User talk:Vsmith/Archive21

Now that you blocked the IP from Talk:Human

he has hopped IPs over to 71.135.160.248 Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

So I noticed ... watching. Vsmith (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Any ideas?

Fe-Ni alloys: awaruite, taenite, tetrataenite, hexaferrum, telluric iron (variety kamacite), meteoric iron

Fe-Ni is neither a real article nor a disambiguation page. Which way does Wikipedia go from here now? I'm not very happy about it, your creativity might be better than mine. Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 13:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

hmm... redid a bit and, see talk:Fe-Ni... Vsmith (talk) 14:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thx, it seems more Wikipedia standard now. And we had Nickel-iron alloy already :[ Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 16:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Yup, currently renaming & merging stuff there. Vsmith (talk) 16:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much...

Hello there,

Just a quick note thanking you for your contributions here at Wiki. I am exploring your work here and finding a number of interesting articles. I was reading an entry on moissanite and found that you had the most edits early in the development of the page. I am equating that with the possibility that your knowledge and work are the main contributions. Because I am so very new to the processes of Wiki, it is entirely possible that I am wrong. But I hope I am not and I wanted you to know that your work is appreciated. Thank you.

Sincerely,

E. Humphrey aka Rann
PS Errr, sorry was not even logged in when creating message. Not even sure what part of Wiki I am in. Like I said so very new and sooo much to learn... *sigh* — Preceding unsigned comment added by RanndomFire (talk • contribs) 00:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, seems most of my edits to moissanite were reverting vandalism and removing spam - just been around here awhile. Cheers! Vsmith (talk) 11:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Reorganization of Meteoroid proposed

Hi Vsmith, I believe that the meteoroid article is currently poorly structured. I have proposed a re-organization at Talk:Meteoroid#Re-organization needed. Perhaps you could look over my proposal at User:HopsonRoad/sandbox and make a recommendation. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 21:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks good ... do it. Vsmith (talk) 14:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Re:Welcome

Thanks for the welcome! Just a quick question while we're writing about silicates: When was the Dana System nomenclature for silicates changed from a chemical composition to a structure orientation? As an aging rock hound my older Field Guide to Rocks and Minerals by Frederick H. Pough (of the Peterson Field Guide Series) uses the Seventh Edition of Dana's System of Mineralogy. As someone with a chemical and telecommunications background I am use to change, but those of the current system seem ill-advised at the least. Just the opinion of an old semi-retired (few want to hire a person of my age) rock hound who recently moved from the South to the North with family. Let me know on my talk page, and thanks again for the welcome. I'm still figuring out this Wikipedia thing. Oh, if you see my "finger prints" on a number of articles, it is because I'm also an amateur linguist (just another hobby). I hate incorrect grammar or confusing chemical formulas that someone thought to simplify by leaving out definite articles or uses brackets "[ ]" to include many anions that have the same number of occurrences in said formula. Again, Thanks for the welcome. Sandhillman (talk) 18:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

hCG

Hello. I requested that another editor remove certain statements on the hCG page. I feel that there is an obvious conflict of interest concerning the statement from the American Society of Bariatric Physicians. Could you have a statement from the National Association of Bike Riders claiming that driving cars is an ineffective way to travel? I doubt it, as ridiculous as my example is. Perhaps you, unlike the other editor, have some logical aptitude and can remove these inflammatory statements from the page, eliminating an obvious incident of double standards. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.225.56.239 (talk) 22:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Please take your concerns to the article talk page. The page was protected as there appeared to be edit warring with no discussion on talk. I see now that you have been explaining your concerns to other editors on their talk with some success. I strongly suggest that you start a discussion on the article talk if there are unresolved issues. The page is on my watchlist. Vsmith (talk) 23:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Minerals named after people

Hello Vsmith

You may want to read Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 January 28#Category:Minerals named after people. You may want to comment it too.

Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 09:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Went there, did that. And so I can't spell therefor... :) I have me doubts tho about lots of redlinks for "possibly" notable mineralogists and others. Always seemed to me that the naming of minerals was perhaps a mess - as in "find a new one, name it for my buddy..." But, yes many of those are/were quite notable scholars. Keep on keepin' on Vsmith (talk) 15:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Thx, sorry for adding the e ;) Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 15:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

My compromise got a CfD too: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 January 30#Category:People honoured with a mineral name :[ --Chris.urs-o (talk) 12:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Possible COI and sockpuppetry at Himalayas and Karakoram

Please see Talk:Himalayas#newly-created account reverted edits without explanation. To avoid an edit war, I am leaving the article alone until we resolve and discuss. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks! —hike395 (talk) 14:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for chipping in. My first impulse is to not run to WP:SPI. It may be that User:Tigona didn't realize how offensive using a sockpuppet is at WP. My hope is that the sockpuppetry will stop after telling him/her that it is not proper behavior. I'm trying to WP:AGF as much as I can. If you think that I'm being too permissive, please let me know. Or, if you think I am being too WP:BITE-y, let me know. —hike395 (talk) 15:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Block of 14.139.160.4

Hey, seen that you have given {{schoolblock}} to 14.139.160.4. It is a residential institute, so users do not have the option to go home and make accounts and come back. Was the vandalism from this IP so bad as to block account creation? If not, please reset the block condition such that account creation is permitted. One of my friends from the institute just pinged me saying they were unable to edit. Thanks -- Raziman T V (talk) 15:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The block notice provides specific instructions for getting an account. Have your friend follow those directions. Vsmith (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Hydrogen sulfide

Hi, regarding the hydrogen sulphide edit, I did provide a source (to a BBC News article on the incident). WP:NEWSORG states News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact. As it was only an additional example on the Incidents section, I don't think WP:notability test needs to be met.

The sig though was an error. Stephend01 (talk) 18:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you did have a good source - my mistake on that point. The incident was indeed a tragedy, however we can't include every local incident in an encyclopedia article. It has to be of more than local significance and I don't see this incident as doing that. Vsmith (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's a completely new reason now. I don't agree it was just a local event, as one of the victims, Nevin Spence was an international rugby player for the Irish national youth team, gaining national attention in the news at the time of the incident, and upon the publishing of the findings of the public inquest (which the news article I linked to was reporting on); the event was significant enough to be included in the notable Deaths in September 2012 article. I felt this incident added more depth to the section, as it was an illustration of the dangers of the gas outside of military or industrial use. However, if you still disagree, I will yield. Stephend01 (talk) 05:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Seems there's no mention of the gas in the athlete's article. The ref you used mentions hydrogen sulfide and other toxic gases and also says they died after "breathing in the liquid" - which is rather typical sloppy news writing or did they drown. What "other toxic gases"? The news article links to a website for slurry safety which is a good resource. Is there an article on agricultural sluury or some such - where the tragedy would be more relevant than the general chemical article on the compound? If you still feel it belongs in this chemistry article, you might ask the folks over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals. Vsmith (talk) 12:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Citing and Wiki

Hi V,

Although I cited Wiki as a reference, the links are there in those Wikipedia references to support all of my statements. I just don't know how to write all of the information in the little boxes so that everything is "cited."

If you would like to help me do this, I would appreciate it. Thanks, Tina — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tina Marie Stinnett (talk • contribs) 02:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks like you are figuring it out, keep at it. If you make a mistake, it's usually easy to fix or redo things. Cheers! Vsmith (talk) 11:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Just a polite note

University of Houston, Houston TX

• Department of Geosciences, 'adopt-a-mineral' term paper for the course GEOL 3370

Wikipedia:WikiProject Rocks and minerals#Pages needing attention

Counted 73 articles ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 11:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Former vs. Formal

The talk page for Meteor Crater indicated that the name "Diablo Canyon Crater" was never recognized by any authority, so I assume that it's not a formal name, but a former name. DHN (talk) 18:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

er... please read that image caption again, and reference #1 for Canyon Diablo (meteorite). Vsmith (talk) 11:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Question

I don't do •2(H₂O) but I prefer •2H₂O. I hope that you don't mind. Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 16:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Noticed that, I prefer the parentheses to clarify that it is 2 water molecules rather than two hydrogen molecules (H₂) and a single oxygen. Minor thing - and I see it done both ways. Maybe it's the chemistry teacher in me :) Anyway thanks for getting my attention on syngenite as I had made a mistake - that 2 was supposed to be a subscript for the sulfate - fixed it. Vsmith (talk) 16:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Another note: what is your criteria for assigning importance on mineral talk pages? Not critical, but seems molybdenite should be a cut above "low". 'Twas rather important in the mines I worked at way back when. Vsmith (talk) 16:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

At my school time after the dot, it was always hydration water, never parentheses. Nowadays the chemical formulas get more complicated sometimes. Molybdenite it's ok "mid", I'm trying to make a list of the c. 375 most important minerals. I'm just beginning, still learning. Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 19:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Early anthropocene for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Early anthropocene is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Early anthropocene until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Noted. I recently removed a bit of religious artwork, but don't recall why the article was on my watchlist. Vsmith (talk) 03:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

CSH

Dear Vsmith, I've added 2 related articles to CSH as you had said. I hope those are suitable for WP.Soroush90gh (talk) 09:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Those pdfs look solid - would be nice to have a journal ref to back up the Ga Tech slideshow. The cement folks tendency to use their version of chem formulas kinda grates on the chemistry teacher in me :) Vsmith (talk) 14:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Grossular

Hello Vsmith. Grossular has a merge stick on it from User talk:Strickja since 2009. I guess that you don't want to merge hessonite, a grossular variety. Right? Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 14:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Probably should ... now that this note is here, just maybe will get to it. Having an ice storm here now - don't know if the electric lines will go down? Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 15:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I guessed that u r against merging, I guessed wrong :-O Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

P.S.: Thank you for fix my unfinished job at djerfisherite. I got the impression that webmineral.com isn't updated anymore, just take care ;) Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

re: Cosmology

Hi, Several people, including you, have been reverting the description of Biblical Cosmology to one that is just completely fraudulent and doesn't have hardly a thing to do with the Bible's actual description of the cosmos. It's nearly a carbon copy of the Babylonian one and not accurate at all in terms of what the Bible says (which is why I included Bible references in my revision). Describing Bible cosmology as similar to Babylonian is about as accurate as calling America a communist nation. Isn't wikipedia supposed to be accurate?

All who have reverted it simply do not seem to care about accuracy. They may have good intentions, but their description is not accurate at all. I have MUCH more documentation of this I can add if you wish, even by agnostic scientists. I'm also a professor myself and have done quite a bit of study into the Bible as well as science and history. Wikipedia is very good in many places..but there is unfortunately a bias against historical facts in some areas, sometimes in Christian areas, but not limited to that by any means. I use wikipedia a lot...but we need to make sure it is accurate, not just supporting a prejudiced agenda.

Sorry I haven't contacted others about this..I just figured out how to use the talk pages just now.

Bryan

Dotoree (talk) 19:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I see you are discussing now on the article talk. That's where it belongs ... Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for 1. welcome 2. info on signing 3. link fix Dr. Woo Woo (talk) 19:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome. Stay around awhile, we need more editors who are willing to learn and improve the articles. Vsmith (talk) 20:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Talk page - mole fraction

Hi!Please use the talk page if you're wondering about some aspects before considering a reversion.

