cited at the end of the following sentence. It states originated from a Colorado volcano named Piney Mountain sixty-five miles north-northwest of Oklahoma. I suppose it is in one of ther refs that they cite (they is the Oklahoma Historical Society). I guess you could contact them. Vsmith (talk) 22:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... found this: [2] which names Seven L Buttes as the source.

The eruption that produced Black Mesa was much like a Hawaiian one: effusive, basaltic lava spread out over the top of sand and gravel of the Ogallala Formation (which also forms the highpoints of Kansas and Nebraska). The source of the lava was Seven L Buttes, about 40 miles WNW, in Colorado.

Wouldn't really call it a reliable source though. See [3] is a map view. Onward. Vsmith (talk) 23:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

This is better and connects Seven L Buttes as the likely source and links to the pdf by Pete Thompson above. U. New Hampshire is far from Oklahoma, but serves as an academic source. Vsmith (talk) 23:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The above lists US Geological Survey Bulletin 1493 as a ref -- so that would be worth checking. Vsmith (talk) 23:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

deleted contribution

VSmith, I am sorry to see that my addition to the diamond cuts page under 'round brilliants' was removed. I am new to Wikipedia and I see from your note that the links to the passion cut diamond website were inappropriate. I apologize for that error. I would like to repost the contribution without those links. I assure you, my client does not sell the diamond to consumers. He is the manufacturer. He felt that if the Ideal and Hearts and Arrows were allowed to be listed, that the Passion Cut should be allowed, too. In fact, why not all the different cuts? He is not trying to sell the diamond on your site - he cannot. Only authorized retailers can, and we are not affiliated with those retailers. He just asked me to put up a post that explains the difference in these diamond cuts. Also, he is clearly proud of his design, so the language in the paragraph may have reflected that. I am happy to edit that out, so it reads more educationally. I do agree with him that a discussion about diamond cuts should include a description of this particular diamond cut, as well, don't you? Isn't a post from a manufacturer/designer who does NOT sell to the public appropriate? It is an original source and the information cannot be gotten elsewhere. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this. Norreida (talk) 10:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The addition has the appearance of simple promotion. Even if "your client" doesn't sell retail - still promotion. As far as the other cuts, maybe they need a closer look, WP:Other stuff exists. I suppose this puts you in a bind - your client expects results and there are none ... new twist here ($$$), though probably not new really - Most editing here is volunteer work.

Your addition lacked independent reliable sources. So, to create an edit that will remain in the page you must include independent relaible sources and write it in non-promotional prose. What cut do I get for helping ? :) Vsmith (talk) 17:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I know that often the argument "everyone else does it" is lame, but given the encyclopedic goal of Wikipedia, consistency is important. The Hearts and Arrows diamond is a patented design of the Round Brilliant just like the Passion Cut is. It has a full article with links to the Hearts and Arrows website, which does provide a list of retailers. I do think it is appropriate that the person who designed the cut should have input on the encyclopedic discussion of the cut, because it is original source material. I am just concerned that the rules for Hearts and Arrows cannot also apply to Passion Cut, especially since we are not putting up a full article - it's just a brief paragraph. I will repost without the links and with very edited text, but I hope you will consider at least a link to an image of the diamond cut anatomy, since it details specific facets similar to the image that is already on that page. That detailed image isn't available anywhere else, and it seems appropriate to include a link to a diamond facet schematic on an article about diamond cuts, don't you think? Thanks again. Norreida (talk) 18:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

what to do about quartz, if anything

Hi I was looking at quartz with an eye toward what this stuff is used for. Quartz has many applications, but the current article is almost totally focused on what could be roughly described as rock collector stuff. And the images are indeed spectacular, but they are sort of tangential to the role of quartz in our society and industry. As one of the mineral-oriented editors, perhaps you have some advice on what could be done here. To some extent, my feeling is that the current article deludes readers about eye-candy vs reality, but then again maybe I am just a curmudgeon. Should we split the article into, facetiously, eye-candy-for-rock-collectors and reality for the rest of us. Thanks, --Smokefoot (talk) 17:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

You've focused my attention on something I've been sorta ignoring. I've though about redoing that page, but jes' never got around to it. Will take a look again ... and do some thinking. Maybe separate the eye-candy stuff into a [[Quartz varieties]] page. Will take another look and maybe start a discussion on the talk page there. Real world summons now -- gotta go take care of the grandkids :) Vsmith (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, spinning off "quartz varieties" would allow the rock hounds to have their page and would allow quartz to become a more techie article with emphasis on structure (and doping - I just learned that AlO(OH) can substitute for SiO2), mining and synthetic material growth, properties (Q factor), and applications (many, including as a source material for all silicon compounds). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smokefoot (talk • contribs) 13:38, 17 August 2011

Thinking of following the lead with a ==Crystallography== section redoing the current section. Then a section on properties: physical, chemical and optical. Then a major section on geology as it is a major part of crustal rocks and sediments. Followd by a uses section which would focus on materials science applications and the more mundane stuff. The varieties section would mention the major varieties -- plain white and clear crystal and the micro crystalline chalcedony & chert, with a link to a varieties subpage for the collectors re: the "pretty stuff". The crystallography section should include a phase diagram for the α and β-quartz stability range as well as those in the related silica minerals section. Vsmith (talk) 16:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I've been considering for some time adding short sections to this and the articles for feldspar and olivine on their deformation and rheology because they control the strength of the lithosphere and the mantle. That would fit into 'physical properties' I suppose. Mikenorton (talk) 16:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I am cool with all the above plans, including especially the subpage that caters to pretty stuff (10 images are to pretty stuff currently). Could you announce the plans on Talk:Quartz or proceed with the creation of the new page? Thanks, --Smokefoot (talk) 17:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Heh ... cool here, when? that is the question... Vsmith (talk) 23:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Started, removed galleries and re-organized. Limited time, so will go slow for now. Vsmith (talk) 10:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

contribution deletion

Dear Vsmith, Thank you, VSmith. I will edit and repost. And truthfully, I am doing this for free for my client - my work for him is in pr and social media, not Wikipedia. Happy to edit posts for free here. Feel free to suggest a page to me that has a priority need for editing. There are so many, I hardly know where to start! Sincerely, Norreida Norreida (talk) 17:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, VSmith, I have edited and re-posted the information about the Passion Cut. Please let me know if this is better. I included a link to the US Patent office, a link to an image of the cut schematic, and a link to the GIA page about the 4c's, which has good information about cuts. It is important for the article 'diamond cuts' to include descriptions about various diamond cuts. As I find more, I will add them as well, so the 'round brilliant' is not only discussing ideal, hearts/arrows, and passion cuts. There are many, and it makes sense for people interested in learning about cuts to have access to information about the different cuts out there.

I hope you will allow the link to the passion cut schematic, because the image shows how the pavilion mains are split, which is good original source information that is relevant to the other schematic on the diamond cut article. If you disagree, I would prefer you notify me so I can take out that link rather than have you delete the whole contribution, please. I look forward to hearing your comments about this edited post. Best, Norreida (talk) 20:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I've edited it a bit and commented on the talk page. Please read the reliable sources policy page. Vsmith (talk) 23:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see an image of the cut schematic on the commercial page linked to .. if its on a subpage I didn't search. Better to upload a free image to illustrate. Vsmith (talk) 23:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Help Needed -- Black Mesa (Oklahoma)

Vsmith,

Kindly, could you please look at "Black Mesa (Oklahoma)" for me? I've managed to screw up some tags and don't know how to fix it.

http://www.ogs.ou.edu/pubsscanned/openfile/OF4_99.pdf A FIELD TRIP GUIDE TO THE GEOLOGY OF THE BLACK MESA STATE PARK AREA, CIMARRON COUNTY, OKLAHOMA

Neil H. Suneson and Kenneth V. Luza Oklahoma Geological Survey Sarkeys Energy Center 100 East Boyd St., Rm. N-131 Norman, OK 73019-0628

Prepared for the Fall Field Meeting of the Oklahoma Academy of Science Black Mesa State Park, Kenton, Oklahoma September 17-19,1999 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SoonerLater (talk • contribs) 18:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

(Not Vsmith) Hi SoonerLater, I fixed the cite error by rescuing the original lib ref after your edit. Do you want to add the Field trip guide as a ref, if so where? Mikenorton (talk) 19:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to Mike for the technical fix while I was busy ... However, the info added as a direct quote may need rewriting. It is preferable to use referenced material to write our own prose based on that info. Plus, the quote in question is from one publication quoting another earlier apparently unpublished field guide. Given that complication, I'd prefer a rewrite to eliminate that longish quote. Still thinkin' ... Vsmith (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm new to *writing* on Wikipedia, so I have a ways to go to learn the proper etiquette, as well as manual of style, for writing on this site. Subject to that caveat, I am a lawyer by trade and as such I have been trained to prefer quotations (with proper citation, of course) over re-writing someone else's work. It might not be plagiarism per se, but it strikes me as unfair to the original author. I'm just a layman when it comes to geology. I wouldn't want to appear to be trying to pass off the work of a legitimate scholar as my own. Still, it's important that I follow the Wikipedia rules if I'm going to contribute to this site. Thus, I'm in a quandary. SoonerLater (talk) 15:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I've rewritten the "inverted valley" info to avoid the long quote. Note that I'm not claiming credit for the info as credit is given in the reference. The one problem is that in my reading and re-write I may have mis-interpreted the original or poorly phrased the info. The wording may be mine (along with possible errors), but the original author gets credit. It does include the possibility of errors or mis-reading on my part, but it's analogous to writing a referenced college term paper. A term paper that contains little more than long quoted blocks of text would have problems, no? The difference here is that we're not supposed to include our original analysis or original research here that we might in a term paper setting. I also understand the difficulty you mention of writing about technical material if you lack background in the subject. That's why I tend to avoid contributing to areas where I'm clueless. Approach Wikipedia as a learning experience. When I do venture into "new territory" I learn as I go. Worth the effort, but also results in some "dumb mistakes" at times. Vsmith (talk) 19:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Unified Theory of Existence

I have developed a unified theory of existence based on the boson. It also gives an alternate explanation of the creation of the universe. I appreciate your reply about my first attempt at communicating via Wiki. If you would be so kind to instruct me further on the appropriateness of this article and where it might fit within the Wiki hierarchy. I am not familiar with the editing capabilities of Wiki nor pictorial composition.

