User talk:Vsmith/archive14

External links and references being removed.

Why are external links and references being removed from gemstone and alexandrite? Khazargems, though a commercial site, it also has valid information regarding gems. We request you to stop deleting the links. We know of the standards of wikipedia and so we never give links into any commercial page but only to pages having valid information.
Earnestbirdy (talk) 06:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Who is "we"? The wording above suggests a connection to the site involved. Wiki is not here to promote our stuff, please read WP:COI. Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 12:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• There are two accounts 'eruditebapu' and 'earnestbirdy' and we have put information on an external site. Yes, it is a commercial site but the pages which have information do not advertise or sell anything. Inspite of it our links are deleted. We request you to visit the pages and see for yourself. Infact sites like multicour.com created alexandrite.com as a pure information site. They got the links in wiki and then added a section to browse the multicolour inventory. If one wants to purchase, then he/she has to go to multicolour. They also own alexandrite.com which is a one page site with ads for multicolor and alexandrite.net. But their links aren't deleted and also there's no necessity unless they provide information to the users. You may see it as a marketing strategy, but we aren't violating the wikipedia norms. And of course we are not acting smart. We are new to wikipedia editing and we must be making mistakes.
  

P.S.->And now, we cannot even add to information on wikipedia from that site(khazargems) as it would be a copyright issue.

Please enlighten us.Eruditebapu (talk) 14:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

We request you to visit the pages and see for yourself.

I just did. A good reason not to link is the poor quality of information there. For instance, Alexandrite Formation; "the deepest layer is the core –which is almost entirely composed of molten rock or lava". FYI, the Earth's core is generally considered to be made of nickel-iron, and the inner core is solid Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I've looked also, and was negatively impressed - full of errors and poor information. Seem just an excuse to draw attention or promote the commercial sales site.. If those two accounts continue to add spam links they will be blocked. Vsmith (talk) 21:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Edits to element links

Hi Vsmith,

I appreciate the guidelines you sent through on editing the external links section. Although the changes appear superficial my motives are to increase the accessibility of information for each element by referring through to the periodic videos site. It's a well produced, informative and non commercial effort being run by the University of Nottingham in the UK.

My intention was to update all elements (I notice some are semi protected), however to enter into a discussion for all element pages would take a disproportionate amount of time to the change being made. What's your advice?

Vikingforties (talk) 00:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, any time I see an editor adding an external link to several different pages the spam alarm goes off. Also the youtube link therein was problematic. Do you have a connection to the videos or website (see WP:COI)? I would say rather than taking it to each element page that you might try asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements for advice. Vsmith (talk) 01:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Page Move

Hello Vsmith, I didn't mean to move the page Turqouise to Turquenite-I'm ten.--DJackD (talk) 10:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Page Redirect

You redirected the page at Carbon_air_capture without even discussing this move first. And then, you redirected visitors to a page that is proposed to be split up! How about discussing things first? --Sam.carana (talk) 05:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps 'twas a bit hasty... Seemed the article was a bit promotional for the U. of Calgary prof. - basically sourced to his websites and the Discovery channel show. It seemed that the subject could and should be included in the CCS page under Air capture proposals section as the concept is discussed in the lead. The CCS page needs work, but I don't see any recent discussion regarding splitting that article. Kieth's tower concept could be briefly summarized in the CCS article - w/out the long quotes. Sorry 'bout that, Vsmith (talk) 13:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Belief

Excellent distinction here. Scientists don't tell us about their beliefs, do they? Rather, they propose explanations. The difference is that everyone is entitled to their beliefs and opinions, but a proposed explanation can and should be tested. Am I getting you right?

By the way, it's been a long time, hasn't it? I've mostly been away these past 3 years. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Time flies when you're havin' fun!

Yes, that word - belief, is a bit problematic. We're all products of our upbringing and subject to viewing the world through fuzzy glasses at times (fuzzed by our often unconcious beliefs and prejudices). Back in the 60s & 70s when I began studying science, the phrase "multiple working hypotheses" was "in" as a means to avoid becomming too attached to any one explanation - and being blinded by built in bias or belief. Don't see much mention of that lately. It's an old concept dating at least to the late 1800s and geologist Thomas Chrowder Chamberlin.

I teach physical sciences to high schoolers in the "Bible belt" and (in part for self preservation) try to avoid the word "belief". Whe asked if I "believe in evolution" (usually a very loaded question) I reply that I accept the evidence I've seen - but that "believe in" is not a scientific concept.

Rattled on enuff for now, Vsmith (talk) 03:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Matt City, Missouri

Why is the official web site of the Matt City Council not a "reliable source"? MattCityMo (talk) 03:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

'Cause anyone can create a geocities webpage and say anything... Better question, why would you think it reliable? Vsmith (talk) 04:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm a resident of Matt City... that's the main reason I find it reliable. I believe I know what the name of my town is. MattCityMo (talk) 04:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Not really what I asked ... but, if I were to take a drive to Viburnum and see the city limits sign had changed - or whatever (was last there about 18 months ago), then I would personaly say: OK - it is. However, I still couldn't post that on Wiki because it would fall under original research. Now - an official Missouri government website or document verifying the change, or a USPS document regarding zip code reassignment, or a census bureau document or official websites of those entities would work as usable references. Your or my say-so or some publish anything web server won't cut it. Vsmith (talk) 04:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Adding a image to my user page

Hi Vsmith ! Happy New Year! I was just wondering how I could add another image or picture from another website to my user page. Could you please help me? Thanks!Neptunekh (talk) 06:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Air capture

I've reversed your merge, please can you leave as is - see discussion page

Surface Mining

Hi Vsmith. On the 13th of Jan you removed an external link I added to the Surface Mining wikipedia entry. I think this was a relevant link with good info, please check it out and give me some feedback on why it wasn't included. Salvevital (talk) 04:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The site contained little info, see WP:EL, and as you had added links on other articles to other pages on the same site (with limited info) it appeared to be WP:SPAM. Vsmith (talk) 11:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Halle Berry's Heritage

I wonder if this should be noted about Halle heritage: Her maternal grandmother was English. Also has other English (distantly related to the Baronets Beresford, Viscounts of Tyrone, Earls of Tyrone and Marquesses of Waterford, to Barons Decies and to Baron Beresford, and to the Marquess of Campo-Maior Count of Trancoso in Portugal), Irish, German and remote Dutch ancestry.. I got this info from here: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000932/bio Thanks! Neptunekh (talk) 00:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)`

Reliable source? Doubt it. I have no interest in celebrity articles - so I'd say, ask elsewhere. Vsmith (talk) 00:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

"conspiracy theory" - Pentagon

Maybe google video isn't reliable source itself, but the evidence shown in those two DOCUMENTARY movies are hard proof, and the method of prooving the theory used in them is purely SCIENTIFICAL (especially concerning 911 in Plane Site) sensu stricto. I suggest you watch them first, and than eventually present your contr-arguments. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.12.91.242 (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Not interested. Vsmith (talk) 23:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Orang-utang

Thaks, I have replaces the block message with a welcome. Red face.... Rich Farmbrough, 09:32 20 January 2009 (UTC).