About the question proper, isn't the isotopic abundance a type of mole fraction which deserves to be mentioned? Or perhaps it is expressed as mass fraction?--MagnInd (talk) 23:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I suppose it could be, however I don't recall isotpe abundances being reported in terms of mole - usually expressed as a simple percentage as our article does. Could be that mole fraction is used, hey there's a lot I don't know :) ... do you have a reference for its use? Vsmith (talk) 00:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Googling isotopic abundance mole fraction gives plenty results.--MagnInd (talk) 21:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

So I see ... as I said before - lots I don't know :) Vsmith (talk) 01:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Besides the results one could see easely (a relatively straightforward/immediate inference by proof by contradiction) that the use of mass fraction instead of mole fraction to isotopic abundance would create unnecessary complication for the average atomic mass of an element (namely a recursive definition).--MagnInd (talk) 23:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I can see that natural abundance as used in isotope studies is essentially equivalent to mole fraction. So a bit noting that in the mole fraction article would be appropriate, hopefully with a reference and preferably not as a one line section. Vsmith (talk) 00:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Vsmith i want to ask you something. Can we actually talk to some other user and find that user that we want to talk to so it's like Facebook or something.--Hadrian0 (talk) 16:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but talk pages aren't for social chatter -- focus on improving article content. And if you place your comment in an old section ... it can get missed. Vsmith (talk) 16:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thank you for cleaning up my lousy spelling in Geology of Cyprus :) Tobias1984 (talk) 13:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Great, mo' caffeine ... b'lieve I will. Anyway I had to have something to do while my morning coffee pried my eyes open -- and fixin' is more fun than vandal revertin'. Keep on keepin' on... Vsmith (talk) 13:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Wise paper Ixiolite

Hey! Saw that your helping with the ixiolite article. I have that pdf for you (http://dl.dropbox.com/u/65175676/Wise%2C%20Cerny%2C%20Falster%201998%20Scandium%20subst%20%20CGM%20Ixiolite.pdf) --Tobias1984 (talk) 15:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Got it - thanks. Will read now and see if I can resolve the disagreement bit. Vsmith (talk) 15:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

More reading: --Tobias1984 (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• http://dl.dropbox.com/u/65175676/Ercit-1992_1.pdf
• http://dl.dropbox.com/u/65175676/Ercit-1992_2.pdf
• http://dl.dropbox.com/u/65175676/Ercit-1992_3.pdf

Got em, thanks ... lotta readin'. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 01:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I just saw that you made some changes to tapiolite. Would this picture help with the crystal chemistry? --Tobias1984 (talk) 15:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

That would be useful for an expansion of the article ... sometime :) My recent edit was just to clarify nomenclature and target a couple of redirects. So many places to play, so little time... Vsmith (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I already made this quite some time ago for my master thesis, so this time "time" was not the issue for me, which it usually is :). --Tobias1984 (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Block of User:38.127.205.3

Hey :)

I've just changed the block settings of your block on the above IP to enable account creation, there's gonna be a school project (by someone who's done them before), and their students need to create accounts.

[stwalkerster|talk] 01:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

No problem ... you might put a {{schoolip}} tag on that talk page so soft block will be done next time. Vsmith (talk) 01:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Uh, do you check IPs before you block them?

When you blocked 128.97.253.249, you blocked the Internet gateway at a major university. You cut off perhaps 100,000 people in order to punish one miscreant.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.179.18.131 (talk) 02:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmm ... changed it to a soft block, account creation enabled. Sorry 'bout that - no "punishment", just simple childish vandalism prevention. Vsmith (talk) 02:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Paranormal Activity (film series)

Can you extend protection time? This dates back in end of February. — Preceding unsigned comment added by George Ho (talk • contribs) 20:17, 9 March 2013

If the ips return next week with similar activity, drop me a note. Vsmith (talk) 21:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Sunstone

I'm currently researching "sunstone" in a historical context, so needless to say my mineralogical understanding of the subject leaves much to be desired. I was wondering if you could clear up the status of Labradorite for me. Is it a plagioclase feldspar, a calcite, or other?

And if it is a plagioclase feldspar would it be safe to add Labrador and eastern Canada to the list of natural sunstone locations?

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZachJBeavers (talk • contribs) 03:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Zach, labradorite is a plagioclase on the calcium rich end whereas oligoclase is a sodium rich variety. Labradorite does have some interesting optical properties, but I've never heard it referred to as "sunstone". I would say that unless you have a good reference that calls it sunstone then no. Vsmith (talk) 10:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome.

Thanks for the welcome. KatieBoundary (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Heh ... like your lie detector machine - it'll fix them lyin' rocks... Vsmith (talk) 21:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't thought about that. It does fix the lying rocks, stopping them from lying, and instead causing their pieces to fly (including into eyes - always bring goggles or glasses on any good hike). :) KatieBoundary (talk) 22:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Why can't I edit this article?

Resolved

Why can't I edit this article? KatieBoundary (talk) 16:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I was told at Teahouse and on my talk page that the article is semi-protected from vandalism. I am tagging this "resolved". KatieBoundary (talk) 19:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Glad you got that explained/figured out - sorry I wasn't around to explain things a bit ... gotta get away from the keyboard now n then. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 23:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Cozumel page

Hi Vsmith

Thanks for helping clean up the Cozumel page after "OfficialCozumel" had spammed it. As a side-effect some of the links to This is Cozumel as sources and an external resource were removed, I've added them back in.

icampbell — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icampbell (talk • contribs) 19:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome. I'm a bit skeptical of the thisiscozumel website, seems a bit spammy and ad heavy, not sure it would pass muster at WP:RS. That's part of why I went with the non-promotional pdf pages -- altho have doubts about them as well, but at least they don't look spammy. Vsmith (talk) 23:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

helloo

hello thank for the aware, for the artical of western culture the source say's that christians account 75-76% of eurpean are christians while the articale say that 76% is among "who described themselves as religious".Jobas (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Good to see you using references. However, please also use edit summaries to explain your edits. Had you explained your edit (the one I reverted) with a clear edit summary, I would not have undone it. Vsmith (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

Thanks for the warm welcome, I've read the intro material you posted on my page, so I hope I won't make any egregious "no nos" but if I do, please feel free to use a carrot or stick. Cheers Geraldatyrrell (talk) 04:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome - and thanks for adding more references. Vsmith (talk) 09:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Electric Universe

Regarding your comment: Your recent addition to Tunguska event contained a link to a video from www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2013/02/25/russian-meteor-another-shock-to-the-system/ - That site would seem to not pass our reliable sources policy and has been removed

The people doing research highlighted by this website include widely read authors, tenured faculty, Nobel Laureates (Hannes Alfven) and serious engineers and journalists. Why do you think this site does not pass the "reliable sources" policy? The models investigated by this group may not fit the mainstream theories propounded by cosmologists but they are by no means dis-proven or lacking in supporting evidence. At least not any more or less than conventional cosmological theories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D arvind (talk • contribs) 15:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The website seems to be promoting fringe material. The main page has promotional bits and links to buy their books. Therefore, it fails WP:Reliable sources. Vsmith (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the vandal at my user page

I was away for a few days, and only just noticed that the vandal had returned about four days ago. Thanks for reverting him, and protecting the page. Unfortunately, he is a very slow, drawn-out vandal, having first appeared in early February. Chris857 (talk) 03:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome and you are on my watchlist - so I'll zap him again if he shows up for more nonsense. Vsmith (talk) 10:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Request

Hi Vsmith, please attend to my request at WP:RPP ASAP. Some Polish IPs keep irritating me. Thanks. Arctic Kangaroo 17:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks like Reaper done did it while I was eating lunch. Cheers. Vsmith (talk) 17:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Syamsu is back

Hi Vsmith,

I believe that Syamsu is back at it again at Free will. I'm not sure how to formally report suspected sockpuppetry but since you were involved in his ban I thought maybe I could just notify you directly and maybe you could take it from there? --Pfhorrest (talk) 09:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Saw this earlier, but my morning caffeine hadn't got to me brain then :) Per their comment on the talk page there, I've indef blocked for socking and legal threat. Vsmith (talk) 12:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

My edits to "Dalton Minimum" deleted by YOU.

Your recent re-addition to Dalton Minimum here has some problems. First: the addition lacks relevance to the article as written. Second and more important: the content is sourced to a website which seems to fail Wikipedia sourcing guidelines and doesn't mention Dalton Minimum - unless I've missed something - thus failing WP:SYN. Please explain on talk:Dalton Minimum. Vsmith (talk) 01:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

First reservation: relevance. We are looking at the referenced article http://www.landscheidt.info/ First ref in article: Look at the first graph (white background) labeled "Sun-SSB Angular Momentum" and you will see at the

right end of the first line the word "Dalton" in orange print. At the left end of the second line you will see the word

"Minimum" in orange above the date 1810. Together they say "Dalton Minimum".

Second ref in article: Look at the second graph (white background) labeled "Solar Activity Events in C14" and you see

"Dalton Minimum" at the right end.

Third ref in article: Look at the third graph (black background, blue wave lines) labeled "Jupiter Distance to Sun/SSB

difference". Look near the center at the bottom of the second line you will see "Dalton Minimum" in orange print.

Fourth ref in article: Look at the bottom graph on the page below the row of 5 bright yellow "Suns". You will see the

"Jupiter Distance to Sun/SSB difference" graph repeated. On this graph you see a green pitchfork in the center and

the word "Dalton" appears under the left side of the green line.

So there you have 4 references on the first page.

Second reservation: Sourcing Here is the definition from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings:

=> the piece of work itself (the article, book),

the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press).

I am referencing the website as an article in itself. What is the problem with that? I appears to me that you are a global warming activist who wants to deny any evidence of climate change which does NOT point to human activity. This article shows plainly how the planetary grouping of Jupiter, Neptune, and Uranus on one side of the Sun with Saturn on the other side of the Sun (which occurs about every 178 years) causes the Sun to go into a period of LOW activity. This causes sunspot activity to drop dramatically which in turn causes lower temperatures on Earth. This article suggests that Solar cycle 24 will be very low and Solar cycle 25 will be very low also - both of which portent severe cold in our near future.

I wrote: Recent research and papers by Carl Smith indicate that the grouping of Jupiter, Neptune, and Uranus on one side of the Sun with Saturn in opposition (or nearly) on the other side of the Sun cause the Sun to drop into a state of lower activity resulting in severely reduced sunspot activity and lower temperatures on Earth. This configuration of planets occurs about every 178 years. It occurred in about 1631 which lead to the Maunder Minimum then in 1813 which lead to the Dalton Minimum and and again in 1990 which was predicted by Carl Smith and Theodor Landscheidt to lead to the next minimum called the Landscheidt Minimum which has already begun. This minimum will probably last until 2030. [3]

This is scientific evidence that the four great planets are causing climate change NOT anthropomorphic carbon dioxide emissions. Of course global warming activists want to suppress all evidence which disputes their thesis. You are one of them.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Crwillis101 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 26 March 2013

First, don't call me names.

Second, so the graphs use the word Dalton..., so what?

Third, the "reference" you used is a website ... i.e. self published I'd say. Where has it really been published? In what peer reviewed journal? Use "that" peer reviewed journal for your reference ... what is it?

Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

A warning by me on Crwillis101's talk page just got me an email repeating the name-calling. Dougweller (talk) 09:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Fluvial

"Reverted to revision 542471423 by RockMagnetist: er... mass wasting just needs gravity" - Gee, and there all this time I've been thinking that streams and rivers were driven by gravitation. Silly me. Paul venter (talk) 08:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Heh - yup - all driven by gravity. But that pile of scree at the cliff base didn't need another "agent" - just gravity to pull 'em down once some weathering process loosened 'em. Mass wasting is erosion w/out those erosive helpers: moving water, ice & wind. Vsmith (talk) 10:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Mmmm.. that pile of scree is just one example of mass wasting involving "some weathering process"- mud slides are another and water is very much a factor here. The article itself states "Factors that change the potential of mass wasting include: change in slope angle, weakening of material by weathering, increased water content; changes in vegetation cover, and overloading". Few processes are simple and nature just loves blurring the lines we draw. Incidentally, "w/out those erosive helpers: moving water, ice & wind" and earthquakes, there would be no mass wasting - gravity is certainly not going to achieve anything on its own. Paul venter (talk) 11:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Ever notice those chunks of rock along the road below a steep roadcut after a cold night? They are loosened by expansion/contraction due to temperature change overnight and by freeze thaw frost action - no flowing water needed, just weathering due to temperature changes and frost. Vsmith (talk) 11:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you miss the point - that there is always some process acting in concert with gravity to cause mass wasting. Paul venter (talk) 07:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah ... very few processes act in total isolation, the point is that running water and moving ice are not required. Vsmith (talk) 10:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Right.....that's what I wrote....."erosive helpers - moving water, ice, wind, earthquakes" and add to that list animal & plant activity and sunlight. Do you think we're getting somewhere? Paul venter (talk) 14:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

"getting somewhere" er... where we going? Obviously there is a continuum. Dry soil with plant roots on a steep slope is not likely to creep much or very slowly. Saturate that soil with water and creep is much more likely. Keep raining and oversaturate and we might get a mudslide. With additional water that slide becomes a mudflow... Somewhere in that continuum our initial mass wasting hillside creep becomes a fluvial mudflow. Is that sorta where we're going? Finding a dividing line in a continuous process? Vsmith (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Now you're beginning to sing my song.....Paul venter (talk) 08:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Nope, not singin'. Mass wasting has no need for water flow (fluvial) just because there exist "murky" intermediate examples. Kinda like grain size in sediments: a sandstone is composed of sand sized particles, even tho occasional gravel or silt sized particles may be found or the bed may grade laterally into a pebble conglomerate. Vsmith (talk) 13:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, one can define grain sizes to artificially categorise rocks into mudstones, sandstones etc. I've not yet seen a grading system that does the same for water content. And, no, I've never said that mass wasting needs water flow. What I have written is that water is one of the main erosive processes leading to mass wasting. Paul venter (talk) 16:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Article on Religious Interpretations of the Big Bang Theory.