JJVonRiesen (talk) 01:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Anything we add to Wikipedia articles must be supported by reliable sources. Please read the original research policy page. Wikipedia is not the place to publish or promote our own research. Concepts and ideas must be published elsewhere in reliable mainstream publications prior to being summarized and/or referred to in any Wikipedia article. Now, where is this "unified theory" of yours published? Vsmith (talk) 01:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info any hints who might accept theoretical non verified truth or am I out of luck?

JJVonRiesen (talk) 23:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Don't know much about it - check out Category:Open access journals or see www.earth-prints.org/ or maybe just publish your own aka www.jamesmaxlow.com/main/ -- good luck. Vsmith (talk) 23:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Termination summary

I appreciate your kindness. I am a child of reciprocity and to you I give this. Man is a prisoner who only has access to two of the three dimensions of the universe. The third dimension cannot be measured in units of the first two. When this is done constants must be introduced. An example of this is the circumference of a circle a constant is used to adjust for the third dimension a constant containing a non ending series of decimal places how ludicrous. In third dimensional units the circumference measures exactly 3. Future contact can be gained by using jjvonriesen@gmail.com Thank you for your advisement, good day.

JJVonRiesen (talk) 00:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Good luck on your project. I prefer apple pi :) Vsmith (talk) 00:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Leonard R. Brand page

Hi Vsmith,

I noticed your 'no wiki' action on User talk:DonaldRichardSands/Leonard R. Brand drafts/August 16 7:20 article copy. Thanks for your help. Hadn't thought of the problem the category section of the subpage might cause. The main page, Leonard R. Brand, has just been through a rigorous editing process. Things are quieter now. I am not very skilled in writing. I view my work as a progressive rough draft. Occasionally, another editor comes in and shapes the wording of the text into a better reading.

You mention your masters in geology from the University of Arizona. The Brand article touches on geology at several points: Turtle fossils in the Wyoming Bridger formation (Brand's more recent work seems to be with geologic mapping); Whale fossils in Peru (a study published this year reports on what seems to be a mapping of the whale site); and his controversial study of fossil tracks of the Coconino sandstone of the Grand Canyon. If you have time, it would be helpful to have your expertise in geology and in wikipedia editing. If you are unable, I understand.

Thanks, DonaldRichardSands (talk) 06:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome, I just happened on that when looking for related articles on one of the categories - don't even recall what I was looking for now :)

I may take a look at the Brand article, I noted some of the flap re: the afd, seems it may have involved some good old dramah. I also recall some discussion a while back about the Coconino deposition environment - don't know much about that tho. Time ... and always something grabbing my attention and off I go in some other direction ... so much exciting stuff to investigate ... Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Bob123456p

Only 24 hours? It's clearly a vandalism only account. -Cntras (talk) 01:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Likely. If so, the big foot will stomp. Patience :) Vsmith (talk) 01:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Cntras. It's quite obviously a VOA, and it is common practice to block such users indefinitely. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Any admin is welcome to extend the block as they see fit. Vsmith (talk) 01:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

C-14 Formation reactions.

According to my information, the primary reaction for C-14 <-> N-14 is:

y + N-14 <-> C-14 + e+

Does this make more sense to you?

Youjaes (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't know - what is the source for that? And what is "y"?

The reaction given in our article seems well supported and is the way I taught it in HS chem classes.

¹n + ¹⁴N → ¹⁴C + ¹p

Vsmith (talk) 18:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

New World Order (conspiracy theory) page protection

All of Lung salad's September 3 edits should be removed until this dispute is resolved because they, besides containing grammatical errors and Wikipedia guidelines violations, are deteriorating the quality of the article. --Loremaster (talk) 16:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

My edits contain scholarly sources. Perhaps it can be now explained why those sources are "unreliable" or "wrong". Lung salad (talk) 17:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Use the article talk page please. Vsmith (talk) 00:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations

		100,000 Edits
		Congratulations on reaching 100,000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that very few editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

Buster Seven Talk 22:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you mean 100,000; 100,000,000 would be quite a lot! Still very impressive. Nice going! --T H F S W (T · C · E) 06:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations Vsmith ... ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clean-up Chris. And yes 900K in a month would've been kinda crazy :) Vsmith (talk) 12:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Yw, I thought it was too much junk ;) I got 34,6 k global by the way, never ending story: list of minerals n sandbox on en.wikipedia, sandbox on de.wikipedia, illustrated book on de.wikibooks ;p --Chris.urs-o (talk) 13:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Categories of igneous features

Hi, would appreciate your input over at this discussion on the above. Thanks Babakathy (talk) 15:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

mark schneider design, cathty waterman and others?

Hi. I noticed a number of commercial designers on jewelry designer. When researching further I discovered a whole page of Mark Schneider (designer) design.. yes an award winner but like him there are 100nds more. The whole article was written by 1 person who claims to be a professor but whose ONLY contribution has been this particular article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Huberthuynh

The same for another designer: cathy waterman which was created mostly by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Fab-ri-cate whose only contribution was that particular article.

Same with diana vincent which was added in jewelry designer by someone who only added that name, and whose entry was created in 2007 by someone who, -- besides some talk pages -- mostly just produced that particular article.

It seems to me there's some serious SEM work being done by one (a group of) person(s) who first created a wikipedia entry, then cross linked it from other wikipedia pages + links to the website of the designer (plus tons of other links usually).

Gem-fanat (talk) 13:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I usually avoid articles such as those - no knowledge or interest in the area. I see that I had deleted one red link simply for lack of evidence of notability. The WP:BLP area is a minefield ... full of self-promotion and WP:COI. You have an interest and obvious experience there, but proceed with caution. I'd suggest raising this on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry for input from others. Vsmith (talk) 21:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I just did Gem-fanat (talk) 11:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Vsmith. I just checked the comments on my request for deletion: no comments whatsoever in 3 months. Furthermore I checked the page Mark Schneider (designer) and it was not only edited by one person, it was recently edited by a specific user named SchneiderDesign. So I think there can be little ambiguity the whole page has been set up from the start as a self promotional page. How to deal with this? I furthermore see that cathy waterman has ALSO recently been edited (more or less same dates) by an anonymous user who only edited this page and nothing else. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/74.109.30.77. So it seems to me there's sufficient ammo to argue that the three pages I mentioned a few months ago have in fact been self-promotional pages? Gem-fanat (talk) 01:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

New World Order (conspiracy theory) - No consensus

There is no consensus on the Wikipedia article New World Order (conspiracy theory) Lung salad (talk) 10:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the growing consensus on Talk:New World Order (conspiracy theory) page is that Lung salad refuses to discuss proposed compromises. The article should be unlocked immediately and he should be blocked from editing the article until he is willing to act in good faith. --Loremaster (talk) 15:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Protection ended at 13:38, play nice now :) Vsmith (talk) 17:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Stating a wrong reference

Hi VSmith

I have checked one of the reference in

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoregulation

Reference 7 pointing to the textbook of Medical Physiology is not correct. I have checked the textbook for such claim and I was unable to find it. What is the correct code to input that the reference is not valid? I have wrote it but I made an error. Leave me a message in my talk page.

Thanks. Flowright138 (talk) 03:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi VSmith, thank you for fixing up my need for citation in the thermal regulation. Will call forward the editor. However, do not remove it, because I believe that it is partially correct because cell activity will generate heat - and cell activity is basically metabolic activity (the main function of liver). Likewise, for the Glycosome, hope the template satisfies the Wikipedia style (made a google search for it). Have a nice day! Flowright138 (talk) 15:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

A new leaf

I find it difficult to follow what is happening with your messages and I certainly do not wish to engage in edit warfare

the message I received I interpreted as a warning - I enclose it below

I cannot see how I could be introducing bias by adding two references one to a blog I am familiar with and the other a book I wrote which was peer reviewed. I did not remove anyone else's material and I dispute with respect the decision to delete my material which I thought was due to an automatic computer generated signal as in entering the reference to my book I made my name into a hyperlink. Please explain to me how I violated your rules by showing a distorted view - I provided no view - just information - pure fact - a reference -

With respect as I am a greater admirer of Wikipedia and a supporter and even tell my students to make use of it in their assignments for me, I do not mean to engage in disruptive behaviour but I really do not understand my alleged violation - especially the reference to the blog.

Again with respect I feel I am dealing with Wikipedia Big Brother

How do we settle this dispute between the guy who deleted my entry and myself as a McLuhan scholar - I worked with the guy for god's sake and published with him - I think I am a better judge of what belongs in the article than the editor - please advise.

Hello Logan1939. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about following the reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.

Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.

"Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 20:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Logan1939 (talk) 22:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC) logan1939

Did you receive my explanation of my problems when I edited Marshall McLuhan? When do you respond? Can we communicate by email? I am logan@physics.utoronto.ca

I did not mean to engage in an editing war but would like to understand what I did wrong and why my edits were deleted which did not see to violate your rules which I obviously do not understand

I read: People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about following the reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

I thought I was ok to make reference to a reliable source my published book and to a well regarded blog - please set me straight and explain how I can get this info into the record legitimately

respectfully - Bob Logan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logan1939 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I see you did receive my explanation but your response seemed to be boilerplated - I am sorry that I find your communication system non-intuitive for me - Hope you can give me better guidance than the boilerplated response - thanks - Bob — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logan1939 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Just got back online - will respond on your talk page. Vsmith (talk) 00:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Quick question about checking my contribution

Hi VSmith,

Another question, I know when you write a page, you put the four ~ to sign your page. But I have seen around signature that has the "contributions" page attached to it, how do I get a signature like that instead of me manually checking my contributions in Special:Contributions/Flowright138 ? Flowright138 (talk) 15:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Signatures for info. I've never played with fancyfying my sig, so am no help there. Have fun, Vsmith (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Was looking for that. Thank you. Flowright138 (talk) 06:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Article "Philosophy of Science"

Dear Vsmith,

Could you please explain why you removed the long section I started to write on places to study philosophy of science in the world? My experience is that this information is difficult to find for students, and for my part I see no ethical problem in listing the greatest possible number of different universities teaching philosophy of science. On some universities' pages (e.g. Bristol) there is excellent information about philosophy of science per se, it seems to me appropriate to suggest Wiki users to have a look at them.