It do get crazy at times - confusion reigns. Vsmith (talk) 11:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandal #209.184.253.253

Hi Vsmith, I saw vandalism on Permian, decided on a last warning, then checked his other contribs and found he did more vandalism this month. So thanks for blocking (didn't know you were an admin), I totally agree. There's one thing... about this particular edit. At least one good user will not be able to contribute anonymously any longer. That's sad. Woodwalker (talk) 23:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah - the use of schoolblock does get a few good editors while cutting down on the bored schoolkid playing. That one user mentioned seems to have had a username back in 05, but hasn't been using it - maybe this will prompt a revival of that username. I have had some of my students edit and even start articles back when ips could do that. Now I encourage those interested to get a username. Keep up the good work, Vsmith (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It's good to encourage students to edit Wikipedia. I think it is a good way to study and learn about a subject thoroughly. Nevertheless I support schoolblocks, seems the only option in most cases. Thanks again and take care, Woodwalker (talk) 00:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Tsavorite page

Hello Vsmith,

I'm not really familiar with Wikipedia and this is the first time I leave a message to anyone. Hopefully this will get to you and hopefully I'll know where to find your answer... I think Wikipedia is great but sometimes a little bit difficult to understand. It took me a while to realize that you were blocking my contributions to the tsavorite page.

It seems that you are editing my contributions as you are considering them as spam. Am I correct? If so, I do tend to disagree (obviously).

Gems are mainly mined in places where people don't go very often. Gemstones are more often seen as a finished product, on a piece of jewelry or sometimes unmounted, but cut. In my opinion, seeing videos or pictures of gem extractions (the source), is not only rare but also very interesting. I've been on a few gemstone forums and have had the opportunity to chat to people about mining. I can guarantee you that it sets a spark in people's eye; similar to a gold rush. You may say that the point of Wikipedia is simply educational. Are these pictures and videos not?

I would be glad to discuss this with you and to view your opinion.

Regards,

Eric —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.57.35.60 (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:SPAM and WP:EL. The weblink you provided was to a commercial site promoting their product. Wikipedia is not here for advertizing. Further, if you have a connection to the website or business involved, please read WP:COI. Vsmith (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Taking Content from Other Sites without References

I wrote several paragraphs on Sunrooms and Patio Rooms for my website *Califpedia.com, you are using my content, but you are deleting the proper reference. So, if you want to erase the reference then you must also erase all of the copied content from your wikipedia page and that will be fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Next Doctor (talk • contribs) 00:20, 25 January 2009

I see you have removed the copyvio contested material. Please don't add copyrighted material to Wikipedia articles in the future. Vsmith (talk) 00:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

You deleted appropriate contect

Dear Vsmith,

You sent me a meesage saying "don't advertise your own links", however if you look at the pages "First moment of area", "Second moment of area" and "Vibration" BEFORE i edited them, you will notice my web site was already listed under "External Links". The reason why I updated these links is because I moved my web site from an unreliable free server: "http://mywebsite.bigpond.com/npajkic" to a web site I bought: "www.engineeringaerospace.com". All I did was simply update the link and not advertise my own material. It was there to begin with.

As for other pages, I added material which is relevant to the subject. I see absolutely no harm in doing this, but if you feel that's advertising, that's fine - you can remove these links. All I'm asking for is that you leave the ones that were there to begin with.

Regards, Nebojsa Pajkic —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nebojsapajkic (talk • contribs) 03:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that. It's quite simple: We don't promote our own stuff. The mywebsite.bigpond.com links were added by someone(?) and as that address is rather blatantly non-reliably a publish anything site they should have been removed previously. Vsmith (talk) 03:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

If that's the policy of the web site, than OK I won't argue. But what happens if a registered user decides to add my web site to those pages? Will it be removed then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nebojsapajkic (talk • contribs) 05:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Depends - you got a buddy with an account :-) Vsmith (talk) 13:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You need to read this vsmith, I posted it on another page but I'm not sure if you've read it. I am waiting for the final reply, but I think you should still read it:

My web site was listed under "External links" on 3 pages previously: "First moment of area" (http://mywebsite.bigpond.com/npajkic/solid_mechanics/first_moment_of_area/index.html), "Second moment of area" (http://mywebsite.bigpond.com/npajkic/solid_mechanics/second_moment_of_area/index.html) and "Vibrations" (http://mywebsite.bigpond.com/npajkic/vibration/undamped_free/index.html & http://mywebsite.bigpond.com/npajkic/vibration/viscously_damped_free/index.html). I must point out that I NEVER POSTED MY WEB SITE ON WIKIPEDIA, I guess someone else must have. In any case, I bought a new domain name (http://www.engineeringaerospace.com) a couple of days ago and decided simply to update the links from the old addresses to the new ones. Nothing more nothing less. However the editor (Vsmith) decided the content was spam and removed the links altogether.

If you have a look on the pages in questions, they are EQUAL if not even BETTER than the content provided on Wikipedia. I stand by this because I am a professional aerospace engineer who knows what he's talking about. Therefore there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for anyone to remove the links which were posted on Wikipedia (by SOMEONE ELSE!) just because I, the publisher of the site, decided to update the links from non-working versions to the working ones.

Please consider this request for inclusion seriously. I have received praise in past for my web site and I believe that it is in public's best interest that they remain on the web sites they were ALREADY LISTED ON.

Regards, Nebojsa Pajkic —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nebojsapajkic (talk • contribs) 06:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

(copied from...?) Nice site, I agree that it is unfair to characterise it as spam, there is no hint of advertising in it. However, it is self-published and so has a reliability issue. Read our external links guideline especially the What should be linked section. The question to be answered here is what is your site adding that could not be directly written into the Wikipedia article? If you think there is a case, take it up on the talk page of the article. SpinningSpark 14:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Spark, thank you for your reply and taking time to see my web site. I thought about what my web site has to offer that is not already on the Wikipedia page and I have come up with a number of things: "Irregular Boundaries" section, "Composite Shapes" section, problems and worked solutions which anyone can follow (and this is really important because most students learn by following examples) and a lot more detailed graphics. However, above all stands the fact that my material was written by a knowledgeable scholar who holds legitimacy of his credentials rather than an anonymous contributor of Wikipedia.

Furthermore I would like to point out that I learned yesterday that another person attempted to post a link to the same web site (who is not affiliated with me, but subscribed to my newsletter where I raised this issue), and her contribution was also rejected and deleted. I have not heard from here what was the reason she received. So how is this justified by vsmith?

Thank you, Nebojsa 08:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nebojsapajkic (talk • contribs)

Furthermore vsmith, you should have already realised that if I am willing to pay for hosting for a personal non-profit web site out of my own pocket, and get NOTHING in return, I have absolutely no interest to advertise myself. What will I gain? And do you really think I would waste a friend's time to include a link to my non-profit web site on Wikipedia??? You sound delusional! The only reason why I'm continuing this discussion with you is because I believe you are screening educational material that is beneficial to the general public, and as far as I understand, that is the aim of Wikipedia - to provide credible information to Internet users. Bottom line - you are not carrying out your responsibility as an editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nebojsapajkic (talk • contribs) 08:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPA. It would be nice to note from where SpinningSpark's comment was copied.