Kindly read what has been mentioned in the talk page for this article at [[1]]. The last section has all that I have to say in the opening part. Four references were given and all of them were dubious and utter rubbish. Please have a look through and then comment. You will see if I am wrong in wanting the changes that I do. 117.194.235.31 (talk) 17:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I've read it. Quite simply: be patient and don't edit war -- give others time to consider your points. In your last edit summary you stated: I will have to bring in the Admins. Not nice to make pseudo threats such as that, the "admins" are watching :). You may have some valid points, now give it a bit of time for other interested editors to chime in. Please assume good faith of your fellow editors. Also note that by choosing to edit as an ip rather than creating an account, others can easily see your geographic location and are likely to react to that making assumptions about your point of view. Now, please wait for others to respond on the talk page. Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Greetings to you. I was the individual that had made those changes to this article and posted the message above to you 16 days ago. I am usually logged into my this WIKI account on my laptop. I was logged out sometime just before I made those changes and got into that albeit temporary argument. I was also caught up in a few things later and thought that I should give these so-called editors a bit of a long rope (more than half a month long) before I raised this issue again. As we both can see (and as I fully expected tbh at the very outset) zero discussion has taken place in this matter since. I would kindly ask you to please do something about this. You did admit that I had a few fair points but as per WIKI rules such a revert was illegitimate all the same. Not so much as in a WIKI 'spirit', I just know that I cannot assume 'good faith' of those editors, who have or will challenge(d) me on this. This creed of people cannot tolerate that some other creed might have their seeming knowledge and level to be higher than their own in anything. I assume you too were of the same opinion, as you figured out (I assume) from my IP, where it is that I was posting from, and advised me on creating an account, and that comments could be made on the basis of my location. (The most important thing should be whether the point made is righteous and proper and correct regardless of who makes it but I am aware of how people can be.) I could make out from your page that you are a Geoscientist yourself (a field in the 'Historical Sciences' like Astronomy) and also an Admin. I also like the politeness and courtesy you show to those you correspond with. Now I kindly as you to exercise your position and initiate some debate on this so as to determine if keeping the Islam section there really makes any sense. Regards SumerianPrince (talk) 16:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Greetings once again. I am really clueless about what is that caused you to COMPLETELY ignore my previous message - as to whether I was annoying - or stupid. I don't really know. That you are a more than averagely qualified individual, and an Admin who was rather polite, made me think that people would take more note if you initiated a discussion on this page/article. Is it that my demand is illegitimate or something annoying in my tone or simply that you do not wish to have this issue thrashed out. I would be greatly obliged if you would bother to reply rather than turn a completely deaf ear his time round. SumerianPrince (talk) 18:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmm... thought I had, guess I got busy elsewhere. Anyway, please post your concerns to the article talk page and perhaps you will get a discussion going - always better to post using your account. Basically, I don't care to comment on the content there and at the time was simply acting to deter what looked like an edit war starting. Vsmith (talk) 19:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Zeolite decomposition

Dear Smith,

Kindly wait for a few days, I shall provide you the reference from where I discovered that certain Zeolites decomposes due to direct or indirect contact with Heat and Moisture. Also mention which kind of reference you require?

Regards, John E. Tusker — Preceding unsigned comment added by John.tusker (talk • contribs) 18:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

See reliable sources: some source published by a reliable outfit. A book or scholarly article would be best. Please avoid commercial websites which may be promoting a product. Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Zeolite Decomposition

Dear VSmith, The reference is from a book named "APPLIED CATALYSIS" written by Pakistani professor: Muhammad Haroon. But I cant seem to find an online copy of the book. But I will try to present it you within 2-3 days. Regards, John E. Tusker. John.tusker (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello!

Thanks for a warm welcome :-)

I am afraid I am not the most suitable person for contributing to Wikipedia. I love the project, and especially how it illustrates the value of cooperation. But the "problem" is that I have always had a very inquisitive mind, and I tend to draw my own conclusions from my observations of the universe around me, even if I have to disagree with the majority (for instance, as you've seen, from my point of view chemical units are not atoms, regardless of what everyone else in the planet may choose to call them). It is very difficult for me to talk about anything I may "know" (I might not know a thing) without throwing in my own conclusions, and I realise that Wikipedia is not the place to publish one's own ideas.

But thanks for the encouragement! Abedul69 (talk) 21:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome. I do understand, Wikipedia isn't for everyone. The original research policiy seem rather harsh to some, but without it all sorts of folks would try to use it to push their favorite fringe ideas. There are rather interesting concepts and ideas that just can't be added here for lack of reliable sources. Some of those "wild ideas" just haven't gained recognition ... time will tell, they may be the accepted down the road. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 00:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your contributions on the Rimrocks page! Sara goth (talk) 12:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome, just doing a bit of fixin. Vsmith (talk) 14:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Greenhouse manufacturers list

Hello, I noticed that a few weeks ago you removed my post about GGS Structures Inc, a greenhouse manufacturer in Canada. Is there any way I can add this so it complies with Wikipedia's rules? I work for the company and we have been in business since 1979. Do I need to cite this in a specific way?

Thanks for your time.

38.80.65.134 (talk) 14:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Quite simple, you added a promotional link. If you look at the Greenhouse manufacturers section, you will se a link to another Wikipedia article on a notable company. If you feel your company merits an article - then that can be addressed elsewhere. First please read WP:COI as Wikipedia is not here for promotion. Vsmith (talk) 15:20, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

If I add an entry of the company name without adding a link back to our website, will that be accepted?

38.80.65.134 (talk) 13:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

It would still be promotion. Especially in view of your stated conflict of interest. You could make a suggestion on the article talk page. However, without some evidence of notability of the company, I doubt that it would be added. Vsmith (talk) 13:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Mackinawite

Mackinawite is pure FeS as explained by Rickard in his Chemical Geology paper that I quoted. The paper abolishes the misconception of mackinawite being a mixed iron-nickel sulfide. For me a paper published by a leading iron sulfide specialist in a peer reviewd journal is more meaningful than information from a popular science mineralogical web site.

Thank you.

Marek Pekala — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.62.233.242 (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmm... an edit from 2008? The Handbook of Mineralogy is not "a popular science mineralogical web site." Vsmith (talk) 01:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Checked, see Talk:Mackinawite. The reference is "recent", Mindat.org, Mineralienatalas, rruff.info/ima/ and Handbook of Mineralogy don't use this chemical formula. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 20:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Please check my sources

Hi, you helped me with some geology articles. They led me to a Chinese geology company, and then another topic company associated with editors of those articles. I added a Controversy section edit with reliable sources, but my edit was reverted[2]. It was replaced with WP:OR stuff without reliable sources. Could you check my sources and restore my edit if I did not make a mistake? I am asking another editor who also helped me before. Thanks. KatieBoundary (talk) 15:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Took a quick look. Please realize that if you are involved in an edit war, you don't go and ask someone else to make an edit for you. Doing that can get you in trouble around here. So, no I won't restore your edit, even if those sources look good. Looking at that article, I do see some possible problems. However, I have no interest in the subject and have no interest in editing the article. If there is something requiring adminstrator assistance, I see there is an ANI thread open - so state your case clearly there. Vsmith (talk) 19:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Where is the ANI thread on this article topic? KatieBoundary (talk) 20:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Was referring to this one. Vsmith (talk) 20:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Wyattmj

See WP:AN3#User:Wyattmj reported by User:EdJohnston (Result: 72h). You beat me to the punch on this one, so I marked my own 3RR complaint as closed, and noted you were the blocking admin. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The edit war caught my attention due to his edits on another users talk ... so I took a look. Seems "truth" trumps all... Also noted the arbitration filing ... maybe 72 hours was too short. Rolling on ... Vsmith (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Is this the correct place to ask this kind of question?

Is this the correct place to ask this kind of question? KatieBoundary (talk) 02:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes. And it was fixed by a pro :) Vsmith (talk) 09:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I am trying to edit articles, not become a "pro" at the talk page laws, and article moving technologies. I am finding that there is a lot of undone work in geology articles, beginning in the very first sentences, which you probably noticed can be dealt with by merely having a first year "essentials" text book at hand. Is it inappropriate to never learn all this "pro" stuff, and try to just edit articles, using basic sources? KatieBoundary (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

"Just" editing articles is what it's all about. When you need help with the "pro stuff" just post a question like you did above or ask one of us "experienced" characters. Keep on truckin'! There are lots of articles begging for fixin. Vsmith (talk) 22:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I seem to have stumbled upon a geology-mining hoax (or fraud) in Arizona and the Mojave in California, then went to Wikipedia, and am finding a related chain of apparently related hoaxes that keeps going on and on. Then I found deleted talk page sections with quotes from LA Times and other quality sources linking it all to actual crimes and convictions. When I restored that content, I got attacked. Apparantly previous editors were similarly attacked, and likely felt like me... not dealing with it. Is there a Wikipedia project that deals with taking over investigating hoaxes? It is not what I came here for. KatieBoundary (talk) 00:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmm... you have found a major flaw in Wikipedia - it is far too easy for individuals and companies to use WP for promotional purposes and if they are promoting a real world hoax ...

Before digging deeper, you need to be very familiar with relevant policies. Read WP:COI and WP:COIN, WP:SPA, WP:HOAX (altho you're referring to real world hoaxes), and WP:OUTING (be very careful there).

My recommendation is: focus on improving articles and proceed with caution on the controversial stuff until you have a solid grasp of the relevant policies. Stay cool, don't edit war and be civil.

As for a specific real world fraud noticeboard hmm... see Wikipedia:Dashboard, Wikipedia:Noticeboards and/or Category:Wikipedia noticeboards

Have fun :) Vsmith (talk) 02:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Hydridic Earth theory for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hydridic Earth theory is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia .... = FRINGE, no RS for 5 years. There was edit by you in the article, so I hope you can discuss the deletion. `a5b (talk) 03:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Watching it, seems all I did was remove some unsourced claims and an ext link hyping a book or whatever.Vsmith (talk) 00:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Vsmith, thank you for your contribution to this project. Here you have requested a source Abiogenic_petroleum_origin id=416757910 and I think this can be such source (Leung hydrocarbons diamonds 2005 via Scholar). This work was not cited according to Google, but it looks like what was intended.`a5b (talk) 21:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Seems that abstract is better than nothing, however looks like a meeting presentation abstract - would need the a ref to the actual journal article (assuming there is one) as the abstract is a bit lacking: "bubbles are probably filled with hydrocarbon fluids"?? Vsmith (talk) 00:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

This page: http://www.lehman.edu/lehman/enews/2006_02_14/feat_quorum.html in section Irene Leung says:

Irene Leung (Professor, Environmental, Geographic and Geological Sciences) presented two papers: (with C. Tsao and I. Taj-Eddin) "Hydrocarbons Encapsulated in Diamonds from China and India" at the Geophysical Joint Assembly (New Orleans, May 26, 2005) and (with C. Tsao) "Golconda Diamonds from Old Mines: Windows of Earth's Mantle Below the Deccan" at the American Geophysical Union (San Francisco, Dec. 8, 2005).

