User talk:Vsmith/archive15

What do you mean

I have been valiantly fighting vandalism. --222.130.120.243 (talk) 12:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for pointing the direction --222.130.120.243 (talk) 12:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I apologize for using unacceptable tone and unorthodox ways of fighting vandals. --222.130.120.243 (talk) 12:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Pleistocene start date

Woodwalker jumped the gun a bit and failed to provide citation in the edit to the Pleistocene article of 13:09, 24 May 2009, Edit summary ICS voted overwelmingly in favour of the INQUA proposal, only formal rectification of the IUGS is now needed. Gelasian is now with 99% certainty part of the Pleistocene and Quaternary. The ICS has not reported the vote yet on their webpage (as of 1 July 2009), and as Woodwalker pointed out it still requires IUGS approval. See "Letter by ICS to INQUA Executive Committee" 2007 for the current actual status. A description of the problem occurs on page 8 of Oldroyd & Grapes History of Geomorphology and Quaternary Geology. Also the text as provided by Woodwalker no longer fits the citations to footnotes #1 (Gibbard, P. and van Kolfschoten, T. (2004) "The Pleistocene and Holocene Epochs" Chapter 22PDF (2.96 MiB) In Gradstein, F. M., Ogg, James G., and Smith, A. Gilbert (eds.), A Geologic Time Scale 2004 Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, ISBN 0521781426) nor footnote #2 (For the top of the series, see: Lourens, L., Hilgen, F., Shackleton, N.J., Laskar, J., Wilson, D., (2004) “The Neogene Period”. In: Gradstein, F., Ogg, J., Smith, A.G. (Eds.), A Geologic Time Scale 2004. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.) When we get citations to reliable published sources, then we can change the article, not before. --Bejnar (talk) 17:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, consistency was my goal. And yes, a note about when the new def takes effect along with previous usage will be needed for clarity. Vsmith (talk) 19:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

False prophet OR material back again

Just a heads up to the fact that it appears that the same editor you blocked a week ago or so, who was adamantly replacing material on this article in the face of consensus to the contrary, appears to be back again with the same material. You may want to take note that this time they've also simultaneously placed a request on Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 22:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Neil Armstrong GAR notice

Neil Armstrong has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Reassessment of Steel

Steel has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. Ruslik_Zero 12:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Erosion of my frontage

I forget what "frontage" means, but I guess it has to do with the erosion of morals? Or the result of increasing temperature raising the sea level? Anyway, I'm sure it had no place on my user page, so I thank you! --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch

Thanks, endlessly, for keeping Nevado del Ruiz from being vandalized. :) ceranthor 22:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Part of the game :) When an article on my watchlist hits the big time... Keep up the good work. Vsmith (talk) 22:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

"youtube? nope"

I'm just wondering why you reverted my edit with that reason. It seems that you have not even watched the video, or seen the context of it. How is this not a reliable source? It is just an upload of something that was shown on a natitional news channel, are you saying that thye are not a reliable source? Maybe you should take your time looking at edits from users, instead of rashly undoing them. I will not revert back because of the 3RR, but I would appriciate it if you acknowledged your rashness and reviewed your revert. 93.96.182.208 (talk) 16:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Nope - youtube is quite problematic, if you had a "national news" source why use utube? Vsmith (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand your question. I did use the national news source, but just a snippet of the story hosted on YouTube. The obvious problem is not with YouTube itself, as you appear to be saying, but with what gets uploaded onto there. If the video is obviously a recoding from a news television channel, then what is the difference between that and a text source? 93.96.182.208 (talk) 23:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, sir. It's wonderful to know that Wikipedia administrators can listen to these humble IP addresses. 93.96.182.208 (talk) 08:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

American and British English spelling differences semi-protection

Thanks for adding protection to the American and British English spelling differences article. If I had my way, only registered users could ever edit any article! In any event, I think that one is supposed to place the semi-protected template at the top of articles to which semi-protection has been applied. To that end, I added the semi-protected template here. You may want to change it to the semi-protected-because-of-vandalism template, or whatever template you prefer. Thanks! — SpikeToronto (talk) 18:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the template - I got side-tracked and forgot. Vsmith (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I changed the tag. Wiki articles exist for readers not editors and that large ugly tag was really a distraction. Vsmith (talk) 18:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

But now, there’s no tag! I mean, I kind of see your point: This way, the anonymous editor doesn’t know he cannot edit until he tries. Greater impact that way instead of forewarning him. However, isn’t there some sort of policy requiring a semi-protection notice (i.e., template)? (Aside: Nonetheless, I do notice that, despite not having the semi-protected template, the article is still categorizing in Category:Wikipedia indefinitely semi-protected pages.) Finally, if the people that set policy agreed that “Wiki articles exist for readers not editors and that large ugly tag was really a distraction,” these templates and policies would not exist, would they? As an administrator, you are better equipped to address this than am I, of course. — SpikeToronto (talk) 19:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Wait! Wait! I get it: You added a little template that places an itty, bitty lock in the upper right hand corner. As you can guess from my comment immediately preceding, I completely missed that! — SpikeToronto (talk) 19:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that, I should've explained better what I was doing. And, yes that tiny lock is easy to overlook ... which is my point. Although not all policy writers seem to appreciate it, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia and should be written with the user in mind - not focused on other editors and/or possible vandals. Provide information and make the non-info stuff as invisible as possible for the end user. I hate ugly tags - distracting to the encyclopedia user. The editing and policy wurbling stuff should limited largely to talk pages and non-content "policy" pages.Obviously, as you point out, those large ugly tags exist, so again obviously others either don't agree with me -- or simply have lost track of our real purpose - writing an encyclopedia. Sorry 'bout this longish rant, should go argue on policy development pages - but that's no fun :-) Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 21:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

American and British English differences semi-protection

How’d you like to semi-protect American and British English differences for vandalism? Thanks! — SpikeToronto (talk) 04:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Will keep an eye on it. It doesn't seem to have the level of activity that the spelling article had ... least not yet. Time for some shut-eye now :) Vsmith (talk) 04:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Tavernier Blue image.

VSmith,

The image of the Tavernier Blue that I uploaded has yet to appear on The Hope Diamond page, can you help me out. I think it would be an excellent addition. I really don't know how to add it. Richard —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gemwise (talk • contribs) 22:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Just added it for you - hope that's where you wanted it. Vsmith (talk) 00:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

thanks for the article protection. note about sockpuppets

Thanks for the article protection. I also want to let you know that Shell said that should would do a checkuser for all recent IPs on Quackwatch [1]. I posted this on the Quackwatch talk page, too [2]. --stmrlbs|talk 08:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Unblock review request

A discussion regarding an unblock of a user you previously blocked is underway at WP:AN. Your input would be valuable here. See [3]. --Jayron32 19:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

BigDaddy spam

I see you deleted the map of Spring Cave from biddaddy again. I thought it was a good map, so why did you label it spam? Roy Brumback (talk) 08:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

When a new user add a bunch of links to a site ([4]), it kinda triggers the spam alarm. I don't mind if you add a link back to bigdaddymaps ... I may have overdone the deletions. Vsmith (talk) 12:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Why are you taking my material down?

Vsmith, I was going thru my posts today and I found that you changed a large number of them. I spent a lot of time making those contributions and I am wondering why you changed them. Did I do something wrong to you? I am new at wikipedia and if I did something wrong... I did not mean it. Please let me know what it is and maybe I can learn how to post better. Since I am new at this... would you mind responding just under this article? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by LaurenceColletti (talk • contribs) 06:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

As I noted on your talk, the addition of external links to a dozen or so articles is considered WP:SPAM. Also Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a directory for snowboarding or other forms of recreation such as I just removed from Henderson molybdenum mine. Please read the following links: WP:SPAM, WP:EL and WP:NOT. Also as you are adding links to one website, please read WP:COI. Vsmith (talk) 12:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Castlewood Canyon State Park

Vsmith, Hello its Laurence again. I read the links that you sent me and I declared a potential conflict of interest. I also added to the article itself. What did I do wrong this time? Can you help me with this? I really want to post. How do I make a good post with my materials? What does a good post of my materials look like? LaurenceColletti (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)... Also, I just read your comments on the Castlewood Canyon State Park... the Wikipedia rules allow you to post materials in a conflict of interest situation if they benefit the article and enhance it. A map of the area enhances an article on the park because people learn more about it... Do you disagree? As for you comment on personal observations... I understand and agree.

following edit conflict...