If you are really interested in "helping" Wikipedia and its readers, then add reliably sourced content to the articles. That's the way Wikipedia works. And please note, your own personally hosted website is not a reliable source. Vsmith (talk) 13:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The comment made by SpinningSpark is located at "Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests

Now as for your "reliable sources" comment, first of all, the fact that I am an accredited, professional engineer is all the reliability someone like you should accept. I don't see you credentials anywhere. While you sit at your computer day and night playing God on Wikipedia, I put my knowledge into practice and get paid for it. And if you're going to argue on that basis, than the external link which is already posted on "First moment of area" wikipedia page (http://www.iaengr.org/forum/messages//468.html) is LESS realiable than my web site because it is a forum where EVRYONE and ANYONE can post their comments. So if you go by your reliability defense, that site has no more right to be there than mine does.

Nebojsa 14:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nebojsapajkic (talk • contribs)

And another thing vsmith, I realised that you're continuing this argument for one obvious reason. The elementary material I published on my web site which any engineering freshman should be able to understand is clearly beyond the scope of your comprehension if you believe what you're saying. If you had the slightest idea about the content I authored, you would see that it's not only set logically (and backed by mathematical proofs!), but it's 100% correct. You probably never even made an effort to look at it. For example, the page you immediately deleted: http://www.engineeringaerospace.com/vibration/undamped_free/index.shtml contains clearly defined formulae, legitimate sources of reference and clear solutions to the problems. If you understood it, you would agree that it's reliable. If you didn't, you'd refuse it.

Nebojsa 14:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nebojsapajkic (talk • contribs)

Science of Global Warming Page

Why did you delete my addition of dissenting scientific opinion? There are a lot of scientists who disagree with man-made global warming, or even that the earth is warming. My addition gave some balance to the page. Why was this deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehermann2223 (talk • contribs) 04:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I see that you're a scientist. Can you not handle divergent scientific opinion? As far as I can tell, there is much dissenting opinion on global warming out there. Readers deserve to know that there are alternate theories and opinions. The quotes that I put up there are recently published quotes from a mainstream, scientific conference. Why should they not be posted? Or is global warming less about science and more a sort of religion--a faith that can't be questioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehermann2223 (talk • contribs) 04:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:UNDUE. Vsmith (talk) 04:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, but you completely deleted the alternate viewpoint. It would be incorrect to say that nobody or almost nobody questions man-made global warming when there are hundeds of prominent scientists--not to mention tons of mainstream politicians--who are on record arguing against these theories. Man-made global warming is a THEORY at this point. Noone knows the truth yet, and there are MANY people who question it. This is not analgous to the argument that the world is flat--or even the anti-evolution argument. Lots of respectable, non-ideological people disagree with it. In the interest of intelletual balance, I respectfully request that you repost my basic changes. If you think there are two many quotes, and thus the balance of opinion, is misrepresented, I'll understand if you want to take some of those off.

Sincerely, Eric Hermann —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehermann2223 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Please take your concerns to the talk page of the article. But be advised, I think this has been discussed at length previously and editors there may be less than overjoyed at hearing it again. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 04:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Eric: 2 things.

1. Absolutely no one who can read a graph debates that there is a relatively rapid trend of increasing global temperatures. They are, we measure it. It's just one of those things.
2. Opinions of scientists have little value. Only their data and conclusions are worthwhile. Although, perhaps that isn't relevant, as the article was about "scientific opinion". But scientific opinion and opinions of scientists are two different things: scientific opinion is often given by organizations of scientists, who are only convinced in unison by data, and if you would like to add to opinions of dissenting organizations, please feel welcome to do so.

Awickert (talk) 05:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Admittedly, I'm not a scientist. Nor do pretend to know all that much about the issue. What I object to is the characterization of a scientific consensus.

First, here is an article about a report done by Lou Dobbs (granted, not a heavyweight source) in which two scientists challenged not only anthropogenic warming, but the idea of warming itself: http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2009/20090114065138.aspx

Apparently the data is not so simple to read, and it largely depends on which data sets are being used. As the above article suggests, the data also shows patterns of cooling in recent years.

No, the data show that it is warming, your dissenting articles questions why. I can do the calculation for you; by changing radiation from the sun, sunspot cycles will only change temperature on the order of 0.05 degrees C. Awickert (talk) 06:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Second, here is a scientific organization (with a prominent board of contributors) that questions many of the basic orthodoxy over global warming: http://icecap.us/index.php

Third, here is the link to a recent conference that questions global warming orthdoxy. It is sponsored by a variety of scientific organizations: http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/sponsorships.html

I think it's great that there are dissenting organizations. I think that they should hold themselves to a high level of science to keep the research going. But I would warn you, in anything you read (not just this), to especially question every statistic whose basis isn't stated, and to always seek out the counterargument to every fact that you read from a biased source (or any source). Be a true skeptic! Awickert (talk) 06:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

My point is that the data is not clear and there is much dissenting opinion. If I have time (and I'm not sure if I will), I will collate the information and sources and post the information on the Wiki page. I assume that if this is done accurately--and with legitimate scientific organizations as sources--that you will not have any objections.

Of course not, as long as there are peer-reviewed journal articles that are appropriately cited, and that they are not just cherry-picked scenarios. And smile, I'm just as unforgiving to alarmists. Awickert (talk) 06:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Best, Eric Hermann —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehermann2223 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I'm done abusing Vsmith's talk page. Sorry, Vsmith. Awickert (talk) 06:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I went bed and missed all this - Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 13:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks-creation evolution controversy

Thanks for fixing it. It looks like I left some careless cut/paste slip-up at the top of my edit window and didn't catch it. It was redundant so I deleted it altogether. But thanks for catching it! Professor marginalia (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Sagan and UFOs

I've requested your reply to a query at [[1]]. Just to let you know. Despite the ignorance and near zealot-like responses, I'm going to assume good faith and refrain from getting into edit war. For a little longer -- not much. Holon (talk) 12:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

ignorance and near zealot-like responses - please read WP:NPA. Vsmith (talk) 12:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Disamb

Hi Vsmith, a page move by me at Permian Basin was undone. This way, the information that another meaning exists (the European thing is as well-known as its American counterpart: a large, important basin) is totally removed from Wikipedia. I consider this destruction of information. I also think that removing a red link keeps Wikipedia from growing further. The user reverting it seems to be an admin, so I wonder if this is policy? I think it's plain stupid. Woodwalker (talk) 17:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I've started the Permian Basin (Europe) article - just a brief stub for now. I'd say work on it a bit and then perhaps redo the move you made earlier. At least now the link isn't red, so that won't be an issue. Please add to and or correct the stub I started. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 22:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

{Val}

Would you mind applying the edit described at Template talk:Val/delimitnum/fraction‎? Dragons flight (talk) 00:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Done, Vsmith (talk) 01:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. About the only time I have a tinge of regret over resigning adminship is when I have a desire to edit interface pages and protected templates. The rest of the nonsense of dealing with vandals etc. never did interest me much. Dragons flight (talk) 01:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Glad to help. Yeah, the drudgery & drama do get old. Need to ignore more of it and focus on content. Vsmith (talk) 01:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Baumhauerite

Hi CultureDrone. I created about a mineral named Baumhaumerite. Could you please edit the page? Here's the link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumhauerite. Thanks! Neptunekh

Paranormalknowledge.com

Buddy, Paranormalknowledge.com is not spam okay. We are the premier paranormal information website. You deleted appropriate content. Maybe, you should've taken a look at the links above me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.118.142 (talk) 02:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Vsmith (talk) 02:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

{{Geologic-formation-stub}}

Hi - a stub template or category which you created has been nominated for deletion or renaming at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. The stub type, which was not proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, does not meet the standard requirements for a stub type, either through being incorrectly named, ambiguously scoped, or through failure to meet standards relating to the current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Wikipedia:Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first!

