User talk:Vsmith/Archive24

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year!

Vsmith, I wish you a Happy New Year, and thank you for the good cooperation in the past as also in the future. Beagel (talk) 12:31, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks....

for dealing with User:151.56.8.23‎ and the "non-existent recordings" business..... Viva-Verdi (talk) 01:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

108.73.112.250

Shall you revert or I? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

On it. Vsmith (talk) 03:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Robert V. Gentry

Hello! I have noticed that you have undid one of my changes on Robert V. Gentry's article; I saw your comment that it did not meet WP:RS, but actually it does. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability under "Questionable resources":

Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves; see below. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others.

So 'halos.com', since it's most likely owned by Robert V. Gentry, and since that the context deals with the letters sent by Gentry to the NAS, the website can be used inside Robert V. Gentry's article. You may feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on this one. Best wishes and happy new year!

P.S please mention my username if you are going to respond, so that I can get a notification. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giovannimounir (talk • contribs) 07:09, 10 January 2015

Removed argumentation based on a list of "Published Reports" hosted at Halos.com "most likely owned by ..."? nothing there about lack of response. Not a valid reference for the content. Vsmith (talk) 14:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

FYI

Hello V. I noticed that some of your edits are being reverted by someone who is operating from an IP range that you have blocked before so I though I would make you aware of this thread User talk:Arthur Rubin#More block evasion where I gave some info about the IP that is operating tonight (my time anyway) Regards. MarnetteD|Talk 05:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note and looks like Arthur zapped 'em while I was cuttin' z's. Vsmith (talk) 12:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

History of Evolutionary Thought / Antiquity

Why did you delete the section on the "Tibetans"? What point is being missed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.119.232.102 (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Why does your scientific article on “Lunar eclipse” have a subsection on “Lunar eclipse in mythology” if scientific articles are to exclude mythological antecedents?

Why does your scientific article on the “Sun” have a section containing mythology in section 9.1 entitled, “Early understanding”?

Why does your scientific article on “Volcanoes” have section 9 containing mythology under “Traditional beliefs about volcanoes”?

Why does your scientific article on "Medicine" have section 10 on Mythology? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.119.232.102 (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

If you read that section carefully you see the thinkers of the various civilizations trying to understand nature and change all well referenced and not delving into mythologies. Now if you can provide valid references discussing the connection between the monkey myths of Tibet with evolutionary thought -- then such a section would be better received. But, when your reference is <ref>The myth is attested in the book [[Maṇi bka' 'bum]], allotted to{{Clarify|date=March 2012}} King [[Songtsen Gampo]].</ref> .... well, simply no. Vsmith (talk) 03:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Your message, "please base off of evidence rather than personal beliefs..."

Dear Mr. Vsmith, My sister wrote the following answer for you. Thanks! :)

"Dear Mr. Vsmith,

WP:TEND TL;DR WP:COPYVIO removed

Bye." — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeatherLion (talk • contribs) 16:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

That is an unreadable wall of nonsense. What little can be parsed out of this snakepit of nonsense are blatant lies and religiously inspired slander.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

In addition, parts of the above verbiage appears to have been almost copied word for word from Couldn't Just Happen: Knowing the Truth About God's Awesome Creation by Lawrence O. Richards (Thomas Nelson Inc., 2011). Paul H. (talk) 17:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

It's close enough that I'd call it a copyright violation (source). Ian.thomson (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I be. I look away for a bit and miss all the fun. Thanks for cleaning up the mess. :) Vsmith (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Water pollution

Hello, Vsmith! I just read the article on Water pollution and made a few edits to improve clarity and correct a few minor errors. I have a few questions:

1) In the section Water pollution#Transport and chemical reactions of water pollutants, the second sentence reads:

• In some areas of the world the influence can be traced hundred miles from the mouth by studies using hydrology transport models.

You'll notice the problem with "hundred". I didn't know whether this should be "can be traced hundreds of miles" or "can be traced a hundred miles".

2) The second-to-last sentence in that same paragraph is:

• Each successive step up the food chain causes a stepwise concentration of pollutants such as heavy metals (e.g. mercury) and persistent organic pollutants such as DDT.

I'm wondering what you think of the adjective "stepwise" (following "each successive step") before "concentration". I'm wondering whether "cumulative" wouldn't be more precise.

Also, while you're there, what do you think the sentence just preceding this? It seems a bit awkwardly constructed.

3) Toward the end of the second paragraph in Water pollution#Transport and chemical reactions of water pollutants, we find the following sentence:

• A noteworthy class of such chemicals is the chlorinated hydrocarbons such as trichloroethylene (used in industrial metal degreasing and electronics manufacturing) and tetrachloroethylene used in the dry cleaning industry (note latest advances in liquid carbon dioxide in dry cleaning that avoids all use of chemicals).

Besides the fact that it creates a second parenthetical phrase in the sentence, I wonder whether the second phrase, "(note latest advances, etc.)" is appropriate.

4) The first few sentences in the section Water pollution#Pathogens are as follows:

• Disease-causing microorganisms are referred to as pathogens. Although the vast majority of bacteria are either harmless or beneficial, a few pathogenic bacteria can cause disease. Although not an actual cause of disease, coliform bacteria are a commonly used bacterial indicator of water pollution.

After looking at my edits in the revision history, you will have seen that I reversed the order of the two parts of the third sentence. Now, though, upon re-reading these three sentences, I see that there are a few problems:

(a) The second and third sentences both start with "Although", so not very good stylistically. I'm not sure that putting the third sentence back to the way it was would be much of an improvement.

(b) There seems to be some redundancy, especially in the first two sentences but also in the first part of the third sentence. Can you think of a way to make these sentences more concise?

Well, that's all. – CorinneSD (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Will take a look ... later. Sunshine and warm outside right now ... time to go out and play :) Vsmith (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Tweaked/fixed a bit ... Vsmith (talk) 03:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Driving forces related to Earth rotation

"When your work has been published in a peer reviewed journal and had a significant impact - then perhaps ... "

Maybe my comment (less the reference, if considered 'unreliable') could be considered by another with a broader knowledge base? With just an MS in Geology, I don't see how you qualify to effectively shoot down the application of a mechanism that is transparently correct, geometrically. Several Phd's have reviewed draft 2.0 already and more will do the same in the future.

I have to say that your comment ("significant impact" - according to who? and "then perhaps" - if you are in the mood?) sounds a little arrogant - especially inappropriate when this section seems to be just suggesting a half-dozen potential rotational mechanisms, anyway.

Thank you for your response,

Douglas W. Zbikowski — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.171.52.16 (talk) 04:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

As stated: get it published. Also see WP:COI, we aren't here to promote our stuff. Vsmith (talk) 13:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Please forget the supporting reference. I didn't ask for a citation - this obviously isn't personal promotion (a cheap shot on your part). I just asked for WP to consider that the use of 'geoid' is greatly misleading in that more than 99% of georadial adjustments under axial motion result from the geometry of the Earth ellipsoid and not mass related deviations. If the community doesn't think clearly and proportionately, it will be very difficult to continually improve the theory of plate tectonics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.171.52.16 (talk) 18:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

And when this has been published and discussed in solid references I'm sure it will be considered by Wikipedia editors. You do appear to be attempting to promote your work here prior to its publication in a peer reviewed journal and reception by the science. If the community doesn't think clearly and proportionately.. what community? The Wikipedia community is here to write an encyclopedia - not to improve the thory... Also, as for "cheap shot" consider your phud snobbery above - reminds me of Sheldon on Big Bang. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 18:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

So, the WP article on Plate Tectonics will not be as clear, proportionate, and accurate (thus misleading) as it could be? The issue of the ellipsoid vs. geoid reference here is not new science, just simple geometry. Could you clarify what you think is 'phud snobbery' as I certainly don't want to project a negative attitude. Cheers, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.171.52.16 (talk) 20:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Good - if it's not "new science" then you should be able to provide a reliable source to support it. As to "phud snobbery" well just take the "u" out and see your "just an MS" bit above, clear 'nuff? Sorry 'bout that. Vsmith (talk) 20:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure, a handy reference from which to explain this is the WP article 'World Geodetic System'. Under the section, 'Main Parameters' it states "The deviations of the EGM96 geoid from the WGS 84 reference ellipsoid range from about −105 m to about +85 m.[8]" Thus, the most georadial adjustment resulting from large-scale axial motion that can accrue from mass related deviations is (105 + 85) or 190 meters. Further, under the section, 'A new World Geodetic System: WGS 84' it shows in the table for WGS 84 that (a-b)= 21,385 meters. Thus, similarly, the most georadial adjustment resulting from large-scale axial motion that can accrue from the shape of Earth's ellipsoid is 21,385 m. And 21,358 / (21,385 + 190) = 99.12% Thus, as I have stated, the major factor by far in georadial adjustment is the ellipsoidal figure of Earth. To not mention this in an encyclopedia does not project the comprehensive truth and is, therefore, misleading to the reader. The "just an MS" comment - I am sorry that I let that slip. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.171.52.16 (talk) 01:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC) CORRECTION: The 21,358 in the above should be 21,385. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.171.52.16 (talk) 01:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. And if we are quoting WP articles: from Geoid: It is often described as the true physical figure of the Earth,[1] in contrast to the idealized geometrical figure of a reference ellipsoid. Plate tectonics deals with motions on the order of cm per year of lateral motion and assuming the gravity anomalies shift with the plates, then the reference ellipsoid might be better (?). But, do all gravity anomalies move with the crustal plates? Rather not ... see the Hawaiian–Emperor seamount chain or the Yellowstone hotspot. For motion on the timescale of plate tectonics and the complexities of sub-crustal gravity anomalies it seems the geoid is preferable. Vsmith (talk) 15:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

And I apologize for initially assuming that you were just another chap promoting his own work. Also Wiki articles are not reliable references because they may have been written by someone with only an MS ... or by any Randy from Boise. OK for talk page discussions as above though. Vsmith (talk) 15:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Your answer is interesting, but I'm not seeing the connection clearly to the original question: "5. Global deformation of the geoid due to small displacements of rotational pole with respect to the Earth's crust;" So, when the axis moves a certain angular distance, which factor has the potential to contribute more, on average, to surface deformation - deviation from the ellipsoid or deviation from mass related deviation? I have asserted and now shown that deviation from the ellipsoid can be about two orders of magnitude greater. Thus, it seems that not to mention this preeminent mechanism in an encyclopedia is not projecting the comprehensive truth and, therefore, is misleading. My use of WP was a tool to direct our inquiry to the actual references (#8. from the WP article, and WGS 84), so please don't fault me on that. People often use WP as an starting platform to direct one's initial investigation to 'reliable sources'. A word on 'reliable sources' and the peer-review process: I admire your conviction in insisting on peer-reviewed journal articles. However, I would ask you to consider the quality of the peer-review process. About a half dozen years ago, I attended a talk that reviewed studies which investigated the 'quality' of the output of the peer-review process as practiced by journals today. All the studies that were reviewed concluded that the peer-review process was terribly inadequate and produced very poor overall quality. I forget the scale used, but if I were to paraphrase from memory, the equivalent would be a 'D' grade. In my work, I am seeking to develop a far more rigorous review process, which basically means adding complete transparency of discussion and promoting far more participation. Both are now doable with the internet, however, the expense is considerably more, especially when free and open publication is included. However, some scientific problems are interdisciplinary and even multidisciplinary in nature and require broader participation to solve. Thank you very much for this discussion. I will sign off now and leave the last word to you, if you wish. Douglas W. Zbikowski — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.171.52.16 (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about changing the drift... Seems the following from just below in the article:

Of the many forces discussed in this paragraph, tidal force is still highly debated and defended as a possible principle driving force of plate tectonics. The other forces are only used in global geodynamic models not using plate tectonics concepts (therefore beyond the discussions treated in this section) or proposed as minor modulations within the overall plate tectonics model.

would suggest the list to be rather "beside the point". P'raps the list needs gutting. Vsmith (talk) 19:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

COI? BLP

Is there anything you can do to help User:Rothorpe? See comments at top of User talk:Rothorpe and [1]. CorinneSD (talk) 00:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I've fixed an edit and moved new to bottom on Rothorpe's talk. Also added welcome to the two new users involved and a caution on User talk:Crysr007 page re:sourcing and BLPs. Also added their talk pages and Wallace Roney to my watchlist. Vsmith (talk) 00:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

That's great. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 01:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

File:P32 radioone.jpg as image for Radiohalo

Hello, you reverted my edit to Radiohalo. Can you comment, why File:P32 radioone.jpg should not be used as image here? `a5b (talk) 12:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

As stated in the edit summary, the image had no caption. In addition the file itself is lacking any detail as to origin, scale, ... A good microphotograph of a pleochroic halo in biotite or some other mineral with explanatory caption would help the article. Vsmith (talk) 13:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. But I have no success in searching any other free photo, and I think it can show reader how radiohalo looks like. I think this halo is one from Uranium 238 ([2]). Size of the rings is near tens of µm. Can I add such description and return the image? `a5b (talk) 23:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that link. Looks like the uploader of the P32 radioone.jpg simply copied it (and rotated it 90°) from the blog which states that it is a screenshot of a video. As that is a possible copyvio - no, don't use it. Vsmith (talk) 00:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

There is the image in the video: http:// youtu.be/rTICjwUhSys?t=14m8s (14:08), but we still don't know the original source of the image. `a5b (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

IP: 99.112.213.137

Hello Vsmith, You recently blocked IP: 99.112.213.139, but it appears that they have simply migrated to the above address in the same location and reverted - yet again - the deleted part of the Central Intelligence Agency article, amongst various other "edits". Is it time for page protection? Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Blocked while I was out enjoying a warm January day. Typical behavior for the block evading sock. Perhaps semi prot is needed - will take a look. Vsmith (talk) 00:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Diabetes Mellitus

I have just started to read the article on Diabetes Mellitus. I have a question for you. The last sentence in the lead is:

• In the United States, diabetes cost $245 billion in 2012.

I was surprised to see the plural verb form, "cost". Even though the word "diabetes" ends in "s", I had always thought of it as singular. In fact, the definition at the beginning of the lead calls it "a group of metabolic diseases", and the first sentence of the second paragraph uses it in the singular: "Diabetes is due...". Shouldn't this be changed to "In the United States, diabetes costs..."? CorinneSD (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes ... seems logical to me. Vsmith (talk) 18:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I was too quick to jump on the verb. I didn't notice the year (2012). Cost is the past tense, so it's correct. Thanks anyway. CorinneSD (talk) 18:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Pierre Curie

Hello, I came upon the edit request you auctioned, I just wanted to poke you, because the request was denied three time before and you didn't mention you saw that but making the were making because of........ Just a poke, Cheers Mlpearc (open channel) 04:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmm... I didn't even notice those previous requests - thanks. As this appears to be a confusing issue, a note should be added if it is the dates of marriage. Thanks for the heads-up. Vsmith (talk) 04:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey, No problem, Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 04:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Willow

Is there anything you'd like to say to this babbling editor? See Talk:Willow# Willows ..., or [3] CorinneSD (talk) 03:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I has spoke :) Vsmith (talk) 03:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Good. Thanks. The comment just above that, in the same section, was interesting. I don't know it it has been addressed in any way. CorinneSD (talk) 04:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

That does seem a bit awkwardly worded - could use a tweak or two. But not now, time to stoke the fire and get some sleep. Vsmith (talk) 04:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec

Even though this may not be your area of interest, perhaps you can help. An unregistered new editor has reverted both User:Ewulp - [4] - and myself - [5], even after I gave a rationale for undoing his/her edit and asking him/her to discuss on the talk page of the article. Ewulp has now posted a comment on the talk page, but I'm not sure this editor will read it, or, if s/he does, respond to it. Is there any way you can leave a note on his/her talk page to the effect that it is important to discuss controversial changes on the talk page of the article, and perhaps point him/her to WP:BRD and WP:3RR? See my initial discussion with Ewulp at User talk:Ewulp#Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec and the newer posting at Talk:Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec#Parental birthdays. CorinneSD (talk) 01:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

(Just added the specific diffs.) P.S. This unregistered user's User name means "Newest user". CorinneSD (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Added to my watchlist. Vsmith (talk) 03:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

If N. U. reverts again, it will be three times. CorinneSD (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

This editor may be either getting friends to revert or using different computers. See [6], [7], [8]. CorinneSD (talk) 00:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

V, it is continuing. See [9]. I don't understand why this editor finds it so important to put in complete dates. I think they are distracting and unnecessary. Also, a discussion was begun on the talk page, and I don't think a consensus for including the full dates was reached. CorinneSD (talk) 20:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Edits to the Marie Curie page

Hello, I noticed that the edit immediately after your edits to the Marie Curie, which occurred on February 5th, included vandalising remarks. There were two instances her discoveries of electric charge being changed to "timey-wimey", referring to the a nonsense phrase used by David Tennant's Doctor Who character. Due to the current lock, I don't have permission to revert the change. Since you have made a recent edit, I thought you would be interested in seeing this corrected. Thanks, and good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daytonduck (talk • contribs) 02:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Reverted vandalism, thanks. Vsmith (talk) 03:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to say thanks for all the good work. 100k edits is just beyond my comprehension.