So, other publication from Leung in 2005 is http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005AGUFM.V41A1437L `a5b (talk) 17:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Again - interesting meeting abstract, but where (what peer reviewed journal) were the results of their work published? Vsmith (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:NPA; WP:AGF

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding racism, personal attack. Thank you. {{Discrimination sidebar}} I have reported you on Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding your reply to my comments in the talk page of Y-chromosomal Adam.--144.122.104.211 (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow ... that went fast :) Thanks for letting me know. Nowikied the sidebar - seemed a bit out of place. Keep on truckin' ... Vsmith (talk) 01:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Cratons - request and thoughts re a standard approach

Hi Vsmith - been taking a look at more articles on cratons and, as per your suggestion, am wondering if you could assist with moving pages from 'X craton' to 'X Craton' in the following instances, none of which I am able to do: Dharwar craton, Indian craton, Rae craton, Churchill craton, Sclavia craton, Slave craton, Superior craton, Wyoming craton, North American craton, Yangtze craton, East European craton. In the course of looking at some of these, not least the North American examples, I was reminded of just how considerable a number of mentions of terranes, terrains, provinces, orogens, greenstone belts etc (with numerous sub- and super- versions too) there are - with the inconsistency of approach already described at WP Geology. I'll look to draft some text for inclusion in those project pages which aims to stimulate a standard approach (unless you're aware that the task has been approached before and some text is hidden away somewhere!) Anyway, thanks in anticipation of your further help. Geopersona (talk) 06:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

GA Thanks

This user helped promote Luis Walter Alvarez to good article status.

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to thank you for your editorial contributions to Luis Walter Alvarez, which has recently become a GA.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Basanite?

I have started a conversation on the jasper talk page about basanite. Please have a look, and maybe drop a word or two in. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 00:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Eight years later

In reading the jasper talk page I noticed you had commented there in 2005. Congratulations on your time on Wikipedia, and thank you for the informative posts (even if what I took away from it included "stay away from bas/s/anite!"). I do not see a barnstar gallery on your user page, so I am not leaving an apple for teacher, but the thought is there. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 03:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the thought apple. Tend to leave the barny bits to be archived with the talk. Regarding jasper, lapidary and "pretty rock" collectors/dealers tend to invent a wide variety of special names which often add confusion. I'd recommend Gemrocks page by R.V. Dietrich (he has a bit of clue :) Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 12:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Charles's Law page

Hello V,

I'm a newbie, just registered on Wikipedia, so would appreciate your view about the entry for Charles's Law, as I see you've edited this page recently.

I think there was a wrong edit done by an unregistered user on 24 March in the section 'Relation to Ideal Gas Law'. I think the constant in the equation should revert to 267.

What do you think?

PS - I find it crazy that an un-registered user can edit pages.

PSS - Do users not have to add a comment on WHY they made an edit - it would be so much easier to see which edits are bona fide if the revision history included such comments.

Sulbhain (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, restored the 267 value as Gay-Lussac's original per text in that paragraph.

I agree - it's kinda crazy - but that's the wacky way wikiworld spins :) Vsmith (talk) 13:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Your geology and admin expertise is needed

Could you take a look at this: Geology_and_Earth_formation, kudos --Tobias1984 (talk) 08:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Another one: Prehistoric_supercontinents --Tobias1984 (talk) 08:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Redirected those student essays for now. Vsmith (talk) 12:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Jimbob271 what the hellllllllllllllllllllllllllllll?!

What the hell why would you just delete my stuff like that i hadnt even finished improving it yet you cant just do that. I wouldnt do that to you so thats not fair — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimbob271 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Your "article" was an unsourced and poorly written essay which was redundant as the topic is fully covered on other articles. As noted on your talk, you should work to improve existing articles which cover your topic. And please read WP:reliable sources -- any content added to Wikipedia articles must be supported by published sources. Vsmith (talk) 22:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Many thanks, Vsmith, for keeping an eye out for vandalism on my personal pages. Regards, Pinethicket (talk) 16:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome. That ip edit sorta let the cat out of the bag - blocked em for block evasion. Keep on keepin on, Vsmith (talk) 16:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

To whom it may concern (",)

Hello Vsmith

As every nomenclature needs a hierarchy, I'm trying to improve the one on Wikidata

You may check its status at d:Wikidata:Mineralogy task force

Science → earth science → geology → mineralogy

Category:Classification of Minerals → mineral supergroups → mineral groups → mineral subgroups

Crust (geology) → geological formations → rocks → minerals

I don't know right now what is the best categorization for amber, coal, natural gas, petroleum, etc.

Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I would say

earth science → geology → rocks → Fossils → amber, coal, natural gas, petroleum

As they are all fossil/fossilization derived substances.--Kevmin § 06:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Bifurcate...

↑→ minerals →

rocks →

↓→ non-minerals → bifurcate again ↑organic ..↓inorganic..

Vsmith (talk) 11:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Thx ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 20:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Confusion?

The 98.232.168.140 edit ("gay") you just reverted as mine isn't mine - you see my name?

What's the big idea?YahwehSaves (talk) 01:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Please look again - my edit summary was: (Reverted edits by 98.232.168.140 (talk) to last version by YahwehSaves). I reverted the anon's "gay" edit back to your previous edit. Vsmith (talk) 02:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Geology of North America

This article is nominated to be part of DYK project. However, it has issues still, so I wonder if you can resolve them since you are one of major contributors. --George Ho (talk) 15:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I've done a bit of fixing, but find the ip insults and blather on the talk page tiresome. I will likely continue to improve it as time, available refs and inclination allow. If there is some kind of deadline involved ... sorry but no. Vsmith (talk) 22:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Precious again

geology
Thank you for polishing this gem with your profound geological knowledge, as part of more the 100.000 valuable edits to the project, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 146th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Coal balls

The peer review for them ended quietly a while ago, and I've looked over my knowledge of coal balls a bit more since. I am still of the belief that the article could take a FA review, but what do you think? →Σσς. (Sigma) 02:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!!!

Thank you for the welcome!!!HttydFan95 (talk) 17:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)HttydFan95

Cozumel

This is not advertising. I have been living on Cozumel for over 20 years. You will not find a better source of information on the island. We do not get paid for any of our links and the information is fresh and informative. It is obvious that you don't live here. It is amazing that someone who knows nothing about Cozumel can edit like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.149.21.77 (talk) 14:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC) Instead of taking down content that is informative you should be taking down sites that are advertising (i.e. http://thisiscozumel.com/content/view/1178/2/ ) How do you explain the double standard? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.149.21.77 (talk) 14:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, removed again. Wikipedia is not here for promotion of your website. Please read WP:EL Vsmith (talk) 15:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

So you are not removing links that go to http://thisiscozumel.com ? Are you friends? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.149.21.77 (talk) 16:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC) We promote the Island just as http://www.islacozumel.com.mx does. This is not spam, nor is it advertising. We do not charge anyone for our content and it is Cozumel specific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.149.21.77 (talk) 16:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Not right now, will check it out later - in the middle of another article right now. Please read WP:AGF. Also please read WP:conflict of interest regarding the "We promote..." bit. Vsmith (talk) 16:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure that you don't know the folks at thisiscozumel? You were very quick to take pages down that had no advertising on them and I see that you have left advertising laden sites up.

Do you answer to someone? I will be looking into this.

I see a conflict of interest on your part. You say that I am repeatedly spaming the site and yet there are at least a dozen "spam" pages from thisiscozumel. [3]
(above added by ip 189.149.21.77 at 05:33, 3 July 2013‎)

Y'al do have a problem. Yes, there are poor links used as references. See WP:other stuff - throwing a hissy fit here will accomplish little. You should calmly discuss the problem on talk:Cozumel while noting your conflict of interest. You should suggest alternative references for the article. I'm assuming that you wish to improve the article and not just promote your own website. Vsmith (talk) 11:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

My goal is to improve, and inform. And yes, to promote! We are after all promoting accurate information here, are we not? You can call this a "hissy fit" or you can look at the facts.

1. You claim that I repeatedly spam the page. For example you take down a page that informs the public about "Cozumel Culture". And yet you allow a dozen spam sites as references.

2. You take the time to write on this post but still you have not removed the "spam links" that you admit are spam.

3. By your comment "should suggest alternatives for the article"; I did.

4. And lastly; are you suggesting that in lieu of "alternative" references you intend to leave "spam" references up? Does this "improve" the article?

Again, is there a conflict of interest? Do you answer to someone? How do you explain you lack of action against admitted spamming? I look forward to your response.

(Youtube promo removed) Here is a video that appears on my "Cozumel Culture" page. Do you believe it is spam? Now look at the page you allow on the same site you are editing: (web site promo removed) I think these two items speak volumes.
(above added by ip 189.149.17.118 at 15:59, 3 July 2013‎)

WP page quote removed, I know what it says.

Now, I suggested above what you should do. If you don't want to do it - fine. I'm quite through with your insults. Vsmith (talk) 18:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I am happy to see that you finally cleaned up the page. I guess it took some persistence to get you to do the right thing.

I also see that you kept your statement about insults intact. That is OK. This was never about my ego; but it obviously makes you feel better having the last word.

I'll be checking up on you from time to time just to keep you honest. Have a good life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.149.47.166 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 9 July 2013

Your "persistence" actually slowed things down :) sorry 'bout that. Bye now. Vsmith (talk) 15:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

reviewing

I recently created the article Mohawk Mining Company and I was wondering if you could review it for me. John Mortimore (talk) 17:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

See talk:Mohawk Mining Company. Vsmith (talk) 15:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I will try to improve the article and thanks for your contributions to Mohawkite and Keweenawite, I was aware that they were discredited, but I was not able to find a source.John Mortimore (talk) 15:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Chandra Wickramasinghe

Dear Sir : I have put a huge amount of effort into making a serious improvement to this page. I need to talk to you about what and why.

In the 60's I was a student of Sir Herman Bondi - a peer of Fred Hoyle - and the person who brought Chandra from Sri Lanka to Cambridge on a commonwealth scholarship. You are making serious mis-assessment of this brilliant, compassionate scientist.

Help and guidance appreciated.

I understand your desire to "make this accurate" but there is much misinformation here :

I put a large amount of effort into rewriting the Creationism v. Darwinism section in which I explained what really happened. Please could you review and talk to me.

I would like you to help me make this much more accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BSmith821 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion belongs on the article talk page (Talk:Chandra Wickramasinghe) - please state your concerns there where other editors may also discuss. What I removed appeared to be unsourced material along with some NASA probe bits that didn't relate directly to the subject, please familiarize yourself with WP:synthesis, WP:original research and WP:reliable sources. Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 21:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Break 1

Dear Vsmith. I need to understand your comment : . (→‎Spaceborne organic molecules and structures: a quote from a book published in 2000 does not belong right after a 2013 report of a simulation esperiment) (undo | thank)

Is it because the reference is a book rather than a journal? The reason I feel that the reference I provided was valid, is that it links to the very HYPOTHESIS that the experiment is being measured against. You cannot assess an experiment and any evidence it delivers unless you have the hypothesis against which to measure. If you need me to replace the reference with a journal, please let me know. It is however also worth debating that all the Panspermia evidence which will now start to rapidly accumulate, will need to cite the original hypotheses developed by Hoyle and Wickramasinghe - I have provided 9 basic hypotheses which they have made, and I have asked Professor Wickramasinghe to develop a complete list of hypotheses with peer reviewed non-fringe journal reference.

The experiment Overview: While scientists have discovered basic organic molecules, such as amino acids, in numerous meteorites that have fallen to Earth, they have been unable to find the more complex molecular structures that are prerequisites for our planet's biology. As a result, scientists have always assumed that the really complicated chemistry of life must have originated in Earth's early oceans. In an ultra-high vacuum chamber chilled to 10 degrees above absolute zero (10 Kelvin), Seol Kim and Ralf Kaiser of the Hawaiian team simulated an icy snowball in space including carbon dioxide, ammonia and various hydrocarbons such as methane, ethane and propane. When zapped with high-energy electrons to simulate the cosmic rays in space, the chemicals reacted to form complex, organic compounds, specifically dipeptides, essential to life. At UC Berkeley, Mathies and Amanda Stockton then analyzed the organic residues through the Mars Organic Analyzer, an instrument that Mathies designed for ultrasensitive detection and identification of small organic molecules in the solar system. The analysis revealed the presence of complex molecules – nine different amino acids and at least two dipeptides – capable of catalyzing biological evolution on earth.

Note : this is much more than a computer simulation.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-03-evidence-comets-seeded-life-earth.html#jCp BSmith821 (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Quite simple: you added a bit regarding a 2013 paper and then add a quote starting Strongest evidence to date ... from a 13 year old book. Do you not see the problem there? Perhaps this paper does provide the Strongest evidence to date ..., but we need a reference for that -- who says it is, now? Vsmith (talk) 20:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Break 2

Dear VSmith : I think someone has deleted from the Chandra Wickramasinghe's TALK area work I did summarizing Wickramasinghe's Hypotheses for your review offline. Is this deletion possible or have I just misfiled it. It was there for you and BatteryIncluded to comment on. I realize you are unlikely to want this on the Panspermia Page.