The proposal was for regional-geology-stub and various by-country types. {[tl|Geologic-formation-stub}} was not proposed, and would be redundant to regional-geology-stub. Grutness...wha? 01:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Grutness, don't know what's going on with the stub cabal or whatever, but that was on the list, item 3. I've posted on your stub deletion page - yeah, was a bit pissed. Come back a discuss/apologize after you digest it all. Vsmith (talk) 01:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way about it - and perhaps if someone had brought up the earlier proposal during the recent discussion process, things would have been different (actually, I know they would - I'd have instantly withdrawn the new proposal - there's no reason whatsoever to have both regional-geology-stub and geologic-formation-stub). However, I still see the regional-geology-stub types as more useful, and as such stand by my proposal of deletion for geologic-formation-stub. As for apologising, I'll willingly apologise for claiming this was unproposed, on the condition that you apologise for your somewhat non-AGF comments about the people involved in stub-sorting on SFD. BTW, it's never good to edit pissed - though I understand. Perhaps if you're sober now things will seem less worth getting annoyed at? Grutness...wha? 07:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout the irritated bit. Anyway, I see no reason why both the regional and the formation stubs won't work - both will easily meet your majic 60. The specific country geol stubs may not make that number ...

Plan to continue working to reduce the massive geology-stub cat to a more reasonable size. As I'm working with officially approved stub cats - I see no reason to stop. Vsmith (talk) 00:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Smoky Hill Chalk

Thanks for the geo formation stub. I had intended to put it there, even thought it's not a formation, but a member of one. I think it's useful when discussing rock units. --KP Botany (talk) 04:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a member - perhaps need to clarify the stub category definition in that it is to include essentially all formal strat units. Vsmith (talk) 04:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

For members it would probably be useful, but calling them geo formation stubs gets them in a usable category, and that's information to editors. --KP Botany (talk) 04:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

If you find it useful, you might want to add a "keep" to the discussion in the previous topic on Vsmith's talk page. Thanks, Awickert (talk) 07:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You may remember this user

I've warned Wikkiid about edit summaries like this, explaining what vandalism is, and I've just noticed he has a history of them in the past. This is at least the third such summary (and he accused me of vandalism on my talk page, silly boy). [2]. He's heading for trouble even without such stupid edit summaries. Thanks. dougweller (talk) 08:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't reply before - connection was acting flakey and got off on other things... Anyway, I am aware of this problem child, watchlisted the page, altho I don't know anything about Greek mythology. He seems to have been inactive since that incident. Vsmith (talk) 12:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

You considered appropriate link as spam.

Dear Vsmith,

Reproducibility > External links:

Reproducible Research Planet! is an open directory of reproducible research(RR) papers where people can find RR papers and add their works.

rrplanet.com is a nonprofit organization of scientists committed to making the world's scientific literature a reproducible public resource.

I am just surprised! How could you consider such a website as spam?

Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ee Azer (talk • contribs) 14:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:SPAM and WP:EL. Vsmith (talk) 14:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Based on these reasons the suggested link is legitimate:
1. WP:SPAM> Wikispam articles are usually noted for sales-oriented language and external links to a commercial website.
As you can underestand "a nonprofit organization of scientists" is not sales-oriented language nor a commercial website.
2. WP:EL>What should be linked> Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article...
"Open directory of reproducible research(RR)" contains neutral and accurate material and is of great interest to scientists.
3.in Data sharing> external links:
there are links to each single paper (such as Donoho's paper).However, you can add only one link to this open directory which includes all the works about RR, instead of adding each single paper as an external link.
4. Here, you can learn more about reproducible research:
http://rrplanet.com/librum/viewforum.php?f=30
Have you tried the website before removing it? Please do so to learn more about it.

Regards, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ee Azer (talk • contribs) 15:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reading those pages, now - how about WP:COI, do you have a connection to the website under discussion? We don't promote our own stuff. Please consider adding cited content to Wikipedia rather than simply adding external links. Vsmith (talk) 15:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your rapid response:
WP:COI > Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest.
1. If you look in detail, in that website no individuel is cited. The aim is to encourage Reproducibility and open access to research. it is not a matter of "having a connection to the website"
2. being a university prof. I don't have the sufficient time to explain all the benefits and reasons of adding such a link. I just think that it should be listed in those two articles: "reproducibility" and "data sharing".

Now, its up to you to decide whether it should be listed or not.
Please reconsider this with a neutral point of view.
Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ee Azer (talk • contribs) 16:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Not being an univ. prof. - I don't care to take the time to investigate your website further. Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 16:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I never knew that to add a legitimate link on Wiki, I should spend a whole afternoon. Ee Azer (talk) 16:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

If it helps to see a third opinion, the link is clearly SPAM as defined by Wikipedia. It is not a close case. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be comprehensive encyclopedic treatments of subject matter, not directories or links to resources. Promoting one particular website over another defeats that purpose. Although a website's commercial nature and/or an editor's conflict of interest in promoting their own efforts are both relevant in that they are often significant part of the motivation to add spam links, what makes them spam is not the intent of the editor but rather the unencyclopedic nature of the result. As an analogy, we do not link the article "guacamole" to one particular editor's (nonprofit, free content) recipe site. There are thousands of recipe resources, and no guarantee as to which one is the right one, so there is rarely a principled way to choose one over all the others. WP:EL does spell this out. Wikidemon (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Very well put, I agree entirely. And my having been a university professor is irrelevant. :-) It is clearly spam and indeed promotional of a site with practically no users (which I presume is something that it was hoped to rectify by giving it a link on Wikipedia.). When it starts being mentioned in academic journals, let us know, until then, it doesn't belong here. dougweller (talk) 18:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I accept your opinion as you best know Wiki. Based on what you said ReproducibleResearch.org is also a clear SPAM. So why none of you removes such a link?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ee Azer (talk • contribs) 19:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Among other significant differences, it is "hosted by the Department of Biostatistics at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.". dougweller (talk) 19:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

yea, I see the "neutral point of view".Ee Azer (talk) 19:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutral point of view refers to an article's presentation of content in a way that fairly reflects the sources - you're probably looking for a different policy to hang your hat on. But in all sincerity I am telling you it is not a close case. If you really care to know, failure to do X is not a sign of hypocrisy for doing Y. We are all volunteer editors and as such are not compelled to do anything. Sweeping the kitchen is not a joke just because you don't sweep the bedroom. For all I know that other link is also linkspam - I wasn't in the midst of editing that article and that's not my interest, I'm just trying to help out with an explanation. If you honestly believe that the article needs further improvement by removing a spam link and you're in a mood to do so, be my guest or suggest that someone else do it. But beware of WP:POINT - sour grapes is not a very reliable way to improve articles. Wikidemon (talk) 03:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Need a Tile Join block ASAP...