Thanks a lot, best wishes,

Thomas (Paris-Sorbonne University). Pradeu (talk) 21:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I removed an unsourced promotional list back in July. It was quite simply WP:SPAM. We aren't here to advertise for college programs. In addition please see WP:OR as you referred to no reliable source for your choices. Vsmith (talk) 21:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Dedicated Wikipedia Contributor

	Dedicated Wikipedia Contributor
	I am proud to award this Dedicated Wikipedia Contributor award to Vsmith. We thank you for all your amazing contributions! ★Pinkstrawberry02★ (talk) 19:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Please leave a reply on Pinkstrawberry02's talk page. If you would like to reply here still, then please still leave a {{talkback}} on her talk page. Thanks.

Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 19:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

An article that you have been involved in editing, Geophysical imaging, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Seems the target has changed since I looked earlier. I'd say merge the stub to one or the other -- but not both :) Vsmith (talk) 19:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

hey

hey open up lodestone, i need to add important information someone keeps deleting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.217.102.145 (talk) 01:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey -- you are talkin', great. I would suggest that you add an edit request on talk:Lodestone in which you present your requested change along with valid reason and reliable sources to support your request. Vsmith (talk) 01:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thank you for reverting the vandalism to my user page. Much appreciated! ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 23:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem - looks like the "pants" subpage got chopped before I got to it. Vsmith (talk) 23:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

thank you for reverting "speedy delete" on Mars to Stay

Thanks for keeping an eye on the Mars to Stay page. For some reason three days ago a person in Canada took it upon himself to submit the page for deletion -- then he returned this evening "anonymously" (via a Vancouver isp) to alter "keep" to "speedily delete." Thank you for catching that. The page has been up for over two years without a single complaint.

It is a wonder "consideration for deletion" banners can be used to deface a page by a single malicious person. Thanks again, Ericmachmer (talk) 04:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The Knowledge Network: Invitation to participate in our closed beta

Hello!

My name is Gabriel, and I represent a startup company called Planeto (http://planeto.com). We are currently developing a new type of community we call the Planeto Knowledge Network.

We all have knowledge and interests in various forms, of different topics and areas. We might even be experts at something. Our Knowledge Network is an attempt to gather and connect people who have a passion, and would love to share that passion by communicating their insights and knowledge with other people with similar interests.

Considering you are a geologist, as stated on your user page, I thought you might be a nice candidate to join the invite-only beta and be a manager (or curator, which is the term we use) of a domain of knowledge regarding Geology! Among other activities, you can start discussions, and create quiz questions regarding Geology for our players to be tested on, in order for them to be certified as "experts" on the topic within our network.

There are also a number of other scientific domains that would need a curator, if you feel that you would be more interested in a different topic. Sounds appealing? Send me a mail to gabriel@planeto.com and I'll invite you to our closed beta!

Have a nice day! :) Zedekiel (talk) 12:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Accelerating universe

Thanks for [4] William M. Connolley (talk) 16:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

edit request

http://lodestone.finalfantasyxiv.com/pl/index.html see theres reliable soruce — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.222.59.88 (talk) 21:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Not notable for lodestone, maybe would be for minecraft page or whatever. Vsmith (talk) 12:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to delete categories for service awards

Vsmith, I happened upon a proposal to delete all the categories for service awards. They are doing this without notifying any of the people who have the userboxes, which seems improper to me. Do you know of a way to automatically notify people in a category? RockMagnetist (talk) 19:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm ... don't know if there is a way to "auto-notify". Gees, Illustrious Looshpahs ... didn't think about that ribbon thingy categorizing me, guess I'll scrub that nonsense. looshpah? sounds like someone whose had a bit too much moonshine. Thanks for the note :) Vsmith (talk) 20:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

It makes me think of loofahs! RockMagnetist (talk) 20:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Help

Hi. Please, could you help me here with the IP and the user (maybe he should be block)? Thanks--Mej ^(talk) 15:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Looked, reverted (not far enough I see) and blocked the vandal. Vsmith (talk) 15:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Colombia edits

Dear Vsmith,

It looks like you erased the changes I made to these three entries:

Colombia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colombia Mining in Colombia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining_in_Colombia Coal Mining http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_mining

I am a journalist and all the information I put in there is solid and fact based. It took me much time and many resources to gather it, so I am disappointed to see that it has been erased.

I am not a regular contributor to wikipedia, but only add when I have original reporting to contribute with, so please forgive me for not knowing the customs in here ...

sincerly, Anna-Katarina Gravgaard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akgravgaard (talk • contribs) 21:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Seems that in checking out the additions I tried googling several sentences or phrases from your edits and found them on other websites (see here for example) - so I removed the content as WP:Copyvios. Looking now, with your name in hand it appears at least some of those were your work. However, even if you wrote the content for the sites in question, the material still falls under copyright of those websites/sources and we don't just copy from them to Wikipedia articles. I'm no expert on copyright questions, but we can't just add content taken directly from other sources. As a journalist, you should know more about this than I. You can rewrite the material to avoid the problems -- but there we have another problem: we don't promote our own work here on Wikipedia, see wp:COI. Vsmith (talk) 00:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for inviting my input, Vsmith. :) Sometimes sources require exclusive license, sometimes not. Either way, we do need to verify. I've left more information at User talk:Akgravgaard#How to donate content to Wikipedia. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 09:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Göttingen Forest

Hi V. Would you mind casting your expert eye over the geological section of Göttingen Forest. Thanks in advance. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Fixed a few links & wordings. Not familiar with the details of the region. Vsmith (talk) 01:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I've done a bit of rewording myself, mainly to explain how the bits of the Triassic fit in with each other. I am, however, unable to make out what is meant by "that has undergone greater movement" - I'm presuming this is tectonic movement but I don't understand the context. Mikenorton (talk) 06:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Apparently there is local mass movement of the lower Muschelkalk limestones where the underlying Rot evaporite section has suffered dissolution, so this may be the movement that's mentioned (although I'm not sure that ties up with the stratigraphy as described). Mikenorton (talk) 08:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

This link [5] may give a better regional setting for the forest area, although I struggle to translate it all, even with google's help. I believe that it mentions Late Cretaceous inversion and some movement of the underlying Zechstein salt. Mikenorton (talk) 10:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Good morning Mike, and thanks. Is the "elongated trough of upper Triassic Keuper" referrring to the Leine trough? And the "movement" related to the rift? Need a good geologic map of the area to help me sort it all out. Vsmith (talk) 10:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Took a quick look at that pdf ... my German from the German reading class I took back in 1972 has evaporated. Need more coffee. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 10:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Good morning V, the map in the pdf that I linked to above is probably as good as we'll get. My understanding is that the 'Göttinger Wald' is the area of exposed Muschelkalk just east of Göttingen, encompassing localities (2) & (3) and maybe (1), although a decent topographic map with the various other named features on it would be very useful. I notice that there are two very narrow strips of Keuper associated with NW-SE trending faults, linking two of the main faults that bound the Leine Graben, apart from the broader strip that extends along one of those faults just west of Reinhausen. The broader strip sounds more like the elongate trough mentioned in the text. I'm fortunate in that I grew up on the Triassic in northern Worcestershire, specifically right at the boundary between the Keuper and the Bunter (next to no Muschelkalk preserved), where all the German strat names were still used (they're the Sherwood Sandstone Group and the Mercia Mudstone Group these days - aagh, another one that needs writing). Mikenorton (talk) 10:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Vsmith! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only.  If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Kay Uwe Böhm

Hi there Vsmith. As your named was invoked at User talk:Kay Uwe Böhm can you take a look at figure out if you can get through to him? Background: originally I was only redacting his email out of the middle of the article (as you had also warned him about), but eventually I started reverting him wholesale. He went through a cycle of threatening me with legal action (in my talk page history) which I removed and warned him about, and he seemed content after that to remove his contributions to things like Neutron moderator. Arriving in the office today, I found he had again placed rambling technical information into an article and signed it 'all rights reserved' with his name. Based on my warnings about not needing to sign articles, I blocked him for 31 hours for disruptive editing.

I don't have the background to interpret his contributions, but they look like original research on his part. He never did answer me when I asked if they had appeared in a peer reviewed journal or other reliable source.

Thanks. Syrthiss (talk) 17:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

No background in nuclear reactor technology here - just basic chemistry... Anyway, considering the legal threats and i didn't hear thatisms , I'd likely have indef'd. But do proceed with the CU check. I'd say we need someone to talk to him in German - assuming his comprehension of English is no better than the writing. Vsmith (talk) 18:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Nov 1

Better stay on sides like Expansion of Universe and Philosophy of Science not Science I`m expert and new materials are from myself and can be checked further by other experts. Lead on Neutron Reflector side you control is wrong, because scattering used as coolant, all the time and you not see shows you don`t understand content. tantalum never written before except emails to companies... already. Look at Mooreman Report, Company Links... inside is email address. Copyrights refer most time to one person the author or originator same here for material&design. On Fukushima side wrong anti-atomic power movement entry now with long tables all referenced datas on real amounts and no burned feets and charts showing decreases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kay Uwe Böhm (talk • contribs) 13:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Again nonsense and I did`t want to be perfect in english but another one said very very very less mistakes inside after change to separated instead seperated. Legal threat was if not keeping my rights inside anyway but keeping content new materials and designs. What was your contribution ? Places where you corrected english are not by myself added and orignal better better better than see also shortend version other place and halt better stopped accepted as very very very important and how to make gold old knowledge planned also for "Brüter Kalkar" and shutting down not shows just -90% and impression of working neutron capturing also list of compositions only extended... Look at Hg side first ! Acceptable change 10B to 10B understandable or linking. 14CT4 very nice ! Kay Uwe Böhm (talk) 17:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Nov. 2

10BN is not used in any control rod and new by myself used maybe for stoppsand, trimming pebbles and corium catcher. I am the reference to what I added inside. Thats not true that this reference I was writting is not possible in Wikipedia and also Syrthiss wrong with adding that a lawsuit could not be if he says that on my talk side. Actually there was no scientific control of that page before with Splitting on Capture side 3He -> Tritium, 10B->Lithium+? and lead absorber. Same who removed lead also tells on own side that he doesn`t want be Wikipedian. There are no reliable references for most of content also not for destroying gold and explanantions not need references just reprovable. 197Hg ß+ Au197 read before.

