User talk:Vsmith/archive2

Copper extraction

Thanks for your edits to Copper extraction. Can I ask you questions about the process, and geology? I've tried raising User:Adam Johnston, but he didn't respond to my email. You're a Geologist, yes? I'm really concerned about where the iron atoms go when the primary deposit is oxidized; I'm sure they don't get transmuted...

BTW: isn't it time you archived some of your talk page? Josh Parris ✉ 02:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi - my thesis research back in 1975 was about alteration geology of the Esperanza porphyry copper deposit of southern Arizona and later I worked for a few years on another copper deposit in Arizona. My emphasis was on the primary mineralization. The iron in the oxidized zone depends in part on the host rock chemistry, but mostly under intensive oxidation the iron is oxidized and stays as various hydrous iron oxides (goethite, limonite, etc.) as the gossan or iron cap. In cases where sulfates are left as alunite, jarosite and so on the iron may move a bit more in solution ?? (not sure of the details here). Abundant carbonate would create a different environment. Note - this is off the top of my head and it's been awhile since I've studied this. The question raised in the copper extraction article that I'm going to have to dig into a bit, is what happens in supergene environment as chalcopyrite is converted(?) to chalcocite. Is the iron dissolved out or just more copper sulfide deposited with a resulting increase in grade? I'm not sure what happens to the solution chemistry here - will have to find my old copy of Garrels: Solutions, Minerals and Equilibria, and do some digging. Vsmith 03:42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And - yes I do need to archive one of these days ... Vsmith 03:42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Still reading - you sent a lot of material through. Josh Parris ✉ 04:20, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Smart Quotes

Could you please turn off "Smart Quotes"? (SEWilco 04:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC))

"“false,” “wrong,” or “a distortion.” UCS analysis of the particulars..." [1]

The quote was copied directly from the UCS page - smartquotes and all. I just now edited them out - didn't notice them last night. Vsmith 12:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank you for supporting my RFA. Guettarda 23:35, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

lots of edits, not an admin

Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. If you're at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in this list? I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list, although there is certainly no guarantee anyone will ever look at it. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) June 28, 2005 04:15 (UTC)

You too? I'm not so sure about me (I'm a bit of a controversial figure...), but I'll nominate you if you'll let me. OTOH I might not be the best of people to nominate you... William M. Connolley 2005-06-28 13:31:32 (UTC).

I'd do the nom if you would rather have a less "exciting" nominator :) Guettarda 28 June 2005 14:15 (UTC)

G would be a good choice. Go for it William M. Connolley 2005-06-28 21:14:48 (UTC).

Well, time to change that header. Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Vsmith. You need to accept the nom and answer the questions. Guettarda 29 June 2005 00:40 (UTC)

Quickie

You might want to add yourself to the fairly new List of Wikipedians by military branch. Cheerio. This link is Broken 4 July 2005 04:42 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 6 July 2005 03:28 (UTC)

Congratulations. Guettarda 6 July 2005 03:29 (UTC)

Congratulations and welcome to the admin team of the Wikipedia. --Sn0wflake 6 July 2005 04:31 (UTC)

Go team. Josh Parris ✉ 6 July 2005 05:23 (UTC)

I too congratulate you William M. Connolley 2005-07-06 16:14:47 (UTC).

Thanks all! That rollback button sure is handy. Vsmith 6 July 2005 15:55 (UTC)

magma

hey, nice edit on the magma article. i actually just updated it today and but i did feel it was lacking and needed to be cleaned up a bit. your comments on the history said more needs to be added to the composition session, does it still require more and what should be added? also, im studying for my degree in Environmental Geo. at the moment(noticed you had a degree in Geo.)! --Gozar 04:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just finished sophomore year (this was my first year as a geo major), so far i have dynamic earth(that's what the school calls it any it, it might be called Earth Systems or other names elsewhere), Earth history, Geomorphology, and my chemistry requirements. I'm also starting a job at an environmental consulting company tomorrow, we should be pretty cool.

also, i just looked at the main page for 'geology' and it's pretty sad. the section with the 'principles' is pretty awful, no one is going to want to read that, it needs to be spread out quite a bit as part of a bigger article with more subcatergories (i.e. discussing uniformitarianism when going over the age of the earth and dating,etc.). --Gozar 23:30, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Defects in diamond lattice