Got the Genesis vandal on Evolution again, and you are the first admin I see on my watchlist... Aunt Entropy (talk) 18:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Too late, Z-man got there first. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 18:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

3RR

Thanks for informing me, I wasn't aware. On the Fred Singer page, however, it is strange to put 'consensus', which is agreement. There is consensus that Barack Obama is not an alien. Some wackos might argue it, but the overwhelming majority does not think this is true. For global warming, although much of the scientific community believes in anthropogenic global warming, there is no consensus. I would appreciate it if you changed your 'consensus' statement to much of, the majority, or most, being careful to preserve NPOV. Thank you! Zarth (talk) 01:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, Wiki has a lot of rules - but that one every new editor needs to be aware of since editing disagreements are common on controversial pages. We do disagree on wording, however the place to discuss would be on Talk:Fred Singer as I'm not the only one in disagreement with you. First though, I'd suggest reading the article linked - Scientific opinion on climate change. Vsmith (talk) 01:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

ID

First, I commend you for your service to our country and your work with teenagers. Second, may I politely ask why my contributions to the Intelligent Design article were deleted? I believe they met all the relevant requirements.Aleitheiophile (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Err... I assume you were referring to the Feb. 19 note that I left on your talk. My goal there was simply to get you to discuss your edits on the article talk rather than continuing to add disputed material to the article. I see others have commented there and on your talk. That article is rather controversial and is a featured article, therefore new additions are closely scrutinized and you should work to seek consensus on the talk page for any significant alterations to the article. Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 00:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment in Usertalk Page

I have removed your comment from my user talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASignaleer&diff=275200847&oldid=275065705 and transfered it to the appropriate section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:List_of_Wikipedians_by_military_branch Comments regarding the article should be placed in the article talk page, not a users talk page since it applies to the article. Please discuss further matters there. -Signaleer (talk) 17:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Martyn_Godfrey

Hi! I made a page about an author named Martyn_Godfrey. Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyn_Godfrey. Could you please edit the page? Thanks!Neptunekh (talk) 18:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The work of deleting IP vandalism on chem element pages

Since you're involved, I wonder if you'd like to comment on this discussion on semi-protection for element articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements Thanks! SBHarris 23:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

blocked 204.174.129.204

Hi. With respect to:

(Block log); 10:59 . . Vsmith (talk | contribs) blocked 204.174.129.204 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 6 months ({{schoolblock}})

I'm trying to get a handle on the mechanics of the block process. Toddst1 was very helpful explaining things last week when he blocked this IP address for a day. Although I'm highly supportive of your action, I can't identify the steps that led to it. I can see a warning on the IP's talk page for an edit on the 10th, but nothing else. Where do I look to see what went on? Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 07:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Quite simple, I see poopy vandalism, I check user contribs and talk, I see school ip notice at top and multiple warnings, I slap an extended shoolblock on the ip to stop the nonsense for awhile, as the schoolblock template has been added to the user's talk previously I move on to other stuff. When a student at the school tries to edit they see a nice note saying that editing from that ip has been disallowed and they go and vandalise their school in other ways to vent their frustration ... or something like that. Prior to the addition of extended schoolblock a few years ago petty poopy vandalism was much more rampant than now.

Also, I see it from the other end as I work with teenagers and my school has been given an extended schoolblock. When I have students who feel the urge to edit, I tell them to create a user account from home and encourage them to improve the project. For most, editing with an id tied to them seems to deter the vandalism impulse -- or the only ones who make the effort to sign up aren't the vandalizing type. Rattled on enough now, cheers --- Vsmith (talk) 13:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

"Quite simple" - The real answer usually is quite a bit simpler than the complicated possibilities one often has rattling around inside one's head! Thank you. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Articles

Re: our earlier mid-continental rift conversation, if you ever find an article you really want, but don't have access, drop me a message, and I'll email it to you. It's one of the perks of grad-student-hood. Awickert (talk) 23:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll keep that in mind. Vsmith (talk) 00:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Awickert (talk) 02:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a generous offer (but will Awickert come to regret it?)

VS, I looked again today at Midcontinent Rift System, and it may have the makings of a featured article. If you are interested in that process I would be glad to collaborate, but likely have already reached beyond the limits of my knowledge in this area. (And AW, if you can free yourself from decayed and destroyed rock and engage in an article on the real thing, feel free to join in.)

Regards to both, Kablammo (talk) 16:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh... thanks. I think the article is probably beyond the scope of my knowledge as well, though I remember reading about some other formation theories at some point... so I'll try to help, but I'm much more at home standing knee-deep in proto-schist. Awickert (talk) 18:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It probably does have FA potential - I've sorta ignored that process for awhile, seemed the FA crowd was way to picky for my liking a couple years ago. Always willing to help improve where I can, but not interested in the FA whoopla. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 00:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Understood. The quality of the FA process seems dependent on the quality and experience of the reviewers, of which there are too few (and, on occasion, some who are too picky, inexperienced, or both). Thanks for considering it anyway. Kablammo (talk) 13:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Schoolblock?

This IP has been vandalizing several geology articles. Normally I'd just revert and ignore or warn, but as it's a school, should we consider a schoolblock? Awickert (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm ahead of you on that one - one year block issued at 19:05 UTC. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Vsmith

I don't know why you deleted my additions of verifiable information from reliable sources for NPOV.

Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors. For guidance on how to make an article conform to the neutral point of view, see the NPOV tutorial; for examples and explanations that illustrate key aspects of this policy, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ.

Information suppression

A common way of introducing bias is by one-sided selection of information. Information can be cited that supports one view while some important information that opposes it is omitted or even deleted. Such an article complies with Wikipedia:Verifiability but violates NPOV.

How can we reach consensus on how to insert the verifiable links from reliable mainstream publications such as Nature and Science? Sophergeo (talk) 11:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:3RR and discuss your concerns on article talk pages rather than edit warring.Sophergeo (talk) 21:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response on Stone Mountain

Thanks for picking up on my question to Rolinator about Stone Mountain. My co-author of Roadside Geology of Georgia (you guessed correctly) found the article you suggested. However, it does not refer to Stone Mountain. I also asked a U Georgia igneous petrology professor, who has a student working on the mountain, to look at my questions. He is on the same page as we are in that he also has seen no evidence for the assertions about which I raised questions. Therefore I am going to edit the article and remove the unsupported information.

I wish I could contribute more to the Stone Mountain Wikipedia article, but the book comes first and the contract has a requirement that the book not contain previously published material. So after the book is in print perhaps we can help add to Wikipedia on several points of Georgia geology - for example information we gathered that had to be omitted to keep the book to the prescribed length.

Anyway, thanks for the welcome and the assistance.