Someone also commented on intelligent life and CW. FYI I don't know if he has any work on this in scientific hypothesis format or simply general writings. I think he tries to keep away from ET's after all the pain he has suffered with various issues like the Creationists v. Darwinists. I think it is time to keep ET's off the Panspermia page and allow it to be a discussion on the original hypothesis.

I am sure there are many other scientists who have hypothesized ideas around ET's and Disclosure. I suggest from now on WIKIPEDIA use other pages fro this kind of documentation. BSmith821 (talk) 19:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

If you go to talk:Chandra Wickramasinghe and click on the history tab at the top you will see a listing of all changes to that page. The only deletion occurred at 00:53, 15 July 2013 when I removed a change you had made to an old post by another user (we don't modify other user's comments). Is that the post you are looking for? Vsmith (talk) 21:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Vidya Jyothi

As you well know, I have no interest in unnecessarily promoting Wickramasinghe or his largely fringe viewpoints. I added the link to Vidya Jyothi at the beginning because it is similar to what is done with other honors elsewhere—see the Jonathan Ive article or, more relevant to this case, the Hermann Bondi and Fred Hoyle articles, all of which have "Sir" at the beginning of the name. Wickramasinghe deserves fair treatment, no more and no less, and I think that adding "Vidya Jyothi" is fair treatment, even in light of his fringe views (Fred Hoyle had a lot of "calculations" to support creationism that can be proven wrong by a look at the talk.origins archive; perhaps we can mention that, as it specifically addresses the work of Hoyle and Wickramasinghe). Wer900 • talk 01:16, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Removed as it seemed rather obscure. WP:HONORIFIC basically says not to use - then goes on to make exception for British Honorific titles, which seems rather odd and nationalistic :) perhaps due to consensus by overwhelming British editors or something silly. Basically placing such an obscure title before his name elicits a "say what" response. I'd rather do away with all honorific titles as nationalistic puffery, see Elton John aka Sir Elton Hercules John CBE, really? ... good grief. All that said, if you wish go for consensus on the article talk, I'll try not to blather so much there. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 02:17, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

As an ex-Brit living in Canada where we do not have such titles, I am ambivalent about this. But I think it is important I check out how Wickramasinghe feels. As he has lived in UK for a long time, he will understand the issue, but it would be good to hear his conclusion.

96.54.204.240 (talk) 04:26, 20 July 2013 (UTC) OK. As an ex-Brit living in Canada for many years I have mixed feelings on this. I thought last night of proposing to you we started a new page on "Global Titles", and maybe a develop arguments that people from smaller countries who had a title (like Chandra) that the country considered equivalent to UK "Sir", could use the "English translation" of Sir. It seems that this title should not be controlled by UK civil servants. So I decided to wait for his feed back - and this is what it was :

On 20 July 2013 05:29, Bill Smith <wesmith@outlook.com> wrote: Hi C: I am debating with my editor the issue of the Sri Lanka title Vidya Jyothi I realize this is as good as a UK “Sir”. But to the English (esp American) ear this is totally “alien”.

You could take either position and they will support you. For some historic reason their “normal” policy is to tolerate UK titles but not use any others.

Response Bill - I have no strong feelings regarding this. Suggest we use Chandra Wickramasinghe or Professor Chandra Wickramasinghe as you and the Editor thinks fit.

Best

C ___________________________

Conclusion - you make the call. I suggest make it consistent with other academics like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michio_Kaku 96.54.204.240 (talk) 22:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC) BSmith821 (talk) 22:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

"State" versus "state" a problem of capitalisation

Vsmith In the article Autodidacticism you reverted my edit for capitalisation of the term "State" on the ground that: " this is an encyclopedia article not a legal doc." However, I have wrote most of the article section on architecture 2 or 3 years ago, I have also wrote the paragraph which contains the term "state". It happens that I was conversing on this subject earlier this week. The "State" that I am using in the phrase is the one defined in legal terms. The restriction applied on autodidact architects is contained within legal texts, in legislation. I understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, however, it does not prevent us to use legal terms when necessary. I feel that your revert is unfounded. I do not want to engage in an edit war on this matter, but you should be thinking twice prior to revert someone's edit and you should at least come up with a valid reason for doing so or engage on the talk page first... --Christophe Krief (talk) 10:46, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Replied there, WP:BRD in action... Vsmith (talk) 12:16, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Evolving evidence for Panspermia

This MUST continue to be a chronology of evolving evidence and will continue even past the announcement of life on Mars in 2019 by the Icebreaker. Steps include 1. evidence that life can survive in extreme conditions on earth - in ice and deep in the ocean 2. evidence that life can survive in the stratosphere 3. evidence that life can survive in inner space 4. evidence that life can survive in Asteroids and Comets 5. evidence that life can survive in Meteorites 6. evidence that life can survive on MARS and on moons of planets 7. evidence of life in Interstellar Medium 8. evidence for life originating outside solar system

each of these steps is important in the overall "proof" of Panspermia.

Please respect chandra Wickramasinghe's hypothesis and stop trying to redefine or confuse the need for recording evolving evidence and our need to track it in an organized way. You are letting yourself and WIKIPEDIA down by failing to understand this hypothesis and the reasons for all the evolving evidence. It is understandable for you to keep the citations correct and edit the words, but this is Chandra's hypothesis so you should be grateful he is spending the time and effort to help make this Wikipedia page accurate. BSmith821 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

We aren't here to "prove" panspermia - just to report what reliable sources say about it. It isn't about "respect" for anyone, rather about documenting what those reliable sources say about the subject. Are you here to promote his work, or to improve an encyclopedia article? And please, enough of the shouting. Vsmith (talk) 12:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

and the place to "explain your revert" is at talk:Panspermia#Extremophiles where the section has been under discussion. Vsmith (talk) 13:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Dear Vsmith : as I have written before, we are talking about "defining" a hypothesis then laying out a series of propositions around which experiments will be focused. The later stage is to gather evidence and determine if it is consistent with the proposition. I am trying to encourage Wikipedia to think about this as a reasonable structure to document any hypothesis. We also need to know the "owner" of any hypothesis, and the scientists which strongly advocate for or against the hypothesis and then the various propositions. ie it is quite likely evidence will be very strong for one proposition, but not for others.

right now the whole section could be much improved around this proposed structure. On the Panspermia Talk page I am trying to get BatteryI to realize it makes no sense to say "right now Panspermia is not proven. This is close to meaningless".

I am so sorry to come across as pompous. If you are wondering what on earth I am talking about, please ask your Wikipedia expert of scientific hypotheses for guidance. But I expect you do understand this.

From my own personal perspective I have no idea if Panspermia is "true" or if is is "close to true" or completely "untrue". I just know that we can improve the way it is described in terms of propositions, and then, in the future track the evolving evidence for and against each proposition. We are not talking about UFO's or "Aliens here" . We are simply talking about a Hypothesis, its propositions and a frame work for documenting the evolving evidence.

An example : lets take the 5th paper published in the Journal of Cosmology ( hold your nose). We would document the results shown in this paper under the Section : Panspermia/Proposition 4 and 5 :

Mar 2013 : Vol 22 No. 2 published 5-3-2013

Abstract: Results of X-Ray Diffraction (XRD) analysis, Triple Oxygen Isotope analysis and Scanning Electron Microscopic (SEM) studies are presented for stone fragments recovered from the North Central Province of Sri Lanka following a witnessed fireball event on 29 December 2012.

Evidence : The existence of numerous nitrogen depleted highly carbonaceous fossilized biological structures fused into the rock matrix is inconsistent with recent terrestrial contamination. Oxygen isotope results compare well with those of CI and CT-like chondrites but are inconsistent with the fulgurite hypothesis.

In layman talk this is saying that the experiment indicated the results were not the result of lightning strikes

it does not say the evidence proves the proposition.

this result would stay on the page for the history of the whole hypothesis being on Wikipedia. There would never be a moment when we could say the whole theory is proved. All we can do is say the proposition or theory is the current closest to what we observe in our experiments. BSmith821 (talk) 20:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

as a post-scrip you Talk:Vsmith writes : "We aren't here to "prove" panspermia - just to report what reliable sources say about it"

perhaps we could consider my change: I would recommend this : We aren't here to "prove" panspermia - just to layout the hypothesis and propositions, report on the experiments and their results; and then to report what reliable sources are concluding for and against. BSmith821 (talk) 20:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

BSmith821 (talk) 20:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I read the J. Cosmo article you mentioned and the previous one also. And now I better understand the "fringe" classification. I was not impressed, but thanks for the chuckle. :)

As for the article structure bit: we aren't here to define "a hypothesis then laying out a series of propositions around which experiments will be focused" - rather we are here to write an encyclopedia article based on reliable sources which states and describes the subject (based on reliable sources), evidence for and against (again based on reliable sources), relevant experiments both done and proposed (again based on reliable sources)...

As for "please ask your Wikipedia expert of scientific hypotheses" ... er ... say what? We don't have such. However, a good number of Wiki editors are "real scientists" and quite knowledgeable on the topic. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 01:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:RFC Vsmith and I are having a debate about the content of a page on a hypothesis (Panspermia). He would like it to be " to write an encyclopedia article based on reliable sources which states and describes the subject (based on reliable sources), evidence for and against (again based on reliable sources), relevant experiments both done and proposed (again based on reliable sources)". Sounds on face value to be reasonable goal.

BUT as a definition of a hypothesis I argue we aren't here to "prove" panspermia here on Wikipedia - just to layout the hypothesis and propositions, and eventually to report on experiments and their results; and only then to report what reliable sources are concluding for and against. ie reporting what people think about the hypothesis before evidence is in and assessed, is not consistent with the hypothesis method. It is possible other pages on hypotheses have solved this conundrum. I seek your guidance as to the overall policy of Wikipedia on documenting hypotheses.

the question simply is, do other hypothesis pages publish the propositions, the experiments, the evidence and finally the results ?

I believe we need guidance from one of your many "real scientists" on how to document (in a Wikipedia) a "Hypotheses".

BSmith821 (talk) 03:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

So, User BSmith821 wants to do is to stake "ownership" of the panspermia concept in favor of Wickramasinghe; <8/ that will not stick in Wikipedia. BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Helloobject

Shouldn't you block the spammer who created this? Insulam Simia (^talk/_contribs) 15:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe so ... and the likely sock also. I'm watching, but feel free to drop me a note should they revive it. Cheers. Vsmith (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh well - he's been blocked by User:JamesBWatson. Insulam Simia (^talk/_contribs) 15:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Pelion

Hi,

Why my link was marked as spam, several others exist and I found the specific one to be the most accurate regarding Pelion. You can see it for yourself.

Kind Regards, Theodore — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolomvos13 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

See WP:spam and note those others are now gone. Vsmith (talk) 14:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolomvos13 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

GAR

Lithium, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:00, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Oil shale and bituminous shale

Hi, Vsmith. There is a proposal to merge Oil shale and Bituminous shale articles. Could you please comment this and if you are supporting the merger, could you help with this. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 18:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello Vsmith, Thank you for the welcome and tips. I appreciate your patience as I find my way around!--LinguisticEngineer (talk) 13:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

thank you for taking some of your time to help me. I promise it was my intention only to help. I did not know about the content rule. It is a bit difficult for new users to understand all the rules and and policies. I apologize for the trouble and promise that from now on will only use my own words. But I have a question, what if I know something perfectly but cant put a verifiable source source with it, can I post it in wikipedia? I hope the honest mistake I made in my first day wont be held against me. Have a nice day. Jeheen (talk) 16:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Honest mistakes don't count against anyone ... they are part of the learning process. And I agree, there seems to be too many rules, but we don't have to learn 'em all at once (and there are many undoubtedly I don't know and I've been around here a while).