I winced when I saw that article: not because of its relative messiness, but because I had been trying to avoid such hyper-technical writeups during my work on diamond subarticles. I do know my gems, but there's so much specialist knowledge about diamond out there that I don't think anyone could truly be called an expert on the entire subject (or at least I don't think I am). Most of my knowledge of diamond pertains to the extraction, treatment, synthesis, and simulation of gem-grade diamond; although lattice defects do come into play in several of these steps, as an average (sigh) gemmologist I'm more concerned with their readily observable effects. Infrared spectra are only useful to gemmological laboratories, the employment of which is becoming increasingly more important with the introduction of more sophisticated treatments (like HTHP).

I've done my best to keep up with the literature despite the fact that I can't personally make much practical use of it (as I don't currently work in a lab, I have to make due with visible spectra). Other knowledge of lattice defects (e.g., interstitial atoms) are outside my usual field of research, as they mostly pertain to the semiconductive properties of industrial-purpose diamond. That said, I've done what I can to refactor and expand the article, moved it to Crystallographic defects in diamond (to better match the other subarticles), and left a few editor's notes on the talk page. Some information is duplicated from related articles, but IMO this is necessary to preserve clarity. For some reason the article isn't showing up on my watchlist. We'll have to wait and see if Stepanovas agrees with my edits. :) -- Hadal 04:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for adminship/William M. Connolley

Sheesh! The server was acting very flaky when I tried to edit Requests for adminship/William M. Connolley. I never even got an edit conflict, though I surely should have. Thanks very much for being alert and rescuing those bits I lost! Bishonen | talk 15:20, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Global warming

Dear Vsmith,

are you sure what are you doing when you *censore* the opinion of one part of scientits? Please, do not revert my edits! There are two different opinions, so there can not be one consensus. I don't delete the first one opinion, please do not delete the second one.

Onk

request seconded by User:mugwumpjism

Reverted to previous version prior to editing by mugwumpjism. Added mug's comment back in. Please do not edit another users comments, thank you.

If you add biased and POV comments to a controversial article without reading the discussion page you can expect your edits to be reverted. Vsmith 17:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copper mineral identification

Can you confirm this edit to copper? Thanks. Josh Parris ✉ 23:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, I can't. That is a low quality image - could be native Cu sticking out at the top & bottom of the rock. But surely there should be a better image. Several of the USGS images in the Category:"Minerals in Your World" images are of rather iffy quality. Maybe I should start taking pictures :-) Vsmith 00:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

Hi Vsmith,

this is Cleon Teunissen, a couple of months ago a made a few remarks on the Solar Greenhouse (technical) Talk page, about polders and dykes and pressure cookers. I have set up a peer review request for the coriolis effect article, in preparation for applying for featured article status. Would you be willing to review the article? Or maybe you know someone with a taste for mechanics. --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 12:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Astrochemists and elements

While I don't think astrochemists explicitly have a "different periodic table" they are certainly aware of the different prevalence of isotopes. I wrote a brief piece in the discussion section about this, with a few (admittedly hastily found) links. It turns out that helium is particularly bad, with different abundances depending on where you find it on the earth! Certainly, when we colonize Mars, or planet Oogabooga in the QQZZ sector, we'll have to compile new periodic tables for the praticing chemists at these places -- the element I'd worry about most would be chlorine (since its diatomic gas is easy to isotopically segregate in, say, a gas giant), and the characteristic isotope distribution is used to immediately identify the presence of a chlorine atom in mass spectrometry data (in earthbound labs). Bromine, also, has this issue.

--User:Takometer Sorry I'm too lazy to log in on some days.

Thanks

I appreciate the revert. Guettarda 02:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Water

Why revert my edit? Water has intrinsic blueness according to the reference. Therefore "colorless" is incorrect.

Hello unsigned anon. The one liner was quite out of place in the introduction - so I removed it. I added your external link to the end of the list, as it is an interesting discussion. A summary of the issue might deserve a place in the body of the article somewhere, but not the introduction. Vsmith 03:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Appalachian Mountains

Vsmith

The Appalachian Mountains are the oldest in the mountain tange in the GOOD OLD USA! See your history change on page.

Sir, Thanks for your time.

Scotty

Hi, Scotty. How old are the Appalachians? The Grenville orogeny is dated at 1300-1000 million years ago - is that the age you are referring to?