RoadsideGA (talk) 23:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Welcome, sorry - it was rather a long shot. Anyway, good luck with the book - I'll be watching for it (altho' I usually get 'em 2nd haand on ebay :-). Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 00:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Wikkidd

I initiated this investigation. Ruslik (talk) 11:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I was thinking of doing the same. Vsmith (talk) 11:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

And I initiated a CU check several hours ago but the checkuser is probably asleep. Meanwhile, both accounts have indef blocks on them. dougweller (talk) 11:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/94.76.196.60 dougweller (talk) 12:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

My request has been acted on although 2 of the accounts were blocked earlier today, I asked for a 3rd account to be checked just a shortwhile ago and that's come through swiftly! But he'll be back, we need to keep a watch on it. Occasional Google checks on "expanding earth" would probably help. dougweller (talk) 14:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Scientific integrity

I find it amusing the edits I have attempted to make are described as "argumentative" when they are more closely associated to the topic name, than the current posting. It does not take a lot of research [in fact the link is provided] to understand, the article is an attempt to associate a hate for George Bush to the formidable opposition to the global warming controversy [and I do not use the word controversial loosely] any amount of research would demonstrate global warming as a credible theory is still in dispute. Wiki is being used to exaggerate an argument [not new] which has nothing whatsoever to do with "scientific integrity" no matter which side of the fence you reside.

Scientific credibility is being diminished, by the current politically corrected versions of what actually constitutes "science". Calculations and estimations do not provide reproducible or demonstrative consistency, they are opinions nothing more.

Connecting an article bemoaning the life and times of George Bush, has nothing to do with scientific integrity, although he has diminished that integrity considerably, the opinionated article degrades Wiki as well. If Wiki is an open resource built by communities, why is there so much deliberate opposition to independent perspectives, which do not meet the test of the six o'clock news, which if we look, is produced by deep pockets, in service of who?

If my posting is not to be allowed as a root to improvement, how can you possibly allow the current lobby tirade to remain?

207.112.110.225 (talk) 16:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, your unsourced edits to Scientific Integrity in Policymaking are simply off-topic. The article is about a specific report by the UCS issued in 2004. Have you read it? Vsmith (talk) 17:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Youtube links

Hi there! Why did you remove the external links to James Hansen lectures on Youtube that I added. They seem to me to not be in violation of copyright and also relevant for the article. --88.88.94.166 (talk) 23:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

That is me above. --ToreN (talk) 23:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't consider utube a WP:RS. Take it to the article talk if you want more input. Vsmith (talk) 23:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

More vandalism by User:Macromonkey immediately after returning from block

I refer you to the user's edit history and my report here. Blocks aren't working, and the user is now an SPA vandalism only account. Banning seems to be the only option left. -- Fyslee (talk) 08:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I see The Anome has blocked for 55 h, so we'll see what happens then. I agree that sort of disruptive editing "style" is asking for an extended vacation. Vsmith (talk) 12:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Asking for permission

Hello Vsmith,

please could you do me the favor and have a look to the link I have added:

"Websites, showing Plant Fossils. An annotated link-directory" http://www.equisetites.de/palbot/images/images.html#showing

This link (there is no commercial interest) set under "External links" is similar in content and information like other specialized links here, e.g. "Fossil record of life in the Coal Age" or "Bioerosion website, including fossil record" and may helpful for visitors of this wikipedia website.

For these reasons, could you please allow setting a link to "Websites, showing Plant Fossils"?

Best regards

Klaus-Peter Kelber kp-kelber@t-online.de —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ziegelangerer (talk • contribs) 19:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, please read WP:EL. That site is just a list of annotated links and Wikipedia doesn't need everyone's favorite list of links. No thanks, Vsmith (talk) 22:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Waste heat

I thought I'd reply here so as not to cause further fuss. WMC has openly admitted that he doesn't even read my edits before reverting them. I simply cannot assume goodfaith in such circumstances. I will try and persevere with the issues on the article, but when my edits are getting reverted without even being looked at there is very little point carrying on. IMO there is a systemic problem with the revert system, in that multiple edits can be reverted at once, leading to lazy and destructive reverting. I'm not sure how to debate that point formally. Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Heh, WMC is rather brusk and cantakerous to deal with when one disagrees with him. I've worked with him and occaisionally agin' him since back in 04. We weathered the climate wars of 2005 together and I learned a lot from him about Wikipedia and about global warming. Much of his bruskness comes from repeatedly dealing with septic pov pushers over the years. Now, it seems, he views you as a pov pusher from the alarmist position (just my take on it). I note that I've had similar concerns about your editing. You seem to be in a hurry and convinced that your are either "right" or "out to save the world". A part of that impression stems from your editing style, but some of the concern stems from a statement on your user page. Your statement: nearly 20 years experience in environmental campaigning, says a lot about your editing and about the inevitable conflicts. It seems that you are here as an "environmental campaigner" determined to continue your 20 years experience to "save the world". That's my impression and likely shared by others - and the source of some conflict for you. Remember, we're writing an encyclopedia - not pushing a cause.

By the way, your recent clarification of the cars and power plants bit on waste heat was good - simple statements can be interpreted in different ways. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 00:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to save the world - but by telling the truth, not by writing unsubstantiated drivel. (Sometimes I mess this up of course) My stuff on waste heat is nothing to do with my alleged POV, but I argue just as hard, just because I'd really like it if WP was correct and current. I'd love to agree with you on WMC but I don't. He automatically assumes I'm wrong about absolutely everything, without even considering the evidence. His admission that he doesn't even look at my edits before reverting them is the last straw. His manner and behaviour is completely unacceptable. Bullying is his modus operandi, and one that he's been using on me from the day we met, without any reference to the quality of my work at the time. I'm largely impervious to people like him, but doubtless he's forced many weaker souls off WP - regardless of whether they were good editors or not. I'm not going to waste my energies trying to get something done about him, but I'd be failing if I didn't point out that his current treatment of me has gone way out of line. Just look at my edits (eg global warming and waste heat) and see the endless reverts with no proper explanation or justification. Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, now we have it. You're writing the TRUTH and the rest of us are simply driveling away. With that attitude ... well, enjoy your brief sojourn here. Vsmith (talk) 02:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I'm simply saying I have no interest in writing claptrap. Andrewjlockley (talk) 07:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Earthquakes stuff

Please left contribution below in earthquake page. If you clean it you may be responsible for dammage to mankind as italian authorities ignored. Learn about earthquake and read about L'Aquila Earthquake.

===Warning Signs===

• Increased emission of gas radon;
• Increased gas emission helium;
• Increased gas emission methane, with possible formation of colored methane clouds - Earthquake Clouds;
• Increased activity of mud volcanoes;
• Occurrence of microseismicity;
• Modification of electrical conductivity;
• Fluctuations in the Magnetic Field;
• Changes in the density of the rocks;
• Change the water levels in wells close to fault;
• Anomalies in the behavior of animals, such as mass migration of amphibians;
• Increased emission of carbon dioxide in volcanic areas; volcanic paroxism
• Occurrence of small sand volcanoes; —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geologist (talk • contribs) 03:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source. Vsmith (talk) 03:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Removal of petri dish image from Ion article circa early Novemeber 2008

Hello,

I was just going over my list of contributions and, upon noticing an edit[3] I made to ion on November 1st, 2008, I decided to go to the article and check it out. I noticed that the image I uploaded was gone, and looked to the page history to see why. As usual, there is little space for explanation in the summary of changes space, so I thought I'd communicate with you directly.