My congratulations also new Areva Antares pebble bed design with link delteted by administrators on pebble bed and VHTR side. lead as reflector no new tantalum and no new moderators just CH4 suggested 2003 so far never used and without reference. Moving information up to Wikipedia commitee about vandalism no sign to work for WP. Kay Uwe Böhm (talk) 13:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Any kind of copyright must stay inside after international law if asked for that. You and Wikipedia must do so under law. Anywhere in Wikipedia also written. Just nonsense if published and not informed from who and about rights of originator ! Everythere you can read for text copyright written independent if payed or not if given free like Spektrum of Science article on Fukushima. See also plagiat affair ! If anybody reads he uses after without knowing about or can`t reask for more infor- mation like on every company link or behind Mooremann Report...in this case also security relevant after. If not informed about 11BN later grahite burnings or weak point EPR ramp and core catcher with boiling UO2 without HfC layer addable after ! Do you know WWER 1200 OKMB Monju Japan BN-Breeder Row RBMK Escom PBMR AVR Juelich THTR 300 HTR-10PM China Areva Antares EPR anchestor of german Konvoi types build by Siemens and Bilfinger&Berger future plans for Siemens-Rosatom(Russia) or Iran&Israels types... ? Ever hear5d of warning on ThO2/UO2 dividing risk in melting case HTR to be added ! I stopped years ago Escom PBMR with warnings on burning risk...to IAEA, African Union, Escom... with first solution SiC from myself now at advertisment side but closed ! SiC only used against outgoings before still only on sub pebbles not enough risk and damage and deaths high burning on every hole in high pressure construction immediatly burning coalwith rad. smoke difficult to close goinmg on until ash and after melting on collecting bottom. I`m trying restart with 11BN and/or change to THOR "Full Zero Risk" also in China informed already about new material... automatically with email proofing and concurreny/governement knowledge about originator who has to check again if build ! RBMK 18-20s -50/60% switch AZ 1/2 instead Mo2B5 11BN He but other types more secure and less damage/deaths than RBMK for example breeder no graphite no water Na not spreading ! I loose only time with admistrators so can`t write already also many other places also just about eating iodine cream/tincture if tablets not available or what to do to stopp after disaster. Fukushima He dividing H2/O2 instead N2 adding gadolinium nitrate not only boron acid and sand like heavy 1A absorbers or simply inexactly >30m tsunami pro- tection instead 3.12m tsunami wall after governement 5.7m build 10m high door not bunkerd germany alread instead 2 4+2-4"diversitäre" generators fully bunkerd also tanks and if H2 99.9% filtered away for greates quake 100 000years high water 10 000years. Easy > 30m if closed well and "snorkeling" ! THOR quake >>10 tsunami >>100m no danger from Thor stays closed also openend nothing He out air/water inout nothing. 11BN breakthroughmaterial HTR.

Can you reinsert COPYRIGHT anyway ? After canging article missing usefull informations special absorbers at Absorber=Capture side away coul be delted at control rod but ref ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.165.144.98 (talk) 12:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

No, no copyright notice in article text. Please provide reliable published references. And please log in to edit. Vsmith (talk) 21:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

List of ecologists

Hi! I really enjoy Wikipedia, but I can't even imagine 100,000 edits-- congratulations. I gather from your recent work on the List of Ecologists page that external links are frowned upon or perhaps verboten. And I'm glad to see more ecologist pages ON wikipedia. But I don't understand why you deleted whole listings, for example, for Henry Oosting and Samuel Kendeigh. If the list has names in red, wouldn't that serve as a reminder or stimulus to others to work on those pages? My thinking, in adding external links to Smith's excellent bios, was that helping people get to the information was better than not. Is there a projects list somewhere that retains such "to do" info? I don't get a chance to work here often enough to keep up with some of the workings... so I'm glad there are people like you who do! By the way, the link to Margaret Davis goes to the wrong person, a politician rather than an ecologist. If we ever get a page for her, we'll need a disambiguation page, I guess. Araucana (talk) 17:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the "wrong person link" note; removed. Please note the edit comment at the top to the effect "Wikipedia page required for notability". I suppose we could just require a WP:RS for entrys with no page, but some indication of notability is needed. On lists like this it is just too easy for someone to add their own name without anything to support it. It happens often enough that some indication of notability is required. It shouldn't be left for other editors here to check that there "is" a notable ecologist named "Margaret Davis" or whomever. If you know of such, then hey, write the article and put her back in as Margaret Davis (ecologist) or something akin to that and yes, a dab page can be added. Also, if you had added Henry Oosting and Samuel Kendeigh with reference notes to this "Smith's excellent bios" book/article/whatever I probably wouldn't have chopped... refs are good.

Thanks for the note and I can't comprehend that 100k bit either ... lots of vandal reverts etc. Vsmith (talk) 18:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I saw the "Wikipedia page required for notability" but didn't know how to interpret! Sorry, and thanks for clarification. Clearly not a power user here... Yes, Margaret Davis and others are on my list; we are trying to recruit people to work on these ecologist bios. When you say "if you had added" do you mean new pages on Oosting and Kendeigh too? You didn't mean refs in the list, right? Anyway, I appreciate the help. Araucana (talk) 21:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Well that was some three months ago, but I'd likely give it the benefit of doubt and not remove if refs were there - I'd assume that perchance an article was in preparation ... or at least contemplation. Hey - I'm flexible :) Vsmith (talk) 00:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello again. I created a page for Oosting and linked it to List of Ecologists, but I also notice there's a lot of overlap between this page and the page Category:American ecologists. This was flagged on its talk page as a redundant page FIVE years ago! Should these two pages be manually reconciled or should the "list of" page be deleted? At the moment, it looks like only 34 of the 103 entries currently on this page are non-Americans, but with 37 on both lists, that still leaves more than 30 that theoretically should be on the other. I guess the easiest way to solve that is to make sure those 30 get categorized as American ecologists. Right? But that leaves 60 Am ecologists in the cat list that don't show up on the list page. Suggestions? Last question: what are the criteria for even considering a person an ecologist here? LaChappelle is great, but is she an ecologist? Thanks for any guidance... --Araucana (talk) 16:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Page on Oosting looks good - notability established. The list page is simply a list of ecologists and not restricted to US. The category is separate ... a way of organizing stuff by topic around here. Both are valid. As to the list contents, many of those in the category could be added (after checking the individual articles) ... looking at Category:Ecologists by nationality there is an obvious imbalance, not intentional - just an artefact of editors writing to their interests.

Who is an ecologist - seems professional work and notable research/publications in the field should be required. Looking at the LaChapelle article, I'd have me doubts ... deep ecology? more political than science oriented and metaphysical woo-woo. :) Vsmith (talk) 17:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, V. This reply got by me at first, but I appreciate your thoughts. I guess I'd say deep ecology is philosophy rather than science per se, but for now I'm going to leave Dolores alone. --Araucana (talk) 15:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Azeztulite article

Hi I totally agree with you this article needs to be merged with the crystal healing one.

I am fairly new to WIKI and don't always go about things right, but I am one person not a corporation ( I just found that note from you and the below user posted in my talk page ) I don't understand the statement he made about me having troublesome behavior? ( I have no conflict of interest I am a amateur photographer "zoom"-edia not a company ). Are all the other zoomedia names warned of being a corporation or group too? I don't know why that is, please explain.

The article is so problematic because it does pertain to the Spiritual belief system of crystal healing that is the ONLY place the word Azeztulite is used. Should Wiki have Metaphysical names included? That's the real question. If yes, there are hundreds waiting to be added, starting with the Lemurian Crystals, which are sold by reputable mineral dealers under that name. I don't think any of the metaphysical names should be on Wiki, including Azeztulite!

Millions of people believe and practice in the spiritual crystal healing fields. If was it is just quartz then there wouldn't be a problem. The name is ONLY used in crystal healing it should be a part of that article. Is there a reason that it is not being allowed to be stated that it is a trademarked name?

Is the following appropriate for a discussion to make an article better? I already noted the obvious conflict of interest Zoomedia9 has and if this troublesome behavior persists, I will see to a block of that account per WP:CORPNAME.--Atlan (talk) 16:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC) I just ask because it seems extreme, I don't understand the controversy of this article, other Wiki articles don't seem to have as many problems with editors not being able to discuss differences nicely.

I know I come off as a little rough but I am sincere in my questions asked here. 

Thank you 68.106.218.221 (talk) 19:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi 68... Who are you? Zoomedia9, BLACKcrow7, Frankenbush88 ... or all of the above? Vsmith (talk) 00:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC) Hmm.. or User:Lysissmile? Vsmith (talk) 00:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Again I apologize for being a newbie it was me Zoomedia9 I forgot to sign in and didn't mean it to be an unsigned post. I'm not attempting sock puppeting otherwise I wouldn't have talked about myself as a photographer and the zoomedia name. I am not the ebay account either as Atlan keeps shouting just unlucky to want the Zoomedia name and had to choose zoomedia9 that's what was available at the time. Not a good choice now, I don't have an ebay account so it shouldn't matter anyway! Besides what has that to do with anything about the article, I'm into crystal healing that's the interest. All this other is a waist of everyone's time! Zoomedia9 (talk) 19:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC) P.S. I'm not a girl that's what is making me mad about the accusations! Zoomedia9 (talk) 19:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

OK. However, in view of that other zoomedia and apparent conflict I'd strongly suggest you request a WP:username change. Vsmith (talk) 20:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

You were "unlucky" to pick the exact same name as an Ebay account that sells Azeztulite, the only thing you seem to be interested in? You really must take us for quite the fools if you expect anyone to believe that.--Atlan (talk) 12:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Magnetite

Hi

Please can you tell my why may article regarding Magnetite in a wet Central Heating System has been cancelled. All of the information I provided is correct and verifiable. I felt the need to mention certain manufacturers as these are in the real world of dealing with this problem to consumers heating problems.