The Saint Francois Mountains date from 1.4 billion years ago. The Penokean orogeny (N. Minn. & Wisc.) at 1.9 billion. Vsmith 12:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vsmith Howdy,

Not sure, but it was always in belief the appalachians were the oldest in the United States? Kind of scuffed up and worn. Scotty

mineraloid

Dear Vsmith,

I saw you used the description "mineraloid" in "perlite".

Checking on this word, I realized that it was correctly used. Nevertheless, it alienated me, since it is not well known and not in many of the mainstream dictionaries. This will happen to almost anybody reading the "perlite" entry.

I think the change should be reverted to the previous entry, "mineral", so that the text is more friendly to the ignorant user seeking for a simple definition. I believe that an encyclopedia is a place where I would expect to find explanations, instead of being educated in new words.

However, since the use of mineraloid is correct according to its definition, I did not want to do the change myself. If you agree with my arguments, please change it back.

YK

Liquefaction

For the second time someone [User:Epolk]] has messed up liquefaction, removing the usage in physics, engineering, chemistry, and the 1913 Nobel Prize. Please see my comments on User_talk:Epolk. I have previously been through the exercise of restoring the usage in physics, chemistry, and engineering in User_talk:Commander_Keane. I have much appreciated your edits in regards to the work of Mr. User:Ungtss; clearly you have expertise in geology. Just please help reverse this business of separating "liquefaction" from physics, chemistry, and engineering, where "greats" such as Michael Faraday, who liquefied Chlorine in 1823, Cailletet and Pictet who liquefied Oxygen and Nitrogen in 1877, James Dewar (after whom the Dewar flask is named), who liquefied hydrogen in 1898, and of course Heike Kamerlingh Onnes. The term "liquefaction of gases" is applied in all these cases. See, e.g. [2]. Maybe one speaks of the "liquification" of ice cream or fruit in milk in a blender (for a "smoothie") but the technical term is "liquefaction." Please fix (or I will but I do not want to go back and forth forever). Thanks. Pdn 05:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I did some repair work on the disambiguation page, but the basic article may have to be modified. But, by the way, doesn't soil liquefaction result in a colloid, not a liquid? The disambiguation page says it "acts like a liquid" but maybe it should say it turns into a liquid colloidal state or the like. Aren't the viscoelastic properties somewhat jelly-like, i.e. transverse body oscillations can propagate, although they may be rapidly damped, while liquids (so far as I know) do not support transverse body oscillations. I don't refer to transverse gravity-dependent surface oscillations - obviously liquified soil can support those, just as the ocean supports waves - I mean body oscillations, for example ones with horizontal motion. Thanks. Pdn 05:39, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the support at the administrator vote. I was accepted. I really am happy you took the time to support me in this. --DanielCD 00:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Earth shape debate

I read your debate with Mr Voluntarist at Earth and decided to send his new article to VfD. I noted that I think it was made in good faith but it really doesn't belong. Marskell 10:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

QAPF

I wrote an article QAPF diagram. It would be nice if you could take a look on it and correct possible language mistakes to make it look more like an English. Siim 20:14, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

You left some of the anon's junk in there, so I tried to revert you to your first revert - and somehow it ended up reverting to the anon instead. Guettarda 04:02, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, seems edit conflicts are the rule :-) Looks like 3 anon skeptics are tag-teaming. Vsmith 04:04, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One actually removed the most ridiculous part. Might be worth giving them a few minutes of fun and hope someone else steps in, since we have pretty much used up our reverts reverting each other :) Guettarda 04:07, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the same thing. Part of that was pure vandalism, but I don't know just how many reverts I've done - best to slow a bit and enjoy. Vsmith 04:11, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you are out (four, but one is cleaning up an edit conflict). I have two, so I think I'll revert once more before I head home from the coffee shop. And either hope William cleans it up in the morning, or that someone else notices the activity. Guettarda 04:16, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought maybe I'll leave it until I get home, he's still at it, sanitising the article. DF is around too, using his always conversational and terribly reasonable style. Guettarda 04:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The anon's reply was interesting - testing his patience I guess. Perhaps you & I should ask DF for some patience lessons :-) Anyway midnight is fast approaching and I'm 'bout ready to call it a day. Vsmith 04:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]