All that is necessary for spam to prevail is for good editors to do nothing

Riventree (talk)

You are welcome. Yeah, 100k boggles my brain too - but they are spread over 10.5 years. Keep on truckin' ... there be vandals to zap and messes to fix. Vsmith (talk) 00:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Stompology

Thank you for the quick revision to Bill Nye's page. One minor thing I must ask is that you please capitalize Stompology since it is a proper event. Just bothers my OCD. Thanks for your time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Co2metal (talk • contribs) 12:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Will take a look again, had never heard of Stompology (had to google it) - seems as tho' it should mean the science of stomping or some such :} - is it notable enough for an article? Vsmith (talk) 13:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Stompology clarification

Pardon me if this is the wrong way to reply, since I am kind of new to this. Stompology.com seems like a good enough source to go ahead and capitalize it.. I get no search results showing stompology as a common word.. I believe it is an annual event that would permit capitalization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Co2metal (talk • contribs) 13:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Blocked user

With regard to 108.73.114.67, who is this blocked person you are referring to? Dustin (talk) 04:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

See this list for info. Vsmith (talk) 04:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

What was the first IP and why was it blocked? A large portion of the edits by these IPs seems to just be adding wikilinks to articles. The "Prevention ideas" section of the page you linked refers to external links, but I don't see anything about the wikilinking by these IP addresses mentioned there, so I don't see what is wrong, and I can't search every one of those IP's contributions to figure out the issue within any reasonable time period. Dustin (talk)

Yes, most of the edits are just adding trivial links and you are welcome to make any of those edits yours. The first ip? Don't recall as that was four years ago or there abouts and there have been hundreds since. And he returned w/in the hour as 108.73.112.81 also now blocked by another admin. Vsmith (talk) 11:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay. I was just curious about this editor. Thank you for the response. Dustin (talk) 15:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

47.17.194.111 talks to Vsmith

Hello, Vsmith, I'm 47.17.194.111, the guy who added the part about South America being mostly south of the Equator. What I added to South America's geography section is true, because at least, 2/3rds of the continent is south of the Equator. Why did you remove what I added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.17.194.111 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 10 February 2015

Simply because you added it as but most of South America is located south of the Equator. to an unrelated sentence. Although the statement is true although rather trivial - it is irrelevant there. Vsmith (talk) 03:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Odic force

What do you think of this edit [10] in Odic force? CorinneSD (talk) 18:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Removed as rather off. Possible attempt to support old pseudo stuff with subject with some validity. Also chopped some pseudosci promotion in the linked article. Vsmith (talk) 20:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Good. I'm glad you can tell the difference between science and pseudoscience. CorinneSD (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Caucasus mountains

Hello, Vsmith -- In the course of looking at an edit to Caucasus mountains, I made a few copy-edits. Then I noticed a few things in this paragraph that I wanted to ask you about. This is the only paragraph in the section Caucasus mountains#Notable peaks:

• Europe's highest mountain is usually listed as Mount Elbrus 5,642 m (18,510 ft), in the Caucasus Mountains, though in a few sources, Mont Blanc 4,810 m (15,780 ft), in the Alps is listed. The Caucasus Mountains are generally considered as in both Europe and Asia. In fact, the main Greater Caucasus range is the most common definition for the continental divide. For a detailed history of the Asia-Europe definition, see Boundaries between continents. While clearly not a scientific definition, most mountain climbers consider Mt. Elbrus to be the highest mountain in Europe.

1) I had not seen this type of sentence in WP articles and wondered if it were appropriate:

"For a detailed history of the Asia-Europe definition, see Boundaries between continents.

2) The last statement is not sourced, and I wonder whether, since it is "clearly not a scientific definition", it belongs in the article.

3) What do you think about this sentence? -

"In fact, the main Greater Caucasus range is the most common definition for the continental divide."

"Definition for the continental divide"? Sounds a little awkward and not very academic. CorinneSD (talk) 18:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I've been bold :) and chopped/rewrote a bit. Included Boundaries between continents#Modern definition as a piped link. It is still lacking sources ... but, the two refs there previously were non-RS climbers websites and don't really know what content they were supposed to be referencing. May do a bit more. Vsmith (talk) 23:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Added source for Elbrus elevation from Mount Elbrus article. Vsmith (talk) 23:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

It looks much better. Thanks! CorinneSD (talk) 23:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Absinthe

I was just reading the article on Absinthe. When I saw a question mark next to "Legal status" in the infobox, I wondered why there was a question mark since, near the end of the lede, it says barriers to its production and sale were lifted in the European Union. CorinneSD (talk) 01:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Seems Vanuatu is the only place prohibiting it per the article. I know nothing about it, but hey ... go ahead and remove that "?" and see if anyone objects. Vsmith (talk) 02:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Ozfrozen

Hi. You recently blocked Ozfrozen (talk · contribs). You might want to remove his talk page privileges as well as he is "requesting" an unblock with nonsense reasoning. APK whisper in my ear 03:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Vsmith (talk) 03:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for your help as I am new at Wikipedia!. Suksesi (talk) 20:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Andaman Islands

Would you mind looking at this edit to Andaman Islands? [11] It may very well be true, but I can't judge the source. Also, if these people have had no contact with any other people, how do we know about them? CorinneSD (talk) 00:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

See Sentinelese people. I had never heard of them - interesting. Perhaps "no contact" could be modified to "limited contact" ... or "no friendly contact", but the ref does say no contact and it is a govt webpage. Vsmith (talk) 01:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

New England

You might be interested in the back-and-forth edits at New England. See [12] and subsequent (and possibly also previous) edits. CorinneSD (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Field line image

Hi. First, let me say thanks for your many and ongoing contributions to Wikipedia!

On Feb 15 you reverted my removal of an image from the Field line article. I had removed the image because it does not actually contain any field lines. The lines in the image are contour lines, which are completely different. Per the definition in the field line article, a field line is always parallel to the vector field over which it is defined. In the case of the image, the field in question would be the gravitational field around the Earth and Sun. The direction of the gravitational field would generally be toward these two bodies, especially when close to them (similar to the 2 images of electrostatic field lines at the top of the article). However, the image in question clearly does not not show that. Moreover, although the caption initially claims that it is a "gravitational field line plot", it later refers to the "countour lines showing equipotential surfaces" which is what is actually shown in the image. I'd appreciate it if you could remove this confusing image from the page. Of course, if you have any questions, please let me know. Thanks!

DeanBrettle (talk) 19:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, on closer inspection of the lagrange point plot I see the image doesn't really illustrate the contents of the section -- moved the iron filing image down to replace it as that is what is being discussed. Sorry 'bout that. And thanks for the note. Vsmith (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Palatine, Illinois

A doubtful addition to Palatine, Illinois: [13]. CorinneSD (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Seemed a bit off - removed ... Vsmith (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Shetland

V, can you look at this edit to Shetland? [14] Doesn't "mild" usually go with winter and "cool" usually go with summer? CorinneSD (talk) 01:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

That fits my way of thinking, however I don't know how the British say it. Vsmith (talk) 02:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Ben MacDui What do you think? - CorinneSD (talk) 16:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to take so long to reply - I have been very busy. I think you are right in that the wording is often used the other way around but in this case I think it's fair to say that Shetland's winters are cool and the summer's mild - winter in Shetland is certainly anything but "mild"! Ben MacDui 19:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Ben MacDui O.K. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 23:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Jobas

Jobas‎ has again infringed copyrights, see User talk:Jobas#Feb 2015. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Good morning, saw this last night just prior to signing off ... zzz.

Moved extended discussion to user talk:Jobas as relevant there. Vsmith (talk) 13:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Gneiss

Hello, Vsmith -- I just finished going through the article on Gneiss. I made a few copy-edits and moved a few sentences. (I hope you approve.) I noticed a few things that I felt I had better ask you about before changing anything:

1) I noticed there was a section called "Types" that contains only two sentences, and that the first of those is a repetition of a sentence I saw earlier at the end of the section headed "Composition". I don't think the sentence needs to be repeated, but I didn't know which place was best for it.

2) The section on "Etymology" starts with this sentence:

• The etymology of the word gneiss is disputed.

but then we read of only one theory as to the origin of the word. If the etymology is disputed, shouldn't at least one other theory be given?

3) In the second paragraph in the section Gneiss#Gneissic banding, the word "relatively" appears four times. I'm wondering whether all of them are necessary.

4) Regarding the images:

(a) I think they could be arranged better than they are. The first two images after the lead image are bunched close to the top. Wouldn't it be better if they were next to the sentences that mention those types of gneiss?

(b) The first image after the lead image mentions Augen gneiss from Brazil, but nowhere in the article does it say that gneiss is found in Brazil.

(c) The third image after the lead image mentions gneiss from New York State, but nowhere in the article does it say that gneiss is found in New York State. Also, there is no mention of gneiss found in New England or any of the western states.

(d) There is a whole section called Gneiss#Lewisian gneiss, and a whole section called Gneiss#Archean and Proterozoic gneiss, but there is no image of Lewisian, archean, or proterozoic gneiss.

I don't mind searching for images, but I don't know where to look and would need advice on uploading and licenses. - CorinneSD (talk) 01:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Was editing the banding section when your "ping" showed up. I've addressed the "relatively" bit. Will look further. Vsmith (talk) 01:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I saw your revisions. They're an improvement, of course, but I was wondering about this sentence:

• Not all gneiss rocks have detectable banding. Crystals of kyanite in kyanite gneiss appear as random clumps of kyanite in what is mainly a plagioclase (albite) matrix.

You'll notice that the word "kyanite" appears three times. I'm wondering what you think about this wording:

Not all gneiss rocks have detectable banding. In kyanite gneiss, crystals of kyanite appear as random clumps in what is mainly a plagioclase (albite) matrix.

It cuts the instances of "kyanite" down to two. - CorinneSD (talk) 01:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Ooo, that image of orthogneiss from the Czech Republic is very nice, and the one of the Lewisian gneiss is very interesting. I'm glad you re-arranged the images and cut those images from the gallery. I have a question: one image, the one you have placed next to Gneiss#Augen gneiss, has a caption that reads "Henderson augen gneiss". I'm wondering why Gneiss#Henderson gneiss is separate from Gneiss#Augen gneiss, much farther down the page, if the Henderson gneiss is a kind of augen gneiss. By the way, I just copy-edited Porphyry, if you want to check it. CorinneSD (talk) 03:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I was just reading the description on the image file page for the image of the Lewisian gneiss you added. It says, "The oldest rock is the striped grey Badcallian gneiss..." Is that the gray rock at the top of the picture or the light gray rock at the bottom (where the pink rock is)? And what color is the pegmatite that is mentioned? CorinneSD (talk) 03:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The grey gneiss is the light grey rock at road level left and the light grey diag band across the middle, not sure what the rock at upper right is - could be weathered gneiss. The pink bands are likely both granite and pegmatite. At least that is my long distance interpretation :) Vsmith (talk) 03:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Good work on porphyry. Orthoclase below will have to wait ... time for zzz's now. Vsmith (talk) 03:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Orthoclase

I just finished going over Orthoclase. I have a question for you. The third paragraph in the section Orthoclase#Formation and subtypes first describes the higher-temperature polymorph of orthoclase called sanidine. Then it describes the lower-temperature polymorph of orthoclase called microline. Then, with no introductory or transitional word or phrase, it mentions "adularia". There is no indication of the relationship between adularia and microline, and doesn't really say what adularia is. - CorinneSD (talk) 01:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Calcium semi-protected since 2009? That doesn't sound right.

Could you check on that? I'm not sure I'm reading it right.

-Jeff — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riventree (talk • contribs) 02:21, 26 February 2015‎

Indef protected on 11 March 2009. Just scan the history for the last ip edit. Do you think it needs unprotecting? Vsmith (talk) 02:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Breccia

Hello, Vsmith - I just finished reading Breccia and made a few copy-edits. Compared to Gneiss, Orthoclase and Porphyry, I found this article more difficult to understand. A lot of it is written in a such a way that only a geologist would understand. I'll point out a few instances of this and you can see what you think:

1) The second sentence of the first paragraph in the section Breccia#Sedimentary is:

• They are formed by either submarine debris flows, avalanches, mud flow or mass flow in an aqueous medium.

(a) I assume that "They" refers to "sedimentary breccias", but since there are three plural nouns in the sentence before the pronoun, there is some ambiguity here.

(b) "They" are formed by either 1, 2, 3, or 4 in an aqueous medium. The word "either" usually precedes two items. There are four here. Shall we just remove "either"? Is there a better way to word this? Also, does "in an aqueous medium" apply only to "mass flow" (the fourth item) or to all four items?

2) The last sentence of the first paragraph in Breccia#Sedimentary is:

• Technically, turbidites are a form of debris flow deposit and are a fine-grained peripheral deposit to a sedimentary breccia flow.

(a) Since turbidites have not been mentioned before this, what's the point of starting the sentence with "Technically,..."? I should think first the word should be introduced and defined, and then any additional information, including qualification of the definition, should be added.

(b) I think "debris flow deposit" and "peripheral deposit" should be defined. This sentence contains a lot of new words and phrases.

(c) The sentence ends, "a sedimentary breccia flow". The previous sentence mentioned four ways that sedimentary breccia flows are formed, so I wonder: does this mean any type of sedimentary breccia flow?

3) The first sentence of the second paragraph in Breccia#Sedimentary is:

• The other derivation of sedimentary breccia is as angular, poorly sorted, immature fragments of rocks in a finer grained groundmass which are produced by mass wasting.

(a) The other derivation...? Derivation? Breccia is derived?

(b) The other derivation...is as? I don't think this is the best wording.

(c) "Immature fragments of rocks"? What are "immature fragments"?

(d) "...in a finer grained groundmass" - Finer grained than what?

(e) "which are produced by mass wasting" - What is produced by mass wasting? The fragments of rocks? And what is "mass wasting"?

4) The fourth paragraph in Breccia#Sedimentary consists of this one sentence:

• Sedimentary breccias can be described as rudaceous.

What is the point of including a sentence that contains an unusual word that the reader, in order to understand it, has to read another article? Since the sentence is not very informative on its own, I'm wondering whether it should even be included at all.

5) The last two sentences of the fifth (and last) paragraph in Breccias#Sedimentary are:

• Breccias indicate accumulation in a juvenile stream channel or accumulations because of gravity erosion. Talus slopes might become buried and the talus cemented in a similar manner.