Looking forward to your response.

--DrJeremyBraithwate (talk) 07:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC) Dr Jeremy Braithwate

The material you added was removed for a couple of reasons.

First, you didn't provide a WP:reliable source. We need a non-commercial reference to support the info provided, see WP:Verifiability.

Secondly, the info while of interest was rather misplaced in an article about the mineral. Seems more applicable to relevant heating systems articles perhaps (although I haven't read that article to see how it would fit - check category:Heating). See WP:Undue weight.

Third, the external links you provided were to commercial websites and appeared to be promotional. Hence my note about WP:Spam on your talk. Why just those sites. Did they contain info re the magnetite production problem?

I feel the info you provided may have a place in the appropriate article on Wikipedia if reliably sourced. Vsmith (talk) 09:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Gorleben salt stock for endstoring

Can you confirm as geologist that never nowhere a salt stock was coming up as salt see ? salt not sugar needs much water to go liquid with after brake of roof earth pressuring water up but not 1000m with 2000m deep salt and Gorlebener "Eisrinne" from ice time water avout 12 000 years ago not even going down of course not up makes first barrier second stainless CASTOR mistake using Iron instead stainless steal better titane with a litte rhenium from shipbuiding additional neutron absorbing. Is Groleben salt from old sea or going down with water leaving salt behind going away on bottom side ? Is sea level rise from river&coast erosion and change of sea bed instead from global warming over CO2 ? At all warming was nearly only arround Arktis. Temperature expansion of water not enough for 1.6mm/year because deep sea >600-800m deep everwhere cold also tropic areas not to be warmed up so not enough after expansion tables for water at all just +100ppm/+0.5° 150 years already outgoing of oil & gas & coal & CO2 from this source other source desertification with huge increase since 1970 Sahara explaining also methane & CO2 ! Human CO2 32Gt/year nature 550Gt/year all 3000Gt and human CO2 left only partly in atmosphere so no danger nothing to do about ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kay Uwe Böhm (talk • contribs) 13:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Say what?? Something 'bout salt diapirs ... the sugar? And ramble on. Sorry 'bout that. No clue here. Vsmith (talk) 15:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, Salt dome Gorleben and nuclear waste ... seems to be what this was about (at least the start...). Will read that article later and ponder a bit :-) Vsmith (talk) 16:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Green Microfinance Global

I found a spamish user page at User:Green Microfinance Global though since I can't find the template for userpage spam I can't well mark it so I'm simply reporting it. -WarthogDemon 17:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for username. Vsmith (talk) 17:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Just a quick message to say thank you for protecting the page since that IP editor was seriously giving me some slack. Surprised he isnt blocked though, although then again he'll be back on another IP anyway. But again, thanks :) User:Goldblooded ^{(Talk/Discuss)(Complain)} 14:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Hmm, slack or flack ...? Anyway, yes the ip would have likely just came back w/ a different #. Also, you should read WP:3rr carefully - lots of reverting there ... Take care, Vsmith (talk) 14:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah unfortunately ive fallen into the trap of 3RR before, and ive learnt from that mistake; although this instance is an exception since it was an IP editor and he was deliberately reverting my edits (and other peoples) , even though his edits were wrong such as claiming that the British Empire ended in 1956 is ludicrus and things of a simular nature. But anyway thanks again :) User:Goldblooded ^{(Talk/Discuss)(Complain)} 14:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Seems the only exceptions there are for obvious vandalism and/or blp problems. Don't see either of those applying even though "his edits were wrong". Again, use caution there. Vsmith (talk) 14:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

technical advice

I'm a mystery writer and have a few technical questions about oil wells. If you think you might be able to help me, please email. <redacted> Thanks!70.185.165.249 (talk) 16:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... $$$? Don't claim to know much. Vsmith (talk) 16:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

bibliographic link

Dear Smith, I think this link could be important for the topic. It is an italian academic book on biofuels that explain the socio-organizational models of production and consumption of biofuels. http://www.carocci.it/web/Controller.do?query=__BOOK_SCHEDA_LIBRO_2&jscr=0&srcprm=5528 GIovanni — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcarrosio (talk • contribs) 18:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

May be, but a promotional link to a non-English title selling the book won't work around here. Also, I'd recommend that you read WP:COI - we don't promote our own stuff around here. Vsmith (talk) 18:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Epilogue

In June 2008 you helped me with the article Talk:Nuclear model to get my nuclear model image organized for which I have been thankful. It recently has been deleted by Fuzik Fighter for nefarious activities in which I thought you might be interested. I've always wondered what your open minded students thought about this subject matter and maybe about the image. Did they comment like maybe Cool! or something to that effect? At least maybe they got the idea that each atomic nucleus was an individual physical entity, which was the idea that I started out with. Anyhow I'd appreciate any comment as to whether the models were an aid in presenting information relative to the properties of the atomic nucleus. Thank you. WFPMWFPM (talk) 14:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

As I retired from teaching the following year, I didn't have much opportunity to use the models. Had I continued teaching - perhaps so it would have been useful. When introducing complex material to young minds (especially when they may have no interest) simplified and/or unrealistic models can be useful - the development of the atomic model starting with Dalton is the common practice. Reminds me of an incident when I was attempting to explain trajectories to a class of 9th graders (most of whom didn't have a clue about algebra) when a young 14 year old pipes up with "Mr. Smith, it's easier with calculus". He's now teaching math at U. Penn. Vsmith (talk) 15:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I got involved in nuclear physics by accident when after studying Terman in the Navy, the Electrical Engineering dept wouldn't allow the Physics dept to teach me about electricity and said I had to take Nuclear Physics from them instead. Great book about "An outline of Atomic Physics" by members of the Physics staff of the University of Pittsburgh Wiley 1946. Subsequently read about the "atom" by JC Maxwell in the 9th EB and have Irving Kaplan's Nuclear physics. And I thought that an Electrical Engineer ought to be at least interested in what an electron was and what it did. And not with a mathematical concept. And since the standard model, it's getting harder and harder to pin people down as to physical concepts in this area. Have you read the article about the atom in the May 1985 National Geographic? Shows a "consensus" image of the nucleus of EE6C12 that bothered me. Oh Well, sorry I couldn't do better in Wikipedia.WFPM (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC) And thank you again.WFPM (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

"Funga" question, deleted page

I'm intrigued by the idea posted by User:Hhbruun that "funga" be used as a collective for fungi, as "flora" and "fauna" are for the plant and animal kingdoms. The page has been deleted, and I wondered whether, in your capacity as admin you had ever looked at it. The concept sounds like it might have value, and I've no idea what the content was, but I am curious. Can you retrieve it for me? Is there a record of the deletion discussion and people's objections to the page? Thanks for any help... --Araucana (talk) 15:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The page created by User:Hhbruun in July '07 was a short "definition" which had no source. It basically stated what you have stated above. On May 8, 2011, the content was replaced with someone's science fair essay on food spoilage and deleted shortly after. I can provide a copy if you want - but as stated, it was simply an unsourced "definition". Why not discuss it with User:Hhbruun, to inquire into his reasoning. Vsmith (talk) 16:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Got it, thanks for the explanation. His reasoning is on his user page, and your explanation is fine-- sounds like it just needs more basis before being recreated (if ever). --Araucana (talk) 16:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Constructive Criticism

Hello, I'm an LSU undergraduate student writing an article on magmatic underplating. I would appreciate it if you can leave some constructive criticism for me if you ever get the time. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjense2 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, the article is impressive. If any of my tweaks have not been positive, feel free to undo 'em. I'll pass on detailed criticism for now. Seems the page could likely be merged with underplating stub as they cover the same concept - just different environment perhaps. Vsmith (talk) 16:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi, this message is to let you know about disambiguation links you've recently created. A link to a disambiguation page is almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

Great Basin Desert (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

was linked to High desert

Any suggestions for improving this automated tool are welcome. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Ran your check - no dabs found. Vsmith (talk) 13:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Who would…

Who would write 2×10^-21 s instead of 230 keV for the half-life of ⁸C?! Who are you anyway?! A clock?! Well, would you explain why, please? 3.14159265358pi (talk) 16:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

half life: is the period of time it takes for the amount of a substance undergoing decay to decrease by half. -- ergo time units. tick-tock. Vsmith (talk) 18:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

After 37.6k edits, I thought that I saw quite everything. But I haven't seen time as energy, quite notable that, really, really ... :o) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 12:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Perovskite‎

Thanks for the input. This is one of those cases when I sort of sit and wait for a second opinion - delete or rewrite :-). Materialscientist (talk) 11:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The user is obviously trying to complete a school assignment with apparently little guidance. I only removed after finding a copyvio from here altho' I don't have full access to that ref. Vsmith (talk) 12:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Possibly. Can't really tell. By IP geolocation, I see lots of recent clumsy contributions from Asia (India mostly; private or universities) where I can't really tell, pupils or not (well, maybe better to class them by writing level rather than degrees). In this case, I should have access to sciencedirect, but not from home. Materialscientist (talk) 12:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that there was an Indian Education Programm (Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/2011-11-07), and if I'm right there's something going on in China too ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 12:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Chris, do you recall what Texas college class made these mineralogy assignments over the last couple of years? Same MO with biographical sketch stuff. I've alerted the folks trying to coordinate such, but me memory is fuzzy. Vsmith (talk) 12:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Similar edits -- same class project: at Sekaninaite (edits removed due to ref problems and poss copy/paste) and Jarosewichite which remains ... needs fixes. Will likely be more. Vsmith (talk) 13:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Vsmith/Archive17#Stillwaterite 2

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology/Archive 2#Students editing Geology articles

User:Anna Frodesiak is working with a Wikipedia:WikiProject China/NNU Class Project Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 14:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be: GEOL 3370, Dr. Jonathan Snow University of Houston class project. I've left a note on User talk:Alin (WMF) (school project coordinator). Vsmith (talk) 01:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Locusts ...