This is the image: [4]. I took it from a USDA Agricultural Research Service site, to which the wikicommons article links. At that time there was information on air ionization in the article[5] which, last fall, you labeled "squabble" and removed. I found it informative, and although I see the value in a completely separate article on the subject (air ionizer) it would have been considerate to place the image on that page. I takes a long time to find some images hunting around government websites, and that was a legitimate photo from a reputable source which was incorporated into the ion article to illustrate the information in a section of that article.

Now, I know you're a long time Wikipedian and an admin. I also know that admins are usually busy handling all sorts of things. But, a useful image has lay unused on Wikicommons for months because I don't have time to patrol every article I edit (although I patrol quite a few of them) and I didn't get a notice to move it to the other article.

So, I'll probably get around to placing it in air ionizer at some point in the future. And, I probably would have done the same thing if I had the conviction, desire and reasons to move it as you did (I kinda tried to find an example of myself doing something similar, several of which exist, but couldn't find one right away). Nothing is really bothered, but as an admin I ask you to think ahead that extra step next time.

Thanks! TeamZ. TeamZissou (talk) 09:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems the section removed contained some problematic stuff - "Many manufacturers...claiming that..." - basically promotional with non-WP:RS sources. Didn't see it as needed in a general article on ions. The image itself seems to need a bit more context from its original source - detail on the "chamber" and experiment concerned. Indeed, use of the image w/out that context in the air ionizer article could be seen as WP:SYN. Vsmith (talk) 11:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

History of Earth

Thanks! I was a bit tired/sleepy and my grammar gets worse in such cases. I hope my English is good enough to write long articles without making funny mistakes now and then.

I am working slowly on this one. More than a year ago, I wrote the article for the Dutch Wikipedia which now has FA status. However, I don't want to literally translate sections and also want to check the sources again. Maybe I can make it a featured article, but that would take a lot of time. The sections on human history and early life are perhaps still a bit too long for a general article, but I am unsure if and how to tackle that problem. What really startled me is this edit. Someone translated the whole article literally into Italian, while it is still clearly unfinished and lacking. I wonder if he comes back now and then to check if more was added. Woodwalker (talk) 20:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

carbon sequestration

Thanks for the love. Always appreciated to know I'm not talking complete drivel. :-) Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

AH

I proposed an AFD on anthropogenic heat. I thought it was the best way to sort out the disagreement. Hope you can contribute to the debate. Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Meteorites

Hi, please accept my sincere apologies. I failed to notice that you were actually removing a duplicate. That particular article is a bit of a problem child and we have tried moving forwards slowly so as to maintain the peace, the sudden influx of editors ripping out content was a bit unnerving and I probably overreacted. Sincerely, Unomi (talk) 22:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Always best to not get in a hurry, impulse reverting is never a good choice. Yes, that article is rather a problem child and I usually just avoid it. When Dave removed the Darwinism bit, I took a look at what else was in the Earth science section and saw a mess - so grabbed a mop and started cleaning ... maybe too diligently for some I guess. Tread cautiously there, infested waters... :) Vsmith (talk) 02:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Reece's Podcast

Mr. Smith can you look and tell me what to change or add on my article? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_for_the_masses —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guystout (talk • contribs) 05:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Guy, looks like you've structured it well, the link belongs just in external links, but otherwise ok. The problem is that we don't write or promote our own stuff in a wiki article and your username kinda gives that away. Also - is it notable? So don't be surprised if it gets tagged for speedy deletion soon. As I'm rather involved, I'll hold off and watch it for a bit. Will take a listen later, don't have speakers on now - too early...gotta get mo' coffee :-) Vsmith (talk) 11:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hydraulic geoengineering

Hydraulic geoengineering has been moved to Large-scale hydraulic engineering projects. This may influence your comments at the AfD. Clarification requested. -Atmoz (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Pls repropose if you don't like it as WP:NEO no longer applies Andrewjlockley (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Death Valley

I want to thank you for your attention to the Death Valley article. If the decision were left only to me, almost all of the "Popular culture" stuff would go and I'd keep only Death Valley Days, McTeague, and Greed. Those three are, in my opinion, iconic and deserve a mention; the rest is only marginally related fluff. However... you're probably going to think I'm very silly, but ... I've been shy about removing stuff because I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings. Dumb, I know. But I admire your boldness in removing it over and over, and I'm going to start taking it out when I see it, too. So thanks for setting a good example. Have a good week. :) -- edi(talk) 20:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - help always appreciated. Some can't resist adding their fav trivial junk to articles. If not reliably sourced and obviously non-significant or relevant, axe it. Expect howls of displeasure from trivia fans. Vsmith (talk) 00:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Unprotect Macromonkey talk page

Hey, Could you please unprotect the talk page on macromonkey's talk page? It was protected, and now I can't request that I am unblocked (I sent you an email with the request, could you please review it?). I know you may not agree with me posting messages, but it is the only real way I can try and be unblocked, thanks 86.149.7.89 (talk) 17:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I see you've made the same request of Pedro. I'll let him decide - as he protected the page. Vsmith (talk) 17:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Cummingtonite

You (accidentally?) subst'ed the protection template on that one. I've had a go at unsubst'ing it, but you may want to tweak the appearance of the template. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 17:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks ... just plain forgetfulness. Vsmith (talk) 18:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you know what distinguishes fascist and free mind?

It is the inability to tolerate the arguments you disagree with. Jaksap (talk) 04:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Solar System

I have nominated Solar system 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.

I should have done this MUCH earlier! First time - learning & living! HarryAlffa (talk) 19:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank You!

I always find Wikipedia usefull. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.133.78.162 (talk) 14:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Patriot Post article needs help....

no userboxes, awwwwww sinscerely, (Estoniankaiju (talk) 13:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC))

Patriot Post? What article? -- no clue wot your talkin' 'bout. Vsmith (talk) 13:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you have blocking power?

Please see Giuseppe Verdi article and constant vandalism. Viva-Verdi (talk) 02:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yup. Vsmith (talk) 03:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Have you no soul?

Seriously man, we're talking about Captain friggin Planet here. If it weren't for Captain Planet and his arch-nemesis Captain Pollution, some wee ones would never know the danger that is deforestation. Don't even get me started on super radiation, toxics, smog, and hate. If you consider those evil things combined mere "trivia," then I feel bad for your children. Remember, the power is yours! GoPlanet (talk) 19:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

What's soul got to do with it? As in religeous garp or music? Vsmith (talk) 19:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding My website Glitteringstones.com

Hi,

I have placed my website [6] in wikipedia [7]

I dont know why it is removed. This site has all information about minerals and gemstones.

Kindly help me regarding this issue and tell what i have to do to maintain my link in that particular page.

regards

foruforever —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.91.217 (talk) 06:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

It is really quite simple - you can't. Wikipedia is not for your advertising or self-promotion, please read WP:COI and WP:SPAM. If you persist, your site will be subject to blacklisting and your username blocked. Sorry 'bout that.