Hi, as I've noted on Talk:Castlewood Canyon State Park, we simply don't use Wikipedia to promote our own stuff. Posting on the talk page there was fine, but you have a stated WP:Conflict of interest so -- simply don't add your links to articles. In addition, please add only reliably sourced information to articles and avoid posting your own observations. Vsmith (talk) 22:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Additionaly, you have stated elsewhere that you wished to get more exposure for your website, and that set off the alarms. So simply stop. Vsmith (talk) 22:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Further Question and Idea...
Thank you for helping me... I have one more question... Ok I understand how posting to an article with opinions on it is a problem from the protection-of-data point of view. But what if I link to a map file??? The map is objective and provides information to Wikipedia users. I won't even put that its from my company unless there is a rule that requires it. I would still even post a conflict of interest in the dicussion. Does that work? It seems like a win win... since these maps can help the useability of Wikipedia. Do you agree??? LaurenceColletti (talk) 02:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Heini Dittmar

Can you take a look at Heini_Dittmar--HDP (talk) 07:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Worked a bit on the wording - hopefully didn't change the meanings. Vsmith (talk) 23:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that is fine. --HDP (talk) 09:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Evolution as a theory and fact

First off, I undid the other article. That violated rules. As for this one, I will discuss this before I undo it. First, the WP:V does not relate to scientific verifiability. Secondly, the fact section of the article GOES AGAINST what the main article says. The main article in no way says that a fact is used with almost-facts. Please look into this. I will be undoing your undo shortly unless you provide a good reason not to. And please stop following me around. I am a Christian, however, I don't want to see this nonsense in a creationist article either. Shicoco (talk) 03:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion belongs on article talk page. Vsmith (talk) 03:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Revert question

Hi! I was wondering if you could explain why you reverted my edit shown here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grand_Canyon&diff=309175029&oldid=309163381

I thought the tip was informative and relevant, and I added a source for credibility. Can you explain what policy I violated, perhaps?

Thanks in advance!

--AlisonChains22 (talk) 22:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a "how to...", see WP:NOT. And see WP:RS for info on reliable sources which wikis aren't. Vsmith (talk) 22:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Dimitri Pavicevic

Is there any way to get the above-captioned article deleted? Any attempts to tag it for deletion or to even add improvement templates are met with its two editors deleting the templates. You would find its edit history informative and interesting. There are WP:COI issues galore. Plus it looks as if it has been cut-and-pasted, without attribution (i.e., copyvio) … twice. It is almost self-referencing! I left a more detailed account of my attempts to deal with this article here, but have not heard back. I then remembered how well you deal with such issues and thought that perhaps you could help. Sorry if my request appears unfocussed, but every time I see this article unresolved in my watchlist, knowing that its editors block all attempts (WP:OWN?) to deal with the article, I seeth. Thanks! — SpikeToronto (talk) 18:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Zapped it. Vsmith (talk) 01:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! A7 was a good choice. I couldn’t figure out which one should apply. I knew you’d know! :) — SpikeToronto (talk) 02:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Taylor Hort

I have another one for you: Taylor Hort. This article has been deleted before when it was called Taylor J. Hort. The wikieditor of that article merely turned around and recreated the article under a different name: Taylor Hort. It is perhaps self-promotion. (Take a look at the history; most interesting.) Finally, when a {{prod}} template was put on the new article, an editor merely deleted it without following the guidelines at WP:CONTESTED. Thus, I put the {{prod}} template back only to have that edit reverted. (You may want to take a look at the conversation here regarding this reversion.) What are your thoughts on this one? — SpikeToronto (talk) 06:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Gone - had a looong history of deletions. Vsmith (talk) 09:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Looong history under both titles! I see that now. OMG! (<-- as the kids say!) If both titles are now protected from being recreated, this should prevent further recurrence. I try to follow the rules and guidelines here, and am always learning (G-d knows!), but this was such a blatant, flagrant flouting of the rules, it could not be allowed to stand. Thanks again. — SpikeToronto (talk) 19:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Do you think it would be possible for me to get rollback permission? I try to do between one to two hours per day of what I call “vandalism patrol” and believe that the task would be easier with rollback than with undo. What are your thoughts? Thanks! — SpikeToronto (talk) 06:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

350_(organisation) undo assumption incorrect ... International page doesn't ...

350_(organisation) undo assumption incorrect: International page doesn't ...

The pages below are unique. The [5] page is for additional languages (most all).

Suggestion: You might want to looK at the pages before you assume. Wikipedia is for connecting native languages, i.e. the far left lower pane. To learn more about Wikipedia, another suggestion: Andrew Lih's book "The Wikipedia revolution: how a bunch of nobodies created the world's greatest encyclopedia" (c) 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.24.251.235 (talk) 16:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

OK removed it, what did you put it there for if it didn't exist? Also removed spam links from above post. Vsmith (talk) 16:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

VSmith, Thank you for your response. Hopefully this message finds you and yours well. Why did you remove even more? Are you OK? Getting enough sleep VSmith? I've added back some of what you removed: please reread my comments, maybe when you have more clear mind ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.184.229.174 (talk) 17:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Language link spam removed again. Please read WP:NPA. Vsmith (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

VSmith please help me understand your comments: See Spam (electronic) meaning "unsolicited or undesired electronic messages". Wikipedia is solicited by "Be Bold" [6]. Where is this Community? The comments above didn't seem to be a personal attack at all [7], maybe they unfortunately, struck a cord with you? The book cited above does point to one of the greatness of Wikipedia, the native language interconnectedness. Best Wishes VSmith, peace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.24.248.93 (talk) 17:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

See WP:SPAM. And see Help:Interlanguage links for the language stuff, it relates to Wiki articles in other languages and not to external links. Implying that I ...need more sleep or don't have a clear mind... are viewed as negative comments on another user - quite simply don't do that. Also sign your talk page comments with four tildes ~~~~. Bye, Vsmith (talk) 18:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting creating Language linked equivalent pages, in the native language, to http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/350_(organização); such as http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/350_(350_ (organisation), http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/350_(Organisation), http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/350_(organizzazione), http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/350_(организация), http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/350_ (organización), and http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/350_(组织) ?

Have you created new pages? If so, any suggestions on the best way to start? 99.54.141.191 (talk) 22:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes.

Creating pages ... get a username and some reliable sources and start writing. Vsmith (talk) 22:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Have you created pages in non-English, if so any suggestions on the best approach? 99.39.187.32 (talk) 22:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

No, language skills lacking. Vsmith (talk) 22:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

No Vietnamese language (tiếng Việt) picked-up in 'nam? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.39.187.32 (talk) 23:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Heh... that was '65-'67, memory fades. And I spent ~25 years trying to forget all that. Vsmith (talk) 23:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Rhombohedral/Trigonal

The rhombohedral lattice system is not the same as the trigonal crystal system, but is a subset of it. They are often confused, especially on wikipedia. See the article on crystal system, which tries to explain the difference. r.e.b. (talk) 18:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Yup, that's why I've been working to clarify with references. The two pages were redundant, so I made one a redirect. If you wish to write an article on the rhombohedral lattice system, do it. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 18:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Harper's Island

There is an editor at the Harper's Island article who has three times removed a chart in the article because he believes that it is a spoiler. He is violating the three-revert rule, behaves as if he owns the article, and fails to understand that Wikipedia permits spoilers. This continual revision of his has driven me away from the article. I only went back because I was looking for some code in the article to place in another article. I am at a loss for how to deal with this guy. A lot of work has gone into that chart by a lot of the show’s fan (very little from me, although the chart is supremely useful!) and without it, the show can be difficult to follow, especially as it makes its broadcast way around the world with international broadcasts. Thanks for letting me vent! Ideas? I was hoping for an adminisitrator not heretofore involved with the article to perhaps step in and lend some sage guidance to the community currenty editing it. — SpikeToronto (talk) 20:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, no sage stuff here. I've no interest in tv show articles. Discuss on the talk page and take it to dispute resolution if that doesn't work. Vsmith (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Iron Mountain (Utah) page

The Iron Mountain (Utah) page is really a page about geography, not mining specifically (i.e. it is about the mountain and the peak, Iron Mountain District is more about the mining). Should the stub reference be changed? Qfl247 (talk) 16:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qfl247 (talk • contribs)

Seems more than half the content currently is about mining. I've added Utah-geo-stub also. Vsmith (talk) 18:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Dimitri Pavicevic … again!