What to believe what you are doing on locust side after contacted by Hozra ? Sourcing must not be there ! Admistrator before did`t delete all also mistake in writing one corrected already. English correction from you and Syrthiss was english parts another one and contrubutions all from myself not yourself. Same with gold - destruction of gold weas not refrenced and that you don´t know about no reason at all explanations don`t need reference. And deleting of 10B/11B capture chart from myself after added before also not added again but from myself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hozro Only making problems inside Wikipedia.

What was with 10BN used already after your edit... ? What do you know about locust ? Contribution was highly logically not nonsense with right hints on combination of news from science and possible way to kill stopping swarmimg chemical or direct ! Plants are the most likely reason is new by myself. Was first version better or last ? Better or better than was the main question before for zirconium just short version ! Always deleted also not correctable by others who know about theme or with time to improve looking and english. If someone else saw TV report can add more or delete unnecessary reference information. Kay Uwe Böhm (talk) 19:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Please learn a bit about Wikipedia customs and policies. A vague reference to some TV program with no info provided is not a valid WP:RS. Ignoring the remainder of the ramble above. Vsmith (talk) 21:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Heads Up: Incoming minerals

Hi, Jon Snow, University of Houston here.

My bi-yearly storm of mineral pages is coming. You've already seen one or two. these people are all beginners, but they're supposed to teach themselves (these are university students, and have to learn to learn).

Cheers,

Jon Snow jesnow (ad) uh.edu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesnow (talk • contribs) 00:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks and yes have already done some fixing on a few. It would be nice to have a list rather than just catching them on my watchlist, especially for new mineral articles as I don't have redlinks watchlisted :)

Have the Wikimedia Foundation folks contacted you regarding the education outreach program (- the folks working to help with projects like yours)? The contact should come by e-mail. Vsmith (talk) 01:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Nice :) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 03:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Water Ionizers

Please review the article Water_ionizer. The article has been updated with new web references. Thank you. Ankaraman (talk) 17:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the same old promotional **** ... and now it's gone. Agree with Ronz, stop using Wikipedia to promote your product or whatever. Vsmith (talk) 21:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

As far as I understand the content is not biased at all and there is no mention of any kind of product or promo. It just talks about the benefits of Electrolysis. Also, all the references we've put in point to the links on National Institute of Health, US Gov @ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ . Please visit the references hosted on National Institute of Health and reconsider visiting the water_ionizer wiki for review. Thanks - Ankaraman (talk) 17:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Would you mind revisiting the article for review and visiting the aforementioned URL of National Institute of Health and let us know your views. Thanks. Ankaraman (talk) 04:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The NIH page seems to say nothing relevant. Who is the "we" in we've put in above? Vsmith (talk) 10:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The NIH links are embedded in the section that you removed. For your quick reference I'm adding some of the references here. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9169001 , http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14871602 , http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10456736 , http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12915034 . Please visit the above links and reconsider reviewing the water ionizer wiki page. Appreciate your time. Many thanks. Ankaraman (talk) 17:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

So you have 4 primary sources. And...? Now perhaps you can clarify who the "we" and "us" you speak of above refers to. Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

We do have some more as can be seen on that page. And yes, yere "we" and "us" refer to myself and I'm spending time volunteering on wiki the way you are doing. Ankaraman (talk) 15:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Rocky Mountain Locust Entry by Kay Uwe Böhm deleted by VSmith&Hozro and answers from real experts

Bad english questions if plant could be reason that locust died answered by experts: All good questions….

The official expert of course is Jeff Lockwood at the University of Wyoming <removed>

Plant compounds may play a role in hindering populations , but ultimately it’s a game of numbers. Need a large “sink” population to maintain a population, and for them to expand, suitable habitat must exist. The Rocky Mountain Locust may have had very tight/restricted soil nutrient issues that we are unaware of…. And for African locusts… eg Locusta migratoria that do make it to the European continent, proper habitat or microhabitat requirements are not present for them to establish… For example there have been numerous cases of Schistocerca gregaria showing up in Florida, but to my knowledge still have not established. (please provide source)

Does this help to answer your question??

Charles R. Bomar PhD Applied Science Program Director Executive Director, Orthopterists' Society Professor of Biology 331D Jarvis Hall University of Wisconsin-Stout Menomonie, WI 54751

<removed>

It does appear that the locust developed slowly/poorly on alfalfa, which was rather widely planted in the late 1800s. So, in part, the use of this plant which was nutritionally suboptimal (probably not ‘poisonous’) may well have contributed to the decline of the locust. Of course, it is not necessary for plowing (or any other single factor) to wipe out every last individual of a species in order for extinction to occur. Our best guess is that the Rocky Mountain locust existed as a meta-population (a network of pocketed populations in which there was limited exchange of individuals among watersheds). If so, then if a sufficient number of the nodes in the network were wiped out, there may have been too few insects to reestablish these populations and sustain the entire meta-population. And in this regard, alfalfa (or other agricultural plants that were not suitable for the locusts—although we don’t have any indication of other such plants) could have contributed to the demise of the species. (please provide source)

JLockwood

I saw about 1 year ago in german TV report on Rocky Mountain Locust Research. I think not likely died out just by plowing more likely by new plant from farmers brought over from Europe. Plant still not geowing in Africa and before not in USA like beetroot, cowberry or tulip. Plants kill insects normally and can kill all not only plowing. In this case they can kill directly poisoning or just stopping swarming out. If it was plant and you find good chance for killing locust in Africa and maybe if coming over in Europe also uselfull to know but plant maybe already reason before in Europe that locust don`t survived here after coming over from africa in history. Plowing will destroy some eggs only not all and not everythere plowing but plant he must only eat. Can you confirm ? Was it right address ?

Kay 95.88.168.248 (talk) 18:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

That sounds good. Now, what are the references; where did you get those presumed quotes? If you have reliable published sources by those two professors please provide them. Just sourcing to some unnamed TV show won't work. I don't need the profs email and phone #, just references. Vsmith (talk) 18:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

2 adresses are source Rocky mountain locust Research but entry with touching back legs can change swarming... already inside english not german wikipedia under locust but added also here and german W. for show killing way over pheronomes. Aggregationspheromone, die das „Zusammenrotten“ der Heuschrecken unterstützen. Solitarisierungspheromone, die den Übergang von der gregären zur solitären Phase bewirken

New theory by myself plants more likely than just plowing killed animals at this time in email talk with EPA and 2 sources before and already one poison from "Niembaum" (Azadirachta indica with poison meliantriol) used and proofed stopping locust in german wikipedia also killing insects Tubawurzel (Derris elliptica), Barbascowurzel (Lonchocarpus urucu)(also used as fish poison south america poison rotenon), Bitterholzbaum (Quassia amara)(south america+west africa), Bauerntabak (Anabasin)(with much more nikotin), Tabak, Niembaum(WITH MELIANTRIOL USABLE FOR STOPPING SWARMING LOCUST, Sallannin+Azadirachtin )(flat tropic+subtropic aride areas)(india, pakistan, burma but spreaded by humans already to asia, africa, america, austarlia+pacific islands),Chrysanthemen (Insektizid: Pyrethrum)(china, korea, japan, russia and east europe) african plant Oldenlandia affinis with Polypeptid (Cyclotid) kills insects not humans. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rote_Beete with Oxalsäure deathly oxal acid matches with locust problem spreading and planting and maybe difficult first to bring over to USA ? Kay Uwe Böhm (talk) 19:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster

Maybe I`m wrong but in german language you can refere to tables later in text with "später" and tables added by myself long before placed to bottom with old wrong entry same values like chornobyl not just peak together with ankles 2000-3000mSv instead 2-3Sv and not confirmed

Can you stay on sides where you have any knowledge not opening section for my name running after.

Lead or entry much improved much better original and other things to be placed later in text and maybe help with placing Spektrum link down with reference all other things are referenced some news not know in article. At beginning a summary with 0 deaths, main reasons... see also my new added pictures placed to bottom now nice on side of section table before empty place showing... Kay Uwe Böhm (talk) 18:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:LEAD. We introduce the material in the lead section and expand with details and facts, numbers, figures etc, in the relevant section of the article. What you are doing is adding details which may belong in the relevant section below. Plus your reference to the German Wikipedia article within the text of the lead is quite inappropriate. You really need to learn a bit about how Wikipedia articles are written.

As to the Spektrum article - I don't have access to the article and my German is pretty poor, so I'm no help there. As for: "placing Spektrum link down with reference", I'd suggest that you work on that a bit and figure out how WP:References work.