Wikipedia does require that we verify content with reliable sources especially for controversial content and biographical edits about living people. If you add content with no reference, it will likely be challenged. If it is important and non-trivial, you should be able to find a source for it. Happy editing ... Vsmith (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Grand Canyon geological mapping

The article Grand Canyon geological mapping has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fork of content already at Geology of the Grand Canyon. Content apparently uncritically copy-pasted from several public domain USGS webpages.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Per your original suggestion! Please second me with {{prod2}} if you wouldn't mind, and Tobias doesn't beat you to it. DanHobley (talk) 16:36, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Black carbon

Looks like ‎Aeth1980 is a new and unexperienced user. However, his/her new Aethalometer article in the sandbox looks quite good. I suggest to move it to a real article and then recreate the link from the Black carbon page again. RolfSander (talk) 12:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I've fixed it a bit and moved to Aethalometer. Thanks for the suggestion - prompted me to take another look. Vsmith (talk) 13:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! RolfSander (talk) 18:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Spam links on Cozumel page

Hi, thanks for removing many real spam links from the Cozumel page but just to let you know I added the links to thisiscozumel.com back in again, as the site is a reliable news and information source and was cited for a number of pieces of information. I hope you agree but feel free to contact me or add comments in the page's Talk if you need any other information. icampbell (talk) 18:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Quite simply: your favorite promotional website fails WP:RS. If you feel otherwise you are welcome to take your concerns to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Vsmith (talk) 19:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Settling

You have deleted my External link to a free to use online calculator for settling velocity that works for all Reynolds numbers, not just very low ones for creeping flow. The External links section has another link to a different web site just providing settling velocity in that range, i.e. Stokes Law, whereas the one I provide covers all Reynolds numbers. Why remove mine but leave the other? The basis of the calculations are provided elsewhere on the external site, and the use of the data is illustrated in several other places on the site, for example: industrial thickener design for hindered settling and even filtration equipment selection by what is called an expert system. Hence, I would have thought that my external link is very relevant to WP users: providing both a more comprehensive online tool than the existing Stokes Law one, as well as examples of the use of the data obtained from settling. If you prefer, I will write a new section for the settling article based on the Heywood Table approach to settling velocity, which covers all the different Reynolds numbers and reference the online calculator, if you think that would be more in keeping with the spirit of WP? Regards Richard86.146.14.54 (talk) 22:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Quite simply - we don't use Wikipedia to promote our own stuff. Adding content would be good, however it needs to be sourced to reliable sources and not to an online calculator website. Vsmith (talk) 11:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The added content would be a technique that works for all Particle Reynolds numbers (not just the very low ones that Stokes's Law is valid in - there is an External link for Stokes already). It would be referenced to Heywood's publications in the Transactions of The Institution of Chemical Engineers (UK) and possibly a text book that does have pages on this subject that can be downloaded. I would like to add the External Link to the online calculator website that uses Heywood's method after doing this, after cleaning up the linked site a bit. However, if my addition and link are going to be removed then it is not worth the effort. Hence, I am asking you if I should go ahead or if it will be deemed to be promoting my own stuff? Richard86.139.50.1 (talk) 22:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome to add content backed up by WP:reliable sources. Verifiable well written content won't be deleted. As for an external link, if it is "cleaned up" as you say and added along with good content - would likely stay. Vsmith (talk) 23:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Joseph Smith - FAC

Hello Vsmith,

I have put the article on Joseph Smith up as a nominee for Featured Article Status! I think the article has come a long way, and has a very good chance of being featured this time around. I would personally appreciate it if you took a moment to review the article and vote for it (or against it, I suppose) at it's FAC.

Thanks! --Trevdna (talk) 19:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your claim of copyright violation

Since you did not yet replied to my comment in response to your entry on my user talk page and following your actions of reverting a month old wikipedia entry i ask you now to reply and re-assess your judgement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Prokaryotes#Copyright_violation Prokaryotes (talk) 15:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Replied there. Vsmith (talk) 16:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The image can be used on Wikipeda according to the Terms and to an email i had with Nature Education, as long the copyright is in place and a citation to the source. Please re-add the image. Prokaryotes (talk) 20:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I removed the copy/paste copyvio of the caption of that image which you added as text referring to the image. I also removed the image link from the page as it (the image) also seemed to have copyright problems. Following that someone else deleted the image. Per the discussion at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions I'd say that no one there supports your view. I have no intention to re-add the caption text which was a copyvio back to the article. As for the image itself, you would need to discuss that with the deleting admin. Vsmith (talk) 20:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Mariana Trench

The first thing the article should say is "Mariana Trench is an oceanic trench" and not "the deepest part of the oceans", because the Challenger Deep has its own article while this one is for the trench itself. 84.250.184.108 18:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe so, but all I did was to restore the reference tag to its correct position. Please be more careful with your edits. Vsmith (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

CO2 in atmosphere

hi - What did I do wrong? Thanks, Marc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marc Salvisberg (talk • contribs) 02:39, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

If you check the article history you will see that you deleted a large chunk of the article. I'm assuming it was an error. Vsmith (talk) 01:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiIndaba and Wikipedian in Residence Notice

Dear Vsmith/Archive21

As a Wikipedian interested in African subjects and specifically Malawi, I would like you to be aware of the following two opportunities:

1. Wikimedia South Africa and WikiAfrica are organising an WikiIndaba for February 2014 – a continental meeting for Africa-based Wikipedians to get together, discuss challenges and drive the agenda for Wikipedia from Africa. If you support this initiative, then please sign up on this site: http://wikiindaba.net – we also want to hear what you want the Wiki Indaba to achieve. What are your expectations? What does it need to include? Who and what do you want to see happen at WikiIndaba? What is your area of interest? Languages? Data? Please share your ideas and thoughts on the Community Portal

2. WikiAfrica is looking for a Wikipedian in Residence from Malawi. This might be a position that you would consider. Or it could be the perfect opportunity for someone you know from Malawi, please spread the word! For more details, please look at this page: http://www.wikiafrica.net/wikipedian-in-residence-malawi

If you have any questions about either of the above, please contact isla on isla [at] wikiafrica [dot] net : Isla Haddow (talk)

Look dude

I built about 70% of that article (the refs, the content, the pictures, all that shit). If there was a dupe link, fine, I can straighten that out. And we've had 2 external links for over a YEAR in that article. You can't get any grasp for the chemistry without SEEING it. And you are totally wasting a chance for legitimate coolness. So at least let's go back to the original 2 links (periodic table of videos and the caesium reaction).

71.127.131.41 (talk) 03:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

"legitimate coolness" ... bull**** Vsmith (talk) 14:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

What's your opinion

I'm interested in improving the style guide for wiki project mining. I left a suggestion on the talk page Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mining#An_addition_to_the_style_guide. I was wondering what you thought about it. thanks. John Mortimore Message Me 18:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit summary removal

Hello! Could you remove all edit summaries/edits on User:58.107.0.49 contributions. They include racial slurs, bad words and etc. Thanks! ///EuroCarGT 03:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Zapped user page insults. Vsmith (talk) 12:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Doctor blade

Pls see Talk:Doctor blade Gravuritas (talk) 14:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Replied there. Vsmith (talk) 14:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Please Remove the Choctaw wikipedia, until the Choctaws from all four corners of the continent of Northa America are made inclusive as far as each Choctaw Nation historical lands, culture, and locations are included. Somehow Choctaws from different place in North American are being deleted or written out of historical content. It is not a wise thing to do nor to ignore.

Choctaws must be represented in wiki writing and not some groups but all Choctaw groups regardless of federal or non-federal. It does not change the fact they are Choctaw when they dont have federal acknowledgement.

An beaurocracy agency has been making bad decision including fraud and discrimination tantamount to genocide against Choctaws outside of the U.S. in there Sovereign lands. These groups of Choctaws are not de-factos but legitimate Aboriginal Choctaw People.

We are requesting in our humble places that you remove or make inclusive all Choctaws legitimate and de-factos.in Wikipedia writings. Let the Choctaws from all walks of life help you get at the truth and disregard revisionism. Thank you kind Sirs!choctaw street peopleChoctaw Street People (talk) 19:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

?Eh? No clue. I'd suggest you follow NawlinWiki's advise on your talk page. Vsmith (talk) 00:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Awww...

...look they're so cute...they're a couple! [4], [5] Drmies (talk) 01:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Siamese twins ? Vsmith (talk) 01:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey admin, care to have a look at the history of 58.96.125.138 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who's redirecting without discussion? I warned them, but they persist. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Never mind, I blocked them for 48 hours for disruption. Drmies (talk) 02:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Darn ... missed the fun - took a look, but got side-tracked by bearded granddaughters on facebook. Vsmith (talk) 02:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

No, I think I missed the fun. But let's hope I don't get granddaughters in the near future, like the next two decades. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 04:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Atacama Desert link

Hi. I noticed a series of edits on Atacama Desert that struck me a little odd. A link to a professional photographer's site (which seems like a pretty legitimate resource for photos of the desert, even though they happen to by copyrighted and can't be included here on WP) that had gone dead, was updated by an anon to the new, working link. A little later, you deleted the link entirely as spam. I would tend to disagree with that edit. I think the site (which I am not at all affiliated with and had never seen before 5 minutes ago) is a valid external link, because it adds to the understanding of the topic. It's a gallery of photos of the Atacama Desert. I was not hit in the face with ads, solicitations to purchase, or anything else spammy. I imagine that photos are available for purchase, but that doesn't make the site spam. I don't feel strongly enough about this to revert your edit, but I would ask you to consider the facts and maybe do so yourself. If you feel I'm wrong, fair enough. Thanks for your time and consideration. :-) —Willscrlt ( Talk | com | b:en | meta ) 20:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Userpage protection?

Hi, Vsmith. You semi-protected my userpage twice in the past, and I have since been hit by User:137.216.184.5 twice in the last month or so. Since the person rotates through different South Dakota State University IPs, blocking isn't really effective. Would you be willing to semi-protect it again? Chris857 (talk) 21:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Yup. Vsmith (talk) 01:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Colloidal Gold Reversion

• I noticed you removed valid synthesis methods from the colloidal gold article, but no reasons were given so I reverted. The methods include valid citations and appear to be suitable to the page. Please don't remove correctly cited knowledge from the wiki. Also, "Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work".

NanoProf (talk) 18:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• Vsmith, note my edit summary in which I tried to set things straight. The above editor has a tendency to come out strong, as you can see, but in essence they're right (that's not saying anything about the content, of course). Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
• Thanks for the follow-up, I apologize for coming across strongly. I started a section on the article 'talk' page, if anyone wants to contribute to a discussion of how to limit synthesis methods for nanomaterials. NanoProf (talk) 18:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Sure thing. I understand you were ticked off the first time. The IP who removed that stuff never came back and I don't expect them to. Good luck finding more gold, Drmies (talk) 18:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Following edit conflicts --- No problem, Simply saw an apparent ip edit war - should've checked closer before jumping in. And I now see discussion has begun on talk. Vsmith (talk) 18:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• And we all live happily after. Drmies (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

SALTON SEA

Why do you keep on removing the information about the video game GTA V and it's relation to the Salton Sea in the popular culture section it has a reliable source. Do you have anything against video games? This is just like another article about a city in a video game where a user tried to delete it becuase it was related to a video game. Why don't you want to include it into the pop culture section, is a video game not pop culture? You're so scared that this is going to continue that you had to protect the page, if you didn't have anything against video games this would not be happening. You continued to say that the sources were dubious, you didn't even read the source from Palm Springs, that was NOT a dubiuous source, read it before you say anything. To call what happened on the Salton Sea page, sock puppetry is absurd! (121.214.63.232 (talk) 09:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC))

I see discussion has started on the article talk, that is good. When several ips, most from the same geographical locations, make the essentialy the same edit ... Anyway discussion belongs on article talk. Vsmith (talk) 13:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Er er er

Could you produce more intelligent edit summaries than "er no"? This is meaninglessness followed by an assertion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.48.136 (talk) 14:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Er ... did, 'twas about the "belief" bit. Vsmith (talk) 15:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Kicking them while they're down

I approve of this. Perfect way to hammer the message home! ;) m.o.p 17:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

hmm... seems I had a delaying glitch when notifying there ... guess the dup message won't hurt. Vsmith (talk) 17:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

TiO2

Discussion continued. -Tom2K (who left his login info elsewhere)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Titanium_dioxide#Health_and_safety

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

,/,

so youre giving me a warning a thanks i learned now not to vandalize matha facka — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tank2499 (talk • contribs) 10:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Inner core

Dear Vsmith, My comment that you deleted, concerning the osmiridium sphere of 85km radius at the centre of the Earth, arose from two considerations: (i) to answer the popularly posed question: 'What is at the centre of the Earth?' and (ii) the availability of a reliable source, P.A.Cox "The Elements" (OUP 1997) which, from a simple calculation, could give a reasonable answer to this question. On p.185 of Cox, there is a table of whole Earth elemental abundances. Os and Ir are the two heaviest elements, of almost indistinguishable density at 22.6 g/cc, which one could reasonably surmise would gravitate to the Earth's centre. The aforesaid abundances in μg/kg, together with the weight of the Earth (6x10^24kg) yields the total mass of osmiridium in the Earth. From the density and V=4πr³/3, the 85km-radius sphere follows. My comment was explicitly framed as a tentative, if speculative, suggestion. Yet it is an eminently reasonable hypothesis and would stimulate debate and curiosity in the subject. I think it a pity you deleted it. ¬¬¬¬JohnMarks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnmarks (talk • contribs) 21:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Might be interesting speculation ... but does the Cox book make that speculation? Or was it simple WP:OR? Eminently reasonable.. well - maybe not. Vsmith (talk) 00:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on 'Talk:Greenhouse effect.'

I'm curious about the recent closure of a discussion from the stand point of Wiki policy. For example, did you close this as an Admin. executive action?

I was interested in the discussion and it seemed very relevant to me because it related to the occurrence of the Greenhouse effect on other planets, Mars and Venus for example.

Best regards. --Damorbel (talk) 08:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Closed as not likely to result in any article edits as noted by others. It is hatted - guess comments could still be added within the hat... Why not discuss the ideas with others on their talk pages. Vsmith (talk) 13:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Username change request

Hey again Vsmith. Can you please change my username to Nguyễn Việt Quốc? Thanks Nguyen1310 (talk) 23:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't have that ability - gotta be a Bureaucrat. See Wikipedia:Changing username and file a request there under simple as I don't see that username already in use. Vsmith (talk) 01:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Sea salt ANI

You might be interested in adding your views to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive818#Sea salt. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 13:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Ummm...

Did you notice what you restored here?--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Yup, and just now removed the blp bit. Vsmith (talk) 18:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The claims you kept in the article are potentially libelous and have no place there without very solid sourcing.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I observed an edit war with possible socking occurring and reverted due to that. On closer checking I did observe the most obvious blp problem and removed it - just before your revert. I care nothing about the unsourced stub itself, just didn't like what appeared to be sock or meat puppetry. Patience mate. Vsmith (talk) 18:40, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't blame them whatsoever for joining together to remove the blatant BLP violations and potentially libelous material from the article (one of the accounts even noted that the content was "defamatory" in their edit summaries). The patience you speak of should have come by one of the four editors reverting taking a moment to review whether there was any substance to the claim as opposed to blindly restoring the completely inappropriate content. There is a reason that blanking in situations like these are covered in WP:NOTVAND. What's done is done, but it never should have happened in the first place. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Lake Erie

I realize you're having a good time chopping this article to bits, but please realize that I and others worked hard to make it interesting, well-referenced, and informative, and what had been a highly readable and accurate article is, in my view, rapidly becoming a sterile piece of junk. My sense is you're deleting the best material, those great quotes which make the whole story come to life. Please remember Lake Erie is not simply about water and geology but about many other aspects to it too.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Template:Quotefarm comes to mind. Quite a bit of what I've removed was simply tourist hype - including many of the excess quotes. Seems this is an encyclopedia and not a tourist brochure. And how wasalthough it can get "pretty darned cold on those piers" good encyclopedia language? (- just to list one minor item as an example). Vsmith (talk) 20:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I have trouble seeing how anybody could see this article as a tourist brochure; cited quotes are a legitimate way of conveying information. My concern is that you're butchering a well-referenced and interesting article and turning it into a dry slab of boring prose. The words "pretty darned cold on those piers" is what somebody said, and said in a way which is highly informative and readable; it is much more descriptive than simply saying the lake was just cold. The article used to have terrific descriptions of wind turbines that could make "mincemeat of things airborne" that looked like "giant aliens invading farmers' fields". Now, they're just turbines. Snore. There was a photo showing beach erosion; now there's none. You chopped it. There was a terrific photo of the snakehead fish that could "bite your entire hand off" and that could move across land "gulping air". You chopped that. There was colorful stuff about difficulties with crossing the lake, dealing with passport issues; chopped. The quote about the walleye limit was chopped. Fish that looks ugly but tastes great -- similarly interesting stuff. The excellent story about the ice fishermen being stranded on a large chunk of ice -- this is great stuff, interesting, referenced, important for ice fishermen to know lest it happen to them again. The quote about the diving community considering Lake Erie to be "world class" -- divers would like to know this stuff. You took out the turtle-crossing sign. The Put-in-Bay crowds with "red bucket hats" -- why did you take that out? The quote from the NYTimes reporter about a pretty town in Ontario you removed. Seems like the BEST STUFF you've been chopping willy nilly, chopping with their references too, and leaving in pretty much all the boring stuff which we have to keep in, as if you deliberately would not like people to learn about and read about Lake Erie.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Copying to talk page of Lake Erie.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

That's where such belongs and I've already posted there. Vsmith (talk) 21:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Blocking?

Are ya blocking Collingwood for that, or do I need to login to my admin account and do it? ES&L 01:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Go for it if you wish. I'm assuming it was an angry reaction to the situation.Have given the user a warning. Vsmith (talk) 01:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Ionic bonding

Hi Vsmith,

I moved the story and gave it a good scrub, hopefully to your liking. Jcwf (talk) 01:03, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, there is a lot more of this crap. Take e.g. Intramolecular force. Are ionic and metallic bonding really 'intramolecular', i.e. inside-molecules? Most substances with those two types of bonding do not exhibit molecules at all.... And a metallic bond does not exist any more than an ionic one. It reminds me of taking a walk in a forest consisting of one tree. You must be a squirrel to do so. The same problem is visible in the template with 'chemical bonds'. It refers to 'ionic bonding' but to 'metallic bonds', both under the header of 'intramolecular forces'. What popicock... Jcwf (talk) 20:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

One nice thing about this place : there's always something to fix. I've moved metallic bond as there was nothing but ancient redirects there and the article already embraced the ...ing bit. Have fun. Vsmith (talk) 23:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Vsmith

Help me build my first wikipedia article, thanks again (4371663nuclear (talk) 09:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC))

Ultraviral (blueprint album)

(4371663nuclear (talk) 12:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC))

I've just deleted it as a rather blatant WP:Copyvio. Don't do that. Vsmith (talk) 12:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• FYI, this is banned User:Horizontal Law. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Comanche

Thanks for your note. All that done while I lay dreaming :) I don't doubt that some 19th century settler wrote "White Eye" because they simply couldn't bring themselves around to writing "Coyote Pussy" (the real implication of the name, although not suitable for the Wikipedia article). isa 'coyote' + ta'i 'vagina' in Comanche. "White Eye" would be tosa 'white' + puih 'eye'--tosavui(h) (depending on whether the recorder heard that "h" or not). Cheers. --Taivo (talk) 15:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

After reading Isa-tai I can see that "Coyote Pussy" might be a more apt phrasing, but would likely attract more "delete before checking" edits. My lame excuse ... "'twas early and me brain was deficient in caffeine". Anyway, perhaps a hidden edit note after the "coyote vagina" would alert other bleary eyed reverters. Vsmith (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Attack page found, deletion pending

Can you possibly delete this page? It serves as an attack page for the topic "psychiatry".

The_History_of_Psychiatry

Tritario (talk) 15:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

It's gone. Vsmith (talk) 15:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Attack page

Thanks for deleting the last page....

Here is one more I flagged earlier for vandalism, and it might fit under attack pages as well...

Iben_munch_thomsen

Tritario (talk) 15:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Thunderstorm page

Ross McLean here, and greetings. My recent changes to the thunderstorm page was to introduce to a larger audience the thunderstorm prediction model. the images and work are entirely my own and from a proprietry body. it is unfortunate that wiki chose to give me the username of coastwise nav based on my email address of coastwise_nav@yahoo.com i'm new to wiki editting, and if I left a copyright logo on an image I appologise. can you help me get the model published? Can I change my user name? Cheers, Ross, (also a teacher). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coastwisenav (talk • contribs) 01:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

First, we don't use Wikipedia to promote our own stuff - see WP:conflict of interest. Also read WP:reliable sources as I'm rather doubtful about your sources. The images, as I've noted on your talk are a problem as they contain a copyright notice embedded within and should be removed from commons. Usernames can be changed - see Wikipedia:Changing username. One more thing, please read WP:edit warring and WP:BRD and discuss your desired edits on the article talk page. Vsmith (talk) 05:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Laterite article

Thank you! Bettymnz4 (talk) 18:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

External links: travel and tourism

Sir, There are so many rules about using the "talk" page that I hope I'm not breaking any of them here. If so please educate me.

Looking at your history here it is obvious to me that you know what you are doing and so anything I say or ask is in no way meant to discredit you or to question your abilities. I am new and just want to learn.

The particular question I have is in regards to external links, and, specifically external links to travel and tourism related links on U.S state pages. I want to understand the criteria used to determine what should or should not be linked on any particular article about a US state.

Most states, if not all states, have an "official" site for travel and tourism. http://www.arizonaguide.com/ is an example. http://www.visitidaho.org/ is another. These sites are paid for by the taxpayers of the particular state. And, in order for ANY travel or tourist-related business to be displayed on that "official" site, they must buy advertising from the state. This is true in the 23 states I have researched so far. SO I understand then, what criteria is used to determine that http://www.visitidaho.org/ can be an external link but http://www.idahovisitorsnetwork.com cannot be an external link? I am asking just so I can understand please. Billhall2 (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC) billhall2

Looking at the idahovisitorsnetwork.com website, I see it appears more info rich than the visitidaho.org site. The problem is that it is a commercial website ... and we don't edit to promote commercial sites. Further, your edit history shows that you do little other than add external links to similar websites – and that runs afoul of WP:Spam. This gives the impression that you may have a WP:conflict of interest, should you have any connection to those websites - stop. I would recommend that you edit to add content to Wikipedia articles based on WP:reliable sources instead. Vsmith (talk) 18:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

French Polynesia

Re: your edit summary: the text was copied straight from the Wikivoyage article about French Polynesia. I tried to revert that edit too with a note to that effect, but you'd obviously beaten me to it. Graham87 14:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

so that's where it was from - didn't know, it was just obvious that it was copied. Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 18:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

"Block evasion" and Silk Road transmission of Buddhism

Any particular reason why you reverted my edit Silk Road transmission of Buddhism? I was converting to standard IAST and Pinyin, and adding missing wikilinks. IAST and Pinyin are the standard transliteration systems used in modern works including scholarship. If you have concerns then you should discuss them rather than reverting perfectly valid edits which were carefully made according to best practices. The explanation of "block evasion" is unclear and does not tell me why the edit was reverted. ([6]). Tengu800 22:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted to restore your changes. Thanks for letting me know. The edit just before yours was by an ip used for block evasion and in the process of reverting several of the ip edits I failed to notice your intervening edit. I apologize for the error. Vsmith (talk) 11:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, got it, and now I understand what type of "block." Thanks for being responsive and fixing this. :-) Tengu800 11:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

what do I need to do to get what I added to stick and not be taken down?

what do I need to do to get what I added to stick and not be taken down? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_detector — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.195.33.222 (talk) 21:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Read our external links policy, for one. Then read about how we don't promote a product in that manner. Then read how we properly use citations and you'll see that you used it incorrectly. Then try our Manual of Style as a whole ES&L 21:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Seems me friendly tps covered the basics while I was busy dealing with a balky furnace. Thanks E! Vsmith (talk) 01:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

What did I do to offend mighty Zeus

OK so I have only had an account for a few hours, but I have been enjoying Wikipedia for years. I understand that you are very familiar with the geology of Arizona, but I wanted to share a great photo I took of the painted desert in the appropriate location. My photo was different from the other photos on the page and really showed why they call it the "Painted" desert. Maybe there are other people besides you that might enjoy it. I could see deleting it if I broke some kind of rule, but really, "There are already enough photos on the page is a pretty lame excuse for zapping my very first contribution out of existence. You would think that a former teacher could be more encouraging to a serious newbie, but it seems that all that power has gone to your head:) Jmelatis (talk) 02:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Good morning and sorry for not explaining better perhaps. Anyway, the way you added the image as a gallery within a gallery was rather awkward and first I simply fixed the formatting. But then, on looking at the image, two things bothered - the raven in the sky and the cloud shadows. As for the "too many images" bit - there is a commons link on the page (hmm - it doesn't work - gotta fix) for the many images available - from good images to tourist snapshots - and standard practice is to limit the number of images to avoid "clutter". I would suggest that you post a request on talk:Painted Desert (Arizona) with a link to the image File:AZ Painted Desert 1920x1080.jpg asking others for input. Vsmith (talk) 12:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I thought that catching the raven and getting it all in focus was just an extra bit of good luck, but thanks for fixing the Commons Link. Thanks also for explaining better. Now I will have to sacrifice a goat or something:) Jmelatis (talk) 13:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

default

width set to 300 px

I went back to my archives and found a better RAW file without the raven that was also larger, and was able to re-adjust the exposure in PS to reduce the heavy shadows. I uploaded the new version to commons, but of course only the full size version is the new version. How do I fix all the other thumbs? Also it would make sense to re-name the file to remove the 1920x1080 info from the file name. Even if it stays in commons, the new version is better. Since it is not linked to anything, it might be the time to fix it. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmelatis (talk • contribs) 15:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

That is an improvement without the dark shadows. I'm assuming you mean "fix all the other thumbs" as in a gallery, the gallery parameters set the thumb size for the displayed images regardless of the orig. image size. The 1900x1080 in the file title is irrelevant as the gallery or thumb image size (set or default) controls the display (added images here to illustrate thumb sizing). Vsmith (talk) 16:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Got it now. Everything was stuck in the catch (?action=purge) and also my browser pages stuck also. Thanks for your suggestions! Jmelatis (talk) 17:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Help?

Hey Vsmith, I have been making a few edits by going through the "random article" button, but I was wondering if there was some sort of cohesive list of articles that need attention? I know I've seen things like that around before, but I can't figure out where they are. Skolithos (talk) 02:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Try the lists here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Geology#Recent changes on project-related articles esp. User:AlexNewArtBot/GeologySearchResult. Vsmith (talk) 02:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I'm gonna take a look at these tomorrow. In the meantime, what do you think of my edits to the "Importance" section of Continental crust? Skolithos (talk) 04:40, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Kampfite

Hey Vsmith, I was working on the kampfite article today, when I noticed you came and added some to the article (I added more). I did a little working to merge our changes, so if there is anything I missed or that would work better for you, go ahead. Chris857 (talk) 02:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

No problem, tweaked a bit more ... still thinkin' about the uniaxial - pseudohexagonal bit. Roll on :) Vsmith (talk) 14:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

you only make wikipedia worse

by adding off information you only make wikipedia worse, please dont erase what I have wrote, unless you have facts, and fact is not what you have heard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siktirgitir (talk • contribs) 22:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

unless u want a diptype war

unless u want a disptype war please change back the turkmen people section that I have wrote, you are not adding any information not improving anything just taking away stuff which makes it worse not for the better for people to read and get educated, so please revert it unless you want a dispyte of other issues, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siktirgitir (talk • contribs) 22:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

regarding your post

I meant as a war with words, as in a debate and nothing else, please dont misunderstand, I already explained to the other moderators my act, but you should at least respect the secret instution of knowledge and try to keep it clean and true and not from your personal point of view but a objective one, and on the other hand it doenst make wikipedia better by erasing information but the opposite , you should encoruge to spread and widen knowlegde not to minimize it and less spreading, so please think before next edit --Siktirgitir (talk) 23:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)siktirgitir

Want to make a new template?

Related to Water pollution? It might be good idea, so that pages such as Pollution of the Lake Karachay, Pollution of the Ganges, etc would be listed in a template. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

No thanks, don't care much for templates. Seems categories should cover the issues - see Category:Water pollution by country. Vsmith (talk) 12:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

What did I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexahardy (talk • contribs) 03:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

You made four edits to two articles - all of which were vandalism. Vsmith (talk) 03:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Problems with User:Jspeed1310

Hi Vsmith, can you please intervene in a serious ongoing problem by user Jspeed1310? That user has been going around and vandalizing, edit-warring, sockpuppeting, blanking, and trolling on Vietnam-related articles and is causing much disruption. That user has:

• Reverted the Dân Bắc Kỳ article [5 times], without any explanation whatsoever, almost all within the past 1.5 weeks, and as early as 2 hours before this post
• Used the sockpuppet Vantungk35 to blank the Dan Bac Ky article, and replaced it with this insulting, misogynist message "dân nam kỳ chỉ biết phá hoại, gái nam kỳ chỉ biết làm đĩ nuôi chồng" (translated: Southern Vietnamese people only know how to vandalize all the time, southern Vietnamese women only know to be whores and care for their husbands". He used the Vantung account as a throwaway account for adding insults instead of using his original account, to evade any community punishment/sanctions that may follow after from the discriminatory remark.
• Sockpuppets by using these Vietnamese IP proxies 113.172.224.235, 113.22.28.205, and account Alphama to nominate the Nguoi Bac Ky article for speedy deletion to create a fake "community of people" aggreeing for it's removal.
• Blanked the Người Bắc Kỳ article twice without valid explanation, just because he didn't like it, despite this article having multiple, proper cited references.
• Deleted and challenged content in the Reunification Day article that didn't conform with his POV, namely anything that was critical of the Vietnamese government, under the false guise of "sources needed". If he truly had concerns about the lack of sources, he would either placed a "citation needed" tag fairly on all content (not just the anti-government content) without refs, or kindly posted a message on the article talk page or on mine asking for refs. He decidedly ignored the lack of refs of pro-communist content and didn't challenge them.
• Pervasive problem of reverting edits/deleting content without any explanation, as noted by other users.
• He trolled through my edits and blanked/deleted all disambiguation links to the Nguoi Bac Ky article without any explanation whatsoever, and edit warred when I reverted his vandal edits, like in Tonkin (disambig), Northern Vietnam, Bac Ky, Tonkinese.
• Jspeed has some sort of animosity towards Vietnamese poetic literature, esp. of a very popular poem created by prominent Vietnamese poet Nguyen Tat Nhien, and went on a campaign to delete it wherever it appears, even though it was well cited. It was popular to the point Vietnamese Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung even put it on his website, and it was used as 1 of 3 refs for citing the poem.

I hope there would be a resolution to this and i look forward to your response. Thanks in advance. Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 10:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

No time or inclination now - I'd suggest filing at WP:SPI, WP:AN3 and/or WP:ANI. Sorry 'bout that, Vsmith (talk) 14:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 16 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Bioremediation page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Polyhalite Wiki Page

Hello

I have a compiled set of data on Polyhalite which would be a fantastic addition to the wikipedia page.

let me know if you are interested in helping my upload

ben558@hotmail.co.uk

Benhogarth (talk) 11:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Action - Template for a certain behavior

Hi, First FYI I'm pinging Arthur in case he wants to join us here. I thank both of you for being interested in blocking the external link spammer from Michigan. As you know, as that guy hops to random IP addresses he fills those user talk pages with his template of external links, like this for example

Questions

• (1) Any guess as to what the guy's motive for using random IP's talk pages for doing that?
• (2) In accord with WP:NOTHERE, any ideas on ways to remove that motive?
• (3) Besides standard blanking (which I did in this case) what is the least time-consuming and more lasting way to purge these IP talk pages of such material?

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

hmm... no clue re: motive or ways to remove such...

the page can be deleted per Template:Db-g5 if there are no older posts (which I've just done for that one) - drop me a note if you happen across other such pages.

Keep on truckin' :) 14:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Vrooom Vrooom Vrooom; thanks for prompt attention, and I didn't know about that template. Excellent. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Heres one NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

And already zapped by JBW. Vsmith (talk) 21:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

FYI, earlier I used that template you told me about on a batch of pages AR previously blanked. They are listed in my contribs, or should eventually get listed in the speedy delete logs. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:40, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Zapped. Vsmith (talk) 13:57, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, however, zapping can be kinda gross, too. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Here's another User_talk:141.218.36.59 only this one has several sub-pages too e.g. User_talk:141.218.36.59/IMAGES User_talk:141.218.36.59/Broadview User_talk:141.218.36.59/Historical background and more NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:32, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

99.181.134.131 Online now NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

HI, FYI another sock (108.195.139.107) is online now (or not long ago); see User:Arthur Rubin/IP list NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

You blocked him awhile ago but he's already back. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Copyright Issue

My apologies, I noticed that the book was entirely available for free on the google books website, and I thus assumed that it would be okay. Moreover, what purpose would it serve for me to make an identical version of the same graph that is available in that book and many others? Please let me know, and Thank You. Jwratner1 (talk) 01:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Look closer: at the bottom of each page of that book in google books you will see a copyright notice. Vsmith (talk) 01:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, it would serve no purpose to simply draw what you see in the book, since that is probably barred by copyright also. You need to find source data and create your own design. See WP:COPYVIO and WP:IMAGES for starters. But first, of course, you should self-revert (ie remove) all such material you have added to wiki, including text. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Jwratner1

Do you think it's time to open a CCI? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

It's been less than 24 hrs since I found definitive evidence of a problem. I'd favor giving Jwratner1 (talk · contribs) at least a little while to clean up the mess, assuming he really wants to be welcomed as a new editor. But not much since there is a legal issue here.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Unless Jwratner1 has shown some indication that he understands the issue and starts cleaning up the problem immediately - yes. I've little time this morning - will do some checking later. Vsmith (talk) 13:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I understand the issue and i'm sorry for the inconvenience.... I'm currently in the process of deleting all my potential copyrighted uploads (I should be done within the hour).

Merry Christmas!

Hey Vsmith, I just wanted to take a few moments to say how much I appreciate all you do for Wikipedia. I see you pop up all over my watchlist, so I decided to take a few moments to say thanks. I hope you have a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! Zaereth (talk) 01:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks and enjoy the holiday festivities ... or bah humbug - whichever suits your fancy. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 03:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Be sure to include the reliable sources to back up your choice! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

External links on Orbital mechanics

I was wondering why you marked my links to some YouTubes videos on Orbital Mechanics as spam. Most people have a hard time understanding how an orbit looks by a picture. See my video and your page on Tundra orbits as an example.

Btw, I wouldn't mind embedding a video. But, I can't find a way to do this.

Thanks for looking after this site, and I hope you have a happy holiday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crua9 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Adding external links at the top or within the article body to a variety of articles is spam. It becomes more of a problem when you say my video above. We aren't here to promote our own stuff. Please read WP:COI. Vsmith (talk) 13:45, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

RangeBlocks

Hi, Months ago, JBW imposed various rangeblocks; some of that history is included at AR's IP list. This greatly reduced the instances of repeat behavior. Time to try it again? Here is a bit of data for CIDR: 99.181.128.0/19

• 12/26/13 99.181.131.112
• 12/23/13 99.181.135.86 just one edit
• 12/23/13 99.181.133.112
• 12/21/13 99.181.134.131
• 12/21/13 99.181.130.34
• 12/12/13 99.181.128.17
• 12/10/13 99.181.131.181
• 12/05/13 99.181.134.149
• 12/03/13 99.181.130.179
• 11/26/13 99.181.131.107
• 11/26/13 99.181.128.84
• 11/23/13 99.181.129.195
• 11/23/13 99.181.129.79
• 11/20/13 99.181.128.242

Pattern continues back in time, but I stopped collecting data at this point

Thanks for thinking about it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Thinking ... never applied a range block. Vsmith (talk) 16:53, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for spending brain cells on it!

Brain fodder #1

Brain fodder #2

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Petroform

Thanks, that was one bad article, or rather it was really an essay. Dougweller (talk) 14:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Ouch. See [7] and the list of articles on his userpage. Dougweller (talk) 14:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Seems the user has learned little about WP policies over the years. Vsmith (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Ice dam

Hi;

I was going to split the section in Ice dam about ice dams on buildings since it is not the same subject as ice dams on rivers, etc. and I see you said you had moved the section to Roof on the ice dam talk page. I do not currently see a section on ice dams in roof. Have you followed up on this subject? Am I wasting my time to split the article? Jim Derby (talk) 18:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It so happens I have a personal interest in both types of ice dams, and I agree 100%... they are different topics. I'll visit/watch the talk page to follow up further, and I support your effort. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I moved the section to roof on Feb 26, 2011 and I now see that it was promptly moved back the next day by another user. I don't recall any discussion at the time... Anyway, I would support splitting the roof content out: either to a section in roof or to a separate article assuming there is enough info available for that. Vsmith (talk) 21:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)