You recently deleted an article on Dimitri Pavicevic using WP:CSD#A7. (See discussion above.) It has since been recreated by an anonymous editor. You can find the new article here. The editor has oddly recreated it as a Talk page with no corresponding article. I have placed a Speedy delete|G4 template on the page. You may wish to change it to Speedy delete|A7 or whatever criterion better applies; I’m still learning the various critera. I have also placed a {{Nn-warn-reason|G4}} on the anonymous editor’s Talk page for his/her edification. Please, oh wise one, tell me: Why do people never learn?! Thanks! — SpikeToronto (talk) 19:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Gone. Self-promotion is immune from learning - No? Vsmith (talk) 20:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah … you make such good points, as always … Thanks for deletion! — SpikeToronto (talk) 20:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Of interest? Per 350 ... 24-October-2009: http://www.350.org/people

[8] http://www.350.org/people —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.39.184.217 (talk) 21:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

350 (organisation)

Regarding the article, 350 (organisation), would you be able to semi-protect it? The reason I ask is that you have reverted a particular edit, another editor has reverted the same edit, and now so have I. And, each of us has done this more than once. Yet anonymous editors keep putting the the deleted material back in. Placing linkspam warnings (or whatever) on their talk pages would be a waste of time because the IP addresses keep changing. However, semi-protection would prevent these anonymous editors from making any changes to the stub. Thanks! — SpikeToronto (talk) 04:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S. If you are able to semi-protect it, can you set it for the maximum days allowed? Indefinite?! — SpikeToronto (talk)

We don't indef semi except in highly controversial cases. Can extend if warring/promotion resumes. Vsmith (talk) 12:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Can It be fully-protected too? Note: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers 99.155.150.45 (talk) 06:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Not bitin' anyone, would simply block the ip - except keeps changing. Vsmith (talk) 12:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Plus, 99.155.150.45 (talk), you can still make all the edits to the article you want: Simply register. So, there’s no biting of the newbies: Anyone can freely edit the article by simply registering. Thanks Vsmith for the semi-protect. — SpikeToronto (talk) 18:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/350_(organisation) 350 (organisation) 99.39.184.224 (talk) 21:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Quantum mysticism

I'm currently in the process of reporting both myself and User:Likebox at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. I've tried WP:3O. I've also tried Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Likebox. Right now almost all of Talk:Quantum mysticism is our debate. I'm just not sure what the next step in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. As I understand it at least three editors must be involved to move to WP:RFC. Any advice would be appreciated.--OMCV (talk) 03:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion would be especially valuable since you were the first to show me the significance of WP:OR [9].--OMCV (talk) 04:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

There may indeed be some OR and/or SYN in that article, but haven't yet (and may not) looked at the details. Does need more attention from other eds. Vsmith (talk) 16:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Johnson's Shut-Ins State Park

Thanks for your rework of this article. I had been trying to work up the gumption to tackle the Description section which smelled of a copyright violation from somewhere, perhaps the state parks website. I don't believe that is an issue any longer, and your reorganization of the page is superior.

Perhaps you could find the right place in the text to more precisely identify the rocks of the shut-ins? Beveridge (1980) identifies it as rhyolite porphyry with a dike of dark diabase (p.45). Unklesbay & Vinyard (1992) identify it as ash-flow tuff (pp. 1-2). They discuss rhyolite (from lava,not ash) in the same paragraph, but the way I read it they're not placing it in the shut-ins. Being the geologist in the crowd, you're much more familiar with all those terms.

I don't whether you're familiar with those references. They're both[10][11] very interesting books on Missouri geology by a state geologist (Beveridge), a deputy state geologist (Vineyard), and geology professor (Unklesbay). You can read the relevent pages of Unklesbay & Vineyard at that Amazon link. --Kbh3^rdtalk 00:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, need to expand that geology section a bit more. I have those books - will have to dig 'em out and do some re-reading. An article on Missouri geology has been on my to-do list for a while ... if I ever get 'round to it (got lots of them round toits rolling around). Vsmith (talk) 12:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind undoing the vandalism before you protect the page

This discussion tag was removed just before you protected the Planetary Habitability article.

I consider it not AGF and vandalism, would you mind reverting it as the last edit to the article this week? GabrielVelasquez (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I see a disagreement - not vandalism. I had considered an edit warring block as you and perhaps others seem to have violated 3rr. I chose to lock the page instead, the debate can continue while the page is protected. Please assume good faith and proceed with civility on the talk page. Vsmith (talk) 01:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

(templat removed - doesn't belong on my talk page)

That is a valid template for a valid process and it was there before, it's removal was vandalism.GabrielVelasquez (talk) 01:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Marskell (talk) 01:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, for returning the template if you please. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 01:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

My observation is that for 3 months short of two years, Gabriel started his disruptive edits. My opinion is that the article's content, relevance and coherence are brilliant, its legth is good and its name is very precise -scientifically and coloquially. My suggestion to solve this chronic problem is to ban Gabriel from editing this particular article and its talk page. Sincerely, BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You'll notice this reliable guy actually get's his articles mixed up. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 10:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Diamond page links

I am going to need your advice on this:

User: Kasaalam has been adding a whole bunch of (sometimes outdated) child labour links because "we deny the truth" instead of creating a NON POV entry on the topic and using these perfectly fine sources as a reference. I have tried to point it out to him, but considering his previous edit-wars I have my doubts it'll help.

I need your advice. If it's allowed according to Wikipedia guidelines, I'll hold my peace. But then.. one should also add a list of "blood diamond" links and "green mining" links and "other human rights" links and so on and so forth. Hardly the way I think Wikipedia would like to go with this.

My solution would be that if Mr. Kasaalam writes a NON POV (can he do this if he accuses "wikipedia" of "hiding the truth") paragraph using those sources, not adding them blindly.

Your insights much are appreciated. I also discussed it with user materialscientist.

Gem-fanat (talk) 10:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage

Hi Vsmith: Would you consider placing a semi-protect on the Same-sex marriage article? Whether or not one supports the concept, its history page is clearly showing an on-going edit war involving anonymous editors who, from what I can glean, will not resolve the issue via the article’s talk page. Each editor reverts the other using the edit summaries to provide their “position.” I came to this a few moments ago when I was starting a vandalism patrol, and was quite shocked at the goings on in the history. I think that a semi-protect will at least eliminate the anons and force them to use logged-in accounts to make their edits. Fear of subsequent WP:3RR penalties alone should calm them enough to participate in a proper Talk page dicussion <hopeful smile>. Thank you for your consideration of the foregoing. Hope all’s well in your part if the world! — SpikeToronto (talk) 20:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Took a quick look last night - didn't have much time - seemed to have settled down a bit, not on my watchlist so haven't kept up. Vsmith (talk) 22:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

350 (organisation), again

Someone has deleted your {{Sprotect2}} protection template over at 350 (organisation) with this edit. I do not think the change is correct since it has now removed the silver lock symbol at the top of the page. I do not feel confident enough of the incorrectness of the edit, however, to revert it. Would you please take a look? Thanks! — SpikeToronto (talk) 01:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I see that the time was up. The editor’s edit summary confused me. — SpikeToronto (talk) 01:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

A question about Artur Holmes.

Hello. I was reading the talk page about the Urantia Book/Rodinia connection. A good dialogue seemed to be going concerning the originality (or lack of same) of Rodinia and the supposed formation and breakup dates. Unfortunately the exchange collapsed into personal attacks and nothing fruitful came of it. I am interested in the connection you made with the works of Arthur Holmes. I understand that he championed the idea of continental drift when before it was in vogue. as you are probably aware, a mechanism for seafloor spreading wasn't agreed upon at the time. My question is: Does he write about the supercontinent before Pangaea (nw called Rodinia) does he (or any other geologist before 1955) speculate as to when Rodinia formed and when it broke up in our Earth's history. Does Dr. Holmes or any other scientist before 1955 make the connection between Rodinia and complex life evolving in Rodinia's shallow bays.