As for the article, you really should address the concerns on the talk page rather than just reverting your garbled text back in. If you do, perhaps someone will stop by and help with the language problem ... who knows. Vsmith (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

garbled text is most same intelligent comprised garbling like in source with exlanation what 250 mSV means real not just telling worng 2000-6000mSV ankles before and overall values like cjronobyl still inside above tables ! An you are clearly wrong with that was a comment with "exact see tables later" right ýou only think timely later ! Wrong placed was long entry teatalk replaced to casualities somewhat double there already insteead just 0 deaths ! Reference catastrophe must be because you don`t have exactly definitions just short version catastrophe inside ! Can you read before ale german article else let it inside for others whoi can read also german and referencing ! I lost 2 hours time with your edit conflict loosing all for linking before and clearly you are wrong with "see tables later" to long time before added replaced tables a comment or meaning timely ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kay Uwe Böhm (talk • contribs) 19:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Yogo sapphire

Is a GA and is listed for peer review. I think the current drive for FA can be used to make it better, and useful (for other articles). I was asked to have a look, and I'm sort of footballing it to you :-). Materialscientist (talk) 09:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Well - was gonna say no (dislike those picky review thingys), but scanned a bit a caught a glaring geo error ... and - aw well, what else am I gonna do while the morning caffeine kicks in :) Vsmith (talk) 13:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I saw, and frankly this is what I expected - a quick scan for glaring errors. I did something similar and might come back there over the weekend. I cheated in the infobox by taking data for corundum - this variety might have a narrower spread in density, refractive index, and other properties like habit (per geology). Not sure the mineralbox is needed there at all, maybe convert it to prose using specific data for Yogos. Materialscientist (talk) 13:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Just added (corundum variety) to infobox title - may tweak a bit more. Vsmith (talk) 14:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I have tried to work the things on the talk page. Thanks for your subject matter knowledge and wiki help. Oh, does this statement "In contrast to traditional Montana sapphires, Yogo sapphires are almost always blue, because their bedrock has a longer cooling time, allowing the trace titanium and iron to spread evenly throughout the mineral rough." make geologic sense (see the ref). IE, is it just the trace or also the even spreading of the trace? PumpkinSky talk 02:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Note the geologist's comments: But he speculates that ... longer cooling times might allow the titanium and iron to spread more uniformly through the crystals, affecting the color. He's speculating, but it does seem logical, slow cookin' makes uniform product. I would change "bedrock" to "host rock" (bedrock has a different meaning) and "mineral rough" to "sapphire crystals throughout the intrusive body" or something akin to that. Vsmith (talk) 11:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

How about..."In contrast to traditional Montana sapphires, Yogo sapphires are almost always blue, because their host rock has a longer cooling time, allowing the trace titanium and iron to spread evenly throughout the sapphire crystals throughout the intrusive body."

A bit heavy on the throughouts. Maybe ...allowing the trace titanium and iron to be evenly distributed in the sapphire crystals throughout the intrusive body. Vsmith (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Cool, posted. PumpkinSky talk 23:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Judith Mountains, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Little Bighorn (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Heh ... thanks bot. Had planned to follow and check that ... but got distracted, fixed now. Vsmith (talk) 23:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Neutron capture

Adding citation needed not bad but entry not from myslef first deleted then leftfor clarification comes from star- science with entries in german wikipedia. New words like s-process not explaned and strange that gold important after german wikipedia for building up but real down as element and after adding neutron it could be beaten out again 197Au->198Au ß- ->198Hg-n->197Hg ß- ->197Au.

You can follow link "inside stars" I don`t know how to upload pictures with absorption Mo,Yb from myself exellent and Mo cheap and heavy like UO2 1A with Mo2B, MoxC, MoNx found by natural isotope existence with 99.9% sure without absorption datas also absorption for 3He, 4B http://www-nds.iaea.org/pgaa/pgaa7/index.html Kay Uwe Böhm (talk) 18:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Eh? I'll give you a simple hint. My grasp of German language is very poor (stems back to a class in 1972, but little used). And that is why I don't attempt to edit the German Wikipedia. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 23:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

197Au+n → 198Au+γ, or in short form 197Au(n,γ)198Au I thought myself already ading is explanation of not very sensefull not much shorter writing with γ to be left also away same size. Rest just destructive inside and molybdenum and ytterbium must be ferenced to myslef like THOR design at pabble bed side since long time like for Areva Antares. Stone of the philophers not important and how to make gold before said planned already for "Kalkar" breeder beating out neutrons or sure absorbing and epsilon decay for 196Hg inside mercury table proofes ? Important hints for A-industrie and security in future ! If don`t understand anything about don`t delete for others ! Kay Uwe Böhm (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

and molybdenum and ytterbium must be ferenced to myslef... No, we don't reference to "ourselves", we reference only to reliable sources - but you seem to be unwilling to do that. And I understand quite a bit, I can recognize self-promotion and near unreadable garp when I see it. Vsmith (talk) 17:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Edits made by user Kay Uwe Böhm

Informing you about to delete molybdenum, ytterbium,mo2b5 and who deleted and you clear wrong with# disruptive inside talk box not neutron capture just right deleting... still in history enough outside and information also inside spreadable other admistrator sides over just new name you don´t know also as admistrator but why or orgnazing a contra group against admistrators like arch dude, 1exex1, VSmith, Shinaloblw, material scientist if true, Shinkolobwe, 1947enkidu, LikeLakers2, Oda Mari, PumpkinSky maybe same just new admistrator name , Hozro from R.M. Locust side, Syrthiss from Neutron reflector side and MIKENORTON most coming from Fukushima disaster side. Kay Uwe Böhm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.173.183.91 (talk) 15:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Reverted and blocked for block evasion. --GraemeL ^(talk) 16:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to disturb you as a WP administrator, it is not my habit, but the user Kay Uwe Böhm continues his disruptive edits about nuclear technology. Have a look at his last junk edits and at the today history of Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster and its talkpage. I have controlled many of the contributions he made since 14 October 2011 and none is worth. See my very recent comments on the talkpage of Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. What to do? Best regards, Shinkolobwe (talk) 18:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to the Enkidu1947 wise remark, I will also support a definitive blocking of this edit-warrior Kay Uwe Böhm. Best regards, Shinkolobwe (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:ANI? Obviously rates a block for disruptive editing, but I'm rather "involved". Vsmith (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your rapid answer. Now he is trolling me directly on my talkpage where he created a new section Shinkolobwe#peblle bed reactor with an IP address: 95.88.170.214 from Bremen in Germany (Kabel Deutschland Breitband Service GMBH; Domain: kabeldeutschland.com). He is also trolling another user/administrator on his talk page with the same IP address: see User_talk:Mikenorton#Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster. It seems you are not the only person which he annoys. Shinkolobwe (talk) 21:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Negative

not a mess, it puts all the refs in one section so when you're in edit mode you are actually reading mostly prose rather than trying to figure out where the prose ia amongst a MESS of ref code.PumpkinSky talk 21:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it has advantages, but when a ref gets chopped it must be double chopped and the refs to chop were in a "notes" section, rather than "references" like the ugly red warning tag said. Sorry 'bout that - just venting mild frustration in edit summary. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 21:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

OK.PumpkinSky talk 21:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Need a geologist

Hi. See Talk:Yogo_sapphire#Some_additional_sources. Can you work this technical info into the article (Harlan and Meyer that is)? Tks. PumpkinSky talk 03:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Will take a look later. Vsmith (talk) 03:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

That'd be much appreciated. They seem to be solid technical refs specifically on Yogos and may even allow tweaking the infobox.PumpkinSky talk 11:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Freieslebenite, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Freiberg (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:50, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Name Change

Thanks for the note on my casual Great Rift Valley move. I gave a rationale on the talk page. I mostly work on African articles, where there are all sorts of interesting topics with no coverage but plenty of sources. So few editors take any interest in this huge area, I am sort of in the habit of moving when it seems to make sense without asking for comment, rather than waiting for ever for someone to take an interest in a proposal. That is not an excuse though. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 20:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Yogo lead

Can you take a stab at expanding the lead? I think it may need to be a bit longer if we go for FA. I'm asking MS too. PumpkinSky talk 13:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Frohliche Weinachten und Gluckliches neues Jahr

Christbaumschmuck an einer Nordmanntanne (fotografiert in Baden-Wurttemberg, Deutschland)

Photo from Baden_Wurttemberg, Germany.PumpkinSky talk 12:38, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Christopher Columbus page edits

Thank you for intervening in the Christopher Columbus page edits. We really need fresh eyes on this page as well as a rewrite to condense the enormous lists added. A similar issue is ongoing with Columbus's wife's page, Filipa Moniz. I would like to enlist the help of unbiased third parties to have a look and rewrite or delete whatever is necessary. Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 00:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome. I noted the request for protection by a reliable chap, took a look at the article history and acted on it. Good luck on reaching a consensus, but I have no interest in getting involved in those disputes. Will be watching when the protection expires. Happy editing! Vsmith (talk) 02:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Wilson Butte Cave

Tks for helping here. I've worked on it more and listed at DYK, giving you credit too. If you can help more, please do so. PumpkinSky talk 00:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Feedback on Ammolite page

Dear Vsmith - thank you so much for your feedback. I've never added or edited anything on Wikipedia before (well - I tried before but didn't have the right reference information - so it was all deleted).

I appreciate your help. I didn't realize a self-published book wasn't allowed. It is near impossible to find printed information about ammolite, especially how to process it step-by-step. But I understand that might appear self-promoting.

I hope the rest of the edits were acceptable.

Thanks again,

Beckythorne1626 Beckythorne1626 (talk) 03:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Stoichiometry

Hi Vsmith,

I'm intrigued to know why you keep on reverting the molar info on ammonia. After extensively seeking details on websites, I conclude that it is normally done by molecules, not atoms. Basically, you start off with diatomic nitrogen and diatomic hydrogen, and turn them into 4-atom molecules of ammonia. The equation is

N₂ + 3H₂ → 2NH₃.

It is not 2N + 6H → 2NH₃, or N + 3H → NH₃. You cannot have monatomic nitrogen or hydrogen in normal circumstances. Therefore you would start off with, say, 1 mole of nitrogen (mass 28 grams) and 3 moles of hydrogen (mass 6 grams) and convert them to 2 moles of ammonia (mass 34 grams). All the websites I could find which say it gives 1 mole of ammonia seem to be copies of the mistake introduced into the Wikipedia article about a year ago. Websites which seem to know what they are talking about say it gives 2 moles of ammonia. Stating the masses makes it even clearer. Could you please un-revert the correct information?