I think both of these sentences are not worded well. The first one is poorly constructed, and what is "a juvenile stream channel"? The second one is oddly expressed, and does not make the connection to breccia.

6) The last paragraph in the section Breccias#Volcanic consists of these two sentences:

• The volcanic breccia environment is transitional into the plutonic breccia environment in the volcanic conduits of explosive volcanoes, where lava tends to solidify and may be repeatedly shattered by ensuing eruptions. This is typical of volcanic caldera settings.

(a) What does "is transitional into the...environment" mean?

(b) In the second sentence, it's not completely clear what "This" refers to. A lot was mentioned in the sentence right before it.

7) Toward the end of the first paragraph in Breccias#Hydrothermal is the following sentence:

• Rock fragments hit each other and the sides of the fault, and attrition quickly rounds angular breccia fragments.

I know what "attrition" means in the workplace; numbers of employees are gradually reduced by attrition; that is, workers retire or otherwise leave the company, and are not replaced by new hires. But I don't know what "attrition" means here. I can only imagine sharp corners of rocks getting knocked off when they hit either another rock or a rock wall, but I'm just guessing. Do you think this could be clarified a bit?

8) The second paragraph in Breccias#Hydrothermal consists of this one sentence:

• Breccia-hosted ore deposits are ubiquitous.

(a) What are "Breccia-hosted ore deposits"? I did not see the word "hosted" used earlier in the article, but I did see "host" in this sentence in the third paragraph in Breccias#Sedimentary:

• Sedimentary breccias are an integral host rock for many SEDEX ore deposits.

I don't know if this sentence explains enough to that the later sentence is clear; I also don't understand why the abbreviation or acronym SEDEX is used here.

(b) If you think the "ubiquitous" sentence is important to keep, do you think there might be a better place to put it?

9) The first sentence of the third paragraph in Breccias#Hydrothermal is:

• The morphology of breccias associated with ore deposits varies from tabular sheeted veins and clastic dikes associated with overpressured sedimentary strata, to large-scale intrusive diatreme breccias (breccia pipes), or even some synsedimentary diatremes formed solely by the overpressure of pore fluid within sedimentary basins.

This is awfully dense. It sounds like it came right out of a geology textbook.

10) There are two red links toward the end of the article. Do you want to leave them as red links?

11) At the very beginning of the article, after the pronunciation guide, it says, "Italian:breach". Since "breccia" is the Italian as well as the English word, I don't understand this. Is "breach" supposed to indicate the Italian pronunciation of "breccia"? (I don't think it is the Italian pronunciation of "breccia", though.)

12) The images look pretty good in this article. I have a question about one of them. The gray rock in Breccia#Hydrothermal says it is from "Pend Oreille mine". Do you think "mine" should be capitalized? Is it part of the official name of the mine?

Well, that's all. - CorinneSD (talk) 01:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

that's all whee :) Yes, the article appears to have been written by a non-communicating committee ... oh wait. Anyway, will take a closer look tomorrow and fix a bit (unless I get sidetracked). Vsmith (talk) 02:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Fiddled a bit ... replaced some unsourced confused/technical details w/ me own ... A large part of the article was written by an Aussie geologist back in 06 - and he wrote off the top of his head. That was easier to get away with back then. Also added a refimprove note (maybe I'll dig up some refs ... or not) Vsmith (talk) 02:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Millet

Perhaps this IP editor should be warned. See two instances of vandalism in a row to Millet: [15] and, right before it, [16] and this edit to Cassava: [17]. CorinneSD (talk) 16:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Blocked already. Vsmith (talk) 20:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Leachate

I just finished reading and copy-editing Leachate. I wonder if you would mind checking my edits. There were a few places where it was clear a non-native speaker of English had written the sentences, and I did my best to put them into standard English. I added on "clarification needed" template with a note to editors toward the end of the article because I was not sure what was meant. There were a few dense sentences and a few phrases I wondered about ("synthetic...species"?), but rather than list them all here, I'll just let you read and judge for yourself. CorinneSD (talk) 22:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Karst

Note: (Important) Read all the way to the end of this comment before clicking on any of the links. I'm reading the article on Karst right now. So far have found very few problems. I clicked on two links to see pictures of a feature described in the third paragraph of Karst#Morphology. One is in Thailand and the other in Vietnam. (I think it would be nice to include at least one image to illustrate this feature; doesn't have to be the same as the ones in the linked articles.) But in the article on Ha Long Bay, in the "Ecology" section at Ha Long Bay#Ecology, I saw a little image that says, "Horseshoe crab in Ha Long Bay", with a little black arrow in the middle of the image indicating it is a video. I remember about two years ago I clicked on the exact same image (I think it was then in the article on Vietnam, and it completely messed up my computer. I think it is malicious. CorinneSD (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the ogg flick for now as it doesn't seem necessary. We'll see if anyone objects. Vsmith (talk) 01:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The VFW Category

Category:Veterans of Foreign Wars was created for articles related to the Veterans of Foreign Wars organization in the United States. The main editor of the VFW article got a little carried away with applying the category, albeit in good faith. According to the sourced article, Bush was a member but it doesn't seem to be defining enough to pass WP:NON-DEFINING or WP:COPDEF and isn't even mentioned in the Bush article so I removed the category.

Could you help me understand why you reverted that edit? Thanks! RevelationDirect (talk) 03:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

OK - understand now. I've removed the cat from Bush's article. Sorry 'bout that. Vsmith (talk) 13:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

No problem, thanks! RevelationDirect (talk) 15:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

History of the Grand Canyon area

I have nominated History of the Grand Canyon area for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. DrKiernan (talk) 10:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

sock puppet

i am just curious how did you reach the absurd conclusion that i am a sock puppet? because you reverted my edits on Samsung Galaxy S6--Arado (talk) 14:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I've undone that error - was undoing the 99... ip block evading sock and missed intervening edits. Sorry 'bout that. Vsmith (talk) 14:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)\

Who?

UserGogo21212121 Hello Vsmith how fighters participate the battle for Tikrit 2015 is it true that the Iraqi government fight Shiite militias 91.134.65.79 (talk) 14:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but please provide more info. And maybe log in. Vsmith (talk) 14:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)\

userGogo212121 Hello Vsmith I want to ask who these Islamic state when will the battle for Mosul in April or yeast 91.134.65.79 (talk) 14:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

No clue ... yeast? Vsmith (talk) 14:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

UserGogo212121 Hello Vsmith look this page what is this shia milias in iraq http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tikrit_%282015%29 91.134.65.79 (talk) 18:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Schist

Yes, another one. I've worked on Schist. It wasn't too bad to start with, but I think I've improved it. I have only one question. It's this sentence, the last sentence in the first paragraph in Schist#Formation:

• Such rocks as limestones, dolomites, quartzites and aluminous shales have very definite chemical characters which distinguish them even when completely recrystallized.

I just wonder if "characters" is the right word or whether it should be "characteristics". CorinneSD (talk) 01:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, "characteristics" sounds better to me. Vsmith (talk) 02:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

This will make you smile.

Check this out: User talk:Hafspajen#Cheers. CorinneSD (talk) 01:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Well ... took a look, but my trusty old desktop machine has lost its voice. So I'll check it out later when I fire up my laptop. Vsmith (talk) 01:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Finally got a pair of earphones ... enjoyed it, thanks. Vsmith (talk) 18:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

IP block evader

Noticed a revert of 89.168.211.42 (talk · contribs) you made here, and followed up on some of the other edits they did. See edit here adding figures which turned out to be false. 220 of ^Borg (A Modern Wikipedian!) 13:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Seems I was reverting the 99... ip to the 89... ip. Have seen no evidence of block evasion by the UK ip. Vsmith (talk) 14:38, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

.

OOps. I just reacted at the request at Corinne's talk. Looked like IP was reverting Clue-bot and Corinne. Hafspajen (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we need to check closer ... ip editors do make good edits. We need to agf and check the edit before reverting. Thanks for the note on the ip's talk, hopefully they will see it. Vsmith (talk) 18:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Four Corners Monument reversion

Why did you revert me? - Denimadept (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Seems the wording was unneeded, The geography department at the University of Oregon teaches that... and the pdf appears to be a document used to suppliment a course at the school and seems to fail WP:RS. If I've mis-read something here - please explain. Vsmith (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Nope, that works. Thanks. - Denimadept (talk) 05:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Age of the Earth & Religious

See Big Bang for similar section. I assume it appears in Big Bang Theory for NPOV since the two subjects are commonly discussed together. Also, since the very first thing in the Age of the Earth is a note about religion, with a link to a subject that doesn't really express the idea, I believe that this is an appropriate place for this idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SocraticOath (talk • contribs) 22:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Commented on the article talk - please discuss there. Vsmith (talk) 23:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

New Hampshire

Vsmith, I'm in the process of reading the article on New Hampshire. In the last paragraph of the section New Hampshire#Earthquakes I read the following two sentences:

• Ossipee Lake was the site of two moderate earthquakes in December 1940. It was felt in all six New England states, as well as parts of New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

You'll see that the second sentence starts with "It". However, two earthquakes were mentioned in the first sentence, so it's not clear what "it" refers to. Can you fix this? CorinneSD (talk) 22:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Quick fix The quakes were felt... Odd that New York was skipped over (just no reports mayhaps :) Vsmith (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is odd. CorinneSD (talk) 00:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

IP 124.181.107.97 issue

After you blocked this IP (124.181.107.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)), they posted this to their Talk page. I'm thinking a longer ban, and revoking access to their Talk pages, might be in order here?... In any case, just thought you should know... --IJBall (talk) 16:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Done - and removed the attack. Vsmith (talk) 16:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Q

Can I read about it somewhere? To avoid beans, you could email me (use a dummy account if you want to keep anon) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

No beans involved (I think:) I've never used it, learned about it from Arthur last year. See Wikipedia:New admin/Rollback section Mass rollback for a bit of info. It is a script by Writ Keeper. Vsmith (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

references

Thanks for your help on the Eureka Quartzite article. I remain a little uncertain about the procedure for references: you used a single author name in some cases, and wrote out the entire reference in others. What are the rules on this? Ahlitanah (talk) 17:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. For the ref name system I used, the full reference is provided only once (usually the first instance) after the <ref name=abc> any more citations for the same reference only need <ref name=abc/> (note the slash /). This way the full reference details only need be entered once. Any combination of letters/numbers can be used in the ref name=__ field, just needs to be unique for each. And if two words are used it needs to be enclosed in quotes E.g. <ref name="John Smith">. This is all explained at WP:CITEFOOT along with more. Feel free to ask about any Wiki syntax & other stuff any time as I know it gets rather confusing at times. I've been playing around here for over ten years and still haven't got it all figured out :) Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

reference trouble

I'm working on a new article and tried using your formula for references. When I use this notation <ref name=Noble/> for a second reference to the same author, I get a new, duplicate entry in the list of references. What can I be doing wrong?Ahlitanah (talk) 01:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

For it to work the initial reference to the Noble article must have <ref name=Noble> reference details </ref> (note no slash at the end of <ref name=Noble>). Then for the next and subsequent references to the Noble article use <ref name=Noble/> only with the slash. Hope that helps.

Note: I've used <nowiki> ... </nowiki>tags to make the Wiki mark-up visible. Vsmith (talk) 01:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Why did you just vandalize the Dead Sea article?

It is neutral to say it borders the West Bank, not "State of Palestine." Saying "State of Palestine" is extremely POV. As an administrator, you should know better than to violate WP:NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.109.37.64 (talk) 03:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

nope - take your concerns to article talk. Vsmith (talk) 03:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

"Personal attack" - dispute between us

You have omitted to mention that Ryantheravensfan1 was in a position to make this personal attack entirely because you felt that you should ignore the clearly and unequivocally expressed 3RR policy.

I do not feel that would ever have been an appropriate thing to do, let alone in so clear-cut a case as this one - of a user who had never done anything but revert, reverting three separate users in quick succession.

I believe you should:

• Propose that the 3RR rule be changed rather than simply ignore it.
• Refrain from resolving cases of 3RR if you are unwilling to act in accordance with the policy.
• Note on the offending editor's talk page that they would in any case have been blocked for 3RR, since it is still the case that you have thus far sent them a clear message that they can break the 3RR rule with impunity.

I'm writing to you first on your talk page in the hope of not needing to seek more formal dispute resolution. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• User:Pinkbeast, admins have a sixth sense which tells them when somebody is about to shoot themselves in the foot. At the moment, Ryantheravensfan1 is about to do that, since in his entire career he has never posted on an article talk page and he issues personal attacks every two minutes. He is on the edge of an indefinite block, and he's about to push himself over. Please try not to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. EdJohnston (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

This is a remarkable response. Ryantheravensfan1 had, it turned out, a valid point about the content. The citation was to a proponent of scientific racism; no-one else had noticed that, but they did. Regrettably, they went about pointing that out in completely the wrong way - by first removing a section without explanation then engaging in a revert war. They did the right thing in completely the wrong way.

I want them to get a temporary block for doing things the wrong way, in the hope they'll start doing things the right way. You want that not to happen, in the hope that they'll get an indef block and not be able to spot things no-one else had noticed? That is absurd. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Pinkbeast, I observed an edit war in progress with no discussion on the talk page. I issued a short protection in hopes that folks would talk rather than reverting. Then I saw the 3rr filing and noted there the page was protected. Result : some folks began discussing - all well and good. Then the user in question posted on talk with a personal attack and I blocked for twice the length that would likely have resulted for a first 3rr vio. So - mayhaps I handled it wrong, yeah I can make mistakes. Anyway what sort of resolution would you be looking for? Thanks to Ed for a bit more insight into the other user's background as I hadn't encountered that user previously. Pinkbeast, perhaps you should get someone to nom you for adminship - it's a gob of fun. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 20:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe I detailed my preferred resolution above. Fundamentally, I would like you either to accept 3RR as the bright-line rule it is or refrain from resolving cases by ignoring it; moreover, I would like someone to enforce the rule on Ryantheravensfan1 in the hope they do not break it in future.

It is curious that you were unfamiliar with the other editor's background, since I had supplied a substantive account of it at WP:ANEW and you had edited the section pertaining to the same report before Ed made any edit. I would encourage you in future to read context before you respond.