Just so you know, I am cataloging the various scientific concepts presented in the Urantia Book and correlating them with scientific understandings from the time of UB publication onward. Thank you in advance for any response that might elucidate these matters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.101.74.142 (talk) 21:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Holmes proposed convection cells as a mechanism back ca. 20s or 30s, if my memory is working. Don't recall right now about Pangea/Rodinia, although I think Rodinia is a later concept. Peraonally have no interest in the Urantia stuff. Vsmith (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

For [12] William M. Connolley (talk) 19:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Brain GAR notice

Brain has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick question

But where could someone see their non-automated edits?Abce2|This isnot a test 21:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Say what...? Non-automated edits? What's an automated edit? Vsmith (talk) 21:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Twinkle, Huggle, etc. It may be my way of calling them, I don't remember.Abce2|This isnot a test 21:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

this? still not sure what you're asking. I don't use those gadgets. Vsmith (talk) 22:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, never mind. Thanks anyways, Abce2|This isnot a test 22:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

quartz 3d animation

there is no picture of the structure of the quartz crystal on the quartz wiki page; and you are saying it isn't very helpful to put an external link to crystal structure animation; hmmm, nice —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boed00 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The way to improve the quartz article is to add a good structural image to the article, not by adding an ext link to your bare animated stuff. Vsmith (talk) 22:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

y, it was bare information in the form of animated 3d crystal model :-))) if u know better way to describe the crystal structure than a 3d model let me know, i like to learn new things which are worth to learn..Boed00 (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

350 stuff

Nxxxn: Hello, This is Nxxxn. You undid a revision I made in the article 350 organization. You said that I gave 350's website and it contained a list and is non-RS. Even though a list from the website is given people can clearly see from the 350 website that the personalities given support 350. You are saying that for each person I have to give a different reference source. The reference source for majority of the people are in the 350 website. Many openly stated that they support 350 in the organization's website. You can remove the names of those people you are saying who does not support 350 and is not clear. Please let the name of the people who openly supported 350 be in the list I wrote. You can remove the personalities, whom you are saying have not clearly supported 350. While the reference website was given just below the heading then people can easily access and see that the personalities in the list are supporting 350. Let it be please!!! Remove the personalities who haven't clearly supported 350 according to the source!!! If, a specific RS for each name, then what if I include the same RS for all names? If so, I can write the website near all names as the RS for each. Then you can't say there is no RS for each name. Make the issue clear please!!! - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nxxxn (talk • contribs) 18:56, 19 September 2009

Seems Arthur Rubin has adequately answered your questions. I agrre with him. Vsmith (talk) 23:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Accidentally edited something you wrote

Hi - I edited some wording at Long term effects of climate change that I thought I'd written when it was actually you. I don't have strong feelings about it, so feel free to change it back if you want (does need a comma that I added, though).Brian A Schmidt (talk) 20:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I was adding wikilinks and thought humidity or higher rainfall was an important factor - haven't read the book you used as a ref, looks like a good one so I'm tempted to order it. And yes, the comma was needed. Vsmith (talk) 21:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Obviously Not

You are being ridiculous--- I was not preserving my work--- I was restoring an intro which was written by other people. The recent edits were extremely silly.Likebox (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

link removal

Mr. Smith :

You are removing links I am adding. I think those links are legitimate. For example, on a national park page, I add a link to OutpostUSA.org. That is not a commercial site, does not sell anything, does not promote an outfitter or any other business, and is not a blog. It does, however, include three dozen photographs and specific description of hiking trails, lodging and other details. You allow other links to hiking guides and travel guides. I fail to see why they are acceptable and this is not. I think the links I added should be restored.

Thank you Trekker Forrest

See User talk:TrekkerForrest for my warning re: spam, as user had added multiple links to the same website. Wikipedia is not a linkfarm. Vsmith (talk) 21:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

A discussion about this external link has been started at Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Wind Rivers link. As your removal of the link didn't include any indication of why you removed it, it would be very helpful to us if you would explain your concerns. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Global Warming Edits

Hi VSmith,

I must apologize, I am not try to edit war regarding Global warming. But if Wikipedia is trying to be truly neutral, then it must introduce the side that global warming is a scientific theory. While the media and most everyone else considers it be an absolute fact, it really hasn't been proven with 100% accuracy. Therefore, I think it is fair to discuss it, in the article, as a theory that is very popular, but one that has not been totally (100%) proven. As a scientist, I think you would have to agree.

jbird669

Nothing in science is ever 100% proven. As for discussing it, that's what the talk page is for. Vsmith (talk) 19:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Global Warming Edits

Maybe discuss was the wrong word. Perhaps a section can be added to the article that makes note of the fact that it's a theory and not proven? It can be construed as misleading because the article reads as if Global Warming is scientific fact, which it is not.

As I said, such discussion belongs on the article talk. Vsmith (talk) 19:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Title for the Bryozoa article

Hello Vsmith: Could you please look at this discussion[13] for me? An editor managed to change the name of the Bryozoa page to Ectoprocta. He otherwise has done very good editing on this article, but this move is simply wrong and confusing for the reasons I give in the discussion. Since you're a geologist (and the only administrator I "know"!), you might be able to help me address this effectively. I don't mind a full discussion of the taxonomic issues within the article, but bryozoans are almost universally recognized as, well, bryozoans! This page move will needlessly confuse students, faculty and many others. The editor who made the change may have lost interest in the discussion, though, leaving this unacceptable status quo. Thanks for any help you can give. Wilson44691 (talk) 19:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I've moved it back - before the bots adjust all the links to it. Vsmith (talk) 20:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. This is a much more sensible way to have the discussion. I appreciate the wiki-boldness, which was just in time before it got even messier. Wilson44691 (talk) 21:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Murder aplies to cats.

If you disagree you are guilty of species discrimination read Specieism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.175.102 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 27 September 2009

Heh, I have 3 cats - to keep the woodshed and premises free of rats and mice. So me and my cats are guilty. Vsmith (talk) 22:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so you're a fellow member of the pro-Felid cabal. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

User:KgKris

Block extended, see diff. I've indeffed User:Noise69 as an obvious sock. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Vsmith (talk) 04:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Am I dreaming or does the user appear to still be editing under the same account after being blocked twice? Rivertorch (talk) 05:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a bit persistent ... using a bunch of ATT ips to blank his comments repeatedly, guess he doesn't like what he said. May need a semiprot on the talk for a bit and he needs an indef for disruption. Vsmith (talk) 13:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Just sprotected for 6 hrs. Vsmith (talk) 13:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I had requested that hours earlier here but nobody was minding the store. Rivertorch (talk) 18:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration for Quantum Mysticism

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Quantum mysticism article and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 21:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Philippine Commonwealth

User 23prootie copied and pasted the page Commonwealth of the Philippines into the redirect Philippine Commonwealth without reaching a consensus.--JL 09 _^q?c 07:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like that was taken care of before I got my morning cup of coffee. Vsmith (talk) 12:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

References

Hello Vsmith. You asked if I had references for my arguments regarding my argument in discussion for the article on the universe, and I would like to ask: by what standards are these references acceptable by? Einstein? Jesus? Why not just my own analytical and logical deductions? 5 plus 5 equals 10, it is logic and there is no reference required to make such a statement, It states in Wikipedia to assume good faith and not to edit-war with people, however, I have been engaged in an edit war which appears bias in nature, unreasonable and selfish. I am not trying to judge, this is just how it feels to me at the time,

"Most people try to help the project, not hurt it. If this were false, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning."

I simply showed that the article on the universe is false, by all logical and reasonable understanding of science but because of my understanding on this, I am shunned and taken into an edit war. Why is this? I am trying to improve the article with reason and logic not bogus sci-fi ideas which are all based on emotion and opinion. Science does not run on emotion or opinion, it runs on proof and math/logic. So until it is proven that the universe is expanding and that it is not just a section in the universe that is expanding (like a cookie crumb expanding in water) I would appreciate it to not be told as science. Instead of calculating the age of the universe, which we cannot logically fathom as we only can calculate a section of the universe, we should admit to not knowing.