If you wish to contribute to Wikipedia, please add verifiable information backed by good sources (not your own website) or upload copyright free images for use in Wikipedia articles. Thak you, Vsmith (talk) 12:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies

Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change. If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Ca titanate

To be honest, I've been thinking to rename previous "perovskite" (through my "blank+redirect" tricks), but was hesitant for drastic moves. Thank you. It is of great help to have a professional among admins. As you noticed, my knowledge of minerals is mediocre. Please don't hesitate to drop a message (e.g. on what I could do better). Materialscientist (talk) 01:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that perovskite "mess-up" has been bothering me - so just did it. The perovskite structure redirect where I wanted to move it to seems to have a history, and I don't like messing with history moves and want to preserve history ... so opted for perovskite (structure) tho' the parens bit is distasteful... maybe do something diff with that later. Anytime you have a question or want some "admin" help, drop a note. Vsmith (talk) 01:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I notice you removed a talk page template [8]. If you don't agree a map would improve the article, could you explain your reasoning? If you agree a map would improve the article, could I ask you do me the favor of putting the template where it should go? If you reply here on your talk page, I'll watch and reply here too. Thank you. Me ( ) 01:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.187.80.104 (talk)

As you note, it is a "talk page template", so... just place it on the talk page of the article. Vsmith (talk) 01:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

What I'd like to find out is whether you agree the article would be improved by the addition of a map. Do you? Thanks. 91.187.80.104 (talk) 11:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't read carefully ... yes a map would be most helpful. Vsmith (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I'd like to make a suggestion that if you ever come across a request template in an article and you agree with the need for the request, you should put it on the talk page. This seems to me more productive than simply removing a misplaced request template.

If I were ever an admin in the same situation, I certainly wouldn't assume an IP editor would either know or return to put the request template in the talk page; I'd go and put the request template there myself to be sure and also as a gesture of good will.

From the department of very cheeky suggestions, 91.187.80.104 (talk) 09:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Diamond FAR

I have nominated Diamond 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 18:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for removing the colliage section in the metallurgy article. I've always had a problem with it but was never bold enough to delete it. Happy editing. Wizard191 (talk) 12:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Welcome. As it was it was just "my school" promotional stuff. Any list of higher ed "metallurgical departments/programs" would have to be verifiably notable. Vsmith (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

uploading image

VSmith,

I just uploaded an image I took of Sucher's cz model of the Tavernier blue. My object was to add it to the Hope Diamond article close to where it is mentioned under the French Museum (see today's edit). Could use some help.

I also have images of it on my GemWise blog, but your ruling was not to reference the blog as I recall.

Richard —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gemwise (talk • contribs) 22:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Where did you upload it, what filename? Don't see a record on your contributions list. Did you upload to commons? And yes, links to your blog likely wouldn't be advisable. Vsmith (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I uploaded it to Wikpedia commons. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gemwise (talk • contribs) 22:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is the file name.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gemwise (talk • contribs) 23:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I just made it show here, simply add [[File:SucherTavernierBlueReplicaRW.jpg|thumb|250px|your caption]] where you want it to appear in the article. The 250px is standard (default) image size. Vsmith (talk) 23:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Waterfall

Thanks for restoring the image. I accidentaly hacked too much - sorry! Awickert (talk) 00:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Choppin' gibberish is so much fun ... :-) Vsmith (talk) 00:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

talk

Why [9] ? > [10]—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.176.166 (talk) 03:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC) now is OK. 76.16.176.166 (talk) 04:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, took a couple tries to get it figgered out. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 01:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Water ionizers, edit warring.

Hi Vsmith. You recently reverted water ionizer, citing a WP:edit war. You did so without use of the discussion page. WP:edit war states that "In general, reverts made without the support of prior consensus or without sufficient discussion are likely to be considered edit warring."

WP:Consensus states that "To ensure transparency, consensus cannot be formed except on Wikipedia discussion pages."

I'm hoping that you'll participate in the discussion, even if retroactively to the revert that you've made. Thanks. NoFortunateSon (talk) 05:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Enjoy your 24 ----- Vsmith (talk) 01:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

North America

Dear Vsmith:

Thanks for caring about the community. In the last week you applied a semi protection to the article North America because of anonymous IP vandalism. It has already expired and the vandal returned. Perhaps you could be considering a new semi protection period? Thanks. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 10:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Watchin', had a thunderstorm block this morning, crash, boom, no connection... Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 01:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

dendrochronology

re: you are right, better in body, but deleting it entirely is questionable. => The informative value decrease. 76.16.176.166 (talk) 13:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

A see also to an article with no obvious connection is not needed. If those potential sources you found are used to enhance either article, then a link will be valid. Vsmith (talk) 13:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes but i don't gona do it now. About the questionable obviousness: it is to me and seem not obvious to you and perhaps to another looking for knowledge entity. I'm just wonder do you finding it interesting: that by accumulating petrified wood dendrochronological scales may be possible to date with year precision deep time events (also climatic events behind ice cores ranges) not possible by any other method ? Dendrochronology is so far the most precise method. And simple question: what do you gain deleting that word ? 76.16.176.166 (talk) 13:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Beryl

Regarding deleting "further reading" there: (i) I will shout when I disagree (ii) merging beryl subtypes was a bold action of mine, and thus I tried to preserve information, for the sake of politeness. There was and still is lots of junk there. Some I deleted, and I welcome further cleanup (also in other gemology+geology articles like sapphire, ruby, etc. - it seems to me most junk comes from gem side). (iii) I usually try to preserve refs. to good books and reviews, even if they are unlinked - thats why "further reading" sections, but, I do not know the books you deleted (could be junk too), and as I mentioned, geology is not my major; thus I trust your judgment. Materialscientist (talk) 23:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand, I just removed the further reading header - not the book and website links, thus putting them back in references as they are the refs I used back in 04 when I expanded the article. Back then we didn't have the <ref>...</ref> system available. Just now realized the two wbsite links belonged in an ext links section, as the infobox is sourced to better sites.

I fully agree with your bold merger. And yes, there still is "junk" in the gem related articles added either as commercial promotion or simply from "pretty rock" fans. Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 12:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Say what?

Please explain what was wrong in my edit. Doesn't diminishing of vorticity diminish also vertical mixing? Are you certain you were out of line?85.156.11.203 (talk) 21:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you certain you were out of line? hmm...nope, not certain :) as I don't rightly know what youre talkin' 'bout. Vsmith (talk) 21:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

solar chimney

hi, I am from Türkey. We constructed a solar chimney and I attached it to solar chimney page. but ı cant see now. please dont clear it. ı will write it again. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enerjiturk (talk • contribs) 07:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

1. It is not in English.

2. It is promotional WP:SPAM.

Therefore it has been removed. Vsmith (talk) 11:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand why removed my improvements. Do you disagree that the data represented has skipped the most recent 4 years ? If so, can you please provide 5 reliable sources (and I mean peer reviewed scientific articles that can prove that the current year is not 2009). Do you disagree that there is currently a debate on going as to the level of the most recent cooling ? Hailtomaximus (talk) 03:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Eutrophication GA Sweeps: On Hold

I have reviewed Eutrophication for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since you are a main contributor of the article (determined based on this tool), I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)