Refs. http://www.chemtutor.com/mols.htm http://www.chemteam.info/Stoichiometry/Mole-Mole.html http://www.wpi.edu/Academics/Depts/Chemistry/Courses/General/concept8.html http://academic.evergreen.edu/curricular/matterandmotion/chem_phys%5Cpractice_problems.htm

Yellowbroom, 29 Dec 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.8.231 (talk) 14:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Look again at the bolded paragraph title "Composition stoichiometry" - not "reaction stoichiometry" which you are trying to make it. The reaction stoichiometry for forming ammonia is given just above. Your refs above are all discussiog reaction stoichiometry which is the more common usage of the term. However, composition stoichiometry or "formula stoichiometry" as I refer to it is an important concept in teaching chemistry. Taught chemistry to teenagers for 25 years and used a large chunk (~3.5 kg) of chalcopyrite (CuFeS₂) from a copper mine as an example. I would ask them how much copper was in the sample and then use "composition stoichiometry" to solve the problem. Vsmith (talk) 14:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Gregory Rift

I wonder if you could do me a favor and take a quick look at this. It just got nominated for DYK, and I am uncertain about whether it is in good enough shape for that. I have been pottering around with other articles in the area and expected to return & fix up obvious distortions & omissions later. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 19:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, I tried to put in simple language what I thought the sources said, but do not know if I picked good sources or really understood them. And there seems to be a fair amount of controversy, maybe because new tools, techniques and information keep appearing. Only if you have time, of course. The article as it is can do no great harm and may make a few geologists laugh. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Took a quick look and no glaring problems noted :) Don't know much 'bout the DYK criteria. Vsmith (talk) 02:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK criteria are mostly just basic things like neutral, verifiable etc. But I was a bit uneasy with my interpretation of the sources on this one and would not have nominated it myself. Thanks for taking a look. Aymatth2 (talk) 04:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request for The heading of the biography of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab

Raqib nizami (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab (1703 – 1792) (Arabic: محمد بن عبد الوهاب) was an Arabian Islamic theologian and founder of a new divisive (firqa)sect Wahhabism<ref>Allama al-Shaykh Sulayman Ibn `Abd al-Wahhab, elder brother of Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Wahhab: al-Sawa'iq al-Ilahiyya fi al-radd 'ala al-Wahhabiyya ["Divine Lightnings in Answering the Wahhabis"]. Ed. Ibrahim Muhammad al-Batawi. Cairo: Dar al-insan, 1987. Offset reprint by Waqf Ikhlas, Istanbul: Hakikat Kitabevi, 1994. Prefaces by Shaykh Muhammad ibn Sulayman al-Kurdi al-Shafi`i and Shaykh Muhammad Hayyan al-Sindi (Muhammad Ibn `Abd al-Wahhab's shaykh) to the effect that Ibn `Abd al-Wahhab is "dall mudill" ("misguided and misguiding")</ref> <ref>Wahhabism:a critical essay by Dr. Hamid Algar http://books.google.com.bd/books?id=OSKFQgAACAAJ&dq=Wahhabism&hl=bn&sa=X&ei=zNrwTs6CL62aiQextOWXAQ&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAQ </ref> <ref>Wahhabis' fitna exposed by Sayyid Saīd Akhtar Rizvi http://books.google.com.bd/books?id=VqTFAQAACAAJ&dq=Wahhabi+fitna&hl=bn&sa=X&ei=N9rwTvbxB5CUiAe6iaXSBA&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA </ref> <ref>The Wahhabi mission and Saudi Arabia By David Dean Commins http://books.google.com.bd/books?id=kQN6q16dIjAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Wahhabi+mission+and+Saudi+Arabia++By+David+Dean+Commins&hl=bn&sa=X&ei=sNfwTszIJuWSiQfBmsnEAQ&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false </ref> <ref>Al-Dahesh ibn `Abd Allah, Dr. (Arab University of Morocco), ed. Munazara `ilmiyya bayna `Ali ibn Muhammad al-Sharif wa al-Imam Ahmad ibn Idris fi al-radd `ala Wahhabiyyat Najd, Tihama, wa `Asir ["Scholarly Debate Between the Sharif and Ahmad ibn Idris Against the Wahhabis of Najd, Tihama, and `Asir"]</ref> <ref>Ibn `Afaliq al-Hanbali, Muhammad Ibn `Abdul Rahman: Tahakkum al-muqallidin bi man idda`a tajdid al-din [Sarcasm of the muqallids against the false claimants to the Renewal of Religion]. A very comprehensive book refuting the Wahhabi heresy and posting questions which Ibn `Abdul Wahhab and his followers were unable to answer for the most part.</ref> <ref>Dahlan, al-Sayyid Ahmad ibn Zayni. Mufti of Mecca and Shaykh al-Islam (highest religious authority in the Ottoman jurisdiction) for the Hijaz region: al-Durar al-saniyyah fi al-radd ala al-Wahhabiyyah ["The Pure Pearls in Answering the Wahhabis"] pub. Egypt 1319 & 1347 H; Fitnat al-Wahhabiyyah ["The Wahhabi Fitna"]; Khulasat al-Kalam fi bayan Umara' al-Balad al-Haram ["The Summation Concerning the Leaders of the Sacrosanct Country"], a history of the Wahhabi fitna in Najd and the Hijaz.</ref> <ref>Saudi State, Wahhabi World:The Globalization of Muslim Radicalism by Naveed S. Sheikh http://books.google.com.bd/books?id=bfOoPAAACAAJ&dq=Saudi+State,+Wahhabi+World&hl=bn&sa=X&ei=YdnwTuudFMqeiAfMhMyYAQ&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA </ref> <ref>Global Salafism: Islam's new religious movement By Roel Meijer http://books.google.com.bd/books?id=b4y02X0YcGsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Global+Salafism:+Islam%27s+new+religious+movement&hl=bn&sa=X&ei=idjwTpa2A-yPiAeygty7AQ&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Global%20Salafism%3A%20Islam%27s%20new%20religious%20movement&f=false </ref> <ref>Urban Terrorism : Myths And Realities By N. C. Asthana & A.Nirmal http://books.google.com.bd/books?id=8EqWnqdsgZMC&pg=PA58&dq=Truth+About+Wahabism&hl=bn&sa=X&ei=8dzwTra0LPGhiAf4ia2vAQ&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Truth%20About%20Wahabism&f=false </ref> <ref>[[#EBOMuh|EBO ''Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb'' 2011]]</ref> whose pact with [[Muhammad bin Saud]] helped to establish the [[Emirate of Diriyah|first Saudi state]]<ref>[[#Hou92|Hourani 1992]]: 257-258</ref> and began a dynastic alliance and power-sharing arrangement between their families which continues to the present day.<ref name="IBP">[[#IBP11|International Business Publications 2011]]</ref><ref>[[#Oba99|Obaid 1999]]: 51-58</ref> or, in plain English:

Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab (1703 – 1792) (Arabic:محمد بن عبد الوهاب) was an Arabian Islamic theologian and founder of a new divisive (firqa)sect "Wahhabism".Whose pact with Muhammad bin Saud helped to establish the first Saudi state and began a dynastic alliance and power-sharing arrangement between their families which continues to the present day.Raqib nizami (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I see that you have added this to the article talk page. That is yhe proper location - not here. Vsmith (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Question about Larimar page

I'm doing some research about Larimar and discovered at least one error on the Larimar page. I'm happy to make the edit to correct the error but want to know if anyone is still active on the page. The detail in question is in the "Geology" section of the page, which states the blue color of Larimar is caused by cobalt impurities. I have several references that suggest that copper, not cobalt, is the cause of color. Do you know of anyone still working on this page who might know where the reference to cobalt came from? If I can't find anyone I'll update the content and add the citation for the references I have.

Beth Carter — Preceding unsigned comment added by BethCarter (talk • contribs) 06:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't know about the cobalt bit and I see it has a cite needed tag, so change it with a citation. Two of your listed potential sources are definetly commercial websites and not reliable sources. The Gems and Gemology article and the minerals.net page would work (although the minerals.net is rather ad heavy). Go ahead with your edit. Please note that the page has a history of pure promotional editing, seems people want to sell the stuff :) Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 14:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I'm very new to Wikipedia editing though I've used it for a while. Your comment about promotional editing is interesting. That's pretty much the reason I'm starting to edit. We travel a lot and I'm frustrated by the abundance of misinformation given to people in major travel destinations about gemstones. I'm hoping I can help get accurate information out there, and Wikipedia seems to have the same attitude I do, so I'll see where this goes. Finding an adopter will probably be appropriate long run but for now I'll just start with some factual edits I can verify. You've done such a great job answering my question ... You'll probably get more from me! Mineralogy (studied under Barb Dutrow at LSU), gemology (GG from GIA), and technical writing (day job) are my greatest professional level interests. In the specific edit here, I planned on using the G&G article as the citation - I'll figure out how to do that. BethCarter (talk) 23:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Great! Glad to have someone with a gemmology background editing. Many of the gemstone articles are in need of some TLC by an expert. My interest is more in rock forming and ore minerals, background in economic geology. Studied X-ray crystallography under John Anthony at the University of Arizona back in the 70s.

If you need help with the referencing bit, just ask - WP:Citing sources can be a bit overwelming at times. Vsmith (talk) 13:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I found something called an external link, which I now cannot find again. It referenced teh Winter 1989 G&G issue, in particular the article about larimar, but had the wrong title, something about blue in the caribbean. So .. first, what's the difference between an external link and a citation reference (it seems to me they do the same thing, verify information), and second, how can I find that external link again? In reading the editing tutorial, it seems I need to enter it as a footnote, but if what really needs to happen is an update to that external link, I can do that and then use it. Heading the right direction? BethCarter (talk) 03:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I added the ref statement. I received a note that I created a new external link, but it doesn't show in the article's list of ext links. Can you take a look and let me know if I did this correctly? BethCarter (talk) 05:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks like you've got it. Might add page numbers for the Gems & Gemology article. The difference between a reference and an external link is simple: a reference supports specific parts of the text, whereas an external link provides further or related info for readers to find more on the subject. References are required to verify what we write - external links are not required. Congratulations, you've figured out an important part of editing. Charge on! Vsmith (talk) 10:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for the help. Based on your explanation I think G&G is a reference, not ext link. It summarizes the analysis from gem research that verifies the statement. Will find page numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BethCarter (talk • contribs) 21:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)