"When disagreement occurs, explain yourself using talk pages, and give others the opportunity to do the same. Consider whether a dispute stems from different perspectives and look for ways to reach consensus."

If I have said anything illogical, irrational or blatantly untrue, and you would like to express that then please do. I am human and capable of error, but I would appreciate to know where I have err so that I may learn. If I have not said anything illogical then I would appreciate my argument to be re-submitted to the discussion pages where it may be publicly available for others to reason with and discuss, analyze and come to terms with. DiscoElf (talk) 00:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Please read reliable sources and original research. Vsmith (talk) 02:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Crystal properties

You reverted my edit about some molecular crystal being electrical conductors. Will you kindly explain the revert based on the quality standards of Wikipedia? 24.184.234.24 (talk) 03:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)LeucineZipper

Seems that you signed your addition to the article page, I was reverting the signature and don't remember noticing the bit of content - sorry 'bout that. Additionally, why don't you log in to your account to edit? Vsmith (talk) 13:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Gold

Hi,

You fixed my entry on serpentine, and thought that, as an administrator, you might be willing to consider adding the following to gold (which is locked):

==State Emblem==

In 1965 the California Legislature designated gold “the State Mineral and mineralogic emblem.”<ref>California Government Code § 425.1;''see'' http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=gov&group=00001-01000&file=420-429.8</ref> In 1968 the Alaska Legislature named gold “the official state mineral.”<ref> Alaska Statutes § 44.09.110; ''see''http://www.legis.state.ak.us/cgi-bin/folioisa.dll/stattx08/query=*/doc/%7B@17998%7D?</ref>

Thanks

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenari109a (talk • contribs) 06:23, 9 October 2009

Seems that with your history, one more edit and you should be eligable to edit semi-protected pages - see Wikipedia:Protection_policy#semi. I've formatted your post a bit - seems you left the /ref tags unfinished, which messed up your post & signature. Vsmith (talk) 12:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Vsmith,

I realized I could edit even a "locked" page on my own, so never mind about the gold entry.

Thanks,

Kenari109a

Kenari109a (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank You! However, could we go to back to unprotected?

After a fair amount of thought, I'd like to request that my user page go to unprotected. I appreciate your action, however the problem is now that some of the legit editors use IP-names, and a few have wanted to communicate with me re: my edits. Again, I'm obliged to you for the semi-protect, but I can take what ever the vandals dish out... I'm no spring chicken! I do admit the vandals seem to have been after me more than most, but it's just more evidence of their intent when they go after a user page. Blessings and best wishes, Jusdafax 05:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Sock harassment

Thanks for dealing with Theirdelayvivid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Unfortunately this sock is still up to no good and needs to be blocked and their identity determined. If a CU will provide me with the IP/IPs being used, I can likely provide a very good guess as to whom they are and they can be blocked more effectively. There are a number of blocked and/or currently active editors who could be behind this. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Indef'd. Vsmith (talk) 15:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Rfa invitation: comment

First, I posted it it the very wrong place (your user page). Second, I asked for criticism, not praise. This has already cause much misunderstanding at Rfa, for which I have to apologize to everybody, including you. Materialscientist (talk) 22:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. The questions have raised a bit of a rukus with the "RFA regulars". I tend to ignore that page - too many drama-artists there usually. Usually only get involved there when editors I interact with and respect seek the mop. I would have noticed your rfa as I have your talk on my watchlist. Now I'll watch for a while - my posting there now would likely give the dramatists more fuel. The process was much simpler way back when. Keep up the good work. Vsmith (talk) 02:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Ferrihydrite

Thanks for reformating the page layout. 1- 'In regards to your edit summary comment: ..please don't add minor contributions. - I would suggest that is not how Wikipedia works.'If you don't want your contributions edited (either with minor or major changes) then perhaps...' This is a misunderstanding, I was refering to the reference list, not to the main text. There are several hundreds articles on ferrihydrite, and one doesn't want the site to be cluttered with everyone's reference. 2- 'Please don't remove discussions from article talk pages as you have done twice on Talk:Ferrihydrite. Vsmith (talk) 23:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)' Sorry about this. The content of this page is not longer relevant. Somebody who skims the Discussion may think that the Fh page still is quite wrong, which is no longer the case, I fixed it. Tell me if my last editing suits you. 3- Question: When I click on the 'Alain Manceau' link in the History tab, I arrive to this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Alain_Manceau&action=edit&redlink=1 instead of my personal Wiki page: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Alain_Manceau How to fiw it? Thanks. --Alain Manceau (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

1 - OK, I agree about the long reference list - and yes that was a misunderstanding.

2 - The talk page - the posts are dated (usually) so readers can follow the posts and changes, rather than blanking the talk page - perhaps it needs to be archived as that's the preferred way to do it. Your recent addition to talk there is fine - although, by convention new posts go to the bottom -- and that's where we look for new stuff.

3 - I would suggest either simply add the content from your fr-wiki page here to your en-wiki page. Or even easier just add the link to your French page to give en-wiki users a path to follow. Vsmith (talk) 01:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Metalclaysculptor

Jee, I was writing the same warning to him on spam in titanium. Thanks! Materialscientist (talk) 00:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey - I thought I had chopped that spam, how'd you get the "credit"? :-) I had even used the same edit summary. Charge on mopper-upper. Vsmith (talk) 00:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I would give that edit to you if I knew :-D I do know that when some buttons disappear when I start reverting, it means someone has done that already and just abort, but. Every day I have cases when I think I am reverting, but someone actually has done that while I'm clicking :-) C'est la vie. Materialscientist (talk) 00:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Vsmith

Not sure how posting a link to an actual image of elk mountain campground in an elk mountain campground secton on wiki is "spam". Seems more to me like a useful link that adds to the Wind Cave page on wiki. There's also a ton of info on that page concering elk mountain campground. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Northfork Mike (talk • contribs) 22:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps that template wasn't quite the right one. You added a link and then changed it to a reference. Seems you have added links to that site before - and that suggests a possible WP:COI problem. Vsmith (talk) 22:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Royal Gorge article change

Hi Vsmith,

I'm writing in regard to an edit you made to the Wikipedia Royal Gorge article on 6/16/09. (The history line from the change is "17:57, June 16, 2009 Vsmith (talk | contribs) (7,361 bytes) (→Modern history: RR links, remove rocket daredevil bit as non-notable) (undo)"

I was the author of that paragraph and I'm curious as to the reasons behind your "non-notable" judgment. Did it involve set Wikipedia guidelines or personal opinion only?

I certainly believe that this individual put his life in jeopardy for an achievement that would be judged foolhardy by some. That being said, it is a part of the history of the Royal Gorge and the event was covered by the Denver Post article that I used as a reference. [14]

I believe that the event is significant enough to be part of the Royal Gorge entry in the database.

I feel strongly enough about this to submit it to Wikipedia arbitration but I definitely want to hear your side on this.

Dick107 (talk) 17:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

So some stunt guy decides to grab some attention... so what? Others just claim their kid is in a runaway balloon. He got his newspaper article, big deal. Does he have a Wikipedia page? Don't think so ... non-notable. Is he mentioned in a wiki article on rocket flight...? His stunt is just that, a stunt, and totally non-notable for the Royal Gorge article. Threatening arbitration gets you no points. Sorry 'bout that. Vsmith (talk) 22:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Denialism

An article that you have been involved in editing, Denialism, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denialism (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Unomi (talk) 06:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help and advice! Not sure if this is the appropriate place to thank you, so apologies if it clutters up your page. I will study the resources further that you directed me to and practice in the sandbox before getting too ambitious and changing pages. Toacircus (talk) 18:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, and this is the place to discuss concerns and to just say thanks. Enjoy your wiki learning and hope to see you actively editing article space soon. Vsmith (talk) 19:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

mineral merges

Hi Vsmith, thanks for the support in the occasional merge request I make. I wouldn't mind being able to merge things on my own, but I dont have the editorial rights to do anything beyond cut/paste and move page moves. so I am not able to merge histories when needed. What do you suggest. --Kevmin (talk) 22:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I've no experience with history merges. Seems that the main thing to do is leave a redirect behind at the page merged from and be sure to clearly state what is occurring in edit summaries when merging by cut/paste. Seems the only time a problem would occur is if the redirected page were to be deleted for whatever reason. As I dig around - will append this if I learn something different ... or if one of my talk page watchers chimes in to correct me on this. Vsmith (talk) 23:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

new account

Hai Vsmith Iam a mechanical engineer and a reqular user of wikipedia. I wish to open a new account.