I do not aspire to adminly privileges, but I do hope that people who do have them will refrain from making up policy to suit themselves, as you have done. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:06, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit article

No problem. My apologies. I changed it with a reference to ENC Labs. If not acceptable, how should we correct this information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:0:902:3300:216:CBFF:FE8C:B122 (talk) 20:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

You need to find a non-commercial website or text reference and any avoid hint of COI. I've removed part and requested references. Vsmith (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Citation Needed

Hi, At ENC Labs, we have tested many sea salts over the years and determined that this information is correct. How do you suggest I substantiate this statement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enclabs (talk • contribs) 22:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

By finding a published WP:reliable source that verifies the content. The ENC Labs website fails that policy. You have a WP:conflict of interest and your username is in violation of Wikipedia username policy as it is that of a commercial entity. Vsmith (talk) 23:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Vermont

Vsmith, what do you think of this edit to Vermont? [18] The edit summary says, "probably", so the editor is guessing. I think it is very possible that the 72 delegates met in order to discuss the new name of the colony. I guess it all comes down to what's in the source. CorinneSD (talk) 17:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Would have to see the wording in the source ... otherwise ?? Vsmith (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

CorinneSD asked my opinion, but I don't have any Vermont history sources (I'm in N.H.). The "and adopted" wording implies that the decision was made at the same meeting; "to adopt" implies that it was the proposed action which led them to meet in the first place. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

John Muir

Hello, Vsmith! I was just looking at the latest edit to John Muir - [19] and I saw that this IP editor had made a lot of edits, some, if not all, of which look like vandalism. I couldn't figure out how far back to revert to. There's another edit by an unregistered (red user name) editor; don't know if that's all right. Can you look at this? CorinneSD (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) DoneNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks NAEG. Looks like a batch of ips at Ocm Boces Technical School, Syracuse, NY were playing, I've tagged 'em all as school ips and re-instated one valid edit that got caught in the fix. Vsmith (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Great; I saw that the redlinked ed had been blocked for DISRUPT so did not really examine this particular one of their edits. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

No problem, such are easy to miss :) Vsmith (talk) 18:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Amer Fort

V, I just finished reading and copy-editing the article Amer Fort (which I got to from a nominated image at Featured pictures). The article had many errors, and needed a lot of fixing. There is one section, though, that I did not copy-edit because I wasn't sure it really belonged in the article, or belonged in the form it is now. I wonder if you would look at it and give me your opinion. If you think it's all right, I'll work on it, and see if I can improve it. It's Amer Fort#Wildlife Trafficking concerns and abuse of elephants. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 00:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Moved down to conservation, reworded and chopped a bit. Seemed a bit much - probably needs a bit more fixin'. Vsmith (talk) 01:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I worked on it a bit more. CorinneSD (talk) 15:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

At least one may need to be blocked

Out of curiosity, I looked at this edit to another editor's user page: [20]. I believe it is not normally acceptable to edit another editor's user page, but in comparison, that's not nearly as bad as the edits just before it by another IP editor who really may need to be blocked or at least warned. CorinneSD (talk) 15:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Reverted one and the purely disruptive stuff is no longer visible in the history. The Utah based ip had no other edits beyond adding and removing that one comment a month ago. Vsmith (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, thanks for seeing to this. CorinneSD (talk) 16:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Plagioclase

V, do you agree with this edit to Plagioclase? [21] I know the earth's mineral content may not be significant when compared to the universe, but when compared to all minerals on earth, plagioclase might be said to be important. Even if "important" is not the right word, perhaps some word is needed there. Otherwise, it is a dull sentence. CorinneSD (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

That edit summary was a bit absurd, but the importance is covered in the second paragraph and important doesn't say much there. Vsmith (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

O.K. CorinneSD (talk) 21:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Edna Ferber

V, I reverted an edit to Edna Ferber yesterday. Today, it has been been put back. [22] See also User talk:CorinneSD#Edna Ferber for discussion. CorinneSD (talk) 14:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted based on no edit summary. Both ips are Comcast so likely same person(?). Vsmith (talk) 20:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Block evasion again

[23] Take a look. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help there, 'twas late - gotta sleep sometimes :) Vsmith (talk) 12:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

So, here's a question. I was looking at Michigan's global contributions and the same edits are often duplicated on foreign language wikipedia pages. Is that kosher, in other words can a long term abuse case avoid consequences just by moving the edit practice to foreign language pages? I mean admins at en aren't admins at fr, are they? Capitalismojo (talk) 00:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Wasn't aware of that, but not surprised given his frequent "expand from ___ article" edits. No, admins here have no "powers" on other wikis. Recently a problem editor was banned from the German wiki and migrated his pov pushing and problem editing here. As my language skills (Spanish, Viet, German) are far too rusty to be useful, I'd best not try editing there. Anyway, apologies for missing this last night - was helping/discussing with the student (below) and simply didn't see your post here. Vsmith (talk) 12:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hey there!

Thanks for your help on the Neomorphism page! Two others and I are currently working on the page as a group assignment for our communications course. Because you made some contributions to the page prior to the assignment's due date, it only seems appropriate that you are credited in our (students and I) upcoming class presentation of the page. Are you alright with Vsmith, or do you prefer another name?

Thanks again for your help! It makes my noviceness with using Wikipedia less noticeable, hahaha.
Kbraun94 (talk) 23:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome. That's just the way Wikipedia works - see something that needs fixing and fix it. We were all newbies once - about ten years ago for me. And vsmith is me around here. Good luck with your presentation. Vsmith (talk) 00:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Patience Wright

I was just looking at the latest edits to Patience Wright, and I saw that several sections of the article have no references. Should some "citation needed" tags be added? If so, where? CorinneSD (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

On any unsourced sections. The biography section consists of several short sections - so maybe a ref improve tag on the biography section. Perhaps combine some of the sections to avoid the choppy appearance. Vsmith (talk) 21:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Just did. One tagg, on top, this article needs additional refs use to be enough. Hafspajen (talk) 22:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC).

Fault scarp

Thanks for cleaning up the terminology on Fault scarp. I thought that the previous edit looked a little odd, but I wasn't sure whether it was vandalism or an unsuccessful attempt at clarification. Cheers! --Cuppysfriend (talk) 22:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I saw this comment and then went to read the article. I was puzzled by the caption for the first image, "A reverse-motion, fault-line scarp from Mongolia" I couldn't find anything to explain "reverse-motion" in the article. CorinneSD (talk) 22:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that description is a bit problematic - and I thought about "fixing" it ... but didn't follow through, hey it's Spring :) and I was sidetracked elsewhere (such important stuff as decorating my user page...)

Anyway, fault planes are seldom vertical and typically in a normal fault the hanging wall (rock above the fault plane) moves down due to tensional forces and gravity. However, if the region is under compression forces the hanging wall is forced up along the fault plane resulting in the reverse-motion. As for the fault scarp image, the reverse-motion bit is rather irrelevant. In the image the fault scarp is likely exposed due to differential erosion on the softer rock above the more resistant rock of the footwall (or the fault gouge itself). But, that is all WP:OR - just me evaluating a photo and the image file gives no more info. So ... best to just remove the non-essential reverse-motion bit. Vsmith (talk) 23:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. CorinneSD (talk) 00:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Ancient Corinth

Can you deal with this edit to Ancient Corinth [24] and those just previous to it by the same editor? CorinneSD (talk) 00:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Done Vsmith (talk) 01:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Lost City

Hello, I admit it was not the best quality photo, but the truth is that it is a factual photo relating to an interesting topic that is not yet covered at all. Definitely, a page needs to be created for hammer stones. Getting a higher quality photo is not a problem. I only live an hour away from the man who owns the meteorite. It was night and he didn't have much light in his kitchen. The reference I made is really the only site available right now, since this is a relatively "new" topic/term used to discuss this type of event. Sincerely, GEOGOZZGEOGOZZ (talk) 00:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the webpage you cited - again please read WP:reliable sources. If there are no reliable sources discussing the subject of "hammer stones", then we don't discuss them either. Vsmith (talk) 00:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Pliocene boundaries

Hello, I notice that you reverted my edit to the Pliocene lead. Unfortunately the final bit of that lead is both dodgily written and inaccurate (and unsourced, too). It makes no sense at all to have "relatively cooler Pleistocene" in that slot; the Miocene and Pleistocene were not contiguous and the later boundary towards the Pleistocene gets attempted in the next sentence. I added a section at the talk page to explain the issues within those two sentences. 83.254.154.164 (talk) 06:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

You are correct and I was in error there, thanks. Vsmith (talk) 11:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Help!

V, could you please help me? I am at a loss for what to do. I thought I had done what this unregistered user asked me to do, but apparently not. What have I done wrong? I just copied the entire discussion (but changed the heading) from my talk page to the talk page of the article, and now the editor wants me to undo my edit. [25] CorinneSD (talk) 20:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Also see the recently added [26] CorinneSD (talk) 20:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Moving or copying discussion from user talk to article talk is perfectly OK. I would suggest the in your lead sentence for that copied material The following discussion has been transferred from my talk page so that it can be continued here: you should either sign it or state whose talk page was being copied. Material under discussion ideally belongs on the article talk.

I would also add the just because someone was assigned to Army Intelligence Headquarters does not make them a spy. Most likely their position in intelligence was because of their knowledge of the region and not that they would work as clandestine spies. But I haven't read the source. Vsmith (talk) 22:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

CorinneSD reposted, verbatim, the entire content of a section of her talk page, including off-topic material, onto the article talk page - and did it after I had already reposted my on-topic material from her talk page to that article talk page [27]. We were doing this at almost the same time - but I got there first by a minute or so. So her post duplicated material already there and added some material that didn't contribute to the edit discussion. That is why I asked her to remove it. Nor did I ask CorinneSD to do that copying - I just asked for her to put her edit reasoning on the article talk page and take any additional discussion to the article's talk page. I am at a loss to see what there is to see in the diff she posted [28]. Nor am I an unregistered user! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and merged the two sections since they duplicate each other. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Please see my latest comment at User talk:Rothorpe#Gertrude Bell. CorinneSD (talk) 23:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, V, in response to your comment, above, "I would suggest the in your lead sentence for that copied material The following discussion has been transferred from my talk page so that it can be continued here: you should either sign it or state whose talk page was being copied," I did write that. See [29] If I say "copied from my talk page", and the comment is signed by me, it should be clear enough. Tiptoe changed my comment:

• The following discussion has been transferred from my talk page so that it can be continued here,

unnecessarily I think, to

The following has been transferred by CorinneSD from CorinneSD's talk page so that it can be continued here (removing the word "discussion"). See: [30]. I thought editors were not supposed to change other editor's remarks on talk pages. CorinneSD (talk) 23:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Been busy offwiki. Hopefully you-all can reach concensus on the article talk. Also, we simply don't alter other users talk page posts ... have left a friendly reminder about that where needed. Vsmith (talk) 02:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I considered making a comment on this page after reading CorinneSD's post here, but I decided against it since I did not want to make more excuses for drama creation. But you have gone ahead and done it. My very minor change to the intro of CorinneSD's post, made after I merged the duplicated sections, and made simply to clarify who exactly the "my" in "my talk page" was, did not alter the meaning or purpose of what followed on from that intro in the slightest. Maybe you should also place a friendly reminder on CorinneSD's talk page that editors are not meant to copy other person's posts and paste them into pages unrelated to the subject of those posts (my post about reverting unreferenced content deletions was a comment made just for CorrineSD's talk page and was off topic for the Gertrude Bell talk page). But I just deleted the off-topic repost, I didn't start making drama about unimportant things. "Friendly reminders" risk being seen as unfriendly when they concern issues as utterly minor as this. Let's move on.Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Idaho

If you look it up, you'll see that the people of Idaho are also called potato's. 108.33.159.120 (talk) 19:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Please provide a WP:reliable source. Vsmith (talk) 19:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to contradict, but I don't see a ref saying that people who live in Idaho are called Idahoans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.33.159.120 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 14 April 2015

Here you go: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Idahoan . The suffix "-an" or "-ian" turns a noun into an adjective or a noun, meaning, "of," "from," "resembling," or "in the nature of." In regional names, particularly, it means "a person from the land of." (That's opposed to -ite, which is "a resident of," usually referring to cities, as in Pocatellite or Meridianite.) That's just common knowledge of the English language, so it is not usually necessary to provide a source that says people from America are Americans or people from Alaska are called Alaskans. What we would need is a source that says people from Alaska are called "Sourdoughs" and people not from Alaska are "Cheechakos." That's local knowledge, not common. Zaereth (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Ore

What do you think about this set of edits to Ore? [31] I believe these are image files, and I don't think anything in an image file should be changed. CorinneSD (talk) 20:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC) No, forget that. I see it's the caption part. I suppose lower-case "X" is better than capital "X", but you're a better judge of that than I am. CorinneSD (talk) 20:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Seems the x was changed to the math symbol for times × (available on math and logic edit option menu). Vsmith (talk) 00:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

O.K. CorinneSD (talk) 12:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Cake

This is minor, but a bit puzzling. At Talk:Cake, an editor undid some silly edits by an IP editor, but what it reverted to looks a bit silly, too. [32] CorinneSD (talk) 23:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

'Twas due to a bit of old vandalism - fixed. Vsmith (talk) 01:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

John Muir 2

I saw this edit to John Muir, [33], and since I've seen similar edits elsewhere now and then, I wanted to ask you whether there was some rule or policy on WP that stipulates one cannot use the adjective "American" to refer to anything in, or about, the United States. I find this kind of edit annoying. CorinneSD (talk) 23:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I've never seen anything in policy about it, but I may be mistaken. Even the MOS uses the term "American" in its descriptions. Perhaps Vsmith will have a clue. (Policy is vast, and often a little common sense will cover most details.) For me, the choice is often best decided by context. In most cases, people will know that "American" refers to "US American," but sometimes it is ambiguous. (I know many Canadians who consider themselves "American.") It all depends on how the meaning can be inferred from context. In that particular edit, I would say the context makes it pretty clear what the meaning is. Zaereth (talk) 00:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll wait to see what Vsmith has to say. CorinneSD (talk) 00:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I've no knowledge of any policy against using American in that context. See Americans and American (word). Vsmith (talk) 02:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Vsmith (I'm pinging you because you may not see this since it's in an old section.) Recently, I've noticed that editors have been adding schools named after John Muir to his article. Now I see an edit adding seven or eight schools at once. [34] Pretty soon, I guess we'll have every school in the country that's named after him. I'm wondering what you think about that. CorinneSD (talk) 18:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Thought ... and chopped. Vsmith (talk) 01:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Tuckaleechee Caverns

Well thanks for the edit. I just don't understand why the site can't be a reliable source. What if the information was from a university? Could the university promote oneself? The rules on this aspect should be checked and reworked if needed. Thanks! Doubledogdare610 (talk) 02:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

As stated, carefully read WP:reliable sources. Vsmith (talk) 03:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Need help with an article on explaining why a company is significant/notable.

Draft: Ten-Tec Link in case i did not type the wikilink correctly: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Ten-Tec&redirect=no

Doubledogdare610 (talk) 02:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Again reliable sources which indicate notability are needed. The link you used in the draft doesn't work. Vsmith (talk) 03:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

History of Psychology

Hello, V -- Can you look at this edit to History of Psychology [35] and the one right before it by the same editor? I see several typographical errors and I don't see any sources. CorinneSD (talk) 22:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted the edits due to lack of references esp. for the included direct quotes. Left a brief note on the ip's talk requesting they redo with valid sources. Vsmith (talk) 23:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

O.K. Good. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 23:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Meteorite image

Yes, I will. Thank you for bringing it to my attention! GEOGOZZGEOGOZZ (talk) 01:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

That is a bit better, still needs location and date info. Vsmith (talk) 11:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Zosimus

I was reading the article on Zosimus when it occurred to me that the language of the article was perfect academic writing, so I used Earwig's Copivio Detector [36] (for the first time) and found a high probability of copy-vio. See [37] What do you recommend? CorinneSD (talk) 21:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Hermeticism

Though this may not be an area of interest for you, I'm going to ask you anyway. I read and copyedited the article on Hermeticism yesterday. I had a few questions and posted them for Cplakidas at User talk:Cplakidas#Hermeticism because s/he knows Greek and Mediterranean history. You will see that s/he has answered my questions. I was about to make the first two changes (changing "Thrice-Great" to "Thrice-Greatest" and "Thomas of Aquinas" to "Thomas Aquinas") when I thought that it is possible that the author in the source used "Thrice-Great" and, if so, it shouldn't be changed. I see a reference there for Churton, p. 4. I looked in the list of References at the end of the article and saw only "Churton" (why isn't there a title there?) Then I saw the name of the work by Churton in the Bibliography. However, there is no link. (a) Do you think it is important to check the source before changing "Thrice-Great" to "Thrice-Greatest"? and (b) If so, how can I access that source? By the way, I also notice "Thrice-Great" in the third paragraph of the lead, but I think that's wrong, also. See the first sentence in Emerald Tablet#Textual history as well as Cplakidas' statement that "Trismegistus" in Hermes Trismegistus means "Hermes the Thrice-Greatest". CorinneSD (talk) 15:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The article uses a mix of citation styles, the Churton, p. 4 is a Harvard style ref w/ details below which is acceptable. The phrase appears in quote marks ... so it may reflect the source. So ... either check the source ... or just make the change and if someone objects ... discuss. To access the source: try google books, or a good library or ask at WP:WRE. Vsmith (talk) 00:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 04:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Quadi

I just read the article on Quadi and made a few minor copy-edits. I noticed that there were no references. I was thinking about adding a "citations needed" template, but Wikipedia:Citation templates says that editors should not add "citations needed" templates without reaching a consensus. (Why?) Also, I'm reading the article Chaldean Oracles and I see only four references for the entire article. Perhaps it needs more. Can you look at these and add the templates if you think they are needed? Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 23:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

See WP:CTT for articles w/ lack of refs. An article with no refs should be tagged as {{unreferenced}}. WP:Citation templates is for using templates for citations or changing citation styles. For the article with too few refs, use {{refimprove}} or section tags.

Busy weekend around here ... grandkids have priority. Maybe I'll address the points above ... later. Vsmith (talk) 03:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Re Quadi, I just found one reference. It's in the second paragraph of the section Quadi#2nd century AD. I guess the article cannot be said to have no references, so I should use the refimprove template. CorinneSD (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Yup. Vsmith (talk) 00:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

User page design center

V, I was looking at the page Wikipedia:User page design center/Style, and I came across something that puzzled me. It's the moon phases template at Wikipedia:User page design center/Style#Templates. It seems to mention two different templates, at the right, but I only see one. CorinneSD (talk) 18:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I've restored Dbachman's moon there and removed the non-working one. Added the moon phase here. Vsmith (talk) 00:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! CorinneSD (talk) 04:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Vermont 2

I was just looking at the latest edits to Vermont when I saw this edit: [38] I know that, in general, foreign language words are put into italics, but I wonder whether a state motto needs to be in italics. I looked at a few other states' infoboxes. I saw a few mottoes that were in English, which didn't help, but I saw that the motto of Missouri is in Latin and is not in italics. Do you know the guideline for this? CorinneSD (talk) 22:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Itallics seems OK to me - but, no I don't know any guideline on that ... Vsmith (talk) 00:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I haven't checked the MOS but, if there is a guideline, that's where it should be. In writing classes we are taught that there are three functions for italics: They serve to apply distinct emphasis to certain words or phrases. (This is the written version of a slightly elevated voice, although people often use all-caps instead, without knowing any better.) They are also used for titles, such as books, movies, plays, newspapers, magazines, encyclopedias, etc... Finally, they are used for foreign-language words, phrases or quotes, making clear that they are not English words that the reader simply may not know. I would say that the above-linked edit was correct. Zaereth (talk) 01:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Gneiss

Would you look at this edit to Gneiss [39]? Some material has been deleted, but it left a dangling "mi". Also see the subsequent edit. CorinneSD (talk) 23:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Simple vandalism, zapped. Vsmith (talk) 00:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Asteroid Belt

Hello Vsmith, I was wondering if you could clear something up for me. Well, I am a relatively new “Wikipedian” and I am enjoying adding my scientific insights to “Wiki.” It seems as if you are well-versed in this. Have you been doing this long? My point is this: Who has the final say so? Who’s the boss? Are you like a general, colonel, sergeant…? For example, I had two images removed in as many days by JorisvS. This person even trumped you after you made a fine edit of my caption about the meteorites in the asteroid belt section. Now, can you override his/her “Veto?” is this person the “king?” Please, inform me of my rights as a “Wikipedia” citizen! Thank you, Geo GozzGEOGOZZ (talk) 11:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello Geo Gozz, and welcome to Wikipedia! Yes, I've been editing here for a while - details here. As for "Who's the boss" ... we are. Wikipedia works by consensus - when there is a disagreement, we discuss. Some of us are administrators, which means we can remove inappropriate content, block vandals and help settle disputes. I would strongly suggest that you read some or most of those links in the welcome message another user left on your talk page - and yes, that is a lot of reading :) Pay particular attention to WP:no original research, WP:reliable sources and WP:what Wikipedia is not.

As fo specifics: we aren't here to promote our own stuff. And your edits adding your own images with rather "promotional" comments violate that. As User:JorisvS noted in his/her reply to your questions, the addition of an image of random meteorites doesn't belong on the asteroid page and especially your comment re:"dandruff". Your use of "fanciful names" such as Australia shaped and superman meteorite are quite out of place in any article. Base your edits on reliably published articles rather than on your own observations. You have an interest in meteorites, great - but your own work must be published elswhere, we don't publish original research. Vsmith (talk) 12:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello Vsmith, thank you for clearing that up for me. I read your comment to another user about being a “newbie” and that you were one 10 years ago. And that is obvious, because you do know you’re stuff. It is people like you who keep guys like us on our toes! Yes, I have a tendency to write “fanciful.” After working on a book series for the past 10 years, it just goes with the proverbial territory. As far as the Asteroid Belt section, the reason why I felt as though meteorites would fit finely right there is due to the fact that meteorites are discussed in that particular section. To me, asteroids and meteorites go hand in hand. They’re family, if you will. In the section above the meteorite section, it mentions collisions and how those collisions spawn meteorites. Well, I am partial to meteorites, as you have already discovered for yourself, but I won’t flog a dead horse. I respect your decision and JorisvS who removed it. However, if there is some modification to that point, I would be happy to research it and improvise. Anyway, thanks again and I will work on the inclusions that I feel caused the fracturing in the many “fragments” I have discovered. When you look at the sides of some of the fractures, you can see a reforming of a fusion crust. So, they broke apart at an altitude high enough to begin the fusion crust process a second time. I’ve looked into the melting and boiling points of iron and silicates and the iron melts first and then probably reaches a high enough vapor pressure to sheer the meteorite into fragments. It does mention that right in the metallurgy section where that meteorite was positioned. That why I mentioned that, because it was already there.

“The term "inclusion" is also used in the context of metallurgy and metals processing. During the melt stage of processing hard particles such as oxides can enter or form in the liquid metal which are subsequently trapped when the melt solidifies. The term is usually used negatively such as when the particle could act as a fatigue crack nucleator or and area of high stress intensity.”

Sure, heat and pressure are part of the equation here, but the metal inclusions act as the catalyst. What do you think??? Do you know of any research grants that I could get to prove this theory out??? LOL! Seriously, though, I think there is something to it. When I worked in the research dept of a major specialty gas company, something relatively similar came up and I got a patent for the company. Since I have found gazillions of these particular meteorites, and no one seems to have any answers, I have had to logically theorize to find out WHY!!! Have a great day, GEOGOZZGEOGOZZ (talk) 15:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

You have mail

Hello, Vsmith. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Geogene (talk) 02:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Pseudo-warning (I mean heads up)

Dear Vsmith, Please stop deleting data you deem irrelevant on the Desert articles without evidence. Seriously, editors put the information in there to inform the public on the influences these locations exerted on popular media. Deleting this information really doesn't make the article more informative, and it insults the public considering they were the ones that remember. Don't insult the veterans either, please.

Thank you for understanding.

Sincerely, Dandtiks69 (talk) 08:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

You know I'm referring to the game Fallout: New Vegas, right?Dandtiks69 (talk) 08:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The influences ... on popular media, eh? Any such influences would be appropriate in the article on the game if supported by published WP:reliable sources, but irrelevant on the various geographic locations. And what veterans have I insulted? Vsmith (talk) 11:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Presumably, veterans of the Great War of 2077. Kuru (talk) 12:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Haha, you caught that, Kuru, but if it were to be a popular source like that one with little secondary sources how does one cite that? I'm not saying I'm going to interfere with the Desert articles anymore.Dandtiks69 (talk) 15:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

We are constrained by what is covered in reliable sources, preferably independent of the primary material; if there are none, then it may be a good indicator that this is non-notable trivia. Trivia and "in popular culture" sections come and go in articles; they almost always start to attract every single possible mention of a topic, and it just gets messy. Editorial constraint is advised. Kuru (talk) 15:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

So editors may place only secondary and later sources in Wikipedia? What if it was a speech (say the Gettysburg Address)?Dandtiks69 (talk) 23:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

We can find many, many secondary-sources that talk about and cover the Gettysburg Address. That is a good indicator that it is a notable subject. You may wish to read some of the policies, such as WP:Notability, WP:Verifiability, WP:Reliable sources, WP:Secondary sources, and WP:Primary sources. I know it is a lot of reading, but these should help to clarify the dos and don'ts. Primary sources should only be used when there are reliable secondary-sources to back them up, otherwise we open them to interpretation by every "expert" who happens to come along (then chaos would ensue). Zaereth (talk) 23:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. However, that brings up another question: my professors extensively analyze works of art (literature, paintings, etc.) that they consider extremely well known, however they barely receive any attention in the internet or are very difficult to locate analyzed. I learn a lot from the professor about what such and such work of art communicates to its audience (and they're not subjective interpretations either) but in the internet its information is unavailable. For example, the USA Trilogy, by John Dos Passos, English teachers frequently bring up as excellent historical fiction but the internet barely recognizes it (and instead Homestuck information comes up) and so I find it difficult to cite. Even my other friend on Wikipedia, an English major, finds wonderful classic literature difficult to cite secondarily in the sources, because they're not there.

So how can I cite these obscure works? Dandtiks69 (talk) 05:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

For the U.S.A. Trilogy, I find numerous sources from just a quick scan of Google Books, such as the Encyclopedia of the Novel, Mourning Modernity, The Suburb of Dissent, Modernist Fiction and News, and Talking U.S.A.: Interpreting Free Indirect Discourse in Dos Passos's U.S.A. Trilogy. I would say this subject is notable enough to warrant its own article, although it is rather poorly sourced right now. Discourse from the classroom, however, is not acceptable as a source (however good the discussions may be) because others need to be able to verify that the information is correct. Therefore, we need published sources that others can look up. In many cases, it is simply a matter of searching a little harder.

One of the most valuable things Wikipedia provides is not the information, but the list of references at the end of an article. These are the things actual researchers will look up when studying a subject. The article itself provides more of an introduction to the sources.

For works of fiction, in particular, the actual work can be used to source certain aspects, such as the plot. Things like reviews, backgrounds, history, interpretations, etc., require a secondary source. If no such source is available, then it usually fails the notability guideline. For things like video games, it may simply be too new. (Wikipedia is not a newspaper, so we don't have to be in a rush to document everything as soon as possible.) Often a little waiting will produce some sources. Sometimes, if no source can be found, we simply have to leave the information out. (For example, I know from first-hand experience that the soft-iron core of a katana does not increase the toughness of the sword any more that the pearlite skin already does. Instead, it stops vibration and ringing, like an inhomogeneous bell, which reduces shock in the hand and redirects the lost energy into the cut, similar to a "dead-blow hammer." Unfortunately, I can find no sources to back that up, so it stays out of the Japanese swordsmithing article until I can locate such a source. My personal experience in the subject is of no relevance to Wikipedia.) Zaereth (talk) 07:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I see. It's just that it bothered me to see so little information on U.S.A. Trilogy but when I looked for sources I found few and they merely covered the bare basics of the book. And the legitimate information I found was from blogs, an illegitimate source. And that book is old! So waiting longer probably isn't going to produce more sources. Well, thank you all for your help. Dandtiks69 (talk) 04:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Meteorites

Hello Vsmith, I invite you to my talk page to read a discussion that I had with Geogene. Since you were nice enough to allow my meteorites to be uploaded.... GEOGOZZGEOGOZZ (talk) 20:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Changed wording and legend of maps

Vsmith, I changed the legend and wording of my map in the American Imperialism and Empire entries so they are completely neutral now. I reincluded it in the articles. comment added by Nagihuin (talk • contribs) 23:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

That caption change is an improvement, however with that last edit you are in violation of WP:3rr and may be blocked from editing. Stop and discuss your desired changes on the talk pages of the articles. Vsmith (talk) 00:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Editing disagreement re: Triadization

I see, Vsmith you're following an abusive policy against my work and you're sort of taking it personally for some reason. A map showing military and economic treaties involving the USA (1), Europe (2) and Asia-Pacific (3) theaters is the perfect image for a Triadization concept. I understand an edition or a talk/consensus by the original editor, but this has no sense, I demand further explanations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nagihuin (talk • contribs) 13:55, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Tone down the rhetoric please. No, such an image with a big US flag is "not" the perfect image there. The proper action would be to post a comment on talk:Triadization explaining your concerns. Vsmith (talk) 14:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The proper action would have been NOT editing the map out of American_Imperialism, but this does not concern you or Mlpearc, both of you are conducting an agressive and destructing policy against my work. This has nothing to do with Wikipedia protocols, so don't hide behind them. Thanks.Nagihuin (talk) 14:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

This has everything to do with "Wikipedia protocols", please read up on those protocols. You have uploaded an image, thank you, but the image is now Wikipedia's image. Wikipedia works by WP:consensus which is attained by talk page discussion. We aren't here to promote our own work, but to write an encyclopedia. So, calm down the accusations and seek consensus on article talk pages. Vsmith (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Wetland

An editor has made quite a number of edits to the Wetland article. The last one as of this writing is [40]. The editor seems to be knowledgeable and the edits seem reasonable – you'll be a better judge of them than I am – but you might want to look at the formatting of the Wetlands#Uses of wetlands section. Some of the sub-sections are not formatted in the usual way. The style may fit the breakdown of the topic all right, but there is inconsistency with regarding to capitalization, and a period is used after a number of the sub-section headings. Also, perhaps "Human-Impact" should be "Human impact". CorinneSD (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Did a bit o decappin', links, ... Vsmith (talk) 03:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Leachate

What do you think of this edit to Leachate? [41] CorinneSD (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Michigan IP?

[42] I think ? Capitalismojo (talk) 04:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Yup. Vsmith (talk) 11:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear Sir

May I ask why you have deleted my input in the Imperalism article? 77.166.30.3 (talk) 13:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

As stated in my edit summary - it was a WP:Copyright violation from the about.com article you cited. Vsmith (talk) 13:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I used the text on the main article of the Ottoman Empire to avoid Copright violation, the Ottoman Empire was an imperial state so it should be listed in the Imperalism article, kind regards Redman19 (talk) 13:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

OK. Vsmith (talk) 13:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

ANI

Sorry Guv, it was me. I thought a bit of kindly advice would calm things down. Wasn't to be ,so I'll just go hunt a few 'roo with that thingy stick I fling around. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   13:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Not a problem - enjoy the hunt. Vsmith (talk) 17:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#I_claim_Nagihuin_is_subject_to_Wikihounding_and_under_pressure_by_Meatpuppetry

LadyBeth (talk) 13:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Belarusian

I was looking at the latest edit to Igor Grabar, and I was puzzled by the change. Here is the edit: [43]. I typed "Belarusian Baroque" into the search bar and it said there was no article on that. Then I typed "Belarussian" just to see where it led. It led to a page with a list of articles, and at the top it says, "There is a page named "Belarussian" on Wikipedia." However, there isn't one. It leads to a redirect to "Belarusian", so why would it say that? But even on the disambiguation page for "Belarusian", there is nothing for "Belarusian baroque". CorinneSD (talk) 23:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I really don't know... but likely has to do with the demise of the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the subsequent establishment of Belarus. Perhaps the ss was too Russian for the folks of Belarus and became politically incorrect. As to why WP pages are messy there - well that's the result of an uncoordinated gaggle of writers. As to Belarusian Baroque ... no clue, but googling it returns plenty of hits. Vsmith (talk) 01:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Walleye

Should the "stuff" that this editor did at Walleye be reverted? [44] See also this editor's previous edit. CorinneSD (talk) 23:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Zapped the vandalism or whatever. Vsmith (talk) 01:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Indo-Australian plate

I was just reading the article on the Indo-Australian plate. Toward the end of the article it mentions a new plate, the Capricorn plate. The term is red-linked, which I guess means there is no article on it. It sounds interesting. Do you feel like finding some sources? I could help with paraphrasing if you don't want to do it. CorinneSD (talk) 23:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC) See also this recent edit to the article. It sounds like the editor knows the material. [45] CorinneSD (talk) 23:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Did some googling of Capricorn plate and it looks interesting. Likely worth an article ... sometime :) Vsmith (talk) 01:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Adam's Bridge

I know from the talk page that there have been repeated requests to change the name of the article from Adam's Bridge to Ram Setu's bridge, or something like that, and that the requests have consistently been denied. However, I just noticed the name Ramsetu in the caption of a diagram in the section Adam's Bridge#Sethusamudram shipping canal project. I don't know how long it has been there. While you're there, you can also take a look at the most recent edits, including [46] and the ones just before that. CorinneSD (talk) 23:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Aligned with article title. That is a constant problem there and the reason it is semi-protected. Editors from the region don't like the English name. Vsmith (talk) 01:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Flax

See this at Flax: [47] The reference seems interesting, but it does not seem to accompany any text, and it resulted in a note [1] at the very beginning of the article. CorinneSD (talk) 23:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

It has been reverted already. I guess I need to become bolder. CorinneSD (talk) 00:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, bold is fun :) Vsmith (talk) 01:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Environmental

So in the climate change page I believe there should be a section showing how the USA public generally disagrees over that issue endangering the world, for political reasons, much like in the global warming page. Also, I suggest upgrading the statistics in global warming regarding the USA consensus in 2015 to show how or how not the public sees no concern in this huge issue. Is this agreeable? Dandtiks69 (talk) 05:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps such would be needed. I would advise starting a section on the article talk pages first and be sure you have solid WP:reliable sources to support any edits there. Those articles have been subjected to controversy for quite some time, so proceed with caution. Vsmith (talk) 22:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's where the problem is: administrators with political agendas. Even if the source is as reliable as it is, if it doesn't fit their political agenda editors will do everything in their power to purposefully misinterpret or ignore the facts of the world, even those with broad scientific consensus. Land development, expansion, and imperialism interprets environmentalism as a conspiracy invented by wacko scientists willing to ruin the economy, the ultimate importance of this country. Do you have any suggestions on how to carefully approach this subject, besides using reliable sources? I don't want to get in trouble with administrators again just because I don't follow their ideology. Dandtiks69 (talk) 11:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Hmm...a conspiracy invented by wacko scientists...

Sorry, based on your attitude above, I have no advice to offer. Vsmith (talk) 12:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

No, wait, I was being sarcastic! What I meant to say is if there is any way to avoid admins with that attitude towards environmentalism. I'm sure there has to be a handful of them in Wikipedia to balance out the arguments. I don't try to fit facts to my ideology, I fit my ideology to the facts! In fact, Rush Limbaugh refers to environmentalists as wackos (just like it says here in Wikipedia on his page, he believes there are more trees now than there were in Colombus's arrival! How did he come up with that?) Dandtiks69 (talk) 01:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll be more direct next time to avoid confusion. Dandtiks69 (talk) 01:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and another thing, can you answer back in my talk page? Dandtiks69 (talk) 20:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Hmm... Rush Limbaugh? ... seems Al Franken's book sorta clarified things there. Read the note up top - you ask here, I answer here. Vsmith (talk) 01:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be politically biased.

So all I gotta do is ask in my page, refer to you, and then maybe you'll answer back? Dandtiks69 (talk) 01:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Basically - that and your talk is now on my watchlist. Vsmith (talk) 02:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Good, now we can stay in contact more frequently! But I don't have anything now, except I'm trying to gather my sources for Denmark having the happiest population in the world (if not just being on top of the world). I also have to learn a bit of the language to enable myself to understand the sources. Dandtiks69 (talk) 06:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

If it relates to the environment I will put my part in it, and Denmark having the happiest population in the world sets the example for the world on how to live life. Sort of: it promotes for the most part environmental sustainability without over consumption. Dandtiks69 (talk) 06:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Polite enquiry

Regarding your revert: I completely support you addressing a block evasion, but ...
At first evaluation, this edit appears to have been useful. Am I missing something? Thanks in advance. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

You may re-instate that expand Vietnamese making it your edit. See the policy at WP:Block evasion. That block evader makes many, mostly trivial, edits in a short period of time and I don't take the time to fully evaluate each. Vsmith (talk) 10:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

global warming.

Hello. You don't think the Daily Mail is a reliable source? (and the reason I said some scientists was because the mail article said some scientists believed that oceanic cycles since 1900 have cause global warming, but didn't specify which – not my fault). The Daily Mail has broken a lot of huge stories. HydrocityFerocity (talk) 03:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree, the Daily Mail is broken. See here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Boris. Vsmith (talk) 03:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi. It's me again!

It seems that people have already started editing and correcting the global warming section, and that's great, so I will continue instead with climate change and "Tragedy of the Commons." However, I wanted to ask this: for the "Modern Commons" section of the page "Tragedy of the Commons," would it clarify the subject if I added a few more elaborations of the commons? I actually have a book to cite for this one, called Thinking in Systems, by Donella Meadows. Please respond on my talk page. If not that's still okay. Dandtiks69 (talk) 20:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't know much about that. Perhaps you coul ask on the talk page there. Vsmith (talk) 01:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Volgograd

Yesterday I glanced at the article on Volgograd (in the process of fixing a link at Ferdynand Antoni Ossendowski to the old name of Volgograd), and I noticed in the infobox a long list of postal codes. I don't remember seeing such a list in other articles. Is that appropriate? CorinneSD (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

That is a long list ... I've been bold and collapsed it w/ {{cot}}...{{cob}} (see Template:Collapse top) as I see no need for such a long list there. Vsmith (talk) 23:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks better now. I was just looking at the edits just previous to yours, when I saw this: [48]. Isn't "transshipment" a word? What does "transport shipment" mean, and do you think it's an improvement? CorinneSD (talk) 13:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Restored and linked. Vsmith (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Zeolite medica use

Hello Vsmith, I have added a paragraph on zeolite medical use yesterday and I see that you removed it. I tried to make a balanced short paragraph - not one promoting use of zeolite but rather one telling readers that zeolite use is not supported by mainstream medicine. Many readers are interested in this and this is what wikipedia is about: answering questions of the readers. Now I have opened a discussion on this in Zeolite talk page (see under medica use) and I kindly ask you to add your view. Thanks. I do not have a wiki account yet but will open one now. 31.15.180.165 (talk) 09:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Good morning and thanks for your note. I will consider your comment at talk:zeolite later -- need more caffeine, tree pollen is clogging my head now. Vsmith (talk) 12:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

About battery

Hi Vsmith,

I was confused by the conventions that anode is positive and cathode is negative in other electronic devices and that is the reason I made that edit. Now I understood that in case of battery it is in the reverse order. Sorry for the wrong edit... Thanks!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chand3994 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the differing usage is problematic. Vsmith (talk) 02:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Lake Baikal

If you have time, would you look at this edit to Lake Baikal? Two images were added. One is of ice. Unless it illustrates something special about the ice of Lake Baikal, it is just a picture of ice and maybe doesn't add much to the article. The other one is more interesting, but I don't know about the placement in the article. Also, look at the user name, Hydrofoil-7. Isn't a hydrofoil another word for a hovercraft? CorinneSD (talk) 16:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Removed the images and left the user a note explaining the need for relevance. Seems the user has had problems previously regarding a promotional article. Vsmith (talk) 20:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Out of curiosity I looked at that editor's contributions but found only that one edit. Are you able to see other previous edits? You don't have to tell me how, or where. CorinneSD (talk) 22:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, my magic glasses make deleted edits visible :) Vsmith (talk) 22:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Bass (fish)

Would you say this link is appropriate or an instance of overlinking? [49] CorinneSD (talk) 22:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Could be ... should be obvious, but not problem enough to quibble about. Vsmith (talk) 23:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Proto-Indo-European Urheimat hypotheses

I know this is not exactly your field, but it is tangentially related to geology, and you're so knowledgeable I think you might be able to answer my question. I've just started reading the article Proto-Indo-European Urheimat hypotheses, and I've already found a few things that I think need improving. I've left a note on Kwamikagami's talk page about the second sentence of the lede; there's something about it that is unclear, and Kwami is an expert in linguistics. Now I'm in the third paragraph of the lede. I'm going to copy the entire paragraph here:

• The Kurgan hypothesis was formulated by Marija Gimbutas in the 1950s, and gained mainstream currency beginning in the 1970s. The primary competitor is the Anatolian hypothesis, which proposes that the dispersal of Indo-Europeans originated in Neolithic Anatolia, as part of the expansion during the Neolithic revolution during the seventh and sixth millennia BC. The Anatolian hypothesis was first advanced by Colin Renfrew in 1987. Renfrew’s theory has been popular among archeologists[citation needed], but linguists have by and large preferred the pastoralist model.

(1) In the second sentence, I'm going to change the second "during" to "in" to avoid two instances of the word "during" in close proximity.

(2) My question is about the third and fourth sentences. I was going to reword the third sentence so that I could join the third and fourth sentences, but I noticed that the third sentence uses "Anatolian hypothesis" (repeating what's in the second sentence) while the fourth sentence uses "Renfrew's theory". How did it evolve from a hypthothesis to a theory in such a short span of years, and is it important to make the distinction? If not, it would make it easier to join the sentences. I'll show you how I was going to join them:

• First advanced by Colin Renfrew in 1987, the Anatolian hypothesis/theory has been popular among archaeologists ("a" added), but linguists have by and large preferred the pastoralist model.

Any thoughts?

(3) Also, and this is a separate issue, I guess the phrase "pastoralist model" refers to the Kurgan hypothesis described in the second paragraph of the lede, but will the average reader make the connection? The only two things that could suggest "pastoralist" are "grasslands" and "domestication of the horse". CorinneSD (talk) 23:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree w/ 1 & 2. Seems Kurgan's pastoralist model would clarify #3. Vsmith (talk) 23:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

O.K. (but it would be "Kurgan pastoralist model" since "Kurgan" is not a person). I've made those changes. In the section Proto-Indo-European Urheimat hypotheses#Genetics, the block quote starts, "if...". Shouldn't a block quote start with a capital letter? CorinneSD (talk) 00:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Good - as you said "it ain't my field" :) As to the blockquotes, it seems if the first words aren't the beginning of a sentence in the original then the quotes should start w/ "..." - would have to check the sources to see. Vsmith (talk) 00:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, I'm amending my comment. Marija Gimbutas, who developed the Kurgan hypothesis, named the people "the Kurgans" after their burial mounds, which were called "kurgans". See Marija Gimbutas#Kurgan hypothesis. P.S. You seem to be interested in more than just geology (and I know geology is a pretty big field in itself). CorinneSD (talk) 00:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

In the Gimbutas article, I found two external links in the middle of the article and I don't know what to do with them. One is in the third paragraph in Marija Gimbutas#Early life and the other is in the last paragraph in Marija Gimbutas#Late archaeology. CorinneSD (talk) 00:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

For the first either a redlink or link to the Lithuanian article (Jonas Puzinas) - there is a way to link direct (see Template:Interlanguage link) Jonas Puzinas (clicking on the blue lt brings up the Lithuanian article for your translation pleasure). For the 2nd - I'd likely delete ... Vsmith (talk) 02:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I changed the first one to the link you provided. I'm afraid to delete the second one; I don't know what edit summary to give, and someone might get upset. Can you do it? CorinneSD (talk) 17:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Changed the second to link to the specific section in the Pacifica article. Vsmith (talk) 18:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Also changed the Puzinas link to an interwiki link - it is red, but maybe someone will translate after clicking the blue lt and viewing the Lithuanian page? Vsmith (talk) 18:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Reiner Grundmann

The article Reiner Grundmann has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability is not established, poorly cited, most cites link to self published blog posts, issues have been pointed out a year ago, nothing has improved.

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. prokaryotes (talk) 10:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Now in AfD https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Reiner_Grundmann prokaryotes (talk) 12:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Watching. Chopped the most recent bit o puff. Vsmith (talk) 12:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Heinrich Zimmer

In the article Heinrich Zimmer, in the Quotes section, there is one block quote (so maybe it should say "Quote"). I noticed that the source information for the quote is right after the block quote. I was thinking, wouldn't the quote look better if the source information were shorter? Couldn't that information be put into a reference section? CorinneSD (talk) 21:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Formatted as blockquote and the reference in ref format. Vsmith (talk) 22:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Revert

Can you further explain this Revert https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evolution&type=revision&diff=661826846&oldid=661826108 Thanks Eulalefty (talk) 12:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

The comment about a book by al-Jahiz was interjected within a discussion of the teleological understanding of Nature and appeared quite misplaced/irrelevant to the subject. Vsmith (talk) 12:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Mica

I kind of think this edit to Mica is vandalism, but I wasn't sure, so I'm asking you. [50] CorinneSD (talk) 23:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't call that vandalism. The perfect basal cleavage of the micas well known and could be a diagnostic property to help identify a mineral sample as a mica. The perfect cleavage is sufficiently well known among mineral collectors to sorta rate as common knowledge. Does it belong in the infobox? Don't know, but won't hurt. Vsmith (talk) 23:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I know about the cleavage in mica. I've got some mica. I guess I didn't even know what those things were in the "list", and I saw the other ones were blank. CorinneSD (talk) 23:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah... some of those are mineralogist/crystallographer technospeak. Mica is a group name and for the individual micas more of those list items are used. The melting point listed on the mica infobox bothers me as methinks the mineral would decompose prior to melting ... Anyway just call me a mineral nut. Vsmith (talk) 00:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't even read the words; I just saw that most were blank. I know what the words mean; I took a course in crystallography. Regarding the temperature, look at the last sentence in the section Mica#Electrical and electronic. CorinneSD (talk) 02:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

OK "withstand up to 900 °C" doesn't mean melt. Will do some digging ... maybe. Good to know you are familiar w/ the terminology. Vsmith (talk) 02:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Fusibility means the temperature at which it will fuse with another mineral, right? Should be just below the melting temperature, shouldn't it? I don't know what "diagnostic" means in this context, though. How come there's no mention at all of "fusibility" or "fusing" in either the Mineralogy or the Crystallography articles? CorinneSD (talk) 03:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Fusibility or fusing in old mineralogy texts basically means melting and was used with old blowpipe mineral testing on a charcoal block or a platinum wire loop. Blowpipe tests are rather outdated and /or obsolete. My 1985 ed of the "Manual of Mineralogy" still has a discussion of blowpipe and other tests plus a table of fusion temperatures. Diagnostic means a property or properties which identifies a mineral. The perfect basal cleavage serves to "identify" the mica group (altho other species may exhibit it also) then other properties/tests are needed to identify which mica. Vsmith (talk) 03:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh... Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 14:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Help me, please

Dear participant, I ask Your help.

You edited the article on underground mining. Please, if you can, tell me - who wrote the section on longvall mining? AlexChirkin (talk) 12:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea, you would need to check the Longwall mining article history. Vsmith (talk) 13:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

well that didn't work...

Thanks for the smile. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

smiles are good :) Vsmith (talk) 13:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Cendol

What do you think of this edit undoing Joshua Jonathan's edit, and the accompanying edit summary? [51] (See the edits just previous to this and my comment on JJ's talk page at User talk:Joshua Jonathan#Cendol.) It's not a big deal, but I'm just curious what you think. The editor seems to be a bit sensitive about the adjective, perhaps feeling it is an indirect comment about the people, but I think it is just describing the shape of the foodstuff in the beverage. I guess it all comes down to what's in the source. CorinneSD (talk) 21:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The IP should read the source, I guess. Besides, looking at the picture the association is quite clear, isn't it? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe using vermicular or linking to wiktionary : worm–like would help ease objections... or maybe not? Vsmith (talk) 22:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Hmm... maybe I've had some of that bánh lọt way back when? Vsmith (talk) 22:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

How about craeting a Category:Worm drinks? Mezcal also contains a worm, so that's two. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 22:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Cendol seems similar to Bubble tea, which is very popular. I'm wondering whether the IP is a non-native speaker of English and does not realize that calling something "worm-like" (when it's clear it is describing a food item that is non-living) is describing only the shape (and perhaps also the sensation when eating it) and in no way reflects on the people who enjoy the beverage. CorinneSD (talk) 23:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe so - but the ip is in USA. Vsmith (talk) 23:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Converting sq m to sq ft

V, I've used the conversion templates often, but not recently, and I've forgotten how to write the conversion formula for square meters to square feet, and I looked for a table that I used to use often, and I cannot find it. It had all the various types of measurements - linear measurements, volume, etc. Can you help me find it? It was somewhere in the MoS. I've made an error in a conversion template in the edits I've just made to Sultanate of Rum and I want to fix it. CorinneSD (talk) 00:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

{{convert|44|m2}} produces 44 square metres (470 sq ft) -- would have to search a bit for the direction page, but that works. Vsmith (talk) 00:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

see Template:Convert/list of units. Vsmith (talk) 00:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! CorinneSD (talk) 22:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Thelema

I know the bot would get around to it eventually, but can you figure out who posted the comment at Talk:Thelema#Unclear sentences? The poster makes a good point. CorinneSD (talk) 23:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Added the unsigned thingy for the user. The easy way is just check the talk history. Vsmith (talk) 23:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks. I added a note to the editor's talk page about signing, and am not the first to do so. CorinneSD (talk) 23:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Siberia

V, do you feel like clarifying something in the article on Siberia? There's a "clarification needed" tag in Siberia#Economy. CorinneSD (talk) 02:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Removed the Quaternary glaciation bit as it was rather irrelevant there. Should someone object ... then they may clarify. Vsmith (talk) 02:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

O.K. I'll look at it now. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 01:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Wow, when I read the sentence, and the part you deleted, I realized I just read something about that yesterday or the day before in the book I'm reading, Man and Mystery in Asia, by Ferdinand Ossendowski. He specifically mentions this. I'll find it and copy it and then you can tell me if I should add it to the article (but I don't know when I'll have time to do this; may be a few days before I can get to it). CorinneSD (talk) 01:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Ossendowski was an interesting character (hadn't heard of him previously) and I'm curious about his work on Siberian ore deposits and the "lack of glaciation" bit. From this map his focus was on southwest Siberia to L. Baikal and in the east, Kamchatka, Sakhalin Island and the Sikhote-Alin Mountains. Vsmith (talk) 02:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

This book, Man and Mystery in Asia, is very interesting. He intersperses brief descriptions of his geological and scientific work with fascinating stories of the people and the life from Lake Baikal all the way to the Kamchatka Peninsula. The stories take up more lines than the geological information. It seems his travels in Asia were in two time periods: the region of the Yenesei River in 1899 and the early years of the 20th century and the region of Ussuri (south of the Okhotsk Sea) and Kamchatka Peninsula about twenty years later. Here is the beginning of Chapter VIII, "The Curse of Abuk Khan", p. 74:

It was still a long time before we finished our wanderings on the prairies of Chulyma-Minusinsk. We visited and studied lakes rich in kitchen salt, where there were primitive installations for extracting it from the lake water; some containing soda, as the Lake of the Geese and Saletra Lake; some with Glauber salts resembling Lake Szira and quite a number of others. We visited the "Julia Mine" with its layers of copper ore where Englishmen were at work; we saw deposits of iron and manganese and advanced every further south in the direction of the Minusinsk district among the last ridges of the Great Altai...

Part II, "The Tiger Country", starts with Chapter X, "The Pearl of the East", as follows:

Between the River Amur, the Korean frontier, the Pacific Ocean, and the Manchurian boundary lies the Ussurian country. It is traversed by the Ussuri River with its large affluents, the Sungacha and the Daobi Ho, and is separated into two parts, the Ussuri basin and the maritime slope, by the mountains of Sikhota-Alin.

It is a strange country, a mixture of north and south. Pines, firs, cedars, and Arctic birches grow beside walnuts, limes, cork oaks, dimorphous palms, and vines. The reindeer, the brown bear, and the sable live in the same forest with the tiger, the boa constrictor, and the red wolf. On the waters of the lakes and on the marshes round Hanka the northern goose, swan, and duck mingle with the Australian black swan, the Indian flamingo and the Chinese heron and Mandarin ducks. A Riddle or a joke of Nature? ...

The Russian explorers have since earliest times called the Ussurian country "The Pearl of the East," and they are right.

I went to Vladivostok by order of the Russian Government to study the markets of the Far East, which gave me the opportunity of becoming thoroughly acquainted with the country and with its economic value. Shortly after my arrival I was chosen scientific secretary of the Oriental Department of the Russian Geographical Society, which gave me free access to all libraries, museums, and archives and thus greatly facilitated my personal studies.

In the course of my chemical geological studies of the coal deposits scattered through the Ussurian country and along the whole Pacific shore of the Russian dominions, I visited and traveled over much of the Ussurian Province the island of Sakhalin, the Kamchatka peninsula and the shores of Behring Sea....

(p. 93-95)

Toward the end of Chapter XV, "I Leave it to the Tiger", is the following:

This same autumn I visited the bays of St. Olga, St. Vladimir and Tetiukho. These are among the most alluring spots for capitalists on the Primorsk coast, as here are to be found the richest deposits of iron, copper, zinc, and coal. ... These riches are almost inexhaustible and the ores are of a very high grade. The metallurgic industry has here a possible field of activity for at least a hundred and fifty years. To snatch this enormous wealth it was worth while for the Tokio Government to talk, to fight, and to override the large element of popular opposition to its militaristic policy in Siberia among the Japanese people themselves.

(p. 126-127)

I'm still looking for that passage about the glaciation, but want to save this before I lose it. CorinneSD (talk) 00:38, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Bizarre edit on Evolutionary origin of religioin page?

Why did you unflag the incomprehensible sentence I flagged? Were you uable to grasp that the sentence is incomprehensible?? Was it just a knee-jerk reaction to the fact that I'm not logged-in???

I'm not trying to keep my name secret; I just don't bother logging in all the time. Make a respectful response on the related Talk page and I'll log in and sign.

Yes, my all-caps NEEDS REWORDED is not a standard Wikipedia annotation Replace it with the correct annotation if you feel that you must edit, but don't understand the subject well enough to make the sentence comnprehesnsible.

Thank you.

(Sorry if I sound annoyed but ....) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.89.123.222 (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

All caps is considered shouting and we don't add editorial commentary to articles. Please login. Vsmith (talk) 16:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Aras (river)

Hello, V - I was just looking at the article on the Aras River, and I noticed something in the sentence in italics at the top of the article -- I don't know what you call that: For X, see..., for Y, see.... Is that disambiguation or redirects? -- It says football playerfilm maker, all run together. I could just fix that by adding a slash or hyphen, but since it's in that special section, I thought I'd better leave it to you. CorinneSD (talk) 23:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Removed the film maker bit as no mention in the footballer's article. Those are disamb. links. Vsmith (talk) 02:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Possessive apostrophe after name ending in "s"

I'm joining a discussion about a proposal to rename "Braess's paradox" to "Braess' paradox" at Talk:Braess's paradox#Requested move 21 May 2015. I don't feel strongly either way, but generally I don't think the extra "s" is needed. I'm wondering if you can think of any other theory, hypothesis, paradox, etc., of a scientist, mathematician, researcher, etc., whose name ends in "s" which we can look at for comparison. CorinneSD (talk) 01:54, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

See Charles' law (my pref :) and the first talk page topic there. Vsmith (talk) 02:13, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Wetland

What do you think of the image that was just added to Wetland (apart from the grammatical issues in the caption)? I think it's a nice photo, but it doesn't show the water that is an essential element in a wetland, or the green color of vegetation. CorinneSD (talk) 16:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The water is there, just hard to see at that size. I've tweaked the caption a bit. Vsmith (talk) 16:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The caption is certainly better. What do you think of adding or substituting the photo of a bog in Estonia that is on my user page, about three images up from the bottom of the page? CorinneSD (talk) 02:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

That Estonian bog picture is good - replace if you wish. Vsmith (talk) 14:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Can't seem to get through to this editor

V, can you help me get through to this editor, who is obviously a non-native speaker of English? I left a comment at User talk:TaivoLinguist#Language isolate about a poorly written edit at Language isolate. Immediately, the writer of that edit left a message on my talk page at User talk:CorinneSD#Summerian Language -- but it was left at the TOP of my talk page. I moved it to the bottom and responded, and directed him/her to leave comments at the bottom of the talk page. It was followed by a second one at the TOP, which I then moved to the bottom, and then a third at the TOP. All the comments are written earnestly but in very poor English. I'm not sure s/he even understands what I wrote. CorinneSD (talk) 02:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Left the user a note re: edit warring and "use the talk page". Seems a 3rr report has been filed - altho there be problems there... Vsmith (talk) 13:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Languages and unnecessary/subjective usage of WR:FRINGE notes

Ok, I am involved in discussion. Please take a look. Thank you. Okurogluselo 18:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I see that - also see that you continue to edit war, and that must stop. Vsmith (talk) 18:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Siberia 2

I've just started reading the article on Siberia. I'd like to convert square kilometers to square miles in the second paragraph of the lede, but I don't know how to represent "million". I also think it looks nice there seeing the words spelled out; I don't know if the square miles needs to be spelled out or not. Could you put in the conversion template so I can see how to do it? I know how to do it now for small numbers, but I don't know what to do with the "million". Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 01:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

{{convert|13100000|km2}} → 13,100,000 square kilometres (5,100,000 sq mi)

{{convert|13.1e6|km2}} → 13.1×10⁶ square kilometres (5.1×10⁶ sq mi)

... don't know with the word "million". Vsmith (talk) 02:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm going to save this at the top of my talk page for future reference. CorinneSD (talk) 16:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

V, I'm puzzled by something in the Siberia article. Toward the end of the fourth paragraph in the Siberia#Climate section are the following two sentences:

• It is a village with a population of 500, and it recorded a temperature of −89.9 °F (−67.7 °C) on 6 February 1933. It is considered the Northern Pole of Cold, meaning the coldest known point in the Northern hemisphere.

In the next paragraph we read, about the same village:

• With the lowest recorded temperature of −71.2 °C (−96.2 °F), Oymyakon (Sakha Republic) has the distinction of being the coldest city on Earth.

(a) Why are two low (presumably record) temperatures given for the village?

(b) Also, I notice that the order of the temperatures varies, some with C first, then F, and some with F first, then C. Which order do you think should be followed in the article? CorinneSD (talk) 15:41, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Removed second unsourced and colder claim and switched to °C first for consistency. Vsmith (talk) 19:41, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks. I have another question: the last sentence in Siberia#Climate is the following:

• In 2008, a research expedition for the American Geophysical Union detected levels of methane up to 100 times above normal in the Siberian Arctic, likely being released by methane clathrates being released by holes in a frozen 'lid' of seabed permafrost, around the outfall of the Lena River and the area between the Laptev Sea and East Siberian Sea.

I noticed that the sentence repeats the phrase "being released by". I'm wondering if that's really accurate and has to stay that way, or could the second one be changed to "being released through holes..." or some other wording. CorinneSD (talk) 23:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Reworded. Vsmith (talk) 02:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

V, I just added what I thought was an interesting photo from the methane clathrate article to my user page and added a caption, the first part of which I got from the image file and the second part of which I wrote myself. If you have time, could you read what I wrote and tell me if it is accurate? If not, could you tell me how I should modify it? CorinneSD (talk) 23:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

It is a good image. I don't know much about clathrates - perhaps frozen methane gas is a bit off; I'd say This is methane gas trapped within the ice structure. Vsmith (talk) 02:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks! To me, this image encapsulates a potential global warming disaster. If world temperatures continue to rise, a lot of this trapped methane will be released. CorinneSD (talk) 16:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

In the first paragraph of the section Siberia#Geology is the following sentence:

• The flow of the Ob and Yenisei Rivers was reversed, so they were redirected into the Caspian Sea (perhaps the Aral as well).

It's not clear to me when the flow of the rivers reversed. The Cenozoic was mentioned in the previous sentence. Was it during the Cenozoic? After the Cenozoic? I think they now flow northward, so for how long did they flow southward? Should we just link them to their respective articles? Even if that's all we do, can you add a few words that indicate when the flow of the rivers reversed? CorinneSD (talk) 00:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Reworded a bit to clarify ... but needs a source re: the extent of the Cenozoic ice caps/glaciers there. Vsmith (talk) 01:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Do any of these help?

• [52]
• [53] (can't see whole article)
• [54]
• [55]
• [56] CorinneSD (talk) 15:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm reviewing this article re: a large glacially dammed lake - which appears useful. Vsmith (talk) 16:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Siberian Traps

From the article on Siberia, I got to the article on the Siberian Traps. I noticed something and I wonder if you could explain it to me. I have my screen enlarged to 150% (it's a small screen), and the "250 to 251 million years ago" appears on a new line even though the line before it had room for at least the "250 to 251", which appears to be a separate link from "million years ago", but I guess is something else. I see it's a template. I'm just curious what that template is, and why it is used (instead of simply typing "250 to 251 million years ago". Is it because the number has to keep being updated as the years go by, and the template allows that to happen automatically? Even if it is a template, I still don't see why the line has to break after the words that appear just before it. CorinneSD (talk) 01:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

See Template:Ma. The template forces the value (or range in this case) to be on the same line as the "unit" million years ago. Similar to the use of non-breaking space (&nbsp followed by ;) to keep the unit on the same line as the value.

The template 251 to 250 million years ago as used in the article and the Mya links to Myr which isn't typically used in geology which is a bit odd. Simply using {{Mya|251|250|Mya}} gives 251 to 250 Mya without a link to Mya. The 251-250 link goes to a graphical timeline. Clear as mud ? :) Vsmith (talk) 03:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

δ18O

From the Siberian Traps article I got to the article on δ18O to find out what it meant. I added what I believed was a missing "and" in a sentence in the lede; I don't know if you want to check to be sure I understood the sentence correctly. In the "Mechanism" section, I found the following sentence:

• The ratio of 18O to 16O is used to tell the temperature of the surrounding water of the time solidified, indirectly.

I've read the sentence through several times, and it is still unclear to me. I guess it's the water that was "solidified, indirectly", but I don't think that's very clear. I wonder if you could make the sentence a little clearer. CorinneSD (talk) 01:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't help that the sentence does not actually parse as grammatical English. Better wording would be "...indirectly tell the temperature of the surrounding water at the time the shell solidified." You may find this more useful than the WP article if you want a general introduction to the topic. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! CorinneSD (talk) 02:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

V, I guess splitting an infinitive doesn't bother you. Would you consider "to determine indirectly"? CorinneSD (talk) 00:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't bother me at all. But, now I have a vision of my freshman English teacher, Mrs. Bressie, standing over me - glaring ... :) If you think the usage will serve to drastically distract the reader; then it can be changed. I was so shaken by that vision that I checked with the Grammer Girl and my mind was soothed. Vsmith (talk) 01:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Another IP to block

I wanted to give you a heads up about that IP wikilinking block evader who frequently targets global warming related articles, who seems to have popped up using the IP 108.73.112.95. Everymorning talk 02:10, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Russia

I'm reading parts of the article on Russia, and I have two questions for you:

1) In the section Russia#Climate, the second paragraph begins:

• Most of Northern European Russia and Siberia has a subarctic climate, with extremely severe winters in the inner regions of Northeast Siberia...

Wouldn't you consider "Northern European Russia" and "Siberia" two areas? If it is two areas, shouldn't the verb be "have" instead of "has"?

2) Near the end of the Climate section, after the temperature chart, is the following sentence:

• In winter, temperatures get colder both from south to north and from west to east.

I don't understand this sentence. I don't completely understand the overall meaning -- I suppose it means the gradual dropping of temperatures moving gradually across the land as the weeks progress through the fall into the winter, and then through the winter, but that's just a guess. I also don't understand how it could get colder in the south of Russia before it gets cold in the north of Russia. CorinneSD (talk) 02:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

1 Yes - two areas.

2 Poor construction and very broad statement. I assume it means the winter temperatures are colder in the northern and eastern regions. Rather obvious that the north is going to be colder; not so obvious about the east - implies Kamchatka is coldest... I'd say chop it. Vsmith (talk) 03:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Geography of Russia

I'm reading the article on the Geography of Russia, and I have a question for you. In the section Geography of Russia#Global position and boundaries, the last sentence in the first paragraph is:

• Russia is also located on the northernmost tip of Asia.

(I had changed "It" to "Russia" for clarity.) I don't understand "the northernmost tip of Asia". I know that Russia is located in the northern reaches of Asia, but "tip"? What tip? I don't think that's the best word. Russia stretches too much east to west to form a tip of land, doesn't it? Can you think of a better word or phrase? CorinneSD (talk) 03:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Here's another question about the same section. At the very end of the section there is a red link at "Japan". If you look at it in edit mode, you'll see "Russia-Japan maritime boundary", but no article exists on that topic. I'm wondering whether this should stay a red link. CorinneSD (talk) 03:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I would just delete the "tip" sentence -- or reword to something akin to: Russia includes the entire northern portion of Asia.

The red link: doesn't bother me and just maybe there is an article to be written ... Vsmith (talk) 04:10, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Block evasion?

Please look at my history and explain? This IP address has previously been blocked some time back as part of a large (possibly unreasonable) block, but I never was specifically targetted by that block, and it long-expired. As for the revert on "Ocean acidification", I would also have liked a more useful objection comment, to correct the entry as needed. Thanks, 76.10.128.192 (talk) 07:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Please forgive and disreguard this comment, I had misread the changelog :) Thanks again, 76.10.128.192 (talk) 07:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

username

Hey there I found your message board. Its me jmcollectables. My name is Jaime Maldonado and I received your message my contribution is only to show my image of my Philip the 4th coin which I own now my user name do I have to change it to my real name or is the letters " j" " m' which stand for my inicials of my name isn't enough to identify. Also please send the messages via yahoo its much easier for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmcollectables (talk • contribs) 13:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I've replied on your talk page. Your coin image is interesting, but I've removed it from the Potosi article as it was nonworking and rather misplaced. It is a neat coin - have you had it authenticated? Vsmith (talk) 13:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

my coin was passed down from my grandfather who told me it has been im my extended faamily since he could remember. Im the proud owner of the coin now and only wished to share a piece of history with the world. The value means nothing to me but the history is the true treasure. i will close my account and place my image of the coin where all may see and admire. I believed the world still has hidden treasure out there that are yet to be discovered, now i see technical will stand in the way of progress. What do ido mr vsmith? Do i have to create a new account to contribute? My intention was to show the coinage minted in potosi bolivia where the coin was minted. thats all... please advise. i have other material which is most intresting and as far as the value? im not intrested in the monitary value but the historical value!! im new so if i dont relpy in line with wiki please forgive me.jaime maldonado 13:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmcollectables (talk • contribs)

Thank you and i accept all emails all of your suggestions... jaime maldonado 13:53, 5 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmcollectables (talk • contribs)

Again, I would reccommend changing your username if you wish to continue contributing here. Others will likely question your current username as it appears to be commercial.

Thanks for explaining, you do have a treasured heirloom. If the coin were mine I would want to get it appraised by a reputable expert, but that is your decision. Vsmith (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

More block evasion

I noticed that you reverted an IP edit here, citing WP:Block evasion. Your reversion was subsequently reverted by Editor abcdef.

I see that you are performing similar reversions such as here and here.

On what basis have you decided that these edits are made by "users who intentionally evade a block" (quote from WP:Block evasion)? How have your reversions improved Wikipedia's articles? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:11, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

See User talk:108.195.138.174 and this list for a bit of insight. Specific behavior? See WP:BEANS. Why are you concerned? If you feel that specific edits by that ip were "good", you are welcome to make the edit yourself. Vsmith (talk) 11:32, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sanctions against editors should not be punitive, reverting constructive edits simply for block evasion is ad hominem, attacking the users of the IP address (who may not even be one person) instead of the edits. Editor abcdef (talk) 11:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

thank you

Thank you again for your help and advise. I will read up on the articles you have directed me to. Jaime maldonadojaime maldonado 13:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmcollectables (talk • contribs)

Searchlight edit

Yo, I noticed you reverted my edit to Searchlight, Nevada, for "game trivia". I wasn't aware trivia about video games in "In popular culture" sections was disallowed, in fact I've seen it plenty of times in other articles. Is there a policy page or something that states this? --91.154.29.72 (talk) 14:35, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

No but their is a policy against sockpuppetry. John from Idegon (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

And? I'm not sockpuppeting, I don't have an account in the first place. --91.154.29.72 (talk) 16:51, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

The game bit you added was trivial and unsourced. That some game uses the town in some way is of no relevance to the article on the town. That the town was used in the game might be relevant in the game article if supported by a WP:reliable source. Also you don't have to have an account to be a sock - if you change ip addresses to avoid a block - you are a sock. Having said that, I am not making that accusation. Vsmith (talk) 17:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Saxons

I'm wondering if you can answer the question I posed to Ben MacDui at User talk:Ben MacDui#Saxons 2. CorinneSD (talk) 16:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Chilean volcanoes

Hello there, I wonder if you could contribute with some thoughts in Talk:List of volcanoes in Chile#Cleanup_and_return_to_pre-merge_layout.

—Dentren | ^Talk 19:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Still another question!

Considering wikis are either tertiary sources or a compilation of sources can one source articles on Wikipedia using wikis or would one have to use the sources making up the wiki directly? Dandtiks69 (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

As Wikipedia and other wikis are user made they are not WP:reliable sources. If the content in a wiki is sourced to a reliable source - then use that source after checking that source to make certain it was not misused by the wiki author. Vsmith (talk) 01:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Esotericism

V, even if he's right, doesn't a merger of two articles have to gain a consensus first? I don't know, but I thought I'd point this out to you. [57] (Read the edit summary in the Revision History.) CorinneSD (talk) 15:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

It was a bold move - and if no one objects - then no problem. Are you objecting? Looks like there was a merger proposal (see Talk:Western esotericism#Merger proposal) back in Oct. 2014. Vsmith (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

No, no. I'm not objecting. I just never saw this happen before. No problem. CorinneSD (talk) 20:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Columns

Can you tell me where I can find instructions on how to format text in three columns, but no table (no lines or boxes, anyway)? I want to format samples of Chavacano language, with the Chavacano at the left, Spanish in the middle, and English at the right, instead of the blockquote format (see my recent edits). CorinneSD (talk) 03:10, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

See: Help:Columns. Vsmith (talk) 11:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Areca nut

Can you take a look at what's been happening in the edit history at Areca nut? See [58] and edits previous to that. See also my comment and Sminth's reply at User talk:Sminthopsis84#Areca nut. After I read Sminth's reply, I went to the article to look for things to cut and saw this latest edit. I also wonder if that whole second paragraph in the lede should be there. Usually, information about toxicity or harmful effects of plants is in a section late in the article under a heading such as "Toxicology", "Toxicity", or something like that. CorinneSD (talk) 21:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The lead summarizes the article - at least theoretically. As health issues are a significant part of the article, that should be mentioned in the lead. I've chopped that image - didn't belong in the lead. Vsmith (talk) 23:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Evenks

I saw this edit to Evenks, [59], and a similar one at Ket people, [60], and I looked at the categories at the bottom of the page, and I wondered, why use both "ethnic groups" and "indigenous people"? Is there an important difference that makes two categories necessary? CorinneSD (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I've no expertise here -- but, to me an ethnic group is not necessarily an indigenous people. altho an indigenous people can also be an ethnic group. Vsmith (talk) 23:03, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

It seems this editor likes to add category templates. See User talk:Abrahamic Faiths#Ethnic template. CorinneSD (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Seems that has been resolved. Vsmith (talk) 23:03, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Seismic fault image

Thanks, I was just considering doing the same, as the image is really unhelpful. I'll try to find an image that is genuinely free to use (I doubt that that one was), because so much of our understanding of fault geometry comes from seismic data - it's what I spend most of my working day doing - interpreting faults on seismic data I mean. Mikenorton (talk) 19:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Jewelry wire gauge

I don't understand this edit to Jewelry wire gauge: [61]. Are they saying that in England, wire gauge is not measured in millimeters? If so, I think "In the rest of Europe" is too far away from "England" to make that clear, and "in the world" is kind of silly. But if I revert, I don't even know what to say in the edit summary. CorinneSD (talk) 19:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe: "In most of the world wire size is simply expressed in millimeters." I really have no clue and the article has no sources. Just fix it and for an edit summary - "Wording fix" (or be more cryptic...) Vsmith (talk) 00:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:CWW

Learn something everyday! Thank you. I was unaware of CWW, and long since had forgotten about the article. It seemed to me having all the regions at one article rather than scattered was a good idea. Thanks for the guidance! Capitalismojo (talk) 22:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Been playing this game for over a decade and no way to keep track of all the policy change stuff. Been involved in cleaning some real copyvio problems ... ain't no fun. Vsmith (talk) 23:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Nicolas Léonard Sadi Carnot

Besides the necessity of correcting a slight typographical error, do you feel like reviewing these changes to Nicolas Léonard Sadi Carnot at [62]? The editor sounds like he knows what he's talking about, but I also trust your judgment. CorinneSD (talk) 19:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Hmm... methinks I'll pass on that one and let the good physics folk handle it rather than quibble a bit. A username starting with Dr. ... results in weird sounding alarm bells in me head. Vsmith (talk) 20:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

somaliland map

Hey vsmith, can you please Display the 8 years old original map before you lock it. The new biased map is the main reason of this dispute. Please review your decission and put the old one instead of the new one. Its does not show where Somaliland locates on earth. Its just massive massive blue colored map (blue is the flag of Somalia) And the highlighted disputed area is very fabricated. The actual disputed Somaliland territory looks like this

this image looks more fair. It shows where somaliland locates in the world (very important) and it highlights the accurate disputed territory of eastern. Sool and Sanaag regions. puntland have similar map showing the exact thing. Any neutral user can verify this using indepedent reliable references. I will search compromise with AcidSnow to see if we can use the obove displayed map. I demand fairness nothing distruptive. Thank you. Dandaawi (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Before the disscusion spills of here, I would like to say that Somaliland is regarded as a region with in Somalia, but it's adminstration desires it's own indepednce. The territory that are disputed (shaded in light blue) are with other regions in Somalia. Although, he claims that "Its does not show where Somaliland locates on earth", this is exactly what the map does. This is both in terms what it regarded as it's territory (all shades of blue) and what others regions think (dark blue). As for the colors, it has nothing to do with any flag actually. It's just that the color blue looks nice. The same is done for the Nationalities and regions of Spain, see Andalusia as an example. AcidSnow (talk) 18:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

AcidSnow Can we agree to use the above map. Which highlights both the disputed area and the location of somaliland in the world ? ??Puntland have the same marked disputed area Dandaawi (talk) 19:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I moved Dandaawi request to the talk page so it wouldn't cause build up here, hence why I wrote "Noved" -> Moved. AcidSnow (talk) 19:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

All such discussion belongs on the article talk. Vsmith (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Shall I move this whole discussion then? AcidSnow (talk) 19:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

No. Vsmith (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I see, my apologies. AcidSnow (talk)

What was put at my talk page?

Can you give me an idea, I didn't see it? Thanks! Capitalismojo (talk) 01:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

It was a senseless vulgar personal attack. Vsmith (talk) 01:45, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Then thanks very much for removing it! Capitalismojo (talk) 03:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Tibet

Hello, V -- I just started reading the article on Tibet, and I was looking at the map and the legend for the map, and I noticed that the second line in the legend (for the color orange) says, "Tibetan autonomous areas, designed by China". Shouldn't that be "designated by China", or even "borders designated by China"? CorinneSD (talk) 01:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes and now is - see map legend at Lhakar. Vsmith (talk) 01:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Feldspar

1) V, I wanted to add bullets to the three items in Feldspar#Compositions to create a bulleted list, but when I previewed it, the formulas all came out on the next line, at the left margin, so I didn't save. Is that why there's an em-dash before the formula in the next section? Isn't there any other way to keep the formula on the same line? CorinneSD (talk) 01:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

2) The last sentence in Feldspar#Compositions is the following:

• Barium feldspars form as the result of the replacement of potassium feldspar.

Wouldn't this sentence be clearer if it mentioned barium:

• Barium feldspars form as a result of the replacement of potassium feldspar with barium?

Or: ...the replacement in the feldspar of potassium with barium?

In other words, "the replacement of potassium feldspar" with or by what? Or am I misunderstanding something? CorinneSD (talk) 01:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

'twas a bit contorted - my solution: rewrote a bit ... maybe more when more time ...

Labradorite

In the section Labradorite#Labradorescence there is a quote from a Danish geologist, O. B. Boggild. I wonder:

a) whether you like the format of the quote, and

b) whether there should be a long dash before the reference number.

It's too bad there's no article on this geologist... CorinneSD (talk) 01:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Don't see the need for the 2nd duplicate ref w/in the box. Danish WP has an article on him. Morning comes early tommorrow ... gotta zzz. Vsmith (talk) 03:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Ukok Plateau

V, in the article on Ukok Plateau, in the first paragraph in the "Transport" section, it has "true altitude" in parentheses after "Teplyi kluch". I added a conversion template to show altitude in feet, but now, because the feet are in parentheses, there are two sets of parentheses, and I don't like the look of two close-parentheses in succession. Can you think of any way to indicate meters and feet without double parentheses, or do you think the figures could be either deleted or placed somewhere else? CorinneSD (talk) 15:32, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

The double parens doesn't bother me, but I suppose you could make the elevation bit a separate sentence following the listing: ...through the Ukok (Russia-Kazakhstan border), Ulan-Daba (Russia-Mongolia border), Teplyi kluch and Kalgutinsky passes. The Teplyi kluch pass is at an altitude of 2,907 metres (9,537 ft). Vsmith (talk) 20:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Lena River

This can't be right, can it? Is this a case of vandalism? [63] CorinneSD (talk) 22:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Reverted vandalism. Check List of longest undammed rivers and List of the longest Asian rivers which don't say 3rd, but def not 73rd... Vsmith (talk) 23:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

George Kennan (explorer)

V, I just saw this edit to George Kennan (explorer): [64]. I didn't remember seeing the place of birth and place of death right after the dates at the beginning of an article, so I looked at Ernest Shackleton and saw that the places are not given with the dates. The place of death was added in the infobox, so I don't know what exactly should be done here. CorinneSD (talk) 16:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I see now that there are other changes after that one. I agree with some but not others. CorinneSD (talk) 16:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

All gone, at least for now. I think birthplaces by the dates are cluttersome, though I don't necessarily revert them. Many changes in one go without an edit summary, though, are completely unacceptable. Rothorpe (talk) 16:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)