User name: kvhamza

E-mail  : kvhamza@hotmail.com

Regards

Hamza Kallivalappil, Abu Dhabi, UAE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.229.236.212 (talk) 12:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Go to Wikipedia:Why create an account? and click on the Create an account now link and fill in your info. Easy as that. Vsmith (talk) 13:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I created this account for him and will check the IP and make sure it's unblocked. Fred Talk 23:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

195.229.237.39

I'm gradually unblocking all the the proxies used from the UAE, including 195.229.237.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) which you blocked. These blocks are causing far more collateral damage then good, as many people are editing, or trying to edit through them. Fred Talk 23:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks for helping the anon above with his account. Vsmith (talk) 02:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Would you be interested?

I saw you were an editor who had bee involved on the Geomatics talk page and was curious if you would be interested in supporting the creation of Geomatics WikiProject to deal with the mess of articles related to the subject. Or even better! Would like to contribute! Thanks! --Kuzwa (talk) 22:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Not much interested in projects - plenty to do otherwise. Don't know much 'bout geomatics - but it's on my watchlist, so I'll be watching. Vsmith (talk) 19:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice to meet you

Love your user page! I love rocks and there are usually a few in my pockets.

Mary Anderson (gold panner from Colorado in my youth) but now from:

Alna, Maine

(I've never used this feature before...so I hope that this message gets to you...?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gandydancer (talk • contribs) 17:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh! The page has opened and I see a whole new aspect of Wikipedia that I have not known about. Very nice.Gandydancer (talk) 17:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, glad to see that you're learning how it all works. Keep on keepin' on. Vsmith (talk) 19:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Xfirefire

I think the guy earned a permanent ban. Flagrant, egregious vandalism, intensifying after warnings and directed against editors as well? Between reporting to WP:AIV and when he was finally blocked (about 16 minutes) he made 17 vandalism edits. This doesn't seem like a slap on the wrist sort of scenario. --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 16:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I just changed it to indef after reviewing more. Initially was just stopping the current attack. Vsmith (talk) 16:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 16:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

dispute tag on Mole (unit)

I've re-added this tag along with further comments on the talk page. I still don't think it was necessary for me to fully enumerate my arguments (and now a full treatment will have to wait till after the weekend). The previous discussion was less than a month old but had not elicited any counter-argument. In the complete absence of such an argument even the weak assertions already made beat a counter argument that does not exist.

In any case, I must admit I have found the treatment of this issue slightly irritating but I hope that this does not preclude a thorough and robust discussion of the substantive issue. If reliable, authoritative references for the assertions made can be found I am willing to modify my position, but not on the basis of simply being reverted with no discussion of the real issue. CrispMuncher (talk)

Grow Light Page

I'm curious as to why you removed the links from the grow light page. I was trying to show a test comparing hps to led lights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phlie (talk • contribs) 21:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Commercial link. Vsmith (talk) 01:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Solar greenhouse

An article that you have been involved in editing, Solar greenhouse, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar greenhouse. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Dmcq (talk) 00:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

polar shift reverts

Before we exert any more energy going in circles I suggest you, Dougweller, RJHall and I (Granite07) sit down for a quick skype chat and make certain we are all talking about the same thing. I am fairly certain the links are valid and your terse objections are puzzling. If for nothing else but to ascertain that none of us are paid editors with an agenda. 171.66.84.200 (talk) 21:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Discuss your concerns on the article talk page. I've no clue what skype is - no interest in any chat. Suggest you read WP:NPA regarding your "paid" insinuation. Vsmith (talk) 00:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear Professor, I am very taken aback by your insinuation that I would lodge a WP:NPA at you. This is very ungentlemanly of you. So if you know what irony is then you know me :) I suggest you find out what Skype is since it is fairly well used in the academic world! If you still would like to reject my offer to discuss this clearly, and you clearly good offered on this adversity then I suggest you get funky yourself, thank you and best regards 171.66.250.133 (talk) 22:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Editing

I didn't complete the edit yet so why do you mention vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.129.25.198 (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at the date of my post on your ip talk page. Vsmith (talk) 02:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

?

Dear Mr Vsmith, I don't understand the reason of your actions. Галактион (talk) 14:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Article talk pages are for discussing the article and ways to improve the article: see WP:Talk. Your addition of undiscussed lists of equations seems to fail that requirement. Are you suggesting that your equations belong in the article? Do you have WP:Reliable sources for this? This is a general encyclopedia - not a course in "chemical calculus". Vsmith (talk) 16:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. Галактион (talk) 17:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Why it is spam

Dear Mr Vsmith, i dont understand why link to world gemstone mines map on gemstone page is a spam. Let me know your thought behind it. Haja maideen (talk) 18:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)--Haja maideen (talk) 18:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:SPAM and WP:COI. You have added links to the same website to at least two different articles. The link you added to Gemstone was to a map with very little information. Please add reliably sourced information rather than external links to Wikipedia articles. Vsmith (talk) 21:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Medical uses of silver

Please note that a mediation has been requested for Medical uses of silver at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-11-23/Medical_uses_of_silver#Discussion. Wdford (talk) 12:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Pole shift analysis Mediation request

I have offered my services as a mediator for the Pole shift analysis mediation request. Discussion is currently undergoing at the talk page and your input would be appreciated before we go any further. Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 14:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't see anything worth commenting on ... nothing to mediate. Vsmith (talk) 03:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Continual vandalism by User talk:173.161.168.157

Please check the Georgia O'Keeffe article for recent blanking + other notations on this user's page.

Recent blocking obviously did no good. Viva-Verdi (talk) 15:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that - I was off line for awhile and it seems to have been addressed. Probably better to post on WP:AIV for such. Vsmith (talk) 03:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Playa move

Talk:Salt pan (geology) it is an old discussion, but playa (disambiguation) is ambiguous and not the primary meaning of the term. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... that was rather an old discussion. And as I wasn't aware of that article ... I missed it. And now Salt pan (geology) also redirects to dry lake ... seems we've lost something in the process. And that dab needs work. Thanks for the note. Vsmith (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Halide mineral

Thanks for the note at halide mineral. It's reassuring that knowledgeable folks feel protective about a set of topics. Cheers,--Smokefoot (talk) 15:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Yea, started trying to organize the mineralogical articles way back in 2004 - but I've been slow, always getting sidetracked elsewhere. Your edit summary comment "...if one recognizes NaCl as a polymer" struck me as a bit odd. I had never thought of a crystalline ionic network as a polymer. Never even thought of the network solid silica as a polymer - though thinking of graphite structure that way sorta makes sense ... then on to the phyllosilicate micas and ... OK, rambling a bit. Vsmith (talk) 15:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Characterizing Uncertainty in Climate Assessment

Re Characterizing Uncertainty in Climate Assessment - thanks William M. Connolley (talk) 22:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Welcome, really gettin' wild in climate land these days. Vsmith (talk) 00:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your copyright concerns, can you point me in the right place for an wiki appeal? I must reasearch the specific copyright, my impression is the good chaps at the IPCC want the standard I posted in the public domain to help calm things down. Thanks Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 05:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

See this. Sorry - because of this copyright, this material can not be copied here. Awickert (talk) 05:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems like I should wait for Vsmitm to answer, however ... Sorry, the link you provided clearly says "Unless otherwise stated". The material I posted was a standard the IPCC wants folks to adopt. I am still investigating the appropriate copyright to apply. It didn't come from the specific domain you cite. I guess I must talk it out here, if their is no other place. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 05:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Where is it otherwise stated for the section that you copied here? If can supply a link to the portion of the report with something that says "our usual copyright doesn't apply here", then please show us. If not, then it does apply and you can't copy verbatim, Awickert (talk) 05:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Best to look at the primary source: Moss, R.H. and S.H. Schneider, 2000: Uncertainties in the IPCC TAR: recommendations to lead authors for more consistent assessment and reporting. In: Guidance Papers on the Cross Cutting Issues of the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC [Pachauri, R., T. Taniguchi, and K. Tanaka (eds.)]. World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, pp. 33-51.

I was mistaken, the info was guidance (under IPPC consideration) not a standard. After investigating so far, I am not expecting to find an appropriate copyright to your satisfaction. Do wiki admins grant fair use? ... I want to maintain fidelity with the source's intentions to have consistency (see title)? I guess to be most conservative, I must originally write the sourced guidance and attribute the source's intentions with references and notes. Thanks for your consideration. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 06:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem, in my opinion, is mostly one of context. There is nothing wrong with quoting from source material. Even quoting the entire block could be okay. However, one needs to look at how it is used. If your intent is simply to repeat what they said, then that isn't really what fair use (or Wikipedia) is for. Rather, such a quotation would make sense if it were to be a subject for analysis, or a critical part of a larger discussion. In other words, Moss and Schneider's points could be presented as part of a larger topic, but it isn't keeping in the spirit of Wikipedia to create an article simply to quote or paraphrase their viewpoint. "Uncertainty in climate assessment" is not a crazy topic. I'm sure many papers have been written about it. With some effort one probably could write a decent article on that topic, but it would be expected to draw from many sources not just one. Dragons flight (talk) 07:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know of "fair use" for text, but the text on Wiki is all usable for commercial purposes, which the IPCC license specifically prohibits (ergo no direct copy). Dragons Flight has very good points, and I think that you should follow their pointers on how to create a good article on this topic, Awickert (talk) 07:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Understandable, I found WP:FUC now, this is a very reasonable policy on limited text excerpts, as I see applying to the sources intentions. I must claim the exact text is high quality, to meet wiki encyclopedia purposes, among other things. Fair use is not a common grant, but I see reason for an exception here, with a little article rework. Maybe I should just post again, properly attribute and leave it at that. (OH, I agree the article has great promises, with further development) Must break now. Thanks Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 07:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Things always happen after I sign off for the night. Thanks to Awickert and Dragons flight for jumping in here. And I agree with their comments. Yes, an article on uncertainty and levels of confidence in science experiments and models or something like that would be a valid article ... maybe it exists already? But it should be about science experiments and modeling in general with perhaps a section on climate science. As to the copyvio part, the webpage copied from has a distinct copyright notice ... and we don't violate that. The text of that page would be a good resource, but again such an article should be more generally framed to avoid pointyiness and address the subject in general as it applies to all scientific studies. Vsmith (talk) 14:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

See: Global_warming_controversy#Forecasts_confidence for a quote on the subject and how is has been partially addressed in an existing article. Vsmith (talk) 14:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks also for this [15] :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Heh - you mean you didn't want all that fame & glory? Vsmith (talk) 22:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I need your help

Greetings Vsmith, I am attempting to resolve a dispute with another administrator, User:Jclemens, who recently deleted an article that I created over a year ago, New Industrial Revolution. I have been trying to work with this editor in a respectful way, but it appears that he would prefer to hide behind his policies and redirect me to pages about his rationale for deleting articles, rather than engage in an open debate about the merits of the article. He called the article an "exhortation" and claimed that the article wasn't about something that was actually happening. This particular user didn't even follow the policy of waiting the proscribed 7 days prior to deleting the page. He deleted the article after only two days, didn't contact me or other editors as far as I can tell, and I don't feel that he provided sufficient rationale for his action. Calling the article and "exhortation" and denying the existence of a world-wide movement is irrational and is an abuse of administrative privileges.

Can you help me reinstate this article and work on it with me to withstand further efforts to delete the page?

Thank you,

~ * ~ Blue Lunar Storm ~ * ~ (talk) 20:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

After looking at the deleted article, I must say that I agree with Jclemens - the article was basically promotional synthesis. Sorry 'bout that. Vsmith (talk) 02:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you even bother to do some independent research prior to reaching that conclusion? I strongly feel that this article is based on an existing movement, and is not promotional in any sense. I do not have any ties to the individuals that I mention in the article, or any of the materials that I present as references. I encourage you to do some independent research prior to finalizing your decision. ~ * ~ Blue Lunar Storm ~ * ~ (talk) 21:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Please, what is spam in...

Please, what is spam in this update:"* Astrology and Anthropology, description of every astrological sign corresponds to the description of a certain anthropological type or their combination."? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mishabogic (talk • contribs) 01:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

When I removed the link, it was simply as a poorly written piece (non-reliable) and was added as the only contribution of a new user. Now, upon closer examination, I see the resemblance of the webite/book author's name and your username. Thus it is even more serious than I at first thought. Please read conflict of interest. In short we don't promote or link to our own stuff. Vsmith (talk) 01:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, now I understund it principle and reason for it. I think this is important discovery (connection between astrology signs and anthropology types), but is it not way, no problem. Good luck! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mishabogic (talk • contribs) 02:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

More about mole

Hello V, I've read the mole article, and the talk page, and I'm still confused. I'm finding it easy to agree with agree with those who say that mole is just a name for a big number, specifically 6.0221415×10²³ .

But of course the SI definition is in terms of carbon 12 atoms. Is that quantity exactly known? If not, would a more precise measurement mean that next year's WP article could say that mole represents the number 6.0221415...(many zeroes)...1×10²³  ?

I'm also confused by your statement that "A mole is equal to 6.0221415×10²³ ... but consider the uncertainty implied by that number with seven decimal places ... what about the other sixteen? " How is that number uncertain? I haven't seen anything that suggests that it is an approximation. It seems as certain to me as 1.2 x 10⁴ is exactly 12,000.

Obviously, I suppose, I'm not very knowledgable in physics or chem . I'd just like to understand this.

Thanks

Leotohill (talk) 01:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Leotchill, just got this and I'm too tired to write a legible reply right now - going to bed. Will try to explain a bit tomorrow - meantime I'd suggest readin Significant figures - that may make sense or just confuse more :-). G'night, Vsmith (talk) 04:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Note the Avogadro number is not a count, my understanding is that it is a calculated number based on the mass of a mole of C-12 and the mass of an atom of C-12. Such calculation is only as good as the data used, the mass of a mole of C-12 is defined, but the mass of one atom is rather an estimate methinks and that estimate limits the calculated result - as a calculation can be no more accurate than the data used. That calculation/estimation is only good to eight significant figures: 6.0221415×10²³. Now your comment above: It seems as certain to me as 1.2 x 10⁴ is exactly 12,000. indicates a lack of comprehension of significant figures - as 1.2 x 10⁴ is not equal to 12,000. 12,000. means somewhere between 12,001 and 11,999, whereas 1.2 x 10⁴ means somewhere between 1.1x10⁴ and 1.3x10⁴. The last number written in a measurement or calculation is an estimated digit and therefore uncertain (the range of uncertainty varies with application). Given that the number 6.0221415×10²³ is significant to eight places which means the last digit (the 5) is uncertain and could be a 4 or a 6. If that digit is uncertain, no numbers following it have any meaning. The remaining 16 digits are meaningless and not shown - and that is a large uncertainty in number of atoms or whatever. Hope my explanation is comprehensible - been explaining it to HS chem students for the last 24 years, but never really wrote it down. Vsmith (talk) 16:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks: from your reply and from reading Significant figures I better understand the representation of precision. I'm still unsure about the durability of that number 6.0221415×10²³. Was that figure known at the time the mole was defined in the SI? Was it known to that level of precision? Said another way, has the mass of 1 atom of c-12 been more precisely determined over the years, or are we up against something fundamental that prevents greater precision?

I appreciate your time. It would be ok to just point me to reading material. Thanks. Leotohill (talk) 03:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Heh... the above was an "off the top of my head" discourse and should be regarded as likely a bit "fuzzy". I'd suggest reading Avogadro constant and Mole (unit) and the references therein. I've just read the Avogadro constant article (again?) and learned a bit. Happy reading... Vsmith (talk) 03:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Addenda: Just read the American Scientist article (last ext. link in Avogadro constant), most interesting and should help clarify the issue - esp. if you like perfect cubes :) Vsmith (talk) 04:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

History of the telescope

I saw and greatly appreciated you reversion of the recent vandal attack on this article. In skimming over the article to check for other damage I saw red links directed to History of astronomical interferometry and was wondering if you knew anyone who could cobble together a reasonably adequate article on the subject to replace the one which had been deleted as violating wikipedia plagiarism policy? I drew a blank from my limited number of contacts so thought I'd send the question your way. If someone starts such an article I could probably help with the editing. Regards.Trilobitealive (talk) 02:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I see it was deleted as a copyvio. I know little about the subject ... why not post a comment on the history of the telescope or history of astronomy articles. Perhaps get the interest of the regular astronomy editors. Vsmith (talk) 02:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Or start with Astronomical interferometry#History of astronomical interferometers and go from there. Vsmith (talk) 02:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I think I'll post the comment first. Thanks.Trilobitealive (talk) 04:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Kidd Mine reversion

FYI the Met Site shut down is more suitably covered in Kidd Metallurgical Site (in one cited line).--kelapstick (talk) 18:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a better place for it. Vsmith (talk) 20:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Mineralogy student project

Hello VSmith,

I see that you've noticed my mineralogy students posting articles once again. Please understand that the underlying term papers have been vetted by a professional mineralogist (me) and represent in most cases a good and comprehensive snapshot of the state of knowledge on a particular mineral at this time. What I've noticed lacking in most of wikipedia is citations of the peer-reviewed literature, and so I have emphasized that the students may not omit this, even though the mechanics of formatting references can be daunting. I would ask you to respect their work (and mine) by working with these new wikipedia authors instead of instantly unilaterally taking down entire articles or sections of articles as "insufficiently wikified".

This time I have taken pains to point the students in the direction of appropriate learning materials, but I can't police everyone. Perhaps in two years we could work together to set up a course sandbox where the articles can be vetted for their wikification before they are published.

Cheers,

Jonathan Snow Associate Professor University of Houston. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesnow (talk • contribs) 17:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yup, noticed - just fixed a couple more which will need more work. Some of the articles produced have been quite good - others not so good. When I find errors and poor writing (including the ignoring of Wikipedia convention and style) I'll modify and/or zap it. You should perhaps prepare your students for this a bit more. And, yes a "sandbox" for editing is a good idea - maybe next time do it that way and post a note to me so I'm aware of it. Vsmith (talk) 17:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Block of User talk:99.151.166.95

This editor is still editing as 99.144.192.74 (talk · contribs) and has been actively engaged in vandalizing Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident/FAQ and has expressed his stated intentions to disrupt Wikipedia here. Viriditas (talk) 04:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the ip's been blocked for a month ... and I missed the fun, gotta sleep sometime :) Need caffeine now, Vsmith (talk) 10:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Question about the file Ouachita Mountains rock outcrop.jpg

I noticed that you had uploaded this file quite some time ago as I was surfing the page on the Ouachita Mountains.

Vertical rock strata, east end of Ouachita Mountains

I was wondering if you could tell me the general location where you took the picture.

As a longtime resident of Montgomery County in Arkansas(yes in the Ouachita region), I have seen many similar rock outcroppings along the various highways in the area, and I was curious about the location of this one. I could almost swear that I recognize the formation, but then there are many similar formations in the area.

I guess seeing the picture resonated with me, as it reminded me of the many rock faces around my home region. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martha Lois (talk • contribs) 12:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems that was somewhere along state highway 9 in the east end of the national forest - south of Williams Junction. Was heading north after a trip to the Mt Ida - Hot Springs area. A road cut along the highway, looking west. Sorry I can't be more specific than that, memory fades:) Vsmith (talk) 17:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

SiO₂

You might check out the plea from Edgar181 at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry. You're probably needed.--Smokefoot (talk) 03:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked user returns

Please note that an anonymous IP whom you blocked for edit-warring has returned and is doing exactly the same thing again - see WP:AN/I#Block evasion by long-term disruptive IP editor. Your input would be appreciated. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like MastCell zapped that incarnation for 24. Vsmith (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Beryl

There is an edit warring on caption to File:National Museum of Natural History Emeralds 2.JPG, whether it is emerald or aquamarine. Can you quench that? Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 04:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't see a serious war, anon changed to aquamarine and VMS Mosaic reverted it back. Two edits = a war? - not yet. Watching. Vsmith (talk) 04:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I recall there were other reverts [16] [17] (that is the name changed from emerald to aquamarine a couple of times recently, before the VMS Mosaic), but I can't easily locate the diffs. Perhaps you are right and its not a war yet. Materialscientist (talk) 05:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I wasn't really looking for a "slow" war, and I do remember those edits now. Unless the revert rate increases quite a bit, I'll just keep watching. Vsmith (talk) 05:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Fine. So is File:National Museum of Natural History Emeralds 2.JPG really emerald? Looking through [18] and [19] I would rather say no. Materialscientist (talk) 05:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Good morning. Now that's a different question. And I'd agree that the color isn't deep or green enough -- looks more like aquamarine, but I'm no gem expert. I would suggest commenting out the problematic image and seek input from User:Jorfer and or another gem savvy Wikipedian. Vsmith (talk) 13:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

'Tis the season of giving

		The Admin's Barnstar
		This Barnstar is given to VSmith on Christmas Day 2009 to thank him for welcoming me to Wikipedia when I started editing and for being a great help to me and source of enthusiasm during my time at Wikipedia. He works tirelessly to add content to geology-related articles, helps others in his administrative role, and reverts vandalism. He has my thanks, Awickert (talk) 19:27, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and Happy Holidays! Had a white Christmas here (just a dusting, but "white!") Vsmith (talk) 01:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

Please do not make any further attempts to put up the photograph that exploits the subject's physical disability. If you persist, your misconduct will be referred to arbitration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.196.104 (talk) 04:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Take it to the article talk please. Else just jump right in to arbitration. :-) Vsmith (talk) 05:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Please inform me, here, of how to ask for arbitration. And be advised that, since you are using a photograph that unreasonably exploits the subject's disability, and you have insisted on posting it up a second time despite a request that you should desist, we shall be requesting the arbiters to bar you permanently from editing any Wikipedia pages. You ought to know better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.91.116 (talk) 18:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Your first action should be to discuss your concerns on the talk page of the article as I told you above. I see that hasn't happened. Your absurd attempts at intimidation are quite incivil, please desist and educate yourself regarding Wikipedia policies. Vsmith (talk) 19:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

For looking after edits of IP:205.225.207.224 (California adds). I've just got back on-line to find that :) Materialscientist (talk) 23:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem, it wasn't your typical spammer - you might want to check as I didn't remove all of the edits, thought the content might be usable in a couple places. Nano stuff and regulations aren't really my cup-o'-tea. Vsmith (talk) 23:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I already did and removed two, leaving about 3 in the articles devoted to health issues. Yes, not spammer, but still some form of advertisement, which needed proper guidance. I had seen their previous edits on that while ago and suspect this is not the last burst. Health issues with nanomaterials (e.g. carbon nanotubes = asbestos?) are an open question, which might become controversial at times (like mini global warming). There is a couple of editors (over)accentuating cadmium related (that is solar cells) health issues on WP. Materialscientist (talk) 00:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank, Re: Monckton

Thank you for making a ruling so quickly on my vandalism complaint re the Monckton article. However, while there is also a simultaneous content dispute occurring, I still believe the user is engaging in "page defending" based on user's rather flippant and arbitrary standards (e.g. "Monbiot is more respected than Delinger") he/she is imposing as evidenced in user's past edits and talk page contributions. Could I impose on you to occasionally check-in on this problem user? Nothughthomas (talk) 14:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

There was simply no vandalism to report. I assume now that you have read the policy pages that I linked on your talk. You so quickly blanked the page, within minutes, that I "have me doubts". Anyway User:KimDabelsteinPetersen is an experienced and quite knowledgeable editor who did nothing wrong in the incident to which you refer. After you have read the vandalism policy I will expect you to apologise to User:KimDabelsteinPetersen for your incivil accusations. Please assume good faith of your fellow editors as you learn the ropes^* around here. Vsmith (talk) 15:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

^{*(Study the policy pages on the welcome note I